Written so as to obscure the distinction between "physical CPUs" and "sockets". In context, "physical CPU" clearly means "physical core". It does cast doubt on the editing that went into the survey, but that's about it.
Written so as to obscure the distinction between "physical CPUs" and "sockets". In context, "physical CPU" clearly means "physical core". It does cast doubt on the editing that went into the survey, but that's about it.
Well yeah but you see according to the survey 3,38% of people have 1 CPU compared to 48,21% and 43.65%. That definitely can't be right
Well that explains it and makes sense now. At first I thought that majority has 2-4 CPUs like 2-4 Xeons or Opetrons
Last edited:
Sigh I guess I'm not even allowed to make examples why Windows XP is such a high percent.
I know ATM's are not for playing video games do I look like I'm 5 years old LOL?
Also not every PC gamer that uses Windows XP has Steam installed.
On the bethesdasoftworks.com forums I talk to quite a lot of PC gamers who don't install Steam on their PC because it's Digital Rights Management (DRM) and there's quite a lot of PC gamers who won't touch Steam.
Last edited:
Actually, the confusion is due to missing the distinction the hardware community makes between CPUs and sockets. 2-socket motherboards are vanishingly rare except in servers and professional workstations; again, not gaming machines. I used to have a 2-socket workstation back in the Pentium II days. It made a really nice space heater.
A 1-socket motherboard can host up to 15 physical CPUs (cores) if you put a Xeon E7 v2 on it.
AMD is trying to claim that the Kaveri A10 has 10 physical cores (4 CPU cores, 6 GPU cores).
But the community that makes and uses server motherboards counts sockets. In this world, 2, 4, and 8-socket motherboards are common, and you can go as high as 32-socket in off-the-shelf products.
A 1-socket motherboard can host up to 15 physical CPUs (cores) if you put a Xeon E7 v2 on it.
AMD is trying to claim that the Kaveri A10 has 10 physical cores (4 CPU cores, 6 GPU cores).
But the community that makes and uses server motherboards counts sockets. In this world, 2, 4, and 8-socket motherboards are common, and you can go as high as 32-socket in off-the-shelf products.
Last edited:
Windows XP is already past its EOL (from MS support). So I see no point for CDPR to even bother with it from that perspective. Also, managing 32 bit builds and supporting it in the code properly is a burden and if it can be avoided - all the better.
Actually Microsoft said they will stop Windows XP support on April 8th I think it was. Then about a few weeks later after that they updated Windows XP with a patch to fix some security breaches.
It was on forbes.com I think. Microsoft said because so many people still use Windows XP they will still issue patches but very rarely.
Anyways as I said I have 5 PC's my main PC runs Windows 7 and one of my 5th PC runs Windows XP so I can play on Windows XP from time to time for nostalgia's sake.
I know some PC gamers have Windows XP PC's and Windows 98 PC's for nostalgia sakes even though their main PC's have Windows 7 running I am not the only one.
One of my real life friend still has his old Windows 98 PC so he can play those old video games from time to time next to his brand new Windows 7 PC.
For nostalgia sake CDPR don't need to spend their valuable time in porting their engine. Otherwise, why not to port it to Commodore 64 as well? CDPR don't develop games for computer museums.
Sure, some people do that stuff for fun (http://sos.gd/flappy64/). If you are interested in such things, ask CDPR to open source their games and find someone to work on such port.
Sure, some people do that stuff for fun (http://sos.gd/flappy64/). If you are interested in such things, ask CDPR to open source their games and find someone to work on such port.
Last edited:
As I said support for Windows ME and DirectX 8 is dumb.
DirectX 9 is still good if you add Windows XP 64-bit it can do wonders. I mean DirectX 9 cannot do tessellation and other stuff but who cares about tessellation.
The PC version of Metro: Last Light runs on Windows XP and DirectX 9 and also runs on Windows 7 and DirectX 11 as well as DirectX 10 and has tessellation I think it also has sub surface scattering.
I don't see a problem to take more time to add DirectX 9 support while also adding DirectX 11 to it's fullest potential.
Anyways we are getting to off topic talking about the Operating Systems (OS's)?
Making features optional adds code complexity. They already have complex code base with supporting many APIs. I'd understand if they would make some features mandatory, raising the minimum requirements bar. Any kind of additional options don't come easily, especially legacy systems support.
Now imagine that the program is designed with depending on some new functionality as a requirement. Proposing to support older APIs is essentially asking to write a second version of the program altogether. It's completely not worth it for a system which is on its way out.
Now imagine that the program is designed with depending on some new functionality as a requirement. Proposing to support older APIs is essentially asking to write a second version of the program altogether. It's completely not worth it for a system which is on its way out.
Last edited:
Every developer who is trying to put out a first-class title without having to do tedious manual LOD and run the risk of being criticized for bad pop-ins cares about tessellation.
Windows XP 64 is much longer dead than Windows XP and Server 2003. It never was more than a crippled version of Server 2003. Its market share is minimal, and nobody has developed anything targeted to it in years.
Whereas developers who have to be paid for their time, and product managers who have to keep the project within budget, see a great deal of trouble with developing for inadequate, obsolete, or unmarketable platforms, especially after making a deliberate and well-publicized decision many months ago.
Last edited:
Another interesting article from Rich Geldreich (referenced above). This time about OpenGL drivers:
http://richg42.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-truth-on-opengl-driver-quality.html
From the text, one can conclude that vendor A = Nvidia, vendor B = AMD, vendor C = Intel.
http://richg42.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-truth-on-opengl-driver-quality.html
From the text, one can conclude that vendor A = Nvidia, vendor B = AMD, vendor C = Intel.
Last edited:
Yes I know tessellation with LOD and no pop-ins, etc are good the PC version of Metro: Last Light has DirectX 11 and tessellation and also runs on DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 if you want to choose in the options menu in the graphics options menu.
I don't understand this.
Whereas developers who have to be paid for their time, and product managers who have to keep the project within budget, see a great deal of trouble with developing for inadequate, obsolete, or unmarketable platforms, especially after making a deliberate and well-publicized decision many months ago.
I am confused what are you trying to say? As I said the PC version of Metro: Last Light supports all 3 of those DirectX versions it has DirectX 11's tessellation and I think it also has sub surface scattering.
So how did 4A Games achieve it?
Probably because they had existing code that already worked well with DirectX 9. They were also developing a game to be marketed well before Windows XP went end-of-life, and they had plenty of time to test on Windows XP before it went end-of-life. Now you can't even test on Windows XP anymore without extra IT infrastructure to keep those hosts safely away from the Internet and restore them when they fall prey to malware.
4A Games' development process was not orderly or worthy of emulation by anybody. It was a complete Charlie Foxtrot, and the fact that they produced a game at all under the ridiculous conditions that prevailed was something of a miracle.
Saying that because one developer did something every developer should do the same is a bucket that holds no water. Every developer has different standards and processes and tools and talents and builds the best product they can within those boundaries.
Last edited:
So Nvidia released today the GeForce 337.88 WHQL driver.
It lists DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 as getting benefits not just DirectX 11 and DirectX 12.
Here you go.
As with 337.88 WHQL’s single-GPU optimizations, SLI CPU overhead reductions apply globally, benefitting the majority of DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 games the instant they go on sale. Per-game optimizations will continue to be developed before and after a game’s release, but now every game can potentially see an immediate boost.
It lists DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 as getting benefits not just DirectX 11 and DirectX 12.
Here you go.
As with 337.88 WHQL’s single-GPU optimizations, SLI CPU overhead reductions apply globally, benefitting the majority of DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 games the instant they go on sale. Per-game optimizations will continue to be developed before and after a game’s release, but now every game can potentially see an immediate boost.
Means nothing about the market for DX9 titles or the viability of DX9 development projects. All it means is their change will benefit the many DirectX 9 titles that are still played.
"Apply globally" means their change affected performance of the drivers independent of the DirectX version, shader model, GPU architecture, and so forth.
nVidia's funny -- and I mean that in a good way -- they've gone out of their way to provide continued support for obsolescent hardware and software. Their current drivers are for all the "unified shader" cards going back to the G80's ( 2006-8 ) and for OS going back to XP.
It's good that they made such a beneficial change, but it is neither more nor less than nVidia's usual practice: I cannot read it as an endorsement of DirectX 9.
"Apply globally" means their change affected performance of the drivers independent of the DirectX version, shader model, GPU architecture, and so forth.
nVidia's funny -- and I mean that in a good way -- they've gone out of their way to provide continued support for obsolescent hardware and software. Their current drivers are for all the "unified shader" cards going back to the G80's ( 2006-8 ) and for OS going back to XP.
It's good that they made such a beneficial change, but it is neither more nor less than nVidia's usual practice: I cannot read it as an endorsement of DirectX 9.
Last edited:
Do you check Steam's New Releases section and Coming Soon section? Every day there are so many indie video games released for sale that have support for Windows XP support and DirectX 9 support, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 8.1 support and DirectX 9 or Windows XP and Windows 7 support and DirectX 9 support etc. So I think Nvidia working with Microsoft to keep supporting and further developing DirectX 9 to get more draw calls is beneficial for indie video games. Especially for indie video game developers who don't have the money to purchase brand new PC's or refuse to purchase brand new PC's and upgrade to Window 7 or Windows 8, Windows 8.1 who want to develop and sell the video games that they develop on Steam to get some money and maybe uses some of that money that they earn from sales to purchase a brand new PC and upgrade to Windows 7 or Windows 8, Windows 8.1 and later develop video games that use DirectX 11.
That's the way I see it. I think it's good. What's there to not want to continue to support DirectX 9?
Also after being gone for so many hours and just coming back and reading my comment above yours i realized I forgot to add the link to the website for what I described.
Here you go guys enjoy reading this long list.
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-337-88-whql-watch-dog-drivers