NVIDIA GFFX Cards GET Major Uplift from Microsoft!

[Atari]

Hey all!

Just some news for Nvidia users to rejoice about, and some news for ATI people to ***** about.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...dware.com/actu/news/11346.htm&lp=fr_en&tt=url


Looks like DirectX 9.1 will provide FX card with pixel Shader 2.0 performance at 32-bit without any performance loss!

 

[Evnas]

I personally dont believe it till i see more sources (much more reputable ones). API's like OpenGL and Direct X are standard API's, not designed to run better or worse on any hardware, and all hardware is designed around the API, not the API around the hardware.

 

[micamica1217]

I personally dont believe it till i see more sources (much more reputable ones). API's like OpenGL and Direct X are standard API's, not designed to run better or worse on any hardware, and all hardware is designed around the API, not the API around the hardware.

agreed....plus the day nVidia can get microsoft to change an API to run their hardware better is the day I buy a ton of nVidia stock.

mica

 

[Aslan]

I personally dont believe it till i see more sources (much more reputable ones). API's like OpenGL and Direct X are standard API's, not designed to run better or worse on any hardware, and all hardware is designed around the API, not the API around the hardware.

Agreed as well. There isn't really much incentive for Microsoft to do this; they shouldn't have to modify their own API's to fix nVidia's mistakes....

 

[shiltz]

I don't find it to hard to belive they would, heck microsoft has been designing windows software around AMD hardware for a while now, windows XP was designed to be optomized for the athlon XP processors and the new 64 bit windows is being designed around the athlon 64.

 

[shiyan]

I don't find it to hard to belive they would, heck microsoft has been designing windows software around AMD hardware for a while now, windows XP was designed to be optomized for the athlon XP processors and the new 64 bit windows is being designed around the athlon 64.

I agree that they are making windows XP 64 for the hammers, but there's also a version for Itaniums.

but Windows XP was not specially designed for the Athlon XP. Windows XP came out before Athlon XP.

the XP part in both names don't mean the same thing. in Windows it means eXPerienc, in Athlon it means eXtreme Performance.

but it's all marketing really.

Windows XP actually boots up faster on my P4 machine than my AthlonXP machine.

not that that's a valid gauge of performance, but just one example of how Windows XP doesn't have to work on something else with XP in its name.

 

[Evnas]

I don't find it to hard to belive they would, heck microsoft has been designing windows software around AMD hardware for a while now, windows XP was designed to be optomized for the athlon XP processors and the new 64 bit windows is being designed around the athlon 64.

Actually, believe it or not, Microsoft designed Windows XP on Intel systems (infact, the only AMD systems at Microsoft are the ones that Windows 64 is being designed on). It wasnt designed for Athlon XP processors at all...not even close, heh. Yes, Microsoft is making a version of Windows for the Athlon64, but thats because if they didnt, then Linux would take that maket, and they dont want that. Microsoft stands to lose absolutly nothing if nVidia hardware cant run DX 9 right, so i can almost garauntee they wont bother to do anything about it.

 

[micamica1217]

I don't find it to hard to belive they would, heck microsoft has been designing windows software around AMD hardware for a while now, windows XP was designed to be optomized for the athlon XP processors and the new 64 bit windows is being designed around the athlon 64.

the thing that you may not realise is that the NV35's have a hardware problem with 32bit PS2.0 and VS2.0....
even if DX9.1 could do anything, it would just mean forcing 16bit FP and 16bit PS2.0 and VS2.0

and I see no reason that MS would lower the standard of DX9 to that.

the standard is currently at 24bit....or higher.

mica

 

[Jay23]

I agree that they are making windows XP 64 for the hammers, but there's also a version for Itaniums.

but Windows XP was not specially designed for the Athlon XP. Windows XP came out before Athlon XP.

the XP part in both names don't mean the same thing. in Windows it means eXPerienc, in Athlon it means eXtreme Performance.

but it's all marketing really.

Windows XP actually boots up faster on my P4 machine than my AthlonXP machine.

not that that's a valid gauge of performance, but just one example of how Windows XP doesn't have to work on something else with XP in its name.

before this discussion goes on any further, just like you to know the processor doesn't have much to do with boot up times(it still does, but not in the sense, if u threw in a 1ghz faster cpu it would boot up alot faster)

 

[Silversinksam]

I'd like to know how much of Nvidia (or ATI) stock Microsoft owns

 

[Evnas]

I'd like to know how much of Nvidia (or ATI) stock Microsoft owns

Oh im sure Mr Gates owns a very nice chunk of any sucessful public tech company there is

 

[dguy6789]

yes there is something about the intel cpus. My friends athlon xp 1600+ system, boots up slwoer then his 500P3. And at circuit city, a 1.6 celeron boots faster then a 2400XP. everywhere i go, intel boots up faster for some reason. the thing goes accross the screen once, and only once on every single intel machine, then a black screen for liek 4 seconds then the desktop. I dont know how, but indeed, intel boots faster in win xp. the 500 boots faster then a 1600+ with a faster harddrive. WHY!!!??

 

[shiyan]

before this discussion goes on any further, just like you to know the processor doesn't have much to do with boot up times(it still does, but not in the sense, if u threw in a 1ghz faster cpu it would boot up alot faster)

yeah. That was a bad example, I wasn't sure how to dispell the idea that having XP in names don't mean two products were meant for each other.

I agree that also for me Intel systems boot up a lot faster than my AMD systems. starting from the bootloader, my P4 with IT7 boot up windows in about 15 seconds. My P3 667 takes around 25 seconds. It takes the 2400+ and NF7-S around 40~50 seconds.

This is on the same drive - WD1200JB. Maybe there are more drivers to load for the AMD system?

 

[Evnas]

before this discussion goes on any further, just like you to know the processor doesn't have much to do with boot up times(it still does, but not in the sense, if u threw in a 1ghz faster cpu it would boot up alot faster)

Well, one thing i do know, is Windows XP booted faster on my P2 300 then on my current system (pretty weird, but i could care less about boot times...the computer boots while i brush my teeth every morning anyways, heh)

 

[snyper1982]

i think the motherboards play a large roll in booting

 

[shiltz]

Actually, believe it or not, Microsoft designed Windows XP on Intel systems (infact, the only AMD systems at Microsoft are the ones that Windows 64 is being designed on). It wasnt designed for Athlon XP processors at all...not even close, heh. Yes, Microsoft is making a version of Windows for the Athlon64, but thats because if they didnt, then Linux would take that maket, and they dont want that. Microsoft stands to lose absolutly nothing if nVidia hardware cant run DX 9 right, so i can almost garauntee they wont bother to do anything about it.

Not acording to AMD, this is under the the info the the XP processors on the AMD site.

Tailored for Microsoft® Windows® XP
The AMD Athlon XP processor offers compelling performance for running Microsoft Windows XP, as well as outstanding performance on previous versions of Windows. The raw power and robust features of the AMD Athlon XP processor enable users to make the most of multitasking and user switching capabilities offered in Windows XP. Microsoft optimized the DirectX 8.0 interface for Windows XP specifically for the AMD Athlon XP processor. The AMD Athlon XP processor’s innovative QuantiSpeed architecture helps propel Windows XP application performance to a new level. To unleash the rich features found in Windows XP, AMD and Microsoft worked together to optimize applications like Media Encoder 8.0 for AMD’s 3DNow! Professional technology.

AMD Athlon processors were used in the design and development of the Windows XP operating system, which helps to ensure that systems based on AMD processors offer excellent OS compatibility. AMD and Microsoft’s strong working relationship dates back over a decade to the first version of Windows. Over the years, AMD processors have powered some of the most reliable PC systems for Windows applications, increasing productivity and enjoyment for end-users.

 

[Evnas]

Not acording to AMD, this is under the the info the the XP processors on the AMD site.

Doesnt matter what AMD says, i can garauntee Windows XP wasnt designed anymore for the Athlon XP processor then it was any Intel processor. The fac that, in general, all versions of Windows run more responsive on Intel systems suggests just the opposite. All the quote really says is Microsoft put 3D Now! programming in there products...where, no doubt, SSE and SSE2 coding already existed

What AMD said, is kinda like when nVidia announced they had the first DX 9 card

*edit* And before someone says im just spouting Intel fanboyism, all im saying is that MS doesnt favor one company over another (when it comes to writing their software), unless that company is them. But as i said, in-house, 99% of their computers are Intel.

 

[David101]

maybe it is the mobo cause my xp2500 boots up winxp REAL fast, never checked but in like 15 seconds

 

[shiyan]

shiltz: you shouldn't always believe marketing. Apple always say they have the fastest PC.

David101: what motherboard do you have? which chipset?

 

[Atari]

the thing that you may not realise is that the NV35's have a hardware problem with 32bit PS2.0 and VS2.0....
even if DX9.1 could do anything, it would just mean forcing 16bit FP and 16bit PS2.0 and VS2.0

and I see no reason that MS would lower the standard of DX9 to that.

the standard is currently at 24bit....or higher.

mica

Now I know I might start a huge chain of flames by saying this but what the hell..

Where did you get this info that the 32-bit PS 2.0 is malfunctioning (the hardware based level) that effects all FX cards? Also where did you read that the only choice for them todo is to force 16-bit?

Now to calm all the fanATIcs down i'll end with this.

Nvidia is ****... they suck... why use them... piece-o-**** ... yadda yadda ect.. ATI OWNZERZ J00!!!