![]() ![]() Windows is expensive and their upgrade paths are absurdly limited. There are even some 360 features that have no correspondent in DX9, but do in DX10.īut I agree that MS makes buying a new OS a bigger pain than it should be. When porting a game from 360 to PC, it is much easier to use DX10 than DX9, because the 360 DirectX works much more like the former, despise it having a DX9-class GPU. This simplifies code by a huge lot, allows faster load times and is a god-send for games that do streaming in real-time (Just Cause). The OS will automatically move the texture from VRAM to RAM, or even to disk, and back, if necessary. Most of the VRAM management is made by the OS, not by the drivers, which are only required to expose a much more sane interface.ĭue to this, games can do things like loading a texture straight from disk to VRAM without having to a copy in RAM in case the GPU goes out of VRAM or when the 3D context needs to be re-created (aka: changing resolution, alt-tabbing, etc). In Vista/7, VRAM is an OS-managed resource. The drivers were responsible (and not obliged) to implement support for handling multiple 3D applications running simultaneously, or paging resources from VRAM to RAM when running out of the former. In XP the video memory was something completely off-limits to the OS and was handled entirely by the GPU drivers. Most significantly, the way it handle resources changed a lot and is relies entirely on the new driver architecture. ![]() However, DirectX10 brings much more than merely SM 4.0. Not exposing SM 4.0 features to DX9 (an hypothetical DX9.0d) could be considered a move in locking features to Vista to "incentive" users to move on. You can use geometry shaders and whatnot in XP using OpenGL. Click to expand.You're only half-correct.ĭirectX 10 and Shader Model 4.0 are actually distinct things. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |