unrealsword
Gawd
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 825
Why the hell would you buy an hd5xxx for windows xp.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why the hell would you buy an hd5xxx for windows xp.
Mmm, maybe that's how it is now. First install of win7 required some wrangling / inf hacking in July. Don't remember on the last install about a month ago. You're probably right.
Older cards are definitely requiring Vista compatibility mode though. The Radeon 9550 I just installed definitely needed it (kept getting error that the Radeon hardware was not detected). Worked fine w/ Vista comp mode.
I guess if you guys are ok with 2-3 year old cards being marked as legacy support...not all of us upgrade that often. $60 is $60.
Support has to be dropped sometime, DX9 is now a 3rd generation graphics API, if you've got hardware that old you should probably just be sticking to Windows XP anyway.
2-3 years is a long time in the technology world. This isn't like we're talking about about IDE or PATA that were standards that lasted years before considered "legacy". These are GPU's and they get faster and faster with every refresh cycle. It's just what happens. It's why alot of people stay away from the super high-end stuff because it's worth only a fraction of what you paid for it shortly after it's release.
Good point, man. Good point. Let me think about it. If I buy a DX11 card today and DX10.1 gets dropped by AMD, it means my DX11 card will still work. Looking at AMD's history, they dropped support for a 4 year old card. DX11 cards were released about 1 month ago.
So if I spend $100.00 on the cheapest model, it'll only last another 3 years and 11 months. Then, my games won't get performance enchancements of 5-10%. 3 years, 11 months / $100.00 = $25.00 per year?? $2.00 per month? Who can afford such an expensive cost. The OUTRAGE I FEEL. If I spend $300.00 on a top of the line video card, it would be almost 6 dollars a month. $6.00 dollars. That's like one-coffee less a month I'd have to have. OUTRAGEOUS!
Sorry for the sarcasim but really, for $30.00 you could get a card with double the horsepower of our current video card that'll be supported for probably at least 2 years more. That's like 50 cents a month to enjoy better graphics in your games. If gaming, using facebook or just using a pc in general is your hobby, 0.50 cents a month doesn't seem that bad by any means.
You should direct that outrage where it belongs. Ask those damn bastards at Intel why my Pentium 1 could play Lara Croft tomb raider just fine in 1993 but the newest lara croft game wont run? When will I get a new firmware for my intel motherboard to make my pentium 1 run this game properly? I don't want to spend $30.00 on a E2400.
Hey bright one, you tell me, where do I run and buy new video cards for my laptop? Oh right (sarcasm) laptops are only 50% of the PC marketplace. Shucks. Ok, accountant boy, let's try the math of, oh, say 2k for your "new videocard". Hmm, then drop that by 3 years or 36 months, well that's $55 a month, which might be what you spend on coffee given just how witty your response was.
It's just AMD's way of letting us know that "They are all dead Dave."
DX9 hardware works fine - any console friendly game works at perfectly acceptable settings on later Ati (or nvidia) DX9 hardware. e.g. L4D2 demo released today can be run pretty well maxed on the sort of screen the average user has (average user = valve survey). As long as games are just DX9 console ports which is going to be the case for another couple of years they will continue to work fine as long as the driver support is kept up to date. It is an unfortunate fact that for those not obsessed with huge resolutions and max settings all the time you don't need current hardware to play most current games (e.g. min specs for modern warfare 2 are a mere 6600GT).
As for sticking to XP, when this hardware was still current vista was the OS, people avoided it, now windows 7 has arrived XP die hards are finally moving on. It's not like hardware from that age won't run it. e.g. I had a 7900GTO, Q6600 and 4 gig memory when vista arrived - that machine still exists (I gave it to a friend years ago), recently he put 7 on it, which it is running quite happily, and is still used for gaming (which it does perfectly well).
It's just AMD's way of letting us know that "They are all dead Dave."
Hey bright one, you tell me, where do I run and buy new video cards for my laptop? Oh right (sarcasm) laptops are only 50% of the PC marketplace. Shucks. Ok, accountant boy, let's try the math of, oh, say 2k for your "new videocard". Hmm, then drop that by 3 years or 36 months, well that's $55 a month, which might be what you spend on coffee given just how witty your response was.
Hey bright one, you tell me, where do I run and buy new video cards for my laptop? Oh right (sarcasm) laptops are only 50% of the PC marketplace. Shucks. Ok, accountant boy, let's try the math of, oh, say 2k for your "new videocard". Hmm, then drop that by 3 years or 36 months, well that's $55 a month, which might be what you spend on coffee given just how witty your response was.
I'm sorry but your complaining about not being able to run the latest and greatest OS on old hardware due to not getting drivers. I am sorry but I honestly can't see your grip here, even without the easy fix. There is only going to be so much backwards compatibility in each generation, hell one of these days 86 code is likely going to have to be abandoned. even if you recently bought it new (or if its still being manufacturer) YOU were buying old tech. If the company mislead you then you have a complaint against them, ATI never promised they would support old tech indefinitely
Where have some of you people been?
ATI dropped support for DX9 only cards in all operating systems including XP.
ATI stopped supporting the DX9 cards after the 9.3 Cats. They did say at that time that they would/might do QUARTERLY updates for the DX9 cards if it was necessary. They haven't done quartely updates, but they did release an update with the 9.8 drivers.
Just go to the ATI site and look for XP drivers for the X1950 and it will direct you to the 9.8 legacy ones.
ATI's release on this:
Yes, my problem exactly. I can't run Windows 7 on my laptop with an x1300? WTF?
They should at least create a stable baseline Windows 7 driver, it doesn't have to support multiple GPUs or other advanced features, or be super-optimized. Can W7 use vista or XP drivers?
While I might have been more delicate in my response I can understand frustration with laptops and the DX9 killoff for ATI. The technology is usually a generation behind the desktop. Core I7's are just now showing up in laptops. Not everyone has the bucks to pay 5K for the latest and greatest hardware. Vista and 7 using aero rely on 3D acceleration for more than just gaming. So I can understand the frustration.
But I can't remember ever using an ATI catalyst driver on my ATI based laptops. I was always stuck with whatever the laptop manufacturer offered up on the download page. It's only recently that you could use Nvidia forceware drivers on laptops and they have all kinds of disclaimers about it.
WDDM1.1 (Windows Display Driver Model) is the driver architecture required to run Windows7. To meet the Microsoft dictated requirements, GPU’s must be DirectX10 and later level hardware. So as stated on our website, Windows 7 users with DirectX 9 AMD graphics hardware can use the legacy Windows Vista WDDM 1.0 drivers (as it is not possible for DirectX 9 hardware to support the WDDM 1.1 driver requirements). On a separate note the move to "legacy driver" status happen when we moved our DirectX 9 based hardware to a legacy support structure back in March 2009, and we were quite public about this. We’ve been providing updates to this driver on a quarterly basis - in fact we will be posting a new legacy driver in the next few days.
Summary: Windows7 users on DirectX9 can and should use the legacy Catalyst driver which will be updated quarterly.
nice to hearUpdate on the main page R.E. driver support
http://hardocp.com/news/2009/10/30/amd_clarifies_driver_support_on_dx9_only_hardware_in_win7
From AMD:
That must have been me and the Star NL-10 dot-matrix printer that I can only use daytime because it wakes up the neighbours.
lol if someone bought a 5000 series radeon which is a Dx11 part to run in Windows XP which is capped to Direct X 9 and will never see Dx 10 or 11, you're a fool i'm sorry.
Another reason why windows XP needs to die!!!!
Except that there aren't many DX10 games worth playing and a few of them like Crysis can use DX10 mode with a hack so again it looks just as good on XP.
DX11 remains to be seen whether it will do anything remarkable, DX10 is over and done with.
To meet the Microsoft dictated requirements, GPUs must be DirectX10 and later level hardware.
http://hardocp.com/news/2009/10/30/amd_clarifies_driver_support_on_dx9_only_hardware_in_win7*cought*BULLSHIT*cough*.
AMD's full of shit. This is done solely to get naive people with older hardware to upgrade to achieve "compatibility".
You mean like the improved effeciency of the DX11 code path? Where the same level or greater level of detail as a DX9 or DX10 title, offers a greater level of performance when run in DX11? If memory serves me correct here, you can utilize AA with much less of a performance hit under DX11. How is that not a good thing?
The Radeon x1400 mobility works fine under windows 7, this is soo much a non-story.
actually you can, Driver haven has a mod for the mobile catalyst drivers that will make them work with most any card. again it is a mod so its not kosher but by all accounts it works.
but for as the point this is more then a couple of generations ago and all it said was that updating for anything but bugs. if your on that kind of low end laptop I would not expect to be able to upgrade to the newest OS. Nothing anyone has will stop working, they just can't upgrade to win 7 without using vista drivers (or the current) its not like when the edge 3d stopped being supported for what amounted to a refresh ( window 98 the next year). I understand the frustration too I just don't think the anger here is justified.
They're all dead Dave, everybodys dead, everybody is dead Dave.
Which part(s)? I'm a little curious myself as to why NVIDIA's able to release WDDM 1.1 drivers for their DX10-incapable parts (supposedly -- I haven't confirmed this) but AMD claims that conformance to WDDM 1.1 requires DX10 support.read the thread before posting more rant.
Which part(s)? I'm a little curious myself as to why NVIDIA's able to release WDDM 1.1 drivers for their DX10-incapable parts (supposedly -- I haven't confirmed this) but AMD claims that conformance to WDDM 1.1 requires DX10 support.
I think this as much a non-issue as everyone else here, but I am sort of wondering whether AMD's reasoning holds water.
I think this is quite fine, they are just moving on. And besides those older cards won't probably benefit quite that much from newer drivers, especially when they're not the first in priority when optimizing for the newer generations. But there won't be bug fixes for newer games though, but again those older cards won't probably even play those games.