stefan231
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,003
How do I download or enable Direct x 10.1 on a ATI 4870 x2. I recently upgraded and this card but cant direct x 10.1 download anywhere only thing I see is a registry hack on some tech websites.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Direct x 10.1
- Thread starter stefan231
- Start date
I think 10.1 support came with SP1 for vista; I'm not sure running dxwebsetup on a non SP1 vista will install 10.1. Also, Risqu3 is right, it's pretty much the game that will have to support 10.1. Older DX10 games from before (Bioshock, Call of Juarez, etc.) won't magically become faster from having 10.1 installed.
DX 10.1 support was added with Vista SP1; however, both hardware and software have to take advantage of it for it to be used. (For example, the original Far Cry does NOT take advantage of DX 10.1, even where DX 10.1 is present and supporting hardware is available; however, Crysis (same developer) does. Example #2: Bioshock *does* take advantage of DX 10, but not DX 10.1; however, Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box *does* take advantage of DX 10.1. Example #3: Bejeweled 2 doesn't take advantage of DX 10 or DX 10.1; however, Bejeweled Twist takes advantage of DX 10.1.)
Until nV shipped the GTX 2xx series GPUs, they had zero hardware that took advantage of any DX10.1 features; however, AMD had been DX10.1-ready starting with, believe it or not, HD3450, which is a budget/value/mostly-portable-class part.
Vista is also the first Microsoft operating system where DX 10.1 actually has a purpose *outside* of gaming (in desktop feature rendering, for example); this is why an HD2600XT will wax my HD3450 in games that don't support DX10.1, but it will in turn get waxed when it comes to desktop performance.
I'm already aware of all this. I was just pointing out that Vista SP1 was required to get DX10.1 and that the game needed to support DX 10.1. I figured the hardware element was already accepted since the OP is using a DX10.1 capable product.
Last edited:
And here's the part where I come and point out that basically everything you said is wrong.
Crysis doesn't take advantage of 10.1, neither does Burnout Paradise, and neither does Bejeweled Twist...
Also, NVIDIA's 8800 series chips do all the same things that the GTX2xx based chips do.. its the same architectural family. That said, NEITHER of them fully supports DX10.1... however they BOTH support a limited subset of the DX10.1 features. That means that your assertion about GT200 being the first is wrong.. 8800 is the first that supports some of the DX10.1 features.
Lastly, Vista doesn't use 10.1 for it's desktop at all.. Win7 does. And they don't gain performance from it, they save on memory usage. You're not going to see any faster "desktop performance" from any card over any other anyway, regardless of whether it's a DX10 or 10.1 capable card.. I have no clue what you're talking about there.
Seriously, where do you get your information?
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Not true. The Vista Aero GUI is based entirely on DX9. The Windows 7 GUI will be able to take advantage of DX 10.1. It's really a moot point however you slice it, because even the lowliest integrated graphics can handle Aero.
And what do you play your games on; Windows XP (which doesn't support DX10 OR 10.1, no matter how hard you try)?
As far as DX10.1 support, I meant ALL of the DX10.1 features (not some), which brings us back to GTX2xx and its progeny. The 8800 and its own progeny (including 9xxx) don't support *all* of the DX10.1 feature set due to a conscious decision by nVidia. While the 8800 did support some of said features, HD3450 supports them all, despite being a budget/value part.
While Vista may not use DX10.1 for aiding in the desktop performance area, it *does* use DirectX (which can't be said for Windows XP, no matter how you slice it).
Bejeweled Twist, Crysis, and Burnout Paradise *do* all support DX10.1 (BP directly, as does Bejeweled Twist; and Crysis via patch). I own all three; in the case of Bejeweled Twist, some features in the game graphics-wise are not available unless you have DX 10.1 *and* DX10.1 hardware. It may not be fair, but that was the developer's choice.
Lastly, have you run WinSAT and scored various DX9c, DX10, and DX10.1-capable cards in Vista? The critical number I was referring to is the *middle* one (desktop performance for Windows Aero). This is how well a GPU performs in the operating system outside of games. This can be just as important (if not more so, depending on the user) as gaming performance.
But what about business-productivity and other non-gaming apps, especially when running them windowed, in addition to Aero?
Aero itself is small-potatoes (after all, it requires nothing more than DX9c, which even bottom-end integrated graphics can handle today); it's when you start piling stuff on top of Aero (other than gaming) that things get interesting (and the bigger dogs get separated from the puppies).
This is the area where first Matrox, and later ATI originally made their reputation (business-application performance, especially video performance), and if you do more than gaming, it's far from moot (unless you run Windows XP). (This metric includes things like video transcoding support in the GPU, for example.)
I've got Bejeweled Twist running on a WinXP system, and in the Options window, all features are able to be turned on, and there's no mention of DX10 or DX10.1 features anywhere in the game or the readme. Googling for Bejeweled Twist 10.1 comes up with nothing, so I am curious as to your source of information that Bejeweled Twist is a DX10.1 game, or even a DX10 game. I'd also like to hear specifically what extra features Twist has with DX10.1.
The GTX 2xx cards DO NOT SUPPORT DX10.1 EITHER. Nvidia did *NOT* add DX10.1 support to ANY of their cards. There isn't a single DX10.1 nvidia card, not one.
Far Cry 2, H.A.W.K,. Stormrise Battleforge and the later updates of STALKER Clear Sky are the only games that support 10.1, pretty sure of this. Some of the require current patches.
ATI is the sole provider of 10.1 as NO Nvidia parts support it. If you want to 10.1 you have to go AMD/ATI, simple as that.
ATI is the sole provider of 10.1 as NO Nvidia parts support it. If you want to 10.1 you have to go AMD/ATI, simple as that.
Again, sorry, but you're just DEAD wrong. None of those games are DX10.1. Bejeweled isn't even DX10... You're making this shit up.
Crysis was never patched to 10.1, again, sorry. It's DX10 only.
There are only about 4 games that support 10.1, and 3 of them just came out these last two months.. Stormrise, Battleforge, and HAWX. The one before this was STALKER Cleark Sky. That's it. Sorry dude, but you're wrong.
evolucion8
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 917
Yeah, through driver query, if nVidia decides later to remove that feature to keep the driver size controlled, you will LOOSE that feature. And it's not the same, see for yourself and Play STALKER in DX10.1 and DX10.0 mode, the Anti Aliasing quality is better with DX10.1 with less blurry edges and minimal performance hit.
Stop being an nVidia fan boy, there are more DX10.1 games, Far Cry 2 uses DX10.1, STALKER Clear Sky, Assassin Creed unpatched, BattleForge, Stormrise, there's another game which uses the number 9 but I forgot which was. Is it bad to use a feature for improved image quality and performance? Do you like to stagnate progress?
Last edited:
WOW talk about being a hugely hypocritical dbag. You're gonna start calling me a fanboy when you just defended 10.1 as though someone where attacking it, even though no one was?
The whole reason I posted is that I get annoyed by people spouting things as facts when they haven't done the research to back it up, and are actually passing on completely wrong information to less knowledgeable users who need help.
I simply said that, of the games the poster above mentioned as being 10.1, NONE were. I then proceeded to list 3 games, and if it makes you feel better, I'm so sorry I forgot one (FC2)
I find it laughable that in your attempt to correct my list of 10.1 games, you restated 3 that I already mentioned, plus one.Why do I say one? Because if you'd actually done your homework, you'd realize that Assassin's Creed doesn't count... the 10.1 path is BROKEN and has corrupted rendering. If you don't believe me, go into the "future" room with the doctor who is holding you captive and notice how light shows up through objects it should not.. the walls glow, and are partially transparent. The glare on the table shines through the table when it should not. The torches in assassin's HQ shine through cement walls, and you can see them from the other side. It's corrupted rendering. As such, there is no working 10.1 implementation for Assassin's Creed which doesn't have this corruption. It doesn't really count when you get a speed up from 10.1 along with a bunch of corruption. Not to mention the fully patched version of the game doesn't have the path anymore as a result of this.
Also, in Far Cry 2, NVIDIA takes advantage of the identical feature from 10.1 that gives the speedup and better AA, so the advantage is nullified.. the IQ and performance gains are the same regardless of what brand you have.
I don't know what kind of fantasy universe you live in where a simple feature (I don't even know which you're referring to) would be removed from the driver due to disk space. That's about as likely as me saying "well if ATI decides to remove their support for 10.1 in the driver tomorrow to save disk space..." .. really weak logic there.
Do your homework before you post.
Last edited:
evolucion8
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 917
WOW talk about being a hugely hypocritical dbag. You're gonna start calling me a fanboy when you just defended 10.1 as though someone where attacking it, even though no one was?
The whole reason I posted is that I get annoyed by people spouting things as facts when they haven't done the research to back it up, and are actually passing on completely wrong information to less knowledgeable users who need help.
I simply said that, of the games the poster above mentioned as being 10.1, NONE were. I then proceeded to list 3 games, and if it makes you feel better, I'm so sorry I forgot one (FC2)
Why do I say one? Because if you'd actually done your homework, you'd realize that Assassin's Creed doesn't count... the 10.1 path is BROKEN and has corrupted rendering. If you don't believe me, go into the "future" room with the doctor who is holding you captive and notice how light shows up through objects it should not.. the walls glow, and are partially transparent. The glare on the table shines through the table when it should not. The torches in assassin's HQ shine through cement walls, and you can see them from the other side. It's corrupted rendering. As such, there is no working 10.1 implementation for Assassin's Creed which doesn't have this corruption. It doesn't really count when you get a speed up from 10.1 along with a bunch of corruption. Not to mention the fully patched version of the game doesn't have the path anymore as a result of this.
Also, in Far Cry 2, NVIDIA takes advantage of the identical feature from 10.1 that gives the speedup and better AA, so the advantage is nullified.. the IQ and performance gains are the same regardless of what brand you have.
I don't know what kind of fantasy universe you live in where a simple feature (I don't even know which you're referring to) would be removed from the driver due to disk space. That's about as likely as me saying "well if ATI decides to remove their support for 10.1 in the driver tomorrow to save disk space..." .. really weak logic there.
Do your homework before you post.
Please meat sack, keep your personal attacks away from the thread. I played Assassin Creed unpatched 4 months ago and that bug wasn't there, the only transparent thing was the character when you looked in a certain angle that may impair your vision, it was made on purpose like in other games. The Far Cry 2 feature on nVidia ISN"T A DX10.1 IMPLEMENTATION. Keep dreaming in your fantasy world that's DX10.1 Once nVidia removes it from the driver it won't work at all, MICROSOFT IS THE ONE WHO MAKES THE STANDARDS, not ATi nor nVidia. A DX10.1 game will play through the years with no issues, but a DX10 game with vendor extensions won't, making the developer's life more complicated with vendor specific extensions is what made DX9 so fragmented and that's why Microsoft removed BITCAP support in DX10. Your logic is weak because ATi and nVidia during time, they DO clean ups in the driver code to remove unused optimizations, extensions etc to avoid cluttered code, not because it would use more hard disk space, you are not funny joker, is that so hard for you to understand?
Lay off the crack, please.
First off, Nvidia supports a subset of DX10.1. They are *NOT* vendor extensions. You do know what "subset" means, right?
Second, why the hell would nvidia suddenly decide to remove some of their DX features? What the hell? That argument is incredibly stupid, and it applies to both sides. ATI could very well just decide to remove DX10.1 from their drivers, but there isn't any reason to. Likewise, nvidia isn't going to remove the subset of DX10.1's features that they support.
Third, a standard is *NOT AN IMPLEMENTATION*. Microsoft doesn't control what goes on inside the drivers, and can't enforce ATI or Nvidia to support the standard.
jakethesnake011
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 163
Question I heard that the DX 10.1 code path will allow users to use dx 11 software and have the same or very close benefits as they would with using dx 11. I do not think it sounds right but let me know
Too bad Assassin's Creed loses it as soon as it auto patches the first time you run it, and glitches on some systems without the patch. Also a shame stormrise has gotten terrible reviews (didn't it get something like 2 out of 10 from both IGN and gamespot?)
No. DX11 adds new requirements and features. DX11 will be backwards compatible with DX10.1, of course (just like 10.1 is backwards compatible with 10), but DX10.1 code won't benefit from DX11.
The bug was there, you're just not discerning enough of a gamer to notice a major graphical corruption. Or maybe it was that you were so caught up in your own smugness in your ability to play the 10.1 path that you didn't notice
The Far Cry 2 implementation runs through NVAPI, and takes advantage of the same exact feature that ATI would, in the hardware. The game doesn't use all "DX10.1" features, which is why it will end up running the same on both cards... of the features it uses NVIDIA supports them in hardware.
Games can query adapters' capabilities around the directx functionalities, and while the NVIDIA cards do say that they don't support 10.1, they have some of the hardware to do so for some features. As a result, the functionality that they do support is exposed via a library, but the actual functionality IS IDENTICAL to the DirectX implementation, so it is the same thing with the same benefits. It's not a vendor-specific extension in the traditional sense... it's exposing the subset of the same DX functionality, but just through another door, because it cannot support the whole package. That's the simple fact.
The functionality is going nowhere, let alone for *DISK SPACE SAVINGS*
You're talking kilobytes of data (if that) in the age of 2TB hard drives and 100MB driver downloads. You're grasping at straws... no... filaments.The funny thing that you don't seem to understand is that developers safeguard against this anyway.. even if NVIDIA arbitrarily removed this functionality 10 years from now, it would still run DX10... the device creation checks for this functionality, and if it doesn't exist, it falls back to the DX spec it knows the hardware supports.. DX10. Not to mention 10 years from now you won't give a shit about this game, and you'll probably be running an OS that won't play it anyway.
Do your homework kid.
The bug was there, you're just not discerning enough of a gamer to notice a major graphical corruption. Or maybe it was that you were so caught up in your own smugness in your ability to play the 10.1 path that you didn't notice
I played an unpatched Assassin's Creed on my 4850 on Vista SP1 (so DX10.1) - I never noticed any "major" graphical corruption. Hell, I don't remember seeing any corruption. Then again, I was playing the game and not jamming the camera into corners and hunting for mistakes. There were definitely no glowing walls or torches visible through walls, I promise you. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, like most bugs, the AC bug doesn't happen to everyone
Which is verified by Rage3D, who only spotted some missing dust in the DX10.1 path, but that was caused by AA, not DX10.1: http://www.rage3d.com/articles/assassinscreed-addendum/index.php?p=3
Bunch of bitter NVIDIA fanboys bitter about buying re-re-re-re-rebrands of cards and sad to see ATI doing well ITT.
Look at Valve hardware surveys and see what percentage of users can run DX10. There's not much. It takes a while for people to move to the next version now. What makes you think that when DX11 comes out that everything is going to be in DX11? The amount of people who want to install a brand new windows version on their computer to play games is going to be small. Then, no one is going to want to make games for DX11 because no one has it installed.
It's going to be at least a year before DX11 becomes mainstream. Skipping DX10.1 which gives you better image quality AND better performance is doing nothing but screwing over customers and consumers. NVIDIA's lack of embracing DX10.1 means that there's not enough people who support it on their hardware/software (remember, not everyone with a DX10.1 video card runs Vista) because all NVIDIA users are out of the picture.
Why go DX10.1 when you're making a game when that's just more crap to code?
Bottom line is NVIDIA is screwing EVERYONE by not supporting DX10.1.
Look at Valve hardware surveys and see what percentage of users can run DX10. There's not much. It takes a while for people to move to the next version now. What makes you think that when DX11 comes out that everything is going to be in DX11? The amount of people who want to install a brand new windows version on their computer to play games is going to be small. Then, no one is going to want to make games for DX11 because no one has it installed.
It's going to be at least a year before DX11 becomes mainstream. Skipping DX10.1 which gives you better image quality AND better performance is doing nothing but screwing over customers and consumers. NVIDIA's lack of embracing DX10.1 means that there's not enough people who support it on their hardware/software (remember, not everyone with a DX10.1 video card runs Vista) because all NVIDIA users are out of the picture.
Why go DX10.1 when you're making a game when that's just more crap to code?
Bottom line is NVIDIA is screwing EVERYONE by not supporting DX10.1.
SpoonMaN-EQ
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Messages
- 372
ahh the internetz, always good for a laugh.
i am an impartial user who runs both sli and a new 4870.
i am an impartial user who runs both sli and a new 4870.
evolucion8
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 917
Back off and keep your tone down douche bag, I'm not talking to you or disrespecting you, so STFU, you don't seem to know shit of what are you talking about, those fake DX10.1 stuff implemented in Far Cry 2 and other games are through driver query, NVAPI is through driver query, they did remove the 2.0a optimization code (Not support) from their 2nd driver revision after the GeForce 6 debuted, look for a review from it showing the shader precision issue in Far Cry, and Microsoft DOES ENFORCE ATI or NVIDIA TO SUPPORT THE STANDARD or simply the driver won't get the DX10/DX10.1 WHQL digital signature, so lay off the chinese fungus tea.[\QUOTE]
The functionality is going nowhere, let alone for *DISK SPACE SAVINGS*
The funny thing that you don't seem to understand is that developers safeguard against this anyway.. even if NVIDIA arbitrarily removed this functionality 10 years from now, it would still run DX10... the device creation checks for this functionality, and if it doesn't exist, it falls back to the DX spec it knows the hardware supports.. DX10. Not to mention 10 years from now you won't give a shit about this game, and you'll probably be running an OS that won't play it anyway.
Do your homework kid.
Im not talking about disk space, a cleaner, leaner driver code will work better, faster and more efficient,
so please kid, go back crying to your mom and stop mistaking men as kids, because unlike you, I love competition, and I have no remorse seeing ATi having the upper hand in the price/performance ratio currently with their cards line up, if it wasn't because of ATi, you would still paying 600 bucks for a GTX 280 or 400 for a GTX 260
Last edited:
evolucion8
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 917
evolucion8 = ATI fanboy, nuff said
How productive is your post, what a waste of power and breath, Tudz = nVidia's B*tch Tudz =
How productive is your post, what a waste of power and breath, Tudz = nVidia's B*tch Tudz =
I was actually planning on writing a constructive post, but then realised how you ignored BlueStorm's main points to go on a rant about nVidia's evilness and how godly ATI is (which I dont know why it has a place in a Dx10.1 thread anyway, this was never an nvidia vs ati thread until people started throwing around the "nvidia fanboy" term, you being the main cuplrit).
Also I noted on page 1 how you told someone to "Stop being an nVidia fan boy, there are more DX10.1 games" and then went on to list a whole 2 extra games, one of which BlueStorm says nvidia supports all the features of in hardware anyway (I can't say, I'm not as knowledgable
).It'd be hard to call me an nVidia fanboy when I have owned cards from both, as well as I frequently recommend the ATI cards to friends who are buying PCs... the only reason my current card is nvidia is I haven't upgraded since the early 8800 days when ATI had no competition.
So yeah, I stand by what I said...
evolucion8 = ATI fanboy, nuff said
Hey, guess what? Far Cry 2 asks the driver if it supports DX 10.1 too! I guess that means ATI might suddenly remove their DX 10.1 code, too, huh?
Yeah, so?
So Nvidia removed optimization code, which suddenly means they will start removing features? ATI has removed optimization code before, too. It isn't uncommon, since optimization code can lead to render bugs.
Uh, no. The WHQL driver signature simply means the driver passed the WHQL labs test. It has *NOTHING* to do with the features of the driver. Likewise, games don't care if the driver is signed or not, so I'm not sure why you are bringing up WHQL signing since the only thing that ever checks that is Windows when it installs the driver (and even then, if it isn't signed a box just pops up telling people it isn't signed - not a big deal)
That isn't how code works. If the extension isn't used, it doesn't get run. Removing it won't improve or speed up anything. There isn't any reason for Nvidia to remove extensions.
Besides, we already know how Nvidia handles old code - they split the driver into a current and legacy release, and simply drop support for old cards from the newer drivers entirely.