Windows 7 Plays Crysis without GPU.

So this is like an updated version of the reference rasteriser?

It'll make sense if you want to use DX10 acceleration for 3D desktops, and this enables you to do that without dedicated hardware. You can draw one kickass taskbar without breaking modern CPU's.
 
Last edited:
I think the idea behind this is to show it as a proof of concept for putting the integrated graphics on the CPU. More for office or media playback PC's. We are heading for 100 core processors 6-7 years from now after all.
 
charlie_82 said:
I'm pretty sure he meant without having to buy an add-on graphics card (IE one that not ONBOARD and you plug into a PCI-E slot)
Geez man why do you always have to give everyone so much crap. Lighten up a little
Click to expand...

Onboard video these days attains decent 3D performance, and with each iteration integrated Intel GFX is getting better. So once again this negates,
software rendering of Direct X10 effects-- after all this is just that, a software renderer.

This is a tech sub-forum, why do you have to be so obnoxious about it,
maybe the chap thought you could connect the monitor via other means.
 
Sapphiron said:
I think the idea behind this is to show it as a proof of concept for putting the integrated graphics on the CPU. More for office or media playback PC's. We are heading for 100 core processors 6-7 years from now after all.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be rather left to the electronics engineers at Intel, Motorola, SUN, ATI-AMD etc? I just don't think software emulation will get us decent speeds. A CPU with built in shaders, sure, but not software emulation,
even if at the OS level.
 
CorneN said:
I'm pretty sure I meant that as well. ;)

But that does raise a question though. Why have a 3D support in office machines, which with onboard graphics can already do their job? If it is for gaming, the performance boost in games comes at a cost of CPU time.

/declares the technology a marketing gimmick and redundant and moves on...
Click to expand...

That I agree 100% with.... just MS trying to show off about Win 7.
 
The framerates says it all! Each component is specifically designed for its purpose.
The CPU = Mathematical Calculations
The GPU = Graphical, vertex and pixel calculations.
To me thats in laymans terms. So I dont think people should get too happy about windows 7 (only if they offer a free upgrade from vista) ;)
 
whenever a new operating system has come out i have always tried it just out of curiosity and same will apply with windows 7.
 
so what; software rendering is back - woooppppieeeeeee, i can run unreal on just a cpu too......
 
This is great news for platforms where silicon space is a premium and no additional transistor space cane be spared for graphics acceleration...
This in no way does it affect ATI or NVIDIA not in the least because the performance of the CPUs would have to increase at least 100 fold before they would even begin to be a threat to what we have today and and no matter how accelerated Moore's law can be it won't happen in the next 5 years. By then NV high end GPU will be about 10X faster than a 4870X2 or GTX280 we have today...

Off-topic: A graphics card is not needed to display anything on a monitor. a RAMDAC is all that's needed and that's not a graphics card. central processors have been acting s graphics synthesizers for years now going into the 70s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X