Vayra86Oh is that so? In those cases, the demand is often fulfilled by a newer version that is either identical or better, the whole DirectX idea is built on compatibility. Its why the API exists. Above me GOG is mentioned, but how bout retro gaming? People want this and actively strive to make it happen.

This hooks into a fundamental issue with continued software development: the old world gets lost, and with that, history is lost, even if it contains valuable technology or lessons, or is just simply an important part of our historical context. Communities, piracy among them, pick up those pieces to preserve them, and we should be happy they do. It'll be interesting how that works with a world of always online application requirements and brutal greed.

I've mentioned Dosbox. Its an example of where you don't need to run the ancient OS to get DOS functionality.
Intel does something very similar with DirectX support for games, except their implementation of 'dosbox' is quite simply abysmal.

There is lot of cheap used hardware for fans of retro. What do we gain if we get a 4090 with support for old APIs, 10000 FPS in Quake?

So what, do these older games just flat out not work? Or is performance reduced to unplayable levels? I'd imagine that youd still get decent frame rates no?

Hi,
So is intel mailing out rebate checks from cost reevaluations for first adopters ?

TumbleGeorgeThere is lot of cheap used hardware for fans of retro. What do we gain if we get a 4090 with support for old APIs, 10000 FPS in Quake?

We do indeed. Or we get another iteration of Quake, with RT ;) But the point stands - that 4090 runs Quake fine. And that is how it should be.

You said 'not required', but I would say everything that is technically possible, is a PC requirement, and where it is not, it will be made so. That's the PC platform's identity, at its very core. If you have to destroy functionality of the past to make way for the new, its highly questionable how much of an improvement we're really having, in many cases, its simply a way to corner markets to buy the new thing instead. Why do you think all these old classics get remakes now? And how many are an actual improvement? Its certainly not a given...

chrcolukWorth saying that the DX9 performance bump is only in select titles? The reality will be that less popular titles wont get he same treatment.

Since it's al going through a translation layer, there's a good chance improving translation for one game improves it for all games. Of course, since not all titles stress the same API calls, you won't see the same gain across the board.

The view of what should be widely held differs from person to person, and when it is based more on personal bias, it should weigh on the majority opinion. However, is this correct and does it not hinder the development onward and upward? I say yes, it hinders onward and upward development. The wider the support, the lower the efficiency. We're seeing this with CPUs and should we be harming video cards this way as well?

TumbleGeorgeThe view of what should be widely held differs from person to person, and when it is based more on personal bias, it should weigh on the majority opinion. However, is this correct and does it not hinder the development onward and upward? I say yes, it hinders onward and upward development. The wider the support, the lower the efficiency. We're seeing this with CPUs and should we be harming video cards this way as well?

You must be buying an ASIC for each game you play, I guess :wtf:

TumbleGeorgeThe view of what should be widely held differs from person to person, and when it is based more on personal bias, it should weigh on the majority opinion. However, is this correct and does it not hinder the development onward and upward? I say yes, it hinders onward and upward development. The wider the support, the lower the efficiency. We're seeing this with CPUs and should we be harming video cards this way as well?

All things can coexist just fine. Is Windows bogged down by old features? I dont see that, to be honest. Hardware is fast enough to carry old and new. Its precisely the push of new features that seems most problematic. A lot of innovation exists only to drive sales. A lot of it is an attempt to create a demand where there wasnt one, or where it was already fulfilled.

Look at big tech and its approach to changes and you see this is their business model: change is profit. Profit is the purpose of change. Its a supposed win-win situation because omg all the things we can do online now... but now you also depend on them. They actively need to kill offline options to keep that model going.

TumbleGeorgeThe wider the support, the lower the efficiency. We're seeing this with CPUs and should we be harming video cards this way as well?

We don't see this with CPUs. Modern x86 cores don't give up any performance due to their ISA. The cost of compatibility, i.e. the decoders, is far less than the cost of the massive out of order engine, branch prediction, vector execution units, and caches required for all modern programs.

AnotherReaderWe don't see this with CPUs. Modern x86 cores don't give up any performance due to their ISA. The cost of compatibility, i.e. the decoders, is far less than the cost of the massive out of order engine, branch prediction, vector execution units, and caches required for all modern programs.

Must prove this is real or feeling. I have no idea which and how many tests would be useful for the purpose. Maybe testing the number of operations per joule, playing old Dx9 games on hardware of its time and on modern hardware. Of course, at a suitable resolution to reveal the CPUs.

TumbleGeorgeMust prove this is real or feeling. I have no idea which and how many tests would be useful for the purpose. Maybe testing the number of operations per joule, playing old Dx9 games on hardware of its time and on modern hardware. Of course, at a suitable resolution to reveal the CPUs.

There's no way for the ordinary user to prove it, but we can read what the CPU designers say. There's a lot in that interview, but perhaps the most pertinent part to your question is this:

When RISC first came out, x86 was half microcode. So if you look at the die, half the chip is a ROM, or maybe a third or something. And the RISC guys could say that there is no ROM on a RISC chip, so we get more performance. But now the ROM is so small, you can't find it. Actually, the adder is so small, you can hardly find it? What limits computer performance today is predictability, and the two big ones are instruction/branch predictability, and data locality.

TumbleGeorgeThere is lot of cheap used hardware for fans of retro. What do we gain if we get a 4090 with support for old APIs, 10000 FPS in Quake?

Not everybody wants to have 5 PCs just to play games from different eras.

Vayra86All things can coexist just fine. Is Windows bogged down by old features? I dont see that, to be honest. Hardware is fast enough to carry old and new. Its precisely the push of new features that seems most problematic. A lot of innovation exists only to drive sales. A lot of it is an attempt to create a demand where there wasnt one, or where it was already fulfilled.

Look at big tech and its approach to changes and you see this is their business model: change is profit. Profit is the purpose of change. Its a supposed win-win situation because omg all the things we can do online now... but now you also depend on them. They actively need to kill offline options to keep that model going.

I couldn't agree more, and it's f...ing disgusting, to be honest. Why do such basic things like an operating system, or a GPU driver have to be online and logged in? I understand updates, but that doesn't mean they have to be online all the time and also with a user login attached.

AusWolfNot everybody wants to have 5 PCs

In fact, many users in rich countries have far more than the number and type of computers they need, and have even repurposed some of them for their children, or for elderly parents, or for other purposes, such as a NAS or a cheap home network server. They probably even have them in boxes in their own, or in rented storage, gathering dust there, unused.

TumbleGeorgeIn fact, many users in rich countries have far more than the number and type of computers they need, and have even repurposed some of them for their children, or for elderly parents, or for other purposes, such as a NAS or a cheap home network server. They probably even have them in boxes in their own, or in rented storage, gathering dust there, unused.

That's true, but my point stands. Besides, working with pre-Windows XP hardware and software is a pain in the backside that not even every PC enthusiast wants to go through, not to mention common people.

TumbleGeorgeJust assume Dx9 died and you didn't realize it yet.

I still play Gearbox Halo CE 1.0.10 online multiplayer and DirectX9 is part of the Gearbox Halo CE world!

RJARRRPCGPI still play Gearbox Halo CE 1.0.10 online multiplayer and DirectX9 is part of the Gearbox Halo CE world!

But yes, as always this may or may not be the reason for the hardware purchase choice.

An A750 is about on par with the 1080 Ti, which released six years ago with an MSRP of $700. All things considered I feel like progress is being made (slowly).

If one believes that GPUs will eventually drop back to sanity, an A750 isn't a terrible choice to whether the storm in the meantime, assuming the state of the drivers is acceptable.

Intel might as well scuttle their efforts in the GPU market if they can't make a go of it. Who loses then? IMO its great that we have a third option in the market, such as it is. What happens when you hand over the market to a single company? It's not about whether you like one company over another or if a company has a clearly superior product. Once a company has a stranglehold on a market they will abuse their position and the customer ultimately suffers for it. Having said that, I don't really want an Intel Arc A750 or A770 over something like an RTX 3060, 3060Ti, RX 6650. However, I also don't want to be forced to buy used cards and wouldn't mind having something halfway decent at ~$250 USD.

Hi,
Intel's only goal was to get into some mining fluff $$$
Raja blew that goal to bits that's really why he was demoted :laugh:

geniekidAn A750 is about on par with the 1080 Ti, which released six years ago with an MSRP of $700. All things considered I feel like progress is being made (slowly).

If one believes that GPUs will eventually drop back to sanity, an A750 isn't a terrible choice to whether the storm in the meantime, assuming the state of the drivers is acceptable.

But there's issues with the hardware, as you cant use it on older platforms that do not offer rebar for example. Then there's the drivers that used to be behind. And some weird idle power consumption of over 70W or so.

I would not touch this Intel generation at all. They do not have the 20+ years experience both AMD and Nvidia have. A 2D integrated chip with 3D functionality is something different then a standalone graphics card.

JismBut there's issues with the hardware, as you cant use it on older platforms that do not offer rebar for example. Then there's the drivers that used to be behind. And some weird idle power consumption of over 70W or so.

I would not touch this Intel generation at all. They do not have the 20+ years experience both AMD and Nvidia have. A 2D integrated chip with 3D functionality is something different then a standalone graphics card.

I would take an Arc A380 over a GT 1030 and an RX 6500 XT! (That's how much of an insult the RX 6500 XT is!) (Reminds me of ATI Radeon 9600 SE and 9550!)

JismAnd some weird idle power consumption of over 70W or so.

Here we are after a light and fast search.
PS.
Maybe the problem is solved in new drivers and not required manual settings.

TumbleGeorgeIn fact, many users in rich countries have far more than the number and type of computers they need, and have even repurposed some of them for their children, or for elderly parents, or for other purposes, such as a NAS or a cheap home network server. They probably even have them in boxes in their own, or in rented storage, gathering dust there, unused.

They do, but they really don't have to, because x86 is great wrt legacy support and cross compatibility. Also, consider the fact that hardware does age, and you can't simply keep the machines running that would run, say, old IBM mainframe in companies. There are no spare parts, and the knowledge is enjoying retirement. So what happened there? We emulate it. On Windows. And: we transition out of those applications, but that's a very slow development; Banks are still on COBOL for example. nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL

And that's the whole reason x86 is as relevant as it is, even in a world where ARM is taking share. And what happens to ARM when it takes over the x86 space you think? Here's my free crystal ball for you: ARM will emulate whatever it needs to, and with that, becomes just as 'efficient' as x86 was in doing so, give or take a few %, probably margin of error, because in the end its a chip on a similar node crunching similar code in a similar way.

Its almost like the laws of physics - it IS in fact physics laws at work when you think of chip processing power, in every way. Can't cheat much; bending the rules is as good as it gets, but the essence and end result is the same or highly similar. How do chips bend the rules? By shrinking transistors, and making sure those are used in the most optimal way. Not by 'not being capable' of certain jobs, that's just regression in feature set.

RJARRRPCGPThat's how much of an insult the RX 6500 XT is!

I have one. It's not as bad as people think. ;)

The two reasons why it was massively criticised at launch is its x4 bus and its price.
The first one is what it is. If you don't have Gen 4, don't buy it. The second one has been greatly improved since then. For 160-ish quid, I think it's a good bargain.

@W1zzard Do you have any plans to revisit these cards in the future to see how much the drivers have matured and improved performance?