Discrete video for Vista? Come on, really?

OK, as my lack of posts shows, I'm not a longtimer. And I know there are other threads about video cards. But I have to ask, pointedly: What in the world could MS have in store for Vista that would require a discrete video card to run?

If Vista takes as much video power to run as current 3D games, then I don't think I want it. What a waste of resources that sounds like!

I'll settle for a link, if the answer is old news. I appreciate it!

Chris

 

well core vista won't need it but if you want to run vista aeroglass which is a 3d interface then you'll need a better card than normally would thats why they have the requirement for the vista true experience

 

It's not that you need a discrete video card, but certain hardware requirements must be met by the video card in question. For example, Intel's GMA950 and several of ATI's integrated solutions are known to support Aero Glass.

 

Ah, that's good to hear, since the laptop I just bought has the 950 in it.

Thanks,

Chris

 

Intels nex gen integrated card is more than powerful enough to run Vista I

 

Intel's Santa Rosa-based integrated graphics will support DX10. That could push dedicated card manufacturers to drive down the prices to meet the heightening of integrated power.

Just remember that no OS will force out a majority of the computer consumers. Most people these days don't have dedicated GPUs, MS wouldn't forget about that.

 

You make a great point. Integrated graphics are getting powerful. There is a reason that AMD bought ATI. I think the days of graphics cards are numbered. With the AMD 4x4 coming out in about a year and Intel planning 8 core processors in 2008 or so, they will have extra cores to move the graphics to the main CPU. I think in the next 5 years graphics cards will see a huge change, and likely be nearing extinctin. Look at the power they are consuming, and the next cards are planned to double that. They are talking about having there own power supplies! Intel found out that was a dead end with their chips and graphics will find the same dead end. Imagine an 8-core gaming processor with 2 core dedicated to graphics and a core or 2 dedicated to physics, and 4 left over for everything else.

 

My thinking exactly. But all the talk about the 73 versions of Vista had me nervous that I wouldn't be able to exploit all of its new features.
Of course, some of the reviews I've read of Vista and the new Office suite make me think that I won't upgrade until I have to anyway.
Chris

 

The problem is that you'd need what, 30 of today's high-end CPU's to achieve the same raw power as a *single* GPU.

Graphics cards aren't going away in the next 5 years, and probably not the 5 years after that. Low end ones might be integrated into the CPU, but high-end ones are here to stay for the foreseeable future.

And your comparison to Intel doesn't really hold. Intel found out it was a dead end because the heat it generated prevented them from making faster chips, not because the power consumption itself was too high. The GPU's are nowhere near such a limitation yet.

 

The Intel GMA950 is not powerful enough to run Aeroglass, from what i've read. It only does a marginal job at best. Beta 2 users on macbook and other GMAs have reported sub par performance. I read an article that said Intel misjudged on 950. However, Nvidia and ATI integrated cards can run Aero.

 

for some reason I highly doubt you'd need 30 of todays high end processors to equal the power of one graphics card, you are WAY off base there, sorry. if you had one high end processor on a seperate card with like 256-512MB on it for graphics it would be just as good as any card out there... the only difference is GPUs have a different architecture, they arent 30x better then the processor, if that was true then why wouldn't we have ATI and nVidia processors in our computers? When you run a game the cpu handles most of the stuff the GPU just does graphics

 

Honestly, if this is true then my advice to MS (since they asked ) is to streamline Vista. Who wants an OS that hogs resources just to look pretty?

Chris

 

In fairness, the last build which came out a couple weeks ago, was the first to start optimizing the OS for speed.

 

His statement of 30 high end processors isn't too far off base from everything else I've ever read about it, but it's still an apples-to-oranges comparison. With the architecture of a modern CPU and GPU, you would need many, MANY CPUs to calculate per second what the GPU does natively, and vice versa.

I don't think discrete graphics will ever go away so long as the demand for better/faster graphics remains the driving force behind them. With the option to upgrade a $150 GPU versus a $1200 uber-CPU, I think the market will determine that one for us. IMO, AMD's 4x4 system sounds more like marketing funk and will more than likely be no more beneficial than quad-SLI, but time will tell. Everything looks good on paper on press day, but the proof is in the puddin'.

 

Intel released a new driver set recently for the GMA950 that supposedly ironed out the problems Vista Beta users have had with running Aero. To be clear, Windows Vista Aero Glass will work just fine on all GMA950 integrated graphic 'puters by the time Vista officially launches.

My personal thought on this is that if you want to run Vista to its max potential, especially on a laptop, you shouldn't even be considering buying a laptop until all the new DX10 graphics solutions are unveiled. Running Aero Glass should be the least of your worries.