At last! Even MS doesn't support XP nowadays!

Funny, i actually checked that page a couple hours ago and windows xp was still listed in "OS certification". Google cache doesn't show it though, I didn't make a snapshot either. Apparently there's no XP driver to be downloaded from the drivers page.

It's 4GB not 6GB btw.

EDIT: turned out I was checking the UK version of that page http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpu … /specifications
Still no drivers of course, not even XP 64bit. EDIT: Check driver links on my next post below.

And to answer the topic: afaik (discrete graphics) VRAM doesn't affect your system memory since it is a separate system. Also, 32bit Vista/7/8 will still be supported.

Lets say if an strip of duct tape indicates an hot fix and further support Windows XP is an roll.
Its too old, let it go.

not surprising at all , XP is 13 years old, and applications/games moved on to 64bit years ago.

Im actually surprised XP lived that long, I mean looking back Microsoft tended to support their operating systems for around 6-8 years at best.

Although interestingly I do know some people who still use XP and feel no need to upgrade , so I guess for some people it still has life as a current OS

archsan wrote:

Funny, i actually checked that page a couple hours ago and windows xp was still listed in "OS certification". Google cache doesn […]
Show full quote

Funny, i actually checked that page a couple hours ago and windows xp was still listed in "OS certification". Google cache doesn't show it though, I didn't make a snapshot either. Apparently there's no XP driver to be downloaded from the drivers page.

It's 4GB not 6GB btw.

EDIT: turned out I was checking the UK version of that page http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware/desktop-gpu … /specifications
Still no drivers of course, not even XP 64bit.

And to answer the topic: afaik (discrete graphics) VRAM doesn't affect your system memory since it is a separate system. Also, 32bit Vista/7/8 will still be supported.

Anandtech shows 4gb, too.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-gef … -gtx-980-review

Though there is a r9 280x with 6gb.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_280X_Gaming_6_GB/

And the extra 3gb of memory on that card turns out to be largely irrelevant, showing little or no increase in performance most of the time so it's a waste of money. Games that are playable with 6gb, are still playable with 3gb with no noticeable improvement. The differences would be mostly undetectable to the eye.

And I was also wondering what does video card memory have to do with 32-bit Windows limitations? Windows doesn't access the video card memory directly, only system memory so the 4gb limitation should be irrelevant.

32bit will take at least a decade to fully die off from mainstream use. As for the those fancy but fast to be yesterday's news cards I don't get excited about them anymore.

sliderider wrote:

And I was also wondering what does video card memory have to do with 32-bit Windows limitations? Windows doesn't access the video card memory directly, only system memory so the 4gb limitation should be irrelevant.

The entire graphics card RAM isn't memory mapped, but there is an impact.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/ar … 21/3092070.aspx

Darkman wrote:

Im actually surprised XP lived that long, I mean looking back Microsoft tended to support their operating systems for around 6-8 years at best.

That's because MS was too busy building up their console imperium, Windows is a byproduct these days comparable to Sony's consumer electronics.

Procyon wrote:

Darkman wrote:

Im actually surprised XP lived that long, I mean looking back Microsoft tended to support their operating systems for around 6-8 years at best.

That's because MS was too busy building up their console imperium, Windows is a byproduct these days comparable to Sony's consumer electronics.

thats part of it, I would also add things like the tablet/phone market and even the Zune into this.

the other reason I guess is also simply because XP is a great OS, its a hell of a lot more stable than Win9x for obvious reasons, but was more consumer friendly than Win2K (although in Win2K's defense , its still a big improvement over WinNT4 in that aspect). it worked both for consumers and small business/education.

Darkman wrote:

not surprising at all , XP is 13 years old, and applications/games moved on to 64bit years ago.

Im actually surprised XP lived that long, I mean looking back Microsoft tended to support their operating systems for around 6-8 years at best.

Although interestingly I do know some people who still use XP and feel no need to upgrade , so I guess for some people it still has life as a current OS

Me and my father still use XP. Infact, there is only 1 pc (out of 10) with Windows 7 on it and that is never used (don't ask me why). My next machine I build I suppose i'll have to switch to Windows 7, begrudingly, because I don't really like it. And yes I have tried it, I have to use it for 8 hours a day in work, ever since it came out.

But I will have to, naturally change my ways. I've felt them changing for a while now. Instinctively looking by the clock for the show desktop button etc. 😊

I felt exactly this way when I gave up Windows 98 in order to play (at the time-2005 or so) modern games.

25% of the world's computers still use WinXP, though I don't know how many ATM's, Airport display systems etc are in that figure.

In a way though, I am excited. A whole new world greets me when I eventually build a new PC. Not just the usability, but visually too.

With something like GTX 980, it's probably safe to assume that like GTX 780 today, it's going into a 64-bit system with 8GB+ of memory anyways, and there are games that require >4GB of system memory already (Watch_dogs and COD: Ghosts both require 64-bit OS and 4-6GB system memory), so I don't think the specs/features of something like GTX 980 are really that far out there. Also, most of the games that would benefit from something like GTX 780, 980, etc will require DX10-11 which requires Vista+ anyways. For DX8-9 XP gaming you've generally been able to max everything out since GeForce 7-8/9 era (poorly optimized ports excluded), and many of the more demanding DX9 games will run in newer OS too, so I don't think there's any big problem if GTX 980 doesn't work in older systems, or if GTX 780 is "as good as it gets."

Something else to consider on memory usage, while Windows does not map all of the card's memory, DirectX (at least 9.0 and lower) requires VRAM to be backed by physical memory, so if you want to use 4GB of VRAM (this actually means fill up 4GB, not just have 4GB installed) you need >4GB of system memory (Microsoft suggests at least double whatever VRAM is - this is because there's other stuff that has to exist in system memory too). There's articles on TechNet about this, such as here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windo … physical_memory (I know there's a longer, in-depth article on this specific thing, but I'm having trouble finding it right now)

Anyone with a GTX 9XX card will be forced over to the craptacular Windows 8, as it's unlikely MS will release DirectX 12 for anything earlier. So folks that want to take advantage of the DX12 features of those cards will be have to move on. Hopefully we'll have a rectified Windows 9 around the same time frame, but I guess we'll have to wait and see on that.

kolano wrote:

Anyone with a GTX 9XX card will be forced over to the craptacular Windows 8, as it's unlikely MS will release DirectX 12 for anything earlier. So folks that want to take advantage of the DX12 features of those cards will be have to move on. Hopefully we'll have a rectified Windows 9 around the same time frame, but I guess we'll have to wait and see on that.

I read somewhere recently that DX 12 is going to be reserved for Windows 9. Vista/7/8 will get an update DX 11.3, which is supposed to have many DX12 features, but not all, and is more resource hungry than DX 12. Video card makers and game publishers will likely be supporting both 11.3 and 12 so they don't miss out on the segment of the market that lags behind the transition to Windows 9.

A not so gentle prod from MS to move on to Win9.

collector wrote:

A not so gentle prod from MS to move on to Win9.

It's no different than when they included DX 10 in Vista and failed to update XP. At least Vista/7/8 users will be getting something to tide them over until they can upgrade.

collector wrote:

A not so gentle prod from MS to move on to Win9.

I have the 780 Ti and two SSDs, one with Winblows 7 64bit and one with XP 32bit which is for when I come across apps that require a 32 bit OS (which happens quite often especially for old Japanese stuff) so for that reason I want to hold off from upgrading my graphics card as long as possible so I dont lose compatibility with my old XP games. Considering that CPU speed and card speed have more or less plateaued I don't see myself upgrading anything for the next 10 years unless there is a major breakthrough in microprocessors manufacturing.

bakudd wrote:

I have the 780 Ti and two SSDs, one with Winblows 7 64bit and one with XP 32bit

I get that. Some people just don't, apparently, and that's here in VOGONS, of all places.

Stojke wrote:

Lets say if an strip of duct tape indicates an hot fix and further support Windows XP is an roll.
Its too old, let it go.

Yeah right. Look at your own sig. Pentium 133? PCX2? AWE32? SCB-55? ...DOS? "It's too old, let it go." How's that? 😉

Anyway, GM chips would be better than previous gen simply because of its efficiency. Why limit yourself to GF6/7/8/9/200/400 etc (consumes more power for lower performance). The new GM chips could probably run older DX9 games at closer to idle load & temp (rather than 100~200W with the older gen cards). Or probably 50~75W tops esp. if you downclock it. Why XP again? Well to each their own (games/compatibility issues). For me, it's out-of-the-box DS/DS3D/EAX. And add 4K to the mix while you're at it. Why not?

Plus, YES, turns out there's still XP-32 driver 😀
http://uk.download.nvidia.com/Windows/344.11/ … ternational.exe
http://www.nvidia.com/download/driverResults. … spx/77838/en-us

I've been a long time Nvidia user (the first Nvidia GPU I ever bought was a GeForce 2 Ultra), I decided to try something different and so recently purchased an AMD r9 270x with 4GB card for only $200 USD (Equivalent Nvidia card would be Nvidia GTX 760 4GB which on average costs about $300 USD) and I seriously don't think i'll ever buy Nvidia ever again, for multiple reasons.

The following statements are my own opinion and should be taken as such and maybe some research on your part too will find what i'm stating is true.

A) Nvidia high-end GPUs cost WAY too much these days, B) AMD GPUs are usually cheaper and you are able to achieve higher framerates than an equivalent Nvidia GPU, C) The only thing that Nvidia really has going for it are extremely top-notch drivers, the PhysX engine and "Nvidiot" gamers that are suckered into the hype the company always has and thus said Nvidiots throw their money at the screen.

@Chaniyth
AMD is cheaper yes. And the current gen is unfortunately less efficient, at least for now. Of course there are always some titles that run better on Radeon as well, like recent Tomb Raider + TressFX.

As for cost issues (from a gamer's perspective. For CAD/CAM/3DCC, NVIDIA/Quadro vs AMD/FirePro, why not do your research too, but I'm sure you already know. CUDA-specific program users will also have different perspective, obviously.) :

1) If you're a wealthy mature being, you wouldn't call yourself "idiot" for spending money in whatever way pleases you. 😉
2) If you're feeling less than wealthy (a matter of perspective really), you can wait a few years and/or buy used. Meanwhile, go buy the most cost-effective thing on the market today, if you really have to play today (yeah, I know multiplayer trends don't wait). Refrain from stupid immature internet comments/forums, if you haven't already. Enjoy whatever you have now and be proud of it.
3) Back to being wealthy/unlimited-perspective again, yes, you can use both NVIDIA and AMD.

See, opinions can be expressed in more mature ways. 😀

@bakkud and whoever cares
Now getting back to that driver I linked before. There's a difference unfortunately, in the 344.11 release for windows XP (32-bit and 64-bit), there is no mention of GTX 980/970, though GTX 750/Ti (GM107) is still supported. So if you're gonna use 970/980 on XP, maybe some hacking is in order.

For me it's enough that's the 750 Ti (~GTX480/295 performance iirc, at 75W TDP or less) is still supported though, since I'm gonna put it on a separate XP rig anyway, replacing my much-hungrier GTX470.