Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The thing I don't understand is why the OS has to grab gigabytes of VRAM.
I mean, if you consider one monitor with a 1920x1080 pixel resolution, that's a little over 2 million pixels. And each pixel has R, G, and B, usually for a total of 3 bytes per pixel ( 3 x 8 bits/pixel ). So the total requirement to display one image is like 6 million bytes, or 6 MB. Nothing close to 2 gigabytes. So maybe you gotta assume they're also storing a cache of images for game playing, so you can get your 60 fps or 120 fps or whatever. But still, 60 fps x 6 MB is only 360 MB for one second of display. And maybe they assume 3 monitors are connected or something, so multiply that times 3 ? Heck, I don't know.
I think it's more to do with them not knowing what display will be connected. Could be up to 4k these days, or one of those ultra wide ones. Even one of mine is 1440p 165Hz, although refresh rate I don't think has anything to do with VRAM.
Yeah, but a 4k monitor is like 3840 × 2160, or 8.3 megapixels, and multiply that by 3 for RGB and you get 25MB. Still not anywhere near gigabytes of VRAM.
I think it's because the more powerful cards also tend to have more available connectors, and so need more blocks of display space.
My GTX 1070 has 4 HDMI/Display port connectors and one DVI, same as my GTX 1080ti.
The other slightly weird thing is, you can connect a 4k display under Windows 7 right? This new standard that requires more VRAM, it's for what exactly? Will it allow for 8k and more displays down the road and if so does that mean you would not be able to connect those in Win7 at all?
Are you sure? It's the only thing I can think of that makes sense for them to need so much VRAM.
Not sure, but seems logical to me at least that more pixels that need to be displayed result in more VRAM used, whereas how often an image is refreshed is more akin to what a CPU would do vs. RAM.
I think the way Microsoft chose to allocate memory is simply by percentage of VRAM available, rather than an actual need for that much memory. Personally, I still think that should be something that an end user can decide, rather than being set in stone as it is currently.
Yeah, but I'm assuming the GPU controls the monitors, since the connectors are on the GPU. And for the most part the CPU is pretty much out of the loop, unless you're playing a game which also relies on the CPU. So when you're playing a game I'm assuming that all of the 60fps images get pushed out from the GPU VRAM to the monitors as fast as they can. Generally in the programming world when there's a serial stream of data like that, you fill up a buffer and it's then sent from that buffer (VRAM) to the external device (in this case a monitor) as requested (or per clock cycle).
If I'd spent $$$ on high-end rendering gear, I sure would be glad to find out that Microsoft is witholding a significant chunk of my resources FOR REASONS. And it's not the first time they screw up like this: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/1263324/gpu-memory-allocation-limit-on-directx9-windows-8
Then again, Windows 10 has been quite the fustercluck of anti-consumer bullshit, so... whatevs I guess. It's not like we needed more reasons to avoid it.
I dunno, not many people dislike Windows as much as I do (and have for decades), but in the scheme of things I really don't have a problem with Windows 10. As long as you do a couple things to stop the privacy nonsense (I use Spybot), it's pretty harmless. And I also use Classic Shell to make it look like the older Windows, without all the mobile nonsense. Yeah, there's a lot of insanity that's plagued Windows for decades (the ridiculously confusing networking, this GPU VRAM nonsense, the lack of basic OS functionality, etc.), but I think Windows 10 isn't much different from the older versions in that regard.
Well, despite all this vram stuff I'd never go back to Win7. I don't understand what fixation people have with that OS. As if it was somehow perfect. I switched to Win8 even, ate all the metro stuff... well no I didn't, it was actually dead easy to get around it all with Classic Shell. What was left was a frankly faster, leaner Windows because they had to cut away a lot of the fat to make it work on mobile devices. Then Win10 came and it was free. Worth it to point that out IMO, and all the talk about consumer rights and oh so bad big brother Microsoft... you want the real big brothers? Look at Google and Facebook. They are gathering way more info about you than Microsofts silly little OS ever could. And they are using that data to monetize their ad business. At least you can pretty much disable all telemetry in Windows.
Microsoft is merely trying to do what their competitiors have been doing for a long time. Big data is everything today and since MS couldn't really tap into the mobile market substantially, they can at least try to do what they can in the business that they have the biggest market share of all, and that is with Windows. It's unfortunate but hardly Microsofts fault, and the benefit is we got Win10 as a free upgrade and it keeps being upgraded for free.
Not that I'm a Windows fan or anything. If I could and all the software I need was supported I'd switch to Linux in a heartbeat. From what I read, the whole videocard/display system is handled smarter there.
...I'm with you on Linux. W10...not so much.
If I accepted the "free" offer two years ago I'd be running the Home Edition which does take away a lot of control from the user. With Pro (99$ more) you can at least defer updating for a couple months in hopes that any bugs which may have slipped through are fixed by then. That and the ability to turn off telemetry are about the only advantages. You are still stuck with a lot of nonsense features like Cortana (which they've embedded into more functions with recent updates), and making it something of a "game" to figure out how to turn things off you don't want or need, in some cases, requiring hacking the registry to do so (were I to design an OS I'd offer the basic core and then give users the option to install other features as they see fit later and to easily uninstall them if they are no longer needed). If you had older devices (like printers, scanners, and other peripherals) you might have found they no longer worked and you had to go out and buy new ones making that "free" offer not very free anymore. Finally it is only good for the life of the system it is on so should that go *poof* that's the end of the deal. You build a new system, even cannabalising what you can, you have to buy buy a new W10.
I also do agree about 8.1 if, like you mention, you can find some way to get around the "Fisher Price™" UI. Considering moving to the Pro version of that for my next build.
One would have to point out the irony of wishing for Linux but the refusal to mess with the Windows registry. On Linux you would need to delve into far, far worse things than that. The registry is just a database of values. It's not some nuclear core of the OS that will destroy you if you dare to venture there. The chance for you to mess up in such a way that the OS wouldn't run anymore is practically zero. Any even remotely techie guy, and I would count pretty much all people who do rendering in that category, would have no problem whatsoever in there. It's literally just navigate to some entry, change it, or add a new value. By the way, even Substance software recommends you edit the registry to increase some videocard timeout thingy, and give you step by step instructions to do so.
Automatic updates, yeah that's a bit of an annoyance I imagine, on none Pro editions. But there's at least a noble thought behind it. Windows having the market share it has, it is under constant attack (and by the way the main reason OS X feels so secure, it is literally being firewalled by Windows). We live in an age where people do not reboot their computers anymore (as is evidenced by automatic updates wanting to reboot the computer and people getting outraged) but these updates need to be installed fast to prevent potentially bad stuff. Not all of them, granted. Some are just feature updates that MS pushes on you anyway, but in general though, a little bit of forcing people is really a good thing and one more measure of security that people have always proclaimed Windows is lacking. You can't have it both ways.
It's much easier to permanetly crash windows than Linux as Linux tends to have safeguards that windows doesn't
And actually the windows registry is core to windows and modifications are not recommended due to the ease of destroying the windows installation
...
Well, are you going into the registry and deleting stuff willy-nilly? Do you do that with Windows files that are probably going to kill your Windows installation? Because you could. But you won't. You're not gonna accidently kill anything in there. You totally can but you'd have to go absolutely bonkers.
https://support.allegorithmic.com/documentation/display/SPDOC/GPU+drivers+crash+with+long+computations
Not exactly rocket sience guys
Windows 10 can do it itself; I'm trying to fix what appears to be a busted Windows update right now.
Haha... see, don't even need to mess with the registry.
...I have no issue with updating for security purposes, but I like to be sure they don't have bugs or flaws in them first (or if they are even needed in some cases, like "parental controls" which I don't use as I live alone). You can't do that anymore with the format MS now uses as even for 7 and 8.1 all updates are in those rollup bundles which you either accept or reject as a whole. In the past I used to review every update before installing anything. Then MS stopped posting details so I had to go to third party sources to get that information. Yeah it took a couple hours every "Patch Tuesday" but it was worth the extra trouble. Also, I don't need even more useless features to bloat the OS. They have an app store, put them there instead.
Where many have complaints is over the full OS updates which can take hours (depending on connection speed) and use up download allowances for people on ISPs that have download caps. Those are the ones where most of the reported troubles occur.
Been hacking widows registry since ver 3.0 and all it takes is one misplaced key to crash the entire system which is why any mention of hacking or editing the registry on any repuatable site warns people not to try it if they don't have experiance with editing the registry
Granted it's not hard to edit and as long as your careful and actually have some idea of what your doing you'll probably be OK as long as you remember that it's real easy to screw it up by leaving a space or not leaving a space or entering a wrong number or letter
Yeah, to be fair, feature bloat is pretty much present in every major software. What else are they going to update, they need to update something. The latest update comes with some sketch stuff... Sketchpad, Sticky Notes you can write in with a pen. As is the case with pretty much all new features, most people won't use it. But it's there for those who want to. I don't have a problem with that, just get it out of my face and let me ignore it.
Anyways, we're not far from a visit by Richard I imagine. This all has nothing to do with VRAM anymore.
True and on that subject there's really no reason other than poor programing for windows to reserve vram on a card that has no monitor attached since the monitors are detected by windows
The issue, as I understand it, is that adding a display without reserved space will cause a crash because there isn't an abstraction layer between the hardware and the OS (as there is with other areas). The change from 7 is in how much RAM is reserved.
OK but then you shouldn't be adding a display to a powered up system which in itself could not only cause a crash but hardware damage as well.
And once again since the displays are detected at boot only the the card with attached displays needs the VRAM to be reserved for the displays use
Eh sorry, yeah let's return to topic.
While that may be technically true, I'm trying to think back in the last many decades of using Windows, and Linux in recent years, and I can't recall the last time I "crashed" Windows. Hard drive failure, yeah. But crashing Windows? Not that I can recall. IMO, that's one of those "features" that don't really amount to much in the real world to most of us. But it sounds good.
In practice, depending on which of the 21,363 versions of Linux that are out there and you decide to use, it can be an absolute nightmare. I tried a bunch and finally decided on Mint (Mate?), because that one was the most Windows-like and easy to use. Ubuntu was a freakin' nightmare, only good for total geeks who consider the difficulty a challenge or something. But when you add up all the applications that don't run on Linux, and the fact that the infinite variety of versions means you usually can't find an answer to your problems because so few people have your same version and system configuration, and on and on, I think Linux is a freakin' waste for all but industry techs and hobbiest tecchies who love the challenge.
Sorry, that's my Linux rant. Yeah, I have it on one of my desktops in a virtual machine, just because, well, I don't know why. I never use it, a lot of my software doesn't run on Linux, or it's such a royal pain to install most software compared to just downloading and running an EXE on Windows. I mean, come on, you have to still use the command line to do a lot of stuff? It's like stepping back into the 80's.
I put it on a cheapo laptop with on 2GB of RAM, (which can't be upgraded) solely because it's so much more memory efficient than Windows. But heck, most of the apps I run nowadays eat up 2GB of RAM without blinking. So it's a waste.
Now, to get back to the VRAM issue, I might just look into how Linux handles VRAM on a GPU. I suppose I could move my GTX 1070 to my desktop with Linux in a virtual machine and see what happens....
Yeah, but if you look at some of the popular threads here, some of the discussions with 10k+ views that have been around for years, venture off into discussions of stuff that isn't related in the slightest to anything to do with DAZ or 3D or even this planet
HDMI displays can be plugged in at any time, like on a laptop, even though it's not something I personally would do. Thus, any GPU that has the ability have a monitor connected, in Microsoft's line of reasoning, should either reserve a percentage of VRAM for this if using WDDM v2 drivers,or use drivers specifically configured for GPU computing which won't do this automatically. The problem with this is that the latter option probably comes with a price tag attached, since those drivers probably don't exist for consumer level hardware like what we use.