KeeperOfThePizza Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Just wondering if there is any real performance change? I have a mobile Intel GMA 4500M it does support WDDM 1.1 just wondering if there are any advantages over using 1.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Just wondering if there is any real performance change? I have a mobile Intel GMA 4500M it does support WDDM 1.1 just wondering if there are any advantages over using 1.0 Better memory management with DWM, so yeah, there is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperOfThePizza Posted June 20, 2009 Author Share Posted June 20, 2009 Better memory management with DWM, so yeah, there is a difference. Does it use graphic memory or System memory? or is it combined, would you recommend it for a mobile card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Here you have a really detailed description of the benefits: Windows 7 Graphics Performance And if you're interrested in that topics (improvements in Windows 7), you may check this blog of the Microsoft team every now and then: Microsoft Windows 7 Team Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis Mazza Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Dunno if it's Windows 7 as a whole or the 1.1 drivers, but if you leave a Direct X game to Windows while keeping it open, the OS does a much better job at handling the transition back and forth. But this is only the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Does it use graphic memory or System memory? or is it combined, would you recommend it for a mobile card? 1.0 uses both, 1.1 uses only graphics memory. The latter uses less RAM (as much as 10MB for a full screen window on a modern display), but is substantially slower for operations that involve reading back data since it has to now copy it from graphics to system memory on demand (which doesn't happen that much, but shows that it's a compromise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jygoro Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 You can read this: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/05/07/wi...-big-trade-off/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjrambo Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 You can read this:http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/05/07/wi...-big-trade-off/ I still believe that XP solution was the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ci7 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I still believe that XP solution was the best. XP= DEAD get over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imran Hussain Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 WDDM 1.1 offers DirectWrite, Direct2D and many other such features that WDDM 1.0 doesn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 The XP "solution" was simply too dated and couldn't be kept anymore. That's life. It's not coming back. Also, DirectWrite and Direct2D will be available on Vista/1.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts