Yea it's ur cpu, 2500MHz Athlon is like 2GHz Pentium d. 3870 is not enough too, but i didn't see improvements for me either, instead just worse (proven on post 15)

spearman914Yea it's ur cpu, 2500MHz Athlon is like 2GHz Pentium d. 3870 is not enough too, but i didn't see improvements for me either, instead just worse (proven on post 15)

Nah Athlon X2 @ 2.5 Ghz is like a E6300, which is like a Pentium D @ 3.4 Ghz :)

....according to Sandra at 2.75 GHz I score higher than an E6300 but less than the E6600.

spearman914Maybe i exaggerated a little, but the athlon x2's were meant to compete with the pentium d's stock vs stock.

lol, very true, the Pentiums Ds were the AMD Athlon X2's competition, although they didn't do a bad job against the low end Core 2s at stock speeds. :toast:

spearman914Yea it's ur cpu, 2500MHz Athlon is like 2GHz Pentium d.

Sorry, but this is not true. Pentium D, and the whole netburst architecture is shit compared to athlons.

ValdezSorry, but this is not true. Pentium D, and the whole netburst architecture is shit compared to athlons.

DarrenNah Athlon X2 @ 2.5 Ghz is like a E6300, which is like a Pentium D @ 3.4 Ghz :)

Maybe i exaggerated a little, but the athlon x2's were meant to compete with the pentium d's stock vs stock.

spearman914Maybe i exaggerated a little, but the athlon x2's were meant to compete with the pentium d's stock vs stock.

Heck no! Athlon X2's obliteraded Pentiums, hands down.

Maybe the improvements are isolated to 4800 series , i don't think ati bothers to improve perf. on 3000 series being an old generation , not nice from them but reading the forums on amd for some time and there is not much they do about older series.

k8=core1 @ same clocks, which is also a way better than netburst pentiums.

leonard_222003Maybe the improvements are isolated to 4800 series , i don't think ati bothers to improve perf. on 3000 series being an old generation , not nice from them but reading the forums on amd for some time and there is not much they do about older series.

Maybe you're right... but they have the same basics (r600), i'd expect some improvements too.

I must say this is a huge improvement over the latest drivers AMD has released, I'm hitting close to 17k using a 3870x2 gpu at lower cpu clocks than using any of the 8.** drivers. :toast:

so it won't do much for me with a 2600pro? shall i stay with 8.12?

I have a weird issue with 8.12, after shutting down one of the displays after running multiple monitors mode, running any video file would result in total system crash. Hopefully 9.1 rectifies this, let you know as soon I fire up my projector next time :)

edit:

with 9.1 no more hard crash in multiple display mode, happy camper here.

finally got my fix!!!!!!!!



<sigh> sad there's no joose to this release . . . but still got my fix . . .

BIG improvement......had tons of bugs/freezes/crashes with 8.12 and Fallout3....

With 9.1 Fallout 3 is running smooth....no crashes, no freezes - only enjoyment :)

Another bad release for me. I get the code 43 error on my 4850 in Vista x64. Had to roll back to 8.10 again.

I got big improvements in xp fear demo, mirrors edge, crysis, and gta are running better now. I didn't notice these improvements when I was using vista though.

Wile EAnother bad release for me. I get the code 43 error on my 4850 in Vista x64. Had to roll back to 8.10 again.

You have to run drivercleaner.net then go into the appdata hidden folder under your profile and delete out the ATI folders in the local and the roaming and then you should be able to install them..

truehighroller1You have to run drivercleaner.net then go into the appdata hidden folder under your profile and delete out the ATI folders in the local and the roaming and then you should be able to install them..

I did run drivercleaner, but didn't look for the ATI folders in appdata. I'll try that this weekend when I get a little time.

For VISTA users , here is the best tweak to get the most perf. from your system :
1. remove windows vista from your computer
2. install windows XP
3. play games with no crashes and absolute better perf. than vista or windows 7.
Even the most optimized games ever created on PC still run worse on vista , i play TF2 a lot and once i played in vista and my god , i had big slowdowns wich never happen in windows XP and this is a game with mediocre graphics and tweaked to death by valve , get's a lot of patches.
Bottom line if you game using vista is like saying i have linux on my computer and want to play games , not really like that but there is no comparison bettwen vista and XP , it's just a very bad OS for games.

Wile EI did run drivercleaner, but didn't look for the ATI folders in appdata. I'll try that this weekend when I get a little time.

All i do is in add remove program's is select the ATI unistall tool for removal and select remove all ati software than reboot... than i use cc cleaner (registry tab) ( obsolete software ) and click on all Ati that it brings up for removal... i than install the new driver and after the reboot i pop in the mobo driver disk and install the chipset driver and never had a problem sense doing it this way.. i never had good luck running driver cleaner and ended up with more problems, so this i find works the best for me. ;)

leonard_222003For VISTA users , here is the best tweak to get the most perf. from your system :
1. remove windows vista from your computer
2. install windows XP
3. play games with no crashes and absolute better perf. than vista or windows 7.
Even the most optimized games ever created on PC still run worse on vista , i play TF2 a lot and once i played in vista and my god , i had big slowdowns wich never happen in windows XP and this is a game with mediocre graphics and tweaked to death by valve , get's a lot of patches.
Bottom line if you game using vista is like saying i have linux on my computer and want to play games , not really like that but there is no comparison bettwen vista and XP , it's just a very bad OS for games.

im using Vista and dont have any problems playing any game, even on high settings... mabey other rigs you tried running vista were lacking the horse power?

fullinfusionim using Vista and dont have any problems playing any game, even on high settings... mabey other rigs you tried running vista were lacking the horse power?

I didn't said games won't run acceptable , just windows XP will give better perf. with fewer driver problems , people with quad cores and 4870x2 will run evrything good on vista , but , vista could give them 100 fps and XP could give them 120 or 200 in case drivers are bad for vista ( like they always are ).
They won't see a diference but for me with just a single gpu card and a low end overcloked cpu i can see the drop in perf. and my game quality decreases because of slower perf..
Why suffer of driver problems just for a nicer interface.

leonard_222003I didn't said games won't run acceptable , just windows XP will give better perf. with fewer driver problems , people with quad cores and 4870x2 will run evrything good on vista , but , vista could give them 100 fps and XP could give them 120 or 200 in case drivers are bad for vista ( like they always are ).
They won't see a diference but for me with just a single gpu card and a low end overcloked cpu i can see the drop in perf. and my game quality decreases because of slower perf..
Why suffer of driver problems just for a nicer interface.

yeah i hear what your saying :toast:

After trying these out, I am going back to 8.12. Sorry ATi, you didn't get it right this time.

8.12 w/hotfix performed a bit better for me .....The 9.1's I had issues with GTA IV not rendering faces and messing with the voices not being rendered in the game:confused:.....My 3Dm06 and 05 scores were lower too...went back to the 8.12 w/hotfix and everything works very well Crysis working very well GTA IV working darn good ...I should try the 9.1's for the 4850X2 as the 8.12 w/hotfix was originally for the 4850X2 ,so maybe just maybe the 9.1's for 4850X2 have the same multi core fix in them>?<

leonard_222003I didn't said games won't run acceptable , just windows XP will give better perf. with fewer driver problems , people with quad cores and 4870x2 will run evrything good on vista , but , vista could give them 100 fps and XP could give them 120 or 200 in case drivers are bad for vista ( like they always are ).
They won't see a diference but for me with just a single gpu card and a low end overcloked cpu i can see the drop in perf. and my game quality decreases because of slower perf..
Why suffer of driver problems just for a nicer interface.

You heard what he's saying? 'Cause I'm not.

First he's talking about fps in excess of 60. So, that's a moot point, and entirely irrelevent.
Second, in a 3d application where you are reaching a steady 60 frames per second, your only concern then is minimum frame rate management. The two major factors in such, are anti-aliasing, and high res texture/data/content over harddisk access. The latter you can't do too much about, beyond a file placement defragementation (or a solid state disk!); the former however, can be changed whether from within the 3d application or at a driver level. The thing is that noone wants to have to cut visuals for performance, agreed? In XP, the cost of using anti-aliasing, can be almost twenty percent more for some programs, and ten percent for most than when in Vista.

Age of Conan = Faster in Vista
Crysis Warhead = Faster in Vista
Fallout 3 = Faster in Vista
Far Cry 2 = Faster in Vista
Lord of the Rings Online = Faster in Vista
Mass Effect = Faster in Vista

Shall I go on?

That is of course, if you're running 4x AA or higher, and have everything at or near it's maximum display output.

If you don't, then I can only assume you do not have the capable hardware, and if that's the case, then why are you trying to game on Vista? Oh, you aren't, you're on XP, because you HAVE to be, which means your experience with Vista, isn't as good as XP, and therefore, (logic forgive us!) XP is better.

Oh the irony...


As for crashes...find me a 3d application that specifically fails because of the operating system in use, rather than a bad bit of coding in the program itself. If Fallout 3 crashes in Vista, it's most likely Fallout's problem, not Vista's.


On topic. 9.1 is give or take for me.