AMD Releases ATI Catalyst 9.1 Driver Suite

[newconroer]

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.

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.

 

[Xiphos]

I cannot get Avivo to work

I switched to basic mode but the option didn't show up

 

[DRDNA]

I cannot get Avivo to work

I switched to basic mode but the option didn't show up

They havnt realeased it yet ....ATI will be releasing one though .

 

[Xiphos]

They havnt realeased it yet ....ATI will be releasing one though .

oh........ I see

damn AMD for misleading me
http://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&questionID=21793

 

[DRDNA]

oh........ I see

damn AMD for misleading me
http://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&questionID=21793

http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx?p=vista64/common-vista64

 

[JrRacinFan]

http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx?p=vista64/common-vista64


View attachment 22499

Oooh! Does this mean with the new drivers they are enabling AMD Stream with HD4's/3's and 2's?!

 

[DRDNA]

Oooh! Does this mean with the new drivers they are enabling AMD Stream with HD4's/3's and 2's?!

Well that is what I am assuming ..as just a week or so ago that very same spot said only supported by X1000 series....I was like no way! Then I heard in developemnt and was okay I guess ...now a round 9.1 release I saw what I posted above ...SO hmm we will see.
EDit:It was a veryy strong aspect of these cards for me ...I remember my X1800XTX and my X1950XTX use to encode very very fast ..Nice when I was on Socket 954 cuz my CPU then hated to do it them selves.
__________________

 

[leonard_222003]

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.

This is hillarious , you say crysis warhead , lords of the rings , mass effect are faster in windows vista ? OMG on what planet did you lived until now.
I can't comment on the other games because i haven't played them to know but the games i mentioned they will never ever run better on vista than on XP.
There are tons of reviews on the Internet with tests in windows XP and windows Vista , all the time XP it's faster , except far cry 2 which i don't know at what stage it is now with the driver updates.
It doesn't matter if it's the OS fault for crashing or the game/drivers , i can admit it's always the drivers/games , but , what should i do ? suffer with windows vista until developers decide to actually improve things for us ? or stay in windows XP and game well and free of problems ( not entirely but better than vista ).
Your logic is based on false things , why would the AA have a perf. hit of 20% in XP and 10 % in vista ? can you explain in better terms or you can only say because it uses DX10 and that's why , because Nvidia and ati told you ?
It only remains for me to completely embarrass you with reviews from reputable sites showing the difference between XP and vista , do you want that ?
You should see how i game in DOS , i play crysis at full HD with 16xAA and have 200 fps , i can't show you prrof because i don't have fraps there but you can take my word for it , i'm honest .DOS is the best , i have installed just the core stuff , no nice interface to consume my memory or CPU time , i go trough opengl , fastest 3d platfrom on teh planet , your windows sucks man , you should install DOS .
Bottom line shows us the proof , talk is cheap , explaining me how you think vista is faster in a manner you think it's intelligent can make some people here laugh so hard they fell of the chair ( like me ) or piss their pants for christ sake , do you want to have that on your conscience.

 

[Darren]

I'm not going to debate which OS is better as that is personal choice, overall most would say Vista for obvious reasons.

I must admit, although in general usage and multi-tasking Vista is faster, feels faster, with 4GBs of ram or more.

However, in games, Vista is bound to decrease frame rates in comparison to XP due to the extra memory hog which it uses for its themes, interface and multitude of unnecessary start up processes and useless applications and services.

Frame rate wise, on today's CPUs Vista wouldn't necessarily hurt performance, you may loose 1-5 frames per second, but who cares. But I would agree that Vista wouldn't increase performance but wouldn't hurt it enough to make it an issue.

Side note (Vista is getting priority for driver support from GPU/motherboard/soundcard manufacturers, so obviously Vista has a huge advantage on that front)

Edit:

Eventually we all have to move on, XP has had a good run, soon we have to shut that chapter. Its been almost a decade.

 

[leonard_222003]

That's why i have windows XP on one HDD and windows Vista on the other HDD , if i want to multitask in a nicer environment i go to vista , if i want to game i switch to XP.
Having them both for some time on my mediocre hardware i can see a big difference in perf. between them , people who argue here with no actual experience makes me laugh.
Vista is a power hog even on graphics cards , that aero interface eats up some perf. for some unknown reason of mine and on low end / mediocre hardware the perf. impact is kind of big , you Darren with the system you display you are better of with XP , wayyyy better if you play newer games and want good details.
I tried a lot of games in vista hoping for better perf. or at least the same perf. ( gta4 , crysis series , fallout 3 , TF2 ...etc. ) and all of them worked much better in XP , i didn't had crashing problems , just slower perf. wich bothered me
Maybe if i had a 4870x2 i wouldn't see a difference , but this doesn't mean a better hardware is absolved of having to work just the same and loosing that little perf. just as much as i did.

 

[Darren]

people who argue here with no actual experience makes me laugh.

I've been using XP for about 7 years, I only made the change to Vista Ultimate x64 about four months ago. Overall performance is better on Vista as far as multitasking etc. Gaming performance is identical on both operating systems in my person experience, I've measured it.

Vista is a power hog even on graphics cards , that aero interface eats up some perf. for some unknown reason of mine and on low end / mediocre hardware the perf. impact is kind of big , you Darren with the system you display you are better of with XP , wayyyy better if you play newer games and want good details.

I'm not saying your wrong because vista is a memory hog, it can use up to 2 GBs at desktop upon booting up, this isn't a problem though as I've got 8 GBs of ram. Loading in games especially in Command and Conquers 3 is much faster in Vista, perhaps because Vista allows for super fech to remember your applications and cache the data for quick access?

I tried a lot of games in vista hoping for better perf. or at least the same perf. ( gta4 , crysis series , fallout 3 , TF2 ...etc. ) and all of them worked much better in XP , i didn't had crashing problems , just slower perf. wich bothered me .

Perhaps, I cant dispute this as its your personal findings

But whether you get 80 FPS in XP or 75 FPS in Vista who cares? is 5 FPS really noticeable? its a mundane reason to dismiss Vista considering that away from gaming it has enough features, services, interface and navigational differences to justify the superficial loss of FPS.

Maybe if i had a 4870x2 i wouldn't see a difference , but this doesn't mean a better hardware is absolved of having to work just the same and loosing that little perf. just as much as i did.

Doubt it, GPU has little to no baring on Vistas performance, I would recommend 4 GBs of ram to game on vista, once you have 4 GBs+ you can immediately tell that Vista is faster overall. If you have less 2 GBs than you shouldn't be running Vista anyways let alone today's games.

 

[Wile E]

leonard, you are completely wrong. There is no difference in gaming between Vista and XP. Even with my X1800XT. I play all games in Vista at the same exact settings that I do in XP, with no noticeable performance difference, at all. All those test you see where XP beats Vista in everything are old reviews. There are only a few games that run better in XP now, and those are only because of bugs/glitches. Show me a review from the past 2 months that says XP is a lot better than Vista in gaming. Furthermore, there is no DX10 in XP.

Aero does not effect game performance AT ALL.

You are just acting like another Vista basher. Bashing Vista without having all the facts.

 

[leonard_222003]

I can't find you a review 2 months old , i told you , except far cry 2 i don't think there is another game that run better on vista.
The only website i know tests with XP too but in only 2 games is tweaktown , and those 2 games are fra cry 2 and stalker clear sky , stalker always put up better numbers in XP despite ATI having some dx10.1 tewak for better perf. and far cry 2 is a bit faster in vista but with much much lower minimum framerate than XP.
Tell me this Wile E , does crysis or crysis warhead perform better in vista than XP ? it's easy to give an answer to this because we have a tool for testing this games.
I know XP is better because there is a thread full of people testing this game ( not here , on another forum where i'm active ).

 

[Darren]

I can't find you a review 2 months old , i told you , except far cry 2 i don't think there is another game that run better on vista

But we are not saying that "games run better on Vista", we are merely saying that performance on XP and Vista is the same.

The only website i know tests with XP too but in only 2 games is tweaktown , and those 2 games are fra cry 2 and stalker clear sky , stalker always put up better numbers in XP despite ATI having some dx10.1 tewak for better perf. and far cry 2 is a bit faster in vista but with much much lower minimum framerate than XP.

Well that is understandable, because XP uses direct X 9.0 so the frame rate is higher because less features are being applied. Obviously DX 10 in Vista is adding additional detail and shader models and hence reducing the frame rate. DX 10 is a visual improvement not a performance one! But in Vista its optional you can turn it off and use DX 9.0 too

 

[leonard_222003]

Tell it to people who don't know how to tunr the computer on , except for some games that broke a deal with microsoft the rest look the same.
Far cry 2 looks the same on both OS's , stalker clear sky look the same on both OS's ( not sure about stalker but i didn't find a setting exclusive for vista when i played it and nighter do i know of anything special ).
Eighter way it doesn't matter , on twektown they used the same setiings for both OS's.
BTW , how is it with that question of mine , the game with the best graphics to date , crysis warhead , on wich OS runs better ? vista or xp ? enthusiast settings can be enabled on both OS's so no discrimination here .

 

[Darren]

Tell it to people who don't know how to tunr the computer on

If you don't have the basic knowledge to "turn the computer on" then you have no business running today's games.

Far cry 2 looks the same on both OS's , stalker clear sky look the same on both OS's ( not sure about stalker but i didn't find a setting exclusive for vista when i played it and nighter do i know of anything special ).

Whether there is a noticeable visual difference is debatable, but there is a difference between Vista in DX 10.0 and DX 9.0, the differences in code exist regardless of whether you see it

Eighter way it doesn't matter , on twektown they used the same setiings for both OS's.
BTW , how is it with that question of mine , the game with the best graphics to date , crysis warhead , on wich OS runs better ? vista or xp ? enthusiast settings can be enabled on both OS's so no discrimination here .

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not disputing your reviews or saying that Vista runs better in games. I'm saying that in most reviews DX 10 enabled in vista will reduce performance because of the extra detail and shaders, whether you see these details visually isn't the point, the code has changed and the details and shaders are being applied and hence it reduces the performance as the GPU and CPU is forced to work harder.

One can run Vista in DX 9.0 mode and enjoy the mundane differences that XP enjoys

BTW, what is your system specification, can you please fill it out in the appropriate place. "Private messages", "Edit system specs"

 

[Flyordie]

.... DX9 had a good run leonard, let it be. Crysis Warhead runs 20% faster in DX10 mode than it does in DX9.
Edit-
To add some more games...
Look at Assassins Creed and compare the 3 versions...
DX9, DX10, DX10.1

 

[leonard_222003]

.... DX9 had a good run leonard, let it be. Crysis Warhead runs 20% faster in DX10 mode than it does in DX9.

Oh yeah , this proves my point of oblivious people brainwashed by TV/adds/propaganda.
When you enconuter people who say crysis warhead runs 20% better in dx10 (or another wrong fact from other areas ) you can do only one thing , ingore them or admit they are right so they let you move on.
In my case ignore.
Bye bye this thread and have a nice life all of you.

 

[Darren]

Oh yeah , this proves my point of oblivious people brainwashed by TV/adds/propaganda.
When you enconuter people who say crysis warhead runs 20% better in dx10 (or another wrong fact from other areas ) you can do only one thing , ingore them or admit they are right so they let you move on.
In my case ignore.
Bye bye this thread and have a nice life all of you.

I agree with you, I haven't seen any evidence that Crysis runs 20% better. But I've already explained and justified why Vista sometimes runs worst under DX 10 in comparison to DX 9.0 in XP. (but overall performance is identical)

But the fact that you ignored my lengthy post which was directed at you just to nitpick at "Flyordie" shows that you have realised I was correct and you wanted an escape goat to leave the thread.

 

[leonard_222003]

I'm sorry darren , I'll reaply now , I've updated my specs too , just for you.
About what you say of differences between them in graphics or code , for me as a casual gamer it doesn't mean a thing , all i want is best graphics and best perf. , if this not happens I'll say it's bad optimizations.
The difference in code is there because they run on different paths ( dx9 and 10 ) but still , i don't care , so does ATI and Nvidia have different arhitectures and different drivers , when we look at them we don't consider who works more , we only consider speed and quality.
Why we would compare this 2 differently and say vista is forgivable because it has to work more and XP doesn't , if the graphics are the same then i can't forgive vista for anything.
Like i said there are exceptions , COH , lost planet , COJ , first crysis ....etc. , some games that broke a deal with microsoft in the campaign how to fool people buy the new OS which is crap in games , they didn't convinced people so the next game from crytek , crysis warhead , included even in XP all effects ( much because people already modified first crysis to have the exclusive vista effects on XP and it was hard to explain why they hold back) , then we saw the real deal , same graphics but better perf. on windows XP and the myth of only DX10 can do those pretty graphics destroyed completely.

 

[Darren]

Why we would compare this 2 differently and say vista is forgivable because it has to work more and XP doesn't , if the graphics are the same then i can't forgive vista for anything.

But that is the thing, you say "if the graphics are the same then i can't forgive vista for anything." But the graphics are not the same.

Direct x 9.0

Direct x 10

Direct x 9.0

Direct x 10

I'm not disputing which version looks more appealing as that is a personal choice. But it is clear that the two pictures of identical scenes are not the same.

You can't expect additional in game detail with the acquired shader model 4.0 without a slight performance hit. To ask for more detail and more frame rate simultaneously isn't reasonable.

some games that broke a deal with microsoft in the campaign how to fool people buy the new OS which is crap in games , they didn't convinced people so the next game from crytek , crysis warhead , included even in XP all effects ( much because people already modified first crysis to have the exclusive vista effects on XP and it was hard to explain why they hold back) , then we saw the real deal , same graphics but better perf. on windows XP and the myth of only DX10 can do those pretty graphics destroyed completely.

I agree, we all know Microsoft do secret deals to fool people. But anyone that buys Vista just for Direct X 10 alone is stupid. Most sensible people bought it for the increased security, navigational interface, enhanced driver support, stability etc. Direct X 10 is just a bonus, and like I said previously its 100% up to the user whether they enable DX 10.

Edit:

I run Vista and play Assasins Creed, full visual settings, 1440x900, 4x AA. I use DX 9.0 because I get better stability and frame rate. But its optional and my choice, I could easily run the DX10 executable file and loose about 5-10 FPS at the expense of better visuals - everyones priorities is different, some people want slighly better FPS, some want visual quality, some want a balance of both. Vista gives that choice, who are you or anyone else to take the choice away.

 

[leonard_222003]

Those things like increased security , stability ...etc. it's the same bullshit like better graphics.
They even said windows vista starts faster than windows XP , so you get my point of how much they lie.
Those pictures are from the time windows vista wasn't even launched and they need it to build hype around the new windows , incredible graphics but they never materialezed in an actual game , they just remained some pretty pictures , take them as the slides Nvidia and ATI present to showcase how good they are and we laugh how staged everything looks.
I only recognized one game from those pictures
Flight simulator X as it really looks
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/image_viewer/frame_lead.php?pid=931252&img=1&popup=1
Nice eh , what a shock , you would expect the same graphics in that picture but the actual game looks like the crappiest simulator ever created.
This arguing is getting to time consuming for me , i think i replyed enough Darren , i answered your post and i'll let it be how you want it to be , vista or XP , you choose and that is the best for whatever reason you consider best.
edit
Another thing you might have lost , the picture with flight simulator x showcasing DX10 is named "DX10's artists concept image" , this means is not real from actual game.

 

[Darren]

Those things like increased security , stability ...etc. it's the same bullshit like better graphics.

Whether you feel those features are bullshit or not, they are the reasons why people bought Vista, in addition to DX 10. We can argue to the cows come home a about how Vistas features are marketing hype and you would be right, but regardless these new features exist, how effective they are is debatable.

They even said windows vista starts faster than windows XP , so you get my point of how much they lie.

Yep they do lie indeed. Apparently they justified it by saying boot is slow because of the increase of Vista's default service applications in addition to it retrieving the cached applications from the hard disk to be transferred into the Ram. I think its an excuse for sloppy coding, but regardless this feature of cached frequently used applications being moved from disk to ram on boot is useful to some people. (not to me)

Those pictures are from the time windows vista wasn't even launched and they need it to build hype around the new windows , incredible graphics but they never materialised in an actual game , they just remained some pretty pictures , take them as the slides Nvidia and ATI present to showcase how good they are and we laugh how staged everything looks.
I only recognized one game from those pictures
Flight simulator X as it really looks
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/image_viewer/frame_lead.php?pid=931252&img=1&popup=1
Nice eh , what a shock , you would expect the same graphics in that picture but the actual game looks like the crappiest simulator ever created.
This arguing is getting to time consuming for me , i think i replyed enough Darren , i answered your post and i'll let it be how you want it to be , vista or XP , you choose and that is the best for whatever reason you consider best.

It was random pictures, obviously those pictures might have been touched up a little, they are selling a game, its just marketing, I was just demonstrating that there is slight subtle changes, not the magnitude to which they were also touched up or manipulated using Photoshop by their marketing teams. Go in any forum, even TPU there are plenty of threads where people have posted their own side by side comparison of shader model 4.0 with DX 10 vs. DX 9.0. The difference is small but they do exist. Normally I wouldn't mind digging around forums or the internet to show you side by side comparisons from actual people but you've already expressed that you have a narrow view which not to reply I'm not going to dedicate any time to do dedicated searches for results you won't respond to.

I don't want you leaving with the wrong impression. I'm actually on your side to a certain extent. I agree DX10 is marketing hype to sell a operating system and to sell GPUs. But there is subtle differences in visuals which some people (not me) would pay extra for the latest GPU and OS to see. These people are crazy enthusiasts but its their right to do so without prejudice. Even if there is not a visual difference, there is a difference in code, if there was not a difference in code performance would be the same whether shader 4.0 is enabled or disabled, but it isn't. But overall away from Microsoft's hype, Vista is a better operating system, a few gaming disputes can not take this fact away from Vista.

Edit:

Although I use Vista I play my games under DX 9.0, it defeats to purpose having an XP operating system to run DX 9.0 when I can DX 9.0 under Vista and enjoy Vistas other enhancements away from gaming in addition.

 

[Wile E]

Those things like increased security , stability ...etc. it's the same bullshit like better graphics.
They even said windows vista starts faster than windows XP , so you get my point of how much they lie.
Those pictures are from the time windows vista wasn't even launched and they need it to build hype around the new windows , incredible graphics but they never materialezed in an actual game , they just remained some pretty pictures , take them as the slides Nvidia and ATI present to showcase how good they are and we laugh how staged everything looks.
I only recognized one game from those pictures
Flight simulator X as it really looks
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/image_viewer/frame_lead.php?pid=931252&img=1&popup=1
Nice eh , what a shock , you would expect the same graphics in that picture but the actual game looks like the crappiest simulator ever created.
This arguing is getting to time consuming for me , i think i replyed enough Darren , i answered your post and i'll let it be how you want it to be , vista or XP , you choose and that is the best for whatever reason you consider best.

It is a FACT that Vista is more secure than XP. There is no debating about it AT ALL. It has less security holes than XP, UAC which prevents most malicious code from gaining user privileges, a better firewall, address space layout randomization, etc., etc.

Vista does boot faster on my machine than XP. But that comes down to an individual's setup. Some setups do boot slower to Vista. I know my old one did.

Games like Crysis do look better in DX10 than they do in DX9. And if you put it in DX10, it does lose some performance to XP because XP plays it in DX9, but if you play it in DX9 in Vista, the performance is almost exactly the same in both Vista and XP. Like I said, I play ALL games at the same exact settings in both Vista and XP with no performance difference. There hasn't been a noticeable performance difference in months. There was only a difference in the early months of Vista, and those differences have been attributed to under-optimized gfx drivers.

The fact remains that you have not proven any point whatsoever, except that you are ignorant towards the facts surrounding Vista. You are bashing Vista based on information that is no longer relevant.

 

[btarunr]

Although a discussion about Windows versions sounds interesting, and the arguments are clean, that's not the topic at hand, let's all try to get back to it.