Who makes the best graphics drivers?

[Aquinus]

i thought it was Darwin

Darwin is built around XNU, a hybrid kernel that combines the Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of BSD (including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system),[5] and an object-oriented device driver API called I/O Kit.[6] The hybrid kernel design compromises between the flexibility of a microkernel and the performance of a monolithic kernel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#Kernel

and...

Originally developed by NeXT for the NeXTSTEP operating system, XNU was a hybrid kernel combining version 2.5 of the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with components from 4.3BSD and an object-oriented API for writing drivers called Driver Kit.

After Apple acquired NeXT, the Mach component was upgraded to 3.0, the BSD components were upgraded with code from the FreeBSD project and the Driver Kit was replaced with a C++ API for writing drivers called I/O Kit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

 

[eidairaman1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#Kernel

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

Ya its a Hybrid basically

 

[babdi]

NV ofcourse. They are prompt in driver rollout. Anyone wanna bet

 

[librin.so.1]

NV ofcourse. They are prompt in driver rollout. Anyone wanna bet

On promptnes? They sure do! You would win such a bet easily.
On "goodness" of their drivers? 'less both AMD and Nvidia release their proprietary drivers as FOSS and then if a team of unbiased experts would analyze the source code and come to a conclusion which one is better... Well, unless that happens there wouldn't be a winner of such bet, as "a personal opinion" on what is basically closed black boxes wouldn't be enough to warrant winning/losing such a bet.

 

[TheMailMan78]

On promptnes? They sure do! You would win such a bet easily.
On "goodness" of their drivers? 'less both AMD and Nvidia release their proprietary drivers as FOSS and then if a team of unbiased experts would analyze the source code and come to a conclusion which one is better... Well, unless that happens there wouldn't be a winner of such bet, as "a personal opinion" on what is basically closed black boxes wouldn't be enough to warrant winning/losing such a bet.

There are such reviews.....you just haven't talked to the right people.

 

[Wozzer]

Had three nvidias and never had a problem. Changed to ATI last year and have had numerous faults with the drivers.

 

[babdi]

IMO AMD in general has support issues. Many people here, a sizable lot use NV
Have a look at the poll at the top

 

[wiak]

regardless of who you ask, your question is invalid, w1zz
nobody makes the best driver, thats basicly it

 

[babdi]

The question "Who makes the best card/drivers' is fairly vague and generalized

Best in relation to what, the competitor, Agreed norms. What are the norms ?
Norms would be
1) Clock Speed
2) Number of cores
3) TDP
4) Heat generation
5) Overclocking ability
6) Cost
7) Size
8) End use

These can never be a constant except maybe the size. With so many variables it is difficult to zero in on the best.All cards good. What do YOU want it for. What is your SWOT analysis.
If a card meets your needs then it is the BEST FOR YOU.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

I used 6600GT SLI, 8800GT SLI, a 4870x2 and now GTX 670 SLI. I've been using dual GPU setup since 2004 (when I was 14). Once I figured out the tricks , I never had any major driver issues. Always uninstall the previous driver and clean the registry before installing a new driver. And stick to a stable driver unless the latest version brings new features or noticeable performance increases. It is not rocket science.

 

[Mussels]

(steam hardware survey)


the numbers match our survey here, in general (considering there are less options).


so really, what we've got is a vote for 'which company do you use'

 

[THE_EGG]

http://img.techpowerup.org/120828/Capture109.jpg


(steam hardware survey)


the numbers match our survey here, in general (considering there are less options).


so really, what we've got is a vote for 'which company do you use'

Indeed, that's what I thought of when I saw this poll.

Although, it does make sense because I doubt that many people, if any, would be using a card from a company they didn't like.

 

[eidairaman1]

Indeed, that's what I thought of when I saw this poll.

Although, it does make sense because I doubt that many people, if any, would be using a card from a company they didn't like.

bout time anyone made sense around here

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

AMD made it to 40%? Must be some people who quit nvidia at vista's launch. I wonder how the poll would change if it was confined to "atm"

 

[Am*]

I would like to know the reasoning of the 167 nutters or trolls that voted Intel as the best -- which can't do shit in the drivers besides change the resolution. Have they ever even used Intel's shitty drivers for anything besides Farmville or something? Why the hell are Intel even mentioned? I actually use their garbage graphics on XP at the moment, and Intel still won't support basic hardware acceleration for videos as they haven't even released working drivers for ANY of their current Cedar Trail/Cedar View Atoms for ANY OS other than W7 32bit (no 64bit W7 or ANY XP version support) and in case you're wondering which Atoms I'm talking about - they're named with 5 characters, i.e. D2500 or N2800 and there's a crap tonne of them still on the market -- and yet they're wondering why nobody wants to buy their Atoms/netbooks nowadays.

The actual platform is fine -- if only the imbeciles in their driver department would pull the fingers out of their asses and made working drivers for 64bit W7 and XP, they wouldn't have any trouble selling their Atoms. Instead the geniuses at Intel are chasing AMD for integrated 3D gaming performance...because people REALLY want to play Crysis at low in single digit framerates on Intel's turdy hardware and their even shittier drivers...

For AMD or Nvidia this is a non-issue. Any movie format on any OS will work and work WELL.

I think the poll needs to be changed from "who makes the best" drivers to "who makes the worst", because the former will attract nothing but fanboys while the latter will actually make people think before they answer and bring up real issues that need sorting instead of just going "hurr durr, my GPU is teh BEST". If you decide to change it later, Intel make the worst drivers by far -- AMD and Nvidia have been pretty even these past few years for drivers, in my experience, so I won't choose between them.

 

[Jetster]

Your being a little hard on Intel drivers. They have come along way

 

[radrok]

AMD made it to 40%? Must be some people who quit nvidia at vista's launch. I wonder how the poll would change if it was confined to "atm"

Do you really believe AMD is so behind Nvidia driver wise?

I think that they are pretty even now, so the numbers are good to me.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I would like to know the reasoning of the 167 nutters or trolls that voted Intel as the best -- which can't do shit in the drivers besides change the resolution. Have they ever even used Intel's shitty drivers for anything besides Farmville or something? Why the hell are Intel even mentioned? I actually use their garbage graphics on XP at the moment, and Intel still won't support basic hardware acceleration for videos as they haven't even released working drivers for ANY of their current Cedar Trail/Cedar View Atoms for ANY OS other than W7 32bit (no 64bit W7 or ANY XP version support) and in case you're wondering which Atoms I'm talking about - they're named with 5 characters, i.e. D2500 or N2800 and there's a crap tonne of them still on the market -- and yet they're wondering why nobody wants to buy their Atoms/netbooks nowadays.

The actual platform is fine -- if only the imbeciles in their driver department would pull the fingers out of their asses and made working drivers for 64bit W7 and XP, they wouldn't have any trouble selling their Atoms. Instead the geniuses at Intel are chasing AMD for integrated 3D gaming performance...because people REALLY want to play Crysis at low in single digit framerates on Intel's turdy hardware and their even shittier drivers...

For AMD or Nvidia this is a non-issue. Any movie format on any OS will work and work WELL.

I think the poll needs to be changed from "who makes the best" drivers to "who makes the worst", because the former will attract nothing but fanboys while the latter will actually make people think before they answer and bring up real issues that need sorting instead of just going "hurr durr, my GPU is teh BEST". If you decide to change it later, Intel make the worst drivers by far -- AMD and Nvidia have been pretty even these past few years for drivers, in my experience, so I won't choose between them.

I'm not sure you know the difference between hardware and software. Intel drivers work fine.

 

[THE_EGG]

I'm not sure you know the difference between hardware and software. Intel drivers work fine.

Indeed, I've never had any issues with my x201 tabby relating to poor drivers, except on win8 preview but that is to be expected because it was only preview software.

In fact, I can't even remember the last time I had any issues with intel graphics drivers before that.

 

[Am*]

I'm not sure you know the difference between hardware and software. Intel drivers work fine.

For what exactly? You're the one clueless in understanding the difference between hardware and software, driver support and non-existant support. Let me explain it again, so that you any more smart asses like yourself, that want to correct me in the future, can understand:

Go buy a nettop with a D2500/2600/2700 in it.
Play a 720p/1080p mkv/Youtube video in Windows 7 32bit. Enjoy the smooth playback.
Install XP or Windows 7 64bit or for that matter, ANY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM.
Look for GPU drivers and realise there aren't any.
Play the same 1080p mkv and enjoy the slideshow.

Hardware accelerated video playback NEEDS GPU drivers that support this. If you're so ignorant that you don't understand that the GMA 3600/3650 GPUs built into these processors, fully support hardware accelerated video playback, and that it needs driver support to work, then you really shouldn't be posting on a tech forum.

In fact, to make it even MORE clearer to you, here's the info straight from Intel's website and their XP graphics drivers (they don't even have any W7 64bit drivers):

Installs the video graphics driver version 1.12 for Intel® Desktop Boards with the Intel® Atom™ Processor N2000 and D2000 Series. This driver release has no hardware acceleration for 2D, 3D, or video.

These drivers apply to every Atom nettop, tablet and netbook launched in the past 10 months. Now show me the last GPU from Nvidia or AMD in the past 4 years that didn't support basic hardware acceleration in the drivers out of the box across XP, Vista AND Windows 7.

Get it now, or do you want me to explain it to you yet again?

 

[eidairaman1]

no reason to fight here

 

[TheMailMan78]

For what exactly? You're the one clueless in understanding the difference between hardware and software, driver support and non-existant support. Let me explain it again, so that you any more smart asses like yourself, that want to correct me in the future, can understand:

Go buy a nettop with a D2500/2600/2700 in it.
Play a 720p/1080p mkv/Youtube video in Windows 7 32bit. Enjoy the smooth playback.
Install XP or Windows 7 64bit or for that matter, ANY OTHER OPERATING SYSTEM.
Look for GPU drivers and realise there aren't any.
Play the same 1080p mkv and enjoy the slideshow.

Hardware accelerated video playback NEEDS GPU drivers that support this. If you're so ignorant that you don't understand that the GMA 3600/3650 GPUs built into these processors, fully support hardware accelerated video playback, and that it needs driver support to work, then you really shouldn't be posting on a tech forum.

In fact, to make it even MORE clearer to you, here's the info straight from Intel's website and their XP graphics drivers (they don't even have any W7 64bit drivers):



These drivers apply to every Atom nettop, tablet and netbook launched in the past 10 months. Now show me the last GPU from Nvidia or AMD in the past 4 years that didn't support basic hardware acceleration in the drivers out of the box across XP, Vista AND Windows 7.

Get it now, or do you want me to explain it to you yet again?

Awesome you bought a Atom to stream HD videos. Cool story bro.

Nice to see people who read reviews and understand the purpose of hardware and how it relates to performance.

 

[Am*]

Awesome you bought a Atom to stream HD videos. Cool story bro.

Nice to see people who read reviews and understand the purpose of hardware and how it relates to performance.

I actually bought it as a file server, as well as for music listening and web browsing. Nice fail yet again, "bro".

Nice to see you revert to trolling with my choice of hardware instead of realising and accepting you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I actually bought it as a file server, as well as for music listening and web browsing. Nice fail yet again, "bro".

Nice to see you revert to trolling with my choice of hardware instead of realising and accepting you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So you bought an atom based system to use as a file server? Nice.......

Trolling? I'm not the one raging about installing a 64-bit OS on an Atom based system to use as a file server then bitch about video playback on it? Yeah man, I ain't the troll here. You are either trolling or don't know WTF you are doing.

 

[eidairaman1]

traditional servers use bare minimum video cards