• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Cat 4.9's in [H] Benchmarks...

D

DarkDrake

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
92
One thing I want to know is... Why did they use the Cat 4.9's is the Doom 3 Benchmarks. I got a little confused because (without looking closely at my fault) I was under the impression that they were current ATI drivers. (which would make sense to me) So now, I have to install the new 4.9's just to get the performance seen in the benchmarks... and I know a lot of people though at first that they would be getting better performance than the benchmarks with the 4.9's - but now were just trying to meet it lol. Its not a big deal really.... but I dont understand why they used drivers that were not available to the public yet.

Thoughts?
Opinions?
 
I was just about to post up a thread regarding the 4.9's also.....but might as well keep everything contained to one thread. Has anyone here actually done any before and after testing going from the 4.7's to the 4.9 Betas at all? I'll be trying them out tomorrow when I get the game re-installed, but I was hoping that maybe someone else would have some results or news up for a change. ;)

Just for the hell of it, I'll also be doing before and after tests of 3DMark2001, 3DMark03, Aquamark3, and Quake III Arena when I'm trying out the 4.9's.....even though they're Beta drivers focused on Doom 3, that doens't mean that other games/apps won't be effected as well in some way shape or form.

I'll have results up tomorrow, until then.........anyone?
 
This would probably be better answered by Kyle or Brent, but my guess would be that they wanted to show ATI in as good a light as possible.
 
This would probably be better answered by Kyle or Brent, but my guess would be that they wanted to show ATI in as good a light as possible.
Click to expand...

I am the one that delivered the money to [H] around 2 cents to fake the light and give its customers some hope...
 
[flamesuit]
maybe they felt sorry for ati?
[/flamesuit]

but reallistically most of us will be using the 4.9 cats so why not test with them?

p.s. i have a 9600xt in my rig
 
From ATI: These BETA Drivers are NOT SUPPORTED by ATI Customer Care or any other ATI department.
Click to expand...

Now thats a painfull act and the latest attempt to stay alive.
 
HeavenX said:
Now thats a painfull act and the latest attempt to stay alive.
Click to expand...

Alive? Didn't know that because the Nvidia stuff is better this round, that it would take a whole company down... jeeze, and after the 9800 series did so well.



(not an ATi fanboi here, just seems rediculous)
 
HeavenX said:
Now thats a painfull act and the latest attempt to stay alive.
Click to expand...
ATI sold so many of those damn ATI Rage Pro integrated chipsets a few years ago I think they have enough cash to sustain themselves indefinitely.
 
Rizen said:
ATI sold so many of those damn ATI Rage Pro integrated chipsets a few years ago I think they have enough cash to sustain themselves indefinitely.
Click to expand...

There's also the fact that ATI has such a huge install base in the OEM sector (where the real money is made) that they are never hurting for money. It's just the fact that being on top in the enthusiast market helps them in the end because they know that the enthusiasts are the ones that make the recommendations for the noobs. That is why companies vie for the top spot, not to make money off the X800's and 6800's but to rake in boatloads through products like the 6800LE and the 9600.
 
Tim said:
There's also the fact that ATI has such a huge install base in the OEM sector (where the real money is made) that they are never hurting for money. It's just the fact that being on top in the enthusiast market helps them in the end because they know that the enthusiasts are the ones that make the recommendations for the noobs. That is why companies vie for the top spot, not to make money off the X800's and 6800's but to rake in boatloads through products like the 6800LE and the 9600.
Click to expand...
You gave the longwinded version of what I said, hehe. :)

The Rage Pro was the bane of my existance, trying to get a LAN of Quake 2 going on school machines :p

ATI is still selling lots of cards guys, just not as much as NVIDIA. And remember, they have the XboxNext contract, they aren't hurting for cash.
 
Rizen said:
You gave the longwinded version of what I said, hehe. :)

The Rage Pro was the bane of my existance, trying to get a LAN of Quake 2 going on school machines :p

ATI is still selling lots of cards guys, just not as much as NVIDIA. And remember, they have the XboxNext contract, they aren't hurting for cash.
Click to expand...

Neither card manufacturer is going anywhere for a good long while. They both have huge OEM contracts that will keep them making money for years and years.

The problem that 3dfx ran into was that they were only an add in board manufacturer, so when they had lean times due to be dumbasses about technology, they lost money and couldn't recover.
 
Good God people, it's always interesting to see how fast some of you can manage to completely swing the course of a thread. There were a couple of us at least a LITTLE interested in seeing the performance differences between 4.7 and 4.9 in one or more areas.....and I don't know why it's so hard to stay on topic. There are plenty of other forums and places to spill off-topic remarks like that "attempt to stay alive" phrase that was thrown in there awhile back.....that was a very narrow-minded and fanboyish (sounding) comment and you know it. Maybe I'm wrong, but the last thing THIS forum needs is more fanboys.

Is anyone gonna even attempt to stay ontopic here or is it gonna have to wait until tomorrow when I can post up some results? Sheesh. :rolleyes:
 
With the new ATI 4.9 driver, Doom3 runs 3-5 fps more then old drivers in each demo test...
 
The biggest increases are seen when AA is enabled. I ran tests earlier with 4.7 and 4.9 drivers and got about a 4% increase with no AA, 8% with 2xAA and 15% with 4xAA. Of course on the other hand 4xAA while running at 1600x1200xUltra Quality wasn't really playable, about 33fps. 2xAA was playable though at 42.5fps.
 
cornelious0_0 said:
Good God people, it's always interesting to see how fast some of you can manage to completely swing the course of a thread. There were a couple of us at least a LITTLE interested in seeing the performance differences between 4.7 and 4.9 in one or more areas.....and I don't know why it's so hard to stay on topic. There are plenty of other forums and places to spill off-topic remarks like that "attempt to stay alive" phrase that was thrown in there awhile back.....that was a very narrow-minded and fanboyish (sounding) comment and you know it. Maybe I'm wrong, but the last thing THIS forum needs is more fanboys.

Is anyone gonna even attempt to stay ontopic here or is it gonna have to wait until tomorrow when I can post up some results? Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm still interested in those results, please continue :)
 
Mav451 said:
I'm still interested in those results, please continue :)
Click to expand...

Again, I'll have them up for your viewing pleaseure tomorrow. Instead of taking a larger amount of time doing custom FRAPS runs I think I'll opt to just use a timedemo run to test the driver differences, as I want to make good use of my time while I'm doing this. I'll try to do as many resolution/IQ level combinations as i can before I start to get TOO tired of watching Doom 3 fly by on my monitor. ;) :p

With the new ATI 4.9 driver, Doom3 runs 3-5 fps more then old drivers in each demo test...
Click to expand...

Something to note here is that 3-5 fps can actually play a large role in your gaming experience with a title like Doom3. Things have changed as of late, and some of the previously deemed "playable requirements" have shifted slightly. Seeing as Doom3 is taking part largely creeping around in closed corridor settings, it simply does not put the same emphasis on people to keep their fps at a SOLID 60. Because of the slower pace of the game, I can finally say with confidence that as long as the game isnt dipping under 24-30fps I really have a hard time noticeing while I'm playing. In a faster paced game like Unreal2k4 I can start to notice the slowdown much earlier, because of the pace and feel of the game.

I wont be coming at these drivers with extremely high hopes, but it's still WELL worth checking out/documenting, just to show that there either IS or their ISN'T a difference.
 
DarkDrake said:
One thing I want to know is... Why did they use the Cat 4.9's is the Doom 3 Benchmarks. I got a little confused because (without looking closely at my fault) I was under the impression that they were current ATI drivers. (which would make sense to me) So now, I have to install the new 4.9's just to get the performance seen in the benchmarks... and I know a lot of people though at first that they would be getting better performance than the benchmarks with the 4.9's - but now were just trying to meet it lol. Its not a big deal really.... but I dont understand why they used drivers that were not available to the public yet.

Thoughts?
Opinions?
Click to expand...

Can someone also explain to me why they were willing to use beta catalysts in that article but flatly refused to use beta nvidia drivers or the beta farcry patch for the X800 v 6800 benches? :eek:
 
defiant said:
Can someone also explain to me why they were willing to use beta catalysts in that article but flatly refused to use beta nvidia drivers or the beta farcry patch for the X800 v 6800 benches? :eek:
Click to expand...

Didnt you read before posting? They are available for download.

The test was different than others as well. They went TO id, nVidia and ATi were both there, and they both brought their latest drivers. Its not like a regular review of video cards that they do in house.
 
fallguy said:
Didnt you read before posting? They are available for download.

The test was different than others as well. They went TO id, nVidia and ATi were both there, and they both brought their latest drivers. Its not like a regular review of video cards that they do in house.
Click to expand...

Im talking about the hardware guide, the drivers werent available for downloading by the general public at the time of publishing were they now?

"These are the drivers that were used in The Official DOOM 3 Hardware Guide"

On the other hand I recall that they refused to use the beta drivers or beta patch on the basis that they werent available to the public
 
Who knows, maybe the [H] crew knew the drivers would be up for download in conjunction with Doom3's release, so they figured it'd be the most accurate for those who care about Doom3 enough to download the latest patches, even betas, for a fps bump.

Yet another possibility could be that they knew it would have some opengl improvements in it, so unlike the farcry comparison stated previously, it needed the opengl badly.

Or maybe they just thought "why the hell not, it's our site"
 
defiant said:
Im talking about the hardware guide, the drivers werent available for downloading by the general public at the time of publishing were they now?

"These are the drivers that were used in The Official DOOM 3 Hardware Guide"

On the other hand I recall that they refused to use the beta drivers or beta patch on the basis that they werent available to the public
Click to expand...

fallguy said:
The test was different than others as well. They went TO id, nVidia and ATi were both there, and they both brought their latest drivers. Its not like a regular review of video cards that they do in house.
Click to expand...

Why dont you get this? Also, the game wasnt out yet. Its out today, and so are the beta drivers.
 
Jeigh said:
Who knows, maybe the [H] crew knew the drivers would be up for download in conjunction with Doom3's release, so they figured it'd be the most accurate for those who care about Doom3 enough to download the latest patches, even betas, for a fps bump.
Click to expand...

For sure, its not at all "unfair" or anything else to have the 4.9 Beta drivers in the Hardware Guide.....as they ARE the most recent drivers (beta or not) available at the time of Dooms release. I can see a reason to question things if we were nowhere CLOSE to even being able to try out the 4.9's (as we are now) at the time of the games release, but that's not so anymore.

I'll be running a few other benchmarks ahead of time and then installing the 4.9's to see how they do pretty soon here.

One stupid question though, how do i run a/any timedemo in the game? I wanna be able to get apples to apples numbers when I compare the 4.7's to the 4.9's as well as actual play experience.
 
4.9s have been available for download from most enthusiast sites for a few days, and around places like bit torrent for a week or so, for those who have eyes to see.
 
I know I said that I'd have numbers up yesterday, but I ran into a few things and didn't really have a lot of time. I'll give you a general run down of what I saw though. going from the 4.7's to the 4.9's I gained about 3-5fps overall in almost all scenes I tried, and I did NOT encounter and little bugs or artifacts of any kind. On a side note, I'm actually VERY pleased with the BETA 4.9's on a few other counts.....they raised my Aquamark3 score by about 200 points over my previous best, my 3DMark03 gained about 20, and 3DMark2001 saw a jump of slightly more then Aquamark3. Overall I'm quite happy with the 4.9's and I can hardly wait to see the final release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top