Question on CCC Vs Regular CP.

V

Vittra

Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
909
Most likely will be picking up an X1900XTX sopn, but was wondering about a few things about the CCC drivers as I haven't dealt with them since my 9800pro (Nvidia atm).

Do the CCC hold any advantages over the original CP (If the original CP even exists, think Omega drivers don't have it though?)

Just wondering on this since I remember the CCC feeling quite bloated in terms of memory hogging and such.
 
There is no advantage, but I wouldn't call CCC "bloatware." Just "slightly annoying" ware.
 
CCC works very well . I find it amusing so many call it blout ware. I like it I use it . Its just a fan boy thing about blout ware . use it if you don't like use something else.
 
It has more options than the regular control panel. The bloat people refer to is .Net but I am using .Net 2.0 which is much less of a resource hog than .Net 1.1 .
 
There is bloat caused by .NET, yes. That is felt system wide. But the CCC is bloated itself. I find there is a slight delay on all clicks, and opening the thing takes a good 10 seconds. Hate it.
 
PWMK2 said:
There is no advantage, but I wouldn't call CCC "bloatware." Just "slightly annoying" ware.
Click to expand...
i definitely call using 100mb of memory bloatware.
 
trek554 said:
i definitely call using 100mb of memory bloatware.
Click to expand...

you definately have something set up wrong.

I have botht the CCC installed, and I use ATI tray tools. and all of my ati labeled processed don't exceed 15mb total.
 
chameleoneel said:
you definately have something set up wrong.

I have botht the CCC installed, and I use ATI tray tools. and all of my ati labeled processed don't exceed 15mb total.
Click to expand...
FACT: ccc uses nearly 100mb. i have installed it on on atleast 15 computers. while sitting on the desktop if i look in the performance part of the taskmanager at the PF Usage graph i am at 165mb with nvidia and 260 with an ati card and ccc installed. you are using nearly 100mb more memory with ccc then without it whether you want to accept it or not. if i use omega drivers with no ccc my PF Usage goes back down to around 170mb. so to be clear ccc DOES use nearly 100mb more memory. i have shown so many people this and they either switch to omega drivers or go nvidia. by the way this is no secret. i have seen posts at driverheaven and other forums where people were complaining about nearly 100mb worth of memory being used too.
 
here is just one quote from driverheaven forums. "Terry, this is Koroush Ghazi from TweakGuides.com (author of the ATI Catalyst Tweak Guide). The main concern I have about the ATICCC is that it takes up a great deal of memory, and most of my readers tell me they don't want to use it because of the way it blows out their resource usage.

While I do have details in my guide on how to reduce such resource usage, to be honest if a user wants to keep full functionality and easy access to the ATICCC, they will experience up to 100MB or more of memory usage."
 
I don't use CCC simply because it doesn't work right for me. It crashes any time you attempt to open it under 2K. Now add to that the vast difference in memory useage and I decided to pass.
 
WickedWeasel said:
Does anyone know if CCC will be mandatory on Vista? Sounds like a real resource hog.
Click to expand...

Technically, it's mandatory unless you switch to the Omega drivers. Vista won't change this. However, in my experience it's not really much of a resource hog; plus, people tend to forget the one simple fact: virtual memory is not regular memory. Excess amounts of data in virtual memory won't kill you because it's only accessed when it needs to be accessed, and is THEN loaded into memory. All this really means is that it loads itself from virtual memory into system memory when you load up CCC, but puts itself back into virtual memory when it's done. This is most likely why it takes 6 or so seconds to load it, but it's not like it's "bloating up your system" simply because it puts extra data into vmem. Maybe if it accessed vmem every three or so seconds it would... but in reality, CCC causes no performance hit in games. This is why back when CCC wasn't mandatory, there wasn't any difference in terms of performance between CCC and the standard control panel.
 
PWMK2 said:
Technically, it's mandatory unless you switch to the Omega drivers. Vista won't change this. However, in my experience it's not really much of a resource hog; plus, people tend to forget the one simple fact: virtual memory is not regular memory. Excess amounts of data in virtual memory won't kill you because it's only accessed when it needs to be accessed, and is THEN loaded into memory. All this really means is that it loads itself from virtual memory into system memory when you load up CCC, but puts itself back into virtual memory when it's done. This is most likely why it takes 6 or so seconds to load it, but it's not like it's "bloating up your system" simply because it puts extra data into vmem. Maybe if it accessed vmem every three or so seconds it would... but in reality, CCC causes no performance hit in games. This is why back when CCC wasn't mandatory, there wasn't any difference in terms of performance between CCC and the standard control panel.
Click to expand...

exactly why i said my ATI processes never exceed 15mb.

even still,
also, I just installed the catalyst driver today without CCC just fine so, why can't you guys? and i just am using ATI tray tools as my "CCC"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top