Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Updates Catalyst Program to Focus More on Newer GPUs

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 24, 2012 2:44:54 PM

Just get the driver/xfire support in BEFORE a new title is released, not months after and i'm happy! Was planing on another 7970 but got 2x 680 gtx instead because of the slow driver support. Get me right, the AMD hardware is good but their driver update speed when it comes to new titles is not! Heck the nvidia counterpart have full sli support with ambient occlusion already for diablo3 and its not even released....
Score
0
April 24, 2012 2:55:26 PM

Oh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/

Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(

Cheers!
Score
11
April 24, 2012 3:07:28 PM

YukaOh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(Cheers!


But if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY
Score
-6
April 24, 2012 3:37:03 PM

Thats ok.
The older cards you can't do much more with as far as updates are concerned.
Score
14
April 24, 2012 4:00:35 PM

That would be true if the drivers were supposed to be performance enhancing. In reality the updates mainly fix support for modern games. A non issue for 3000 and 2000 series cards, but mid-high tier 4000 cards are still running modern games just fine on reduced settings. As an owner of a similar generation GTX 260 I would be pissed if they slowed support that much.
Score
-7
April 24, 2012 4:03:16 PM

My problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3870x2/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?
Score
11
April 24, 2012 4:24:07 PM

matt_bMy problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3890/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?


Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.

DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.

But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.
Score
6
April 24, 2012 4:42:28 PM

soccerplayer88Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.

Developing for DirectX 10/11 doesn't have to do with Windows XP as much as you make it out to be. Consoles run DirectX 9 hardware, so the games are developed accordingly. Computer games have been living off of the backs of console porting for years now, not the other way around. When the new generation of consoles come about, you will see the shift finally happen to the newer DirectX specs. DirectX 10 has still been around for what, four years going on five now? DirectX 10 does look better than 9 and does take a bit of a performance hit, but that's cause and effect in action just like any other transition for generations of DirectX, OpenGL, etc. (with the assumption that coding is done efficiently).
Score
5
April 24, 2012 4:52:40 PM

soccerplayer88Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.


everyone hated vista, and was a joke, the only thing they had to get people to buy it was dx10, and because so few people gamed on it, compared to xp, they stuck with dx9
if ms supported xp with dx10, we would have made the jump long ago.

there is also a few facts.
there is noting in dx 10 that dx9 cant do, or at least fake doing.
everything substantial from dx10 was cut because nvidia complained, while amd was ready for the full dx10
dx11 is the first generation new dx to be on a widely used os. but still, well programed dx9 game looks equal to or better than dx11...

you have to take in the significance of dx9... it was a GIGANTIC leap forward, and none of the other dxes have so far been able to compeat.

dx10 may have with tessellation if that wasnt ripped out of it, and dx11... well... they used 9 so long they got all the kinks out of how you program for it, if you dont program 11 right, it looks as good as 9 but worse preforamnce.

now to add to the mix, we dont have single card gpus that can handle full world tessellation yet, or companies have NO idea how to do it.
Score
-3
Anonymous
April 24, 2012 5:30:25 PM

rantocJust get the driver/xfire support in BEFORE a new title is released, not months after and i'm happy! Was planing on another 7970 but got 2x 680 gtx instead because of the slow driver support. Get me right, the AMD hardware is good but their driver update speed when it comes to new titles is not! Heck the nvidia counterpart have full sli support with ambient occlusion already for diablo3 and its not even released....


Before??? Share your time-machine with us please!!!!

YukaOh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(Cheers!


I threw something at my card and it exploded. Cheers!

bavmanBut if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY


What is whooping performance? YAY!

memadmaxThats ok.The older cards you can't do much more with as far as updates are concerned.


It's not ok...at all.

Jamie_1318That would be true if the drivers were supposed to be performance enhancing. In reality the updates mainly fix support for modern games. A non issue for 3000 and 2000 series cards, but mid-high tier 4000 cards are still running modern games just fine on reduced settings. As an owner of a similar generation GTX 260 I would be pissed if they slowed support that much.


Get ready to be pissed.

matt_bMy problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3870x2/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?


You will see an impact of tile-based proportions.

soccerplayer88Well I would bet that the reason why we had so many DX9 titles was because over the past years, the vast majority of computers were still running Windows XP. Now that Windows 7 is edging out XP, we could maybe start seeing companies develop for DX11.DX10 is garbage. Looks better then DX9 but performs worse. At least with DX11 you'll get the best of both worlds.But your right, DX9 and legacy cards will probably be around a little while longer. Why consoles don't utilize even DX9 to it's full potential (save for a very few games) boggles my mind. Hopefully with the next generation of consoles, they'll step it up to DX11.


Why you haven't reverted back to Windows XP boggles my mind.

matt_bDeveloping for DirectX 10/11 doesn't have to do with Windows XP as much as you make it out to be. Consoles run DirectX 9 hardware, so the games are developed accordingly. Computer games have been living off of the backs of console porting for years now, not the other way around. When javascript:%20void(0);the new generation of consoles come about, you will see the shift finally happen to the newer DirectX specs. DirectX 10 has still been around for what, four years going on five now? DirectX 10 does look better than 9 and does take a bit of a performance hit, but that's cause and effect in action just like any other transition for generations of DirectX, OpenGL, etc. (with the assumption that coding is done efficiently).


Coding is never done efficiently.

alidaneveryone hated vista, and was a joke, the only thing they had to get people to buy it was dx10, and because so few people gamed on it, compared to xp, they stuck with dx9if ms supported xp with dx10, we would have made the jump long ago. there is also a few facts. there is noting in dx 10 that dx9 cant do, or at least fake doing.everything substantial from dx10 was cut because nvidia complained, while amd was ready for the full dx10dx11 is the first generation new dx to be on a widely used os. but still, well programed dx9 game looks equal to or better than dx11...you have to take in the significance of dx9... it was a GIGANTIC leap forward, and none of the other dxes have so far been able to compeat.dx10 may have with tessellation if that wasnt ripped out of it, and dx11... well... they used 9 so long they got all the kinks out of how you program for it, if you dont program 11 right, it looks as good as 9 but worse preforamnce.now to add to the mix, we dont have single card gpus that can handle full world tessellation yet, or companies have NO idea how to do it.


True! I need that preforamnce!!

Score
-7
April 24, 2012 5:53:21 PM

I was nervous that they were dropping the cards entirely. Quarterly driver updates for older cards makes sense
Score
8
April 24, 2012 5:56:28 PM

Well this is a good thing, and also a bad thing. With the new model hopefully the team working on the more modern cards won't have to fiddle with making the coding for the older cards on top of the new cards. And the team working on the old cards (a smaller team obviously, hence the quarterly GPU driver updates) will work larger fixes into the driver updates and thus have STABLE drivers, not bleeding edge might blow up in your face performance drivers which AMD/ATI and nVidia are both guilty of kicking out the door.
Score
2
April 24, 2012 6:08:23 PM

bavmanBut if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY


I pretty sure the 4890 is faster than anything that can be bought in that price range.
Score
-4
April 24, 2012 6:20:45 PM

aotterstI pretty sure the 4890 is faster than anything that can be bought in that price range.



the 4890 is a more efficient version of the 4870. which means its no better then a 5770.
Score
3
April 24, 2012 7:18:40 PM

I have AMD X1800 and it has been on legacy support for years and still I am able to play the most modern games around (not with all eye candy but still). So if you have 4870 or similar don't be too alarmed. It will be fine card for many many years! And if the rumours about the next consoles are true, 4870 is fast enough for next 6-7 years or more.
Score
3
April 24, 2012 7:43:49 PM

Nvidia doesnt even support older card driver updates at all, let alone do quarterly updates.

Also, as AMD states, the Drivers are mature enough that they dont need to be updated that often, its not like they are not supporting them.
Score
3
April 24, 2012 7:51:28 PM

bavmanBut if you spend $150 on an upgrade now you'll get a whooping .45% performance increase; and we'll officially support your card for monthly upgrades!!! YAY


YukaOh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(Cheers!


A $150 upgrade could be something such as a 6870, 5850, 5870, GTX 560, or GTX 470 and all of these cards are significantly ahead of the 4890.

matt_bMy problem with this is that these generation of cards do not represent the model of previous card generations. DirectX 9 games are still THE primary titles out there, yet these DirectX 10 cards are being phased out. Anyone with at least an HD2900/3870x2/4850 or better today can still play many of the modern releases cranked up in detail/resolution. If the gaming market was primarily DirectX 10/11 moving on to 12, then yeah, let these cards go, they are no longer relevant. But as far as today's releases, these cards still pack features our console-burdened gaming developers haven't even gotten around to using yet - what gives? Furthermore, the fact that they are still relevant but being put on life support, aka "legacy", what impact will we see officially when Windows 8 releases?


We have plenty of DX11 games nowadays. Older cards also don't support many of the GPU acceleration technologies that the newer OSs and programs are supposed to bring to us, so they are becoming less important on a grand scale. Oh, and go ahead and try using a 4870, 4890, 260, etc on BF3 in 1080p and we'll see how far those quality settings and the AA can be cranked up. The same goes for plenty of other games nowadays such as Metro 2033, Crysis 2 with the DX11 update, and many more.

Consoles are getting their refresh within the next few years (hopefully soon) and they're not PCs, so they should not be used as obstacles any greater than they already are for PC gaming progress.

alidaneveryone hated vista, and was a joke, the only thing they had to get people to buy it was dx10, and because so few people gamed on it, compared to xp, they stuck with dx9if ms supported xp with dx10, we would have made the jump long ago. there is also a few facts. there is noting in dx 10 that dx9 cant do, or at least fake doing.everything substantial from dx10 was cut because nvidia complained, while amd was ready for the full dx10dx11 is the first generation new dx to be on a widely used os. but still, well programed dx9 game looks equal to or better than dx11...you have to take in the significance of dx9... it was a GIGANTIC leap forward, and none of the other dxes have so far been able to compeat.dx10 may have with tessellation if that wasnt ripped out of it, and dx11... well... they used 9 so long they got all the kinks out of how you program for it, if you dont program 11 right, it looks as good as 9 but worse preforamnce.now to add to the mix, we dont have single card gpus that can handle full world tessellation yet, or companies have NO idea how to do it.



DX 11 is better than DX9. Tessellation takes huge processing resources and that is why it isn't being used completely yet. The fact that Nvidia's Kepler cards have crap compute performance compared to even older generations such as Fermi tells us that Nvidia seems to not have much faith in tessellation anyway.
Score
1
April 24, 2012 7:52:02 PM

tomskentNvidia doesnt even support older card driver updates at all, let alone do quarterly updates.Also, as AMD states, the Drivers are mature enough that they dont need to be updated that often, its not like they are not supporting them.

I'm not sure what you mean... Nvidia provides non-legacy Windows 7 driver support for all their cards since the Geforce 6 series.
Score
0
April 24, 2012 7:52:57 PM

hannibalI have AMD X1800 and it has been on legacy support for years and still I am able to play the most modern games around (not with all eye candy but still). So if you have 4870 or similar don't be too alarmed. It will be fine card for many many years! And if the rumours about the next consoles are true, 4870 is fast enough for next 6-7 years or more.


The 4870 isn't fast enough for 1080p with the highest settings in plenty of games. The 4870 and 4890 are comparable to the 6770 and 5770 in performance.
Score
-2
April 24, 2012 7:54:14 PM

My fairly new 4870x2, that I got for quite a good deal, is not supported well by the current drivers... The driver fails all the time, and is quite frustrating. I understand it is relatively old tech, but I would have hoped that the LAST thing I should be worried about at this stage in the product life-cycle is unstable software.
Score
-2
April 24, 2012 8:30:37 PM

blazorthon said:
The 4870 isn't fast enough for 1080p with the highest settings in plenty of games. The 4870 and 4890 are comparable to the 6770 and 5770 in performance.

Ofcource, but I mean that 4870 does not become obsolete or useless only because it is now going to legacy support. There are tittles that are too demanding at highes settings, but 4870 is still a card that has "umph" for most games at reasonable settings!
Score
0
April 24, 2012 9:25:18 PM

hannibal said:
Ofcource, but I mean that 4870 does not become obsolete or useless only because it is now going to legacy support. There are tittles that are too demanding at highes settings, but 4870 is still a card that has "umph" for most games at reasonable settings!


That's no different than saying that the 6770 has enough "umph" for most games at reasonable settings. You can only get reasonable settings in some games withthese cards if you use a resolution that is lower than 1080p.
Score
-1
April 25, 2012 12:04:57 AM

what the hell are you guys talking about? Quarter updates != legacy
Score
0
April 25, 2012 1:32:00 AM

"That's no different than saying that the 6770 has enough "umph" for most games at reasonable settings. You can only get reasonable settings in some games withthese cards if you use a resolution that is lower than 1080p."

Do you realize how many people game on 19" - 22" Monitors? A Bunch. In fact, I would wager that Gamers cruising in 1080p are still the minority. I dropped a spare 4870 in my son's computer to improve the visuals he was getting in the Old Republic on his 22", and he was very pleased.

I game on a 24" at 1080p and I like my "old" 6850 just fine. The hardware is still ahead of the software for the average gamer.
Score
0
April 25, 2012 2:47:05 AM

YukaOh, come on AMD... My 4890 is still very serviceable and plays anything I throw at it... The whole HD4000 line still rocks =/Just drop it for the 2k and 3k 8(Cheers!

They're not dropping support. Just don't expect them to bother trying to squeeze any more performance out of it, and you're not on a rapid release schedule anymore. No biggie. When you need more performance, that will be the time to upgrade - no need to rush because of this "news".
Score
5
April 25, 2012 4:03:09 AM

drevas said:
"That's no different than saying that the 6770 has enough "umph" for most games at reasonable settings. You can only get reasonable settings in some games withthese cards if you use a resolution that is lower than 1080p."

Do you realize how many people game on 19" - 22" Monitors? A Bunch. In fact, I would wager that Gamers cruising in 1080p are still the minority. I dropped a spare 4870 in my son's computer to improve the visuals he was getting in the Old Republic on his 22", and he was very pleased.

I game on a 24" at 1080p and I like my "old" 6850 just fine. The hardware is still ahead of the software for the average gamer.


Whether or not there are a lot of people gaming on monitors that are between 19" and 22" (there are many of 19 to 22" 1080p monitors, so countering my argument with this screen size is a fail in of itself) has absolutely no effect on what I said. Saying that the 4870 has enough umph is like saying that the 6770 has enough umph. I did not say that neither one is good enough to satisfy gamers, only that the two are comparable. You are saying that a mid-ranged card has enough umph and I simply stated where the card sits in the performance hierarchy.

My second sentence is also correct. My whole point is that these are not high end cards and aren't even close to being high end cards, so there is no good reason in people pretending that they are. Judging by everyone's reactions to my comments, I'm starting to think that you've all assumed that I'm some elitest high end gamer. Well, I'm not. I'm hardly even a gamer at all and I don't have high end gaming hardware at all. I am keeping up with the technology in knowing what all of it does and I'm just saying that even if these cards are enough to please you and some others, they are not even close to the high end cards that we have today. A GTX 680 is about four times faster than a 4870 and a 7970 is not far behind that.

The hardware is NOT ahead of the software, not in the least. Any modern DX11 game can not be run at even close to it's maximum quality on any mid-ranged graphics setup. Even games such as World of Warcraft can't be run even close to their maximum on these cards. Going beyond, we only recently have graphics setups (quad 7970 6GBs) that can manage some of the most high end display configurations such as triple 1080p 3D and triple 2560x1600. Granted, these obviously aren't representative of the majority of display configurations, but that the software can do this tells us that it is not behind the hardware. The hardware is and probably always will be behind the software.
Score
0
!