Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Catalyst 9.8 are awesome, come get them. - Page 2

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 4:40:44 AM

sargentchimera said:
yahhh... no



Have fun with unstable drivers. Next time if it aint broke dont fix it.
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 4:44:24 AM

Unstable ? These are the official drivers doofus
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 5:12:42 AM

daship, curious, what card you own?
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 5:26:17 AM

The drivers are on the AMD site, on the director of marketings blog.
Theyre real, and theyre real good
a c 166 U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
August 15, 2009 5:31:39 AM

Good or bad?

If we see DRASTIC improvements in framerates for CROSSFIRE that indicates that the present drivers are immature.

I've been reading a lot about AMD/ATI and I'm really starting to worry about the company. Unless there's some drastic turnaround with their products my next PC will be Intel CPU and NVidia GPU instead of AMD/ATI.
August 15, 2009 5:32:28 AM

lol i still cant open my catalyst control center. i opened task manager and then tried opening catalyst by right clicking then selecting it. It showed up on task manager for about 5 second then dissapears, strange. I really want my catalyst back but oops i went agianst my better judgement and installed these drivers without knowing what im doing... I still need help...
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 5:47:46 AM

photonboy said:
Good or bad?

If we see DRASTIC improvements in framerates for CROSSFIRE that indicates that the present drivers are immature.

I've been reading a lot about AMD/ATI and I'm really starting to worry about the company. Unless there's some drastic turnaround with their products my next PC will be Intel CPU and NVidia GPU instead of AMD/ATI.

Yea, if we see real crappy fps on nVidias, then we'll know thats what we want?
Not following you there
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 5:48:13 AM

photonboy said:
Good or bad?

If we see DRASTIC improvements in framerates for CROSSFIRE that indicates that the present drivers are immature.

I've been reading a lot about AMD/ATI and I'm really starting to worry about the company. Unless there's some drastic turnaround with their products my next PC will be Intel CPU and NVidia GPU instead of AMD/ATI.


So you're telling me that because ATI has just delivered anywhere between 10 and 50% fps increases in select games where the CPU was the limiting factor for crossfire setups that we should be worried about ATI ??

I don't care that these magical drivers are 6 months late, they got them here, and it does wonders for my rig. What have you been reading about ATI ? Maybe you read that they have had the best bang for your buck gpu solutions for the past year? Have you ignored the fabled Nvidia rebranding strategy and Physx debacle that is going on right now ? By debacle I mean that they are being total D-bags about the technology in some of their games, and their TWIMTBP games as well.

Get the facts straight man, I don't prefer Nvidia over ATI or Intel over AMD, what I want is the best performance possible out of every dollar I spend, now tell me how these drivers don't do that for me or why for some reason I should be 'worried' that ATI was able to do it.

IMO Nvidia is crapping their pants right now about these increases.

EXPLAIN it to me Photon, honestly explain it so it makes sense.
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 5:57:54 AM

I guess everyones forgotten about those bigga botta boom drivers nVidia released? Maybe thats why the 4890 is now as fast as their best card is, they must too be slipping?
August 15, 2009 6:05:49 AM

when is nvidia going to release some good drivers again???
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 6:07:55 AM

Wasnt there some decent ones a few back, like 2-3 months ago?
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
August 15, 2009 9:04:44 AM

It seems they will be officially come out on monday but GURU3D seems to have them now:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=302639

"Though these drivers are not yet available on the official download page, Over at Quakecon Ian “Cabrtosr” McNaughton released Catalyst 9.8 drivers.
According to the latest info, with this driver, you should see significant performance increases on AMD platforms.
These improvements are more platform related – you will see gains of up to 50% in some titles (like Far Cry 2) when using a CrossFire solution with 4870 X2 or other 4xxx series in resolutions 16x10 and higher – you’ll see these gains mostly in CPU-bound situations. You will also see significant improvements in titles like HAWX, Crysis, Company of Heroes and World in Conflict."
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 9:09:29 AM

I can definately say that the FC2 and COH gains are true....and unbelieveable.
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 9:23:58 AM

Maziar, these are the good ones. Get em and enjoy
a b U Graphics card
August 15, 2009 11:11:08 AM

I can definately say that the FC2 and COH gains are true....and unbelieveable. said:
I can definately say that the FC2 and COH gains are true....and unbelieveable.


the fc2 gains is a ripoff. they took some performance out of 9.3 to 9.4 and then decided to bring them back to make it look like theres a "real" performance improvement even when there's not.

the 4850s/4870s are well capable of those numbers before cat9.4. note: try to use cat 9.3. the only thing wherein i cant pitch my belief in is with the 4890. my theory is that cat 9.4 was a segmenting driver that was designed to properly segment the 4890 to a 4870, at least on farcry2.

i documented it right here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-265155_28_50.html

you're not getting new performance, they just did what is due 3 releases ago.
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
August 16, 2009 6:14:00 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Maziar, these are the good ones. Get em and enjoy

Sure :)  and when i get them i will post the results :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 7:20:13 AM

wh3resmycar said:
the fc2 gains is a ripoff. they took some performance out of 9.3 to 9.4 and then decided to bring them back to make it look like theres a "real" performance improvement even when there's not.

the 4850s/4870s are well capable of those numbers before cat9.4. note: try to use cat 9.3. the only thing wherein i cant pitch my belief in is with the 4890. my theory is that cat 9.4 was a segmenting driver that was designed to properly segment the 4890 to a 4870, at least on farcry2.

i documented it right here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-265155_28_50.html

you're not getting new performance, they just did what is due 3 releases ago.

What I find interesting is, would those new improvements beat your current nVidia setup?
August 16, 2009 12:58:37 PM

:(  tested them on my i7 build, in a Crysis benchmark I downloaded the fps went up ~5fps at 2560x1600 using 4xAA.

but then when I actually played the game I couldn't play it a 1900x1200 4xAA, I had to turn the AA off, and uninstall the natural mod to get the 40fps I got in the benchmark.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 1:15:59 PM

Is game play better tho?
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 2:06:32 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
What I find interesting is, would those new improvements beat your current nVidia setup?




:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 3:01:54 PM

What I find interesting is, would those new improvements beat your current nVidia setup?
said:
What I find interesting is, would those new improvements beat your current nVidia setup?


good question. the gtx260-216 scores higher than the 4870 by 5fps if i remember correctly (im not yet home @ the time of this posting, thats 5fps versus the 4870 with cat9.3 btw). will post the screenie of the gtx260-216 scores.

im hurrying home to setup my new 1920x1080 LCD panel.

and to the guy who owns the trifire setup above, sorry to disappoint you.
August 16, 2009 3:06:29 PM

* Total Frames: 2933, Total Time: 51.00s
* Average Framerate: 57.50
* Max. Framerate: 86.06 (Frame:414, 6.09s)
* Min. Framerate: 30.52 (Frame:1, 0.07s)
with 9.7


* Total Frames: 3145, Total Time: 51.01s
* Average Framerate: 61.65
* Max. Framerate: 101.44 (Frame:0, 0.01s)
* Min. Framerate: 44.06 (Frame:2, 0.07s)
with 9.8

best improvement so far THANKS!!! :D 
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 3:08:38 PM

^ can you try cat 9.3 and see if the score will be similar to what 9.8 is offering.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 4:31:51 PM

wh3resmycar said:
good question. the gtx260-216 scores higher than the 4870 by 5fps if i remember correctly (im not yet home @ the time of this posting, thats 5fps versus the 4870 with cat9.3 btw). will post the screenie of the gtx260-216 scores.

im hurrying home to setup my new 1920x1080 LCD panel.

and to the guy who owns the trifire setup above, sorry to disappoint you.


Disappointed ? Why would I be disappointed, it's not like FC2 is the only game getting moster fps gains from these drivers...
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 4:56:35 PM

^ and its not like fc2 is the only game who got monster fps drops from 9.3 to 9.6. i have a feeling 9.3 and 9.8 would yield the same score (on single cards at least). the reason why i stuck with 9.3 until i sold my 4870. those are not real gains until proven otherwise.

anyhow, this is my gtx260 readings @ the settings similar to my 4870 tests:



and this is my gtx260 doing 1080p.



please note that on all my 4870 test i stuck with 2xAA since the game is already jaggies free @ that AA level (dx10.1 doing its job)
August 16, 2009 5:13:04 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Is game play better tho?


I replied on another thread, had to reinstall 9.8 and do a driver sweep.

after that, fps did go up though
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 6:43:44 PM

FC2:

Settings: Demo(Ranch Medium), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)

CCC 9.4: 79.01fps

CCC 9.8: 99.26fps

Seeing a few fps more in warhead as well but I don't have any results atm.
a b U Graphics card
August 16, 2009 9:18:09 PM

It appears the driver block of the non use of MT on the cpu end has been fixed.
While some drops from previous drivers has occured, just like on the nVidia side, the overall difference is huge, and in many games.
Itll be explained by someone somewhere soon, and all the negative claims just wont hold IMHO
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 3:17:56 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
It appears the driver block of the non use of MT on the cpu end has been fixed.
While some drops from previous drivers has occured, just like on the nVidia side, the overall difference is huge, and in many games.
Itll be explained by someone somewhere soon, and all the negative claims just wont hold IMHO


I agree, it's like somebody giving you 1000$ dollars, and then they (Nvidia fanbois) tell you that 100$ of that money was money that you lost a while ago. It just doesn't hold much water. :non: 
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 5:13:45 AM

While some drops from previous drivers has occured, just like on the nVidia side, the overall difference is huge, and in many games. said:
While some drops from previous drivers has occured, just like on the nVidia side, the overall difference is huge, and in many games.


apparently the drops that i was talking about was consistent from 9.4,9.5,9.6. im actually am not using the latest geforce driver due to some driver instability.

I agree, it's like somebody giving you 1000$ dollars, and then they (Nvidia fanbois) tell you that 100$ of that money was money that you lost a while ago. It just doesn't hold much water. said:
I agree, it's like somebody giving you 1000$ dollars, and then they (Nvidia fanbois) tell you that 100$ of that money was money that you lost a while ago. It just doesn't hold much water.


i dunno, accusing someone of being a fanboy because he's criticizing the brand you love just dont make sense, in which case you're professing more that you're a silly fan boy than the person you're accusing. the fact is you can easily correct the situation by testing them yourself (cat 9.3 vs cat 9.8), why wouldnt you?

like i said, if you're an unsuspecting user unaware of those FPS loss, these 9.8 gains would look legit.
August 17, 2009 5:47:42 AM

wh3resmycar said:
i dunno, accusing someone of being a fanboy because he's criticizing the brand you love just dont make sense, in which case you're professing more that you're a silly fan boy than the person you're accusing


lol by hating ATi your automatically are an nvidia fanboy... there is just no other option, unless you hate GPU manufacturers in general, but yet again you shouldn't be in this part of the forum then

(giggles to himself at the nvidia driver problems in the other thread)
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 6:23:44 AM

If you lose 20% or whatever in 1 game, then gain back 40%, thats still 20%, and thats only 1 game.
Look at the list, they didnt do this in all those games.
Ive seen this mentioned elsewheres in 2 different forums, and in those other forums, the users assured those others that those numbers they posted were legit,.
Now, if theyd lost 50% fps, your think wed have heard about it now, by everyone? Have any links? Even 25%?, and even if it was 25%, need I remind you, this is still a 25% gain?
Important thing here is, I want to see some reviews, and compare them to old reviews. If the 4870x2 was behind the 260sli setup, is it kickin it now? Then all these claims will just evaporate
Im not saying youre lying, as there has been drops, and maybe this is somewhat of a setup, a suckerpunch if you will.
Think of this. You (ATI) still have alot of old gen HW to sell, you want to justify a higher cost of new products, gain marketshare and still move your old products.
How would you do this? Im playing the devils advocate, but even so, nVidia owners wont like this outcome.
OK, heres how

You dont make your driver increases known til the release of the new product. Simple as that. The increases drive down the competitions prices, you dont have to lower your old HW pricing as much, while at the same time, you also dont have to come in high with the new product, as you can edge that down, but nut not as high as it would have been, if not for the elevated value of the new found performance on your old HW, where itll maintain a higher selling point vs the competiion

Or, to make a long explanation short, watch for nVida cards values drop alot
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 9:23:00 AM

If you lose 20% or whatever in 1 game, then gain back 40%, thats still 20%, and thats only 1 game. said:
If you lose 20% or whatever in 1 game, then gain back 40%, thats still 20%, and thats only 1 game.


if only the 4870 users here would show a progressive 9.3 vs 9.4 vs 9.7 vs 9.8 comparison then i'd probably rest my case.


Now, if theyd lost 50% fps, your think wed have heard about it now, by everyone? Have any links? Even 25%?, and even if it was 25%, need I remind you, this is still a 25% gain? said:
Now, if theyd lost 50% fps, your think wed have heard about it now, by everyone? Have any links? Even 25%?, and even if it was 25%, need I remind you, this is still a 25% gain?


why are you asking me for links showing a 50% drop in performance???? did i made such claim?

im only after the 4870 single card performance where i had an experience. (lost 10% fps)




lol by hating ATi your automatically are an nvidia fanboy said:
lol by hating ATi your automatically are an nvidia fanboy


and by criticizing ATI, i automatically hate ATI. it just so happened that fanboys treat matters like this like religion.
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
August 17, 2009 1:13:18 PM

http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=7641

* Battleforge DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 performance improves of up to 50% with the largest gains in configurations using ATI CrossFireX™ technology.
* Company of Heroes DirectX 10 performance improves of up to 77%.
* Crysis DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 10% and quad mode performance improves of up to 34%.
* Crysis Warhead DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 7% and quad mode performance improves of up to 69%.
* Far Cry 2 DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 50% and quad mode performance improves of up to 88%.
* Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 40% and with quad mode performance improving of up to 60%.
* UnigineTropics OpenGL performance improvements of up to 20%.
* UnigineTropics DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in quad mode improvements of up to 20%.
* World in Conflict DirectX 10 performance improvements of up to by 10%.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 2:32:16 PM

Maziar said:
http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=7641

* Battleforge DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 performance improves of up to 50% with the largest gains in configurations using ATI CrossFireX™ technology.
* Company of Heroes DirectX 10 performance improves of up to 77%.
* Crysis DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 10% and quad mode performance improves of up to 34%.
* Crysis Warhead DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 7% and quad mode performance improves of up to 69%.
* Far Cry 2 DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 50% and quad mode performance improves of up to 88%.
* Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in dual mode improves of up to 40% and with quad mode performance improving of up to 60%.
* UnigineTropics OpenGL performance improvements of up to 20%.
* UnigineTropics DirectX 10 performance of ATI CrossFireX technology in quad mode improvements of up to 20%.
* World in Conflict DirectX 10 performance improvements of up to by 10%.



I can verify the COH, Crysis, anf FC2 gains are all legit, which means the other are probably true as well.

To Jaydee: I just can't see ATI releasing these drivers to try and sell more cards, or to try and lower Nvidia prices, I think when it comes down to it, they just finally figured out how to use the cpu to get all the juice out of these cards.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 2:34:12 PM

wh3resmycar said:
if only the 4870 users here would show a progressive 9.3 vs 9.4 vs 9.7 vs 9.8 comparison then i'd probably rest my case.




why are you asking me for links showing a 50% drop in performance???? did i made such claim?

im only after the 4870 single card performance where i had an experience. (lost 10% fps)






and by criticizing ATI, i automatically hate ATI. it just so happened that fanboys treat matters like this like religion.




I don't think youre a fanboy, I just think you should recognize some great work by the ATI driver team and not try and poo on these driver because of a supposed 10-20% previous loss of fps in one game a while ago.
August 17, 2009 2:38:41 PM

lol downloading these drivers removed my catalyst control center, but i did forget to uninstall teh old 1s so maybe thats why.
August 17, 2009 2:47:16 PM

Just picked these drivers up and threw them onto my compy.

Crysis Benchmark Tool

DX10
64-bit
Very High (All settings)
16xQ AA
1920x1200

Catalyst 9.7 - 29.745 FPS
Catalyst 9.8 - 36.385 FPS

:D 
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 2:49:54 PM

EQPlayer said:
Just picked these drivers up and threw them onto my compy.

Crysis Benchmark Tool

DX10
64-bit
Very High (All settings)
16xQ AA
1920x1200

Catalyst 9.7 - 29.745 FPS
Catalyst 9.8 - 36.385 FPS

:D 

Running a 4GHz i7 920, MSI Eclipse Plus, 12GB DDR3 (@1500ish), 2x Radeon 4870x2's.


Very nice, finally taking advantage of those four cores eh.
August 17, 2009 3:06:55 PM

Quote:
I have never seen QAA on anything but nvidia cards.

Also, I don't know if AA works by forcing through CCC, does it work for you?

What do you get with 4xAA in the benchmark? I hope alot more as right now you get the same as I do in the benchmark with 4xAA.


I'll go ahead and run it on 4xAA.

As for the Q AA... I don't know. That's just what I set it to in the Crysis Benchmark Tool settings menu.
August 17, 2009 3:12:30 PM

At 4x AA, it comes out to 37.055 FPS.
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
August 17, 2009 7:04:14 PM

Now out on AMD site
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 7:11:26 PM

w00t, new drivers!
And to think, I was disappointed in ATI just a few hours ago when I checked for this months updates...
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 9:45:10 PM

Theres more tweaking for Crysis on ATI drivers that needs to be done, theyve done a few things but a few more to go for it
Arent you sporting an i7 SS?
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 10:02:14 PM

Totally agree, as the new Intel offerings supply great niche perf boosts, less so for alot of other things, including gaming
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 10:03:50 PM

The usual claims Ive seen on Crysis is 10% with your card...how bout minimum frames? Anything?
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 10:04:18 PM

Yea, I can't see the need to upgrade to an i7 yet, my quadcore does what it needs to.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2009 10:45:32 PM

Yea, its the only way for apples to apples is to use it
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b \ Driver
August 18, 2009 7:42:52 AM

Ok,downloaded it and here is the result:

Test system:Q6600 @ 3.4,HD 4870X2 @ Stock,Win7 RTM X64 with 1920x1200 resolution

FarCry2(DX10) Benchmark tool
Settings used:Everything maxed out + 0xAA

CAT 9.7:
Average Framerate: 60.60
Max. Framerate: 94.98
Min. Framerate: 40.40

CAT 9.8:
Average Framerate: 86.37
Max. Framerate: 122.25
Min. Framerate: 62.85

CRYSIS(DX10) Benchmark tool
Settings used:I used a custom config called natural mod with 0xAA

CAT 9.7:
Overall Average FPS: 44.9

CAT 9.8:
Overall Average FPS: 46.7

I played the game too and i got about 1-2 FPS more than CAT 9.7.

Crysis Warhead(DX10) Beta Benchmark tool
Settings used:I used a Custom Ultra high config with 0xAA

CAT 9.7:
Min: 35.30 Max: 64.81 Avg: 48.22

CAT 9.8:
Min: 30.47 Max: 62.65 Avg: 47.82

This surprised me so i tested the game in Ambush level and i got about 4-5 FPS more than Cat 9.7,i think its because that the Benchmark tool is still in "Beta".

World in conflict(DX10) Benchmark tool:
Settings used:Everything maxed out with 16xAF and 0xAA:

CAT 9.7:
Average fps: 55
Min fps: 27
Max fps: 123

CAT 9.8:
Average fps: 58
Min fps: 28
Max fps: 127

Overall i'm pretty happy with the new drivers performance:) 

a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2009 8:55:15 AM

Great gains!
!