Omega 3.7

I'm dl the new omega cat 3.7's. Anyone here useing these or know what they are like?

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6988331" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
12 answers Last reply
More about omega
  1. I have em. They're fine.

    "Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

    "Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
  2. Slower than the Catalyst 3.6 derived drivers on my old 8500 in 3DMark2001, about 130 pts slower. 3DMark2003 doesn't complete. Generates an error, "f-sound" or "fp-sound" something or other which is strange because 3DMark2003 never used to run the sound tests on my rig.

    Haven't seen any any problems in any or my games. They still look great and run smoothly as always with Omega's Drivers.

    I might switch back to back because the error bothers me.

    By the way, I'm using Windows 98x version of the drivers (2.6.18). Your results may be different.

    <b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
  3. WOW!!!! I installed them over my 3.4 omega's, whole thing took about a minute. I just ran 3dmark2001 and I got 18,127 @ 378/340! Most of the game tests have gone up 2fps on the higher detail! Amazing... Gonna try 03 in a minute, but I think I can pull in some 1337 scores with these drivers. Hehe...

    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6988331" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
    <font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
  4. The optimizations that were in the nature test have been removed as promised by ATI. Down 2fps there. The other tests up 1fps or so though. Not bad for a few minutes of time :) Just need to test my games out now!

    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6988331" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
    <font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
  5. Getting close to the 20k barrier Speeduk. I can't wait to see what you pull in 3dmark03.

    My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
  6. My 3dmark 03 score is almost identical to the one in my sig but I've got this @ 382/342 artifact free <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6993924" target="_new"> click </A>


    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6988331" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
    <font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
  7. Isn't 3dmark01 really CPU depended?

    -Intel PIV 2.4C @ 3.84G -Asus P4P800 -OCZ Gold 2x256 3700EL memory @ 256mhz 2.5-3-3-7 -Sapphire 9800pro @ 490/780 -SB audigy -80G Maxtor Diamond Plus9 Ultra ATA-133 hdd -450 Enermax PSU
  8. Its equally cpu/memory and gpu/mem dependent. E.G if I up the fsb 17mhz, I get an extra 350+- 3dmarks. An extra 50mhz cpu speed = about 100 3dmarks. An extra 30mhz gpu and 20mhz memory on the radeon = an extra 700 3d marks or so. Its reacts better to an overclocked 3d card though. Look at my score, gone from 16,790 to 18,100 with just an extra 55mhz gpu and 30mhz memory!!!!!!

    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6988331" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
    <font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by speeduk on 09/13/03 06:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  9. The thing is that the Omega's aren't really for benchmarkers. They usually compromise scores for IQ and stability. That's not really an issue for their major target, gamers. If you really want to post some score you go with your fastest ATI drivers (depends on their make-up and tweaks) and then add Rage3Dtweak. Using their OC utility I got my highest scores (a good 1-2% more than Omegas), however the Omegas ARE my default driver. I put on the ATI's first (and usually bench) and then switch to the Omegas with their release). This round caught me off guard and I was a little late in my seeing the Omegas (as WS noticed), freakin' work :lol: , and so didn't get a chance to benchmark them. I like the look and feel of the reference divers with Rage3Dtweak, but I prefer the actual performance of the Omegas. And who looks at their control panel all day?
    :wink:

    Anywhoo, if you want to break the 20K barrier (just to do it) then use the Rage3Dtweak for a day and then switch back to the Omegas. I did that to break the 12K barrier in 3Dmk01, but I promplty removed them after that. Now I don't care enough (until GW get his next card) to do 3 installs, 2 is already enough!


    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
  10. Oh if I wanted to break the 20k barrier for the sake of it, I could easily do that. My cpu and memory will run at 2484mhz/207mhz fsb to run 3dmark, but the system is far from stable at this speed. Also the 9700pro will do 395/345 but again its not quite artifact free like this.

    My goal is to keep things on stock voltage (so I dont end up getting a delta or tornado fan) and 110% stable, but push the card and system to the edge at the same time, so when I do finally get 19k or so, I won't have to settle for 17k later on because its not stable like this...

    As for the omega drivers. They offer great performance and image quality, and they dont mess up like the 3.0, 3.2 and 3.4 ATI drivers did.

    So far I've got 2323mhz and 202mhz fsb out of my barton cpu on 1.65v and 378/340 from the 9700pro. That gives me just over 18k with the new drivers, while being stable, cool, quiet and freakin fast. :)

    I am getting more and more tempted to try some corsair 217mhz cl2 memory and run the fsb @ 220-224mhz giving me 2310-2350mhz, about an extra 450 3dmarks if the chipset on my 8RDA3+ can cope. But at £120 it doesn't seem worth it. Considering I got an extra 1,500 3dmarks out of this card for £94 hehehe.....

    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6988331" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
    <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
    <font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
  11. Oh, but you could have <A HREF="http://www.corsairmicro.com/xms/pro.html" target="_new">THESE</A> in your rig. Imagine. Must make it go faster they're so flashy and purdy!

    Yeah don't sucumb to upgraditis, man I was so close to getting a GA 7NNXP and another stick of Corsair XMS PC3200 CL2 just so I could beat GW at the BungholioMark Challenge.

    Sanity returned and I got me some more bubbas of beer!

    Anywhoo, gotta fly, be back later.


    - You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
  12. Dang, talk about Souped up RAM! THey had overclokers in mind for sure with that product! I bet it costs an arma nd a leg though.

    My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Font 3D Graphics