Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Omega 2.498b (Catalyst 3.9) decrease performance?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 20, 2003 2:11:24 AM

i have just downloaded the latest Omega driver, and it decreased performance in all benchmarks, however in games Halo, Freedom fighters, and Battlefield 1942 Secret Weapons of WWII, there was a slight decrease in frames, but there was improve in quality. Anybody else experiencing this with the new leaked driver? So is ATI trying to sacrifice performance for Quality? While nvidia's doing the other way around?

-Intel PIV 2.6C @ 3.51G -Asus P4P800 -OCZ Copper 2x256 4000EL memory @ 270mhz 2.5-4-4-8 -Sapphire 9800pro @ 490/780 -SB audigy -120G Maxtor Diamond Plus9 S-ATA150 hdd -450 Enermax PSU
October 20, 2003 11:39:04 AM

Uninstall them mate and go back to 3.7's or whatever. Those omegas run 5c hotter than normal for some reason. Test your overclock for artifacts in 3dmark03 and I bet with these drivers, you cant get anywhere near as high on the core as before.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" 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)
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 20, 2003 2:58:16 PM

Ok, thanks I went back to the 3.8

-Intel PIV 2.6C @ 3.51G -Asus P4P800 -OCZ Copper 2x256 4000EL memory @ 270mhz 2.5-4-4-8 -Sapphire 9800pro @ 490/780 -SB audigy -120G Maxtor Diamond Plus9 S-ATA150 hdd -450 Enermax PSU
October 20, 2003 9:00:57 PM

Where did you get leaked Omega drivers? Omegacorner.com still has drivers based on Catalyst 3.8.

I wonder; can you trust leaked, tweaked drivers? I mean Omega puts out his drivers on his own site. Where would leaked drivers come from? Does he have alpha or beta testers?

Now, I did notice a slight loss of performance with Omega's version of the 3.8's. Though, I'm using an old 8500 and Windows 98SE.

There was one exception, a big exception. I seem to be getting much better performance at 1600x1200. I can't quantify it. Because I never bothered benching at that resolution. However, I'm suddenly able to play games at that resolution while I never could in the past, not with this old hardware. I can play MOHAA with max settings. I couldn't even do that at 1024x768.

All OpenGL games and also DirectX 7 games just fly now.
DirectX 8 games seem improved as well but not nearly as much, though they are still playable.

The strange thing is all of my benchmarks (mostly at 1024 x 768) are all a little slower than with the 3.7 based drivers. Plus, at 1280 x 1024 games play slower than at 1600x1200. Yes, slower!

This is way too weird and no, I don't use AA. Much too slow with an 8500.

Did anyone else notice a boost at 1600x1200 with Omega's version of the 3.8's?

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
October 21, 2003 3:41:34 AM

I still find 1600x1200 just a novelty. I prefer 1280x960 on a 19" monitor. It seems to be the sweet spot for my eyes.

I was going to buy a mid-highend 17" monitor but I liked the specs of a budget 19" monitor (Viewsonic E95) so I bought it instead. Besides, 19" was better suited for something that has to double as my bedroom TV. The E95 even cost less than the 17" monitors that I was considering.

I was worried about the quality, not having seen this monitor before purchasing, but I'm very happy with it.

I have no complaints with it except perhaps the controls menu. It's a little awkward. That's all.

Some people wouldn't like the fact that it's not a flat screen.

The E95 is also a shadow mask monitor which some people don't like. I don't know why. I prefer them.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
October 21, 2003 5:16:20 AM

same as me. but i do 1280x960 on my viewsonc PF775 @ 85Hz. (vsynch on)
Just spiffy it is.

what refresh rate does the 19" do?

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
October 21, 2003 5:54:12 AM

It's not that great for refresh rates. According to Viewsonic data...

1600 x 1200 @ 76Hz

1280 x 1024 @ 88Hz

1024 x 768 @ 116Hz

The Omega Drivers based on Cats 3.8 limit me to 75 Hz, 85 Hz, and 100 Hz. 1280x960 is limited to 85 Hz.

The 75 Hz limit at 1600x1200 doesn't bother me. I'm one of the lucky people who aren't bothered by flicker, even at 70 Hz refresh. I can happily use inexpensive monitors.

<A HREF="http://www.viewsoniceurope.com/UK/Products/CRTE2/E95.ht..." target="_new">Complete E95 specs</A>

For the price the E95 is a great monitor. It only cost $203 USD delivered (about $292 AUD) about 8 months ago.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to find here in the USA now.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
October 21, 2003 6:05:28 AM

I also did another little comparison, in benchmarks, Omega drivers seems to give worse results(very small, given the margin of error) than the standard ATI drivers, is this because Omeaga increase the Image Quality?

-Intel PIV 2.6C @ 3.51G -Asus P4P800 -OCZ Copper 2x256 4000EL memory @ 270mhz 2.5-4-4-8 -Sapphire 9800pro @ 490/780 -SB audigy -120G Maxtor Diamond Plus9 S-ATA150 hdd -450 Enermax PSU
October 21, 2003 6:12:35 AM

Got the leaked driver off of <A HREF="http://www.driverheaven.net" target="_new">driverheaven</A>

-Intel PIV 2.6C @ 3.51G -Asus P4P800 -OCZ Copper 2x256 4000EL memory @ 270mhz 2.5-4-4-8 -Sapphire 9800pro @ 490/780 -SB audigy -120G Maxtor Diamond Plus9 S-ATA150 hdd -450 Enermax PSU
October 21, 2003 6:18:05 AM

heh... sounds allmost identical to mine.
97Khz speed, but in the 17" not 19"
(mine was an expensive professional series)

1600x1200 @ 77Hz
1280x1024 @ 89Hz
1280x960 @ 89 or so
1024x768 @ 117Hz

Still 85Hz is pretty decent. no flickering :smile:

When i was in canada a few years back i got an OPTIQUEST monitor... which are virtually the same as the viewsonics.

You should see if they are still around and selling as you cant find the Viewsonics.

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
October 21, 2003 6:42:06 AM

Yes. Omega used to have a note about this somewhere on his site but he has changed it. As I recall, the earlier note stated that his drivers are for game performance not for benchmarking.

I always thought this was kind of ambiquous.

Did it mean that the drivers didn't do as well in benchmarks or did it mean that game performance is maximized (presumably meaning maximized after taking into consideration the obvious IQ enhancements)?

The note now reads, "The purpose of the Omega Drivers is to provide gamers with an alternate set of drivers, ones that have more options and features than the original sets. The drivers contain optimizations, extra features (like OC capabilities), more resolutions and internal tweaks that can give them the edge in a gaming enviroment over the normal drivers, which are often tailored for synthetic benchmarks".

Sounds like Omega is trying to improve both IQ and performance.


<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
October 21, 2003 6:09:04 PM

Oh, I can find Viewsonics, no problem. They are very popular here in the USA. I just can't find the E95's or similar models for a similar price.

Viewsonic has other budget E series monitors, both AG and shadow mask versions. I don't like the lines on AG monitors and the current E models based with shadow masks are evolved from the E90. I think the E92F is the current 19" model and it goes up to something like 2048x1536 but at 60 Hz. 1600x1200 is a mere 66 Hz. Makes those resolutions unusable except for video. Basically the E90 family (if I can call it that) has had higher max resolution but poorer refresh rates than the E95. The latter is not a professional grade (I don't think 0.26 dot pitch qualifies) but it's better than the professional monitors I was lugging around 10 years ago. [...I remember the day I had to move a CAD lab with twenty-five 21" monitors. Back then they weighed about 90 lbs, 41 kilograms. Those things were awkward to carry and the location didn't have an elevator. (Do you call it a lift in OZ?)]

I looked at Optiquest monitors but the shadow mask ones seem to be identical to the E90 family with the same lousy refresh rates.


...back to topic

I'm dropping the Omega's based on the 3.8's. I'm getting too many problems too frequently, mostly missing textures and occasionally getting dropped to the desktop.

I didn't have this problem with any of the previous Omega drivers.

I might go back to Omega's 3.1's. These gave my old 8500 the best performance. I'll have to review the release notes of the various drivers first.

[edited for typos]

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 10/21/03 02:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2003 9:28:27 PM

First they are NOT the 3.9 drivers, they are as Omega calls them 3.8.5 the 3.9s will be different.

And the thing about Omega drivers is that they are supposed to increase quality and stability and may cost you a small hit in framerate, but in other scenarios may increase your fps. It's not ATI that's soing any 'sacrificing' it's Omega who's focusing on what most people go to them for IQ and stability (that last part may be questionable this time around).

They run Halo smooth for me, I even ran it with the 'a' version without fail.


- 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: 
October 21, 2003 9:33:25 PM

GGA you done some benchin' with halo and ur 9600p? I would be interested in ur results. :) 

My system spec: Fast PC<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
"It's not the spoon that bends, it's only yourself."
a b U Graphics card
October 21, 2003 11:48:00 PM

Nah I have the DEMO download. I MAY buy the full version next week. I'm still not sure if I wanna support MS, and the performance figures so far aren't great. The demo scene is all I remember it with nice crubly fragmenty bits thrown in. As someone who has the full version here's a question for you. Are the new weapons good? Is it better than the Xbox version when all is said and done (we now have an XBOX in the lounge at work [thanks to mother corp new initiative] so I can play it at work if it weren't swamped in constant NHL2003 mini-games).

Do you know if there's a benchmark in the demo?

I turned everything to high, and set res. at 8x6, no AA/AF and it seems just as smooth as the Xbox version. Running the R9600P at 456/318 (standard setting for me).

I see a little Aliasing which is annoying but I haven't spent time to tweak it out yet (and check to see what effects I lose if I do).

I'll probably head straight to the Multi-Player tonight. If anyone sees KnightShade in Purple Armour, that'll be me.

Anywhoo, if I do get it I'll definitely run the benchmark and let you all know at my usual bench-standards of 500/350 and stock speeds.


- 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: 
October 22, 2003 4:40:55 AM

Damn thats annoying.
Ive seen that in Oz too.
With so many people going to LCD's, its hard to find high quality CRT's... they all seem to be the nasty ones with crap resolutions.

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
October 22, 2003 5:47:05 AM

When I was searching, I was going to give in and get another AG monitor. My previous monitor was a 15" MAG monitor, an AG. I never did get used to the damper wire (15" monitors only have one).

The E95 was just a cheapy. My monitors mostly just get used for browsing, television, and gaming so the new one didn't need to be high-end or even mid-level. Legibility and decent color were important but not much else was. Frankly, considering the low price I only expected this monitor to be usable at 1280x1024 at best.

I was pleasantly surprised.

Maybe I'll have to bear the lines of the aperture grill for my next monitor. That is, if there still are any CRTs the next time I need replacement.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 10/22/03 01:51 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
October 22, 2003 12:22:40 PM

I highly recommend Phillips 19" and 21" monitors, but even they seem to be departing the consumer market.

At my desk here I have a 21" IBM P260, which is the very best monitor I have ever had the pleasure of using, and I've used alot of Trinitrons (the base tube for this model).

The P260 sells in Canada for about $1500-2000CDN, but can run 1920X1440 @75hz and 16x12 @85hz, I leave it at 19x14 so I can see ALL of the 'important' stuff on the Excel sheet I'm ploding through, or open two windows on the same screen (I asked for but was denied dual monitor capability for now [I asked for a Parhelia and a Second P260 :cool: , heck I'd settle for the P202 I had before this one {max res. 16x12 @75}]). It also comes with a DVI-A connector (yes DVI on a CRT). The good monitors are out there, but with the sub $200 21" monitors out there, there's little chance for GOOD monitors to compete in the consumer market right now. Flood of cheap crap and people who don't know the diff. just kills any chance to spread the market, and I'm guilty of that as well, I now have a Daytek (read Daewoo for those Int'l buyers) 19" at home along with my 17" Phillips and Old IBM P70 17". My next monitor will likely be Flat Panel and based on reviews, likely a Samsung (the 21" 16x12 with rotate [landscape/portrait] function is very nice, but also costs $1999 @ FS.

The GREAT CRTs are still out there, but they are more expensive and there is no middle ground, simply for the reasons you've stated, the demand has shifted away from CRTs (alot of people like myself are looking for a second monitor to work alongside our CRTs, and have no need for ANOTHER one.

Well that's just my view from the cheap seats.


- 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: 
!