ATi vs nVidia drivers

[AzN]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
"PUN's" post above is kind of like what I was getting at. Frequency of driver releases does not a better driver make.

BFG10K isn't saying that 'more often' equates to 'higher quality'. With ATI, you have the hope that any issues you're currently experiencing will be fixed in the next month's driver release. With Nvidia, if you have problems with their newly released driver, you know you'll have to live with it for at least the next four to six months unless they happen to release a 'Beta' driver that addresses your particular glitch.

Something wrong with a beta driver that fixes a glitch? You should know, that usually, the only difference between a beta driver and a whql driver is Microsofts blessing.

RC drivers (release candidates) are a different story. The only problem you are having then, is that Nvidia's aren't labled whql. Beta drivers are available very often. Probably more often than ATI's monthly release drivers.

Beta drivers can fix an issue as well as cause other issues. Just as any WHQL driver could do exactly the same. HDMI issue is a decent example of this. It WAS working on 8.2 and prior. Now it isn't. But I'm sure there have been fixes for other things during the last 7 releases, as BFG stated. There were two for him. HDMI doesn't affect him, so he doesn't care as much. Same with Apoppin as stated.

Definitely true. Beta drivers are just as good as WHQL drivers without microsoft testing for Windows compatibility for a certified logo.

I think they both have capable teams producing decent drivers. They just have a different systems. I can't say which is better because I think they both work great and fix things in timely manner. Getting better features is another thing we all have to gripe about.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: thilan29


I've gotta ask WHY can't nVidia release regular monthly drivers (it would be better for their customers to fix issues regularly wouldn't it?)?

Excuse me, but I just noted that 5 WHQL drivers were released in the last 7 months. Still not enough eh. hehe.

Not for my 8800GT (and not for everyone as has been pointed out already). From March '08 to now, there have been 3 WHQL drivers for the 8800GT for Vista 32....so no that's not enough...and I actually HAVE been burned by non-WHQL nVidia drivers so I stick to WHQL now.

Can someone please tell me why you need driver updates every month...not for performance no, glitches...?. I havent had any on 9xxx series.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
You know I work with PC's and Servers every day, so coming home to do a driver update every month just seems like a waste of my time. If I fire up my toy, I want to game, not fart around wasting 30-45 min uninstalling and re-installing drivers.

Um, thats nice and all and I think most of us are in the same boat. What the general point here is that IF you encounter an issue it's normally better to have more recent drivers available to download as opposed to months old drivers. And does it really take 30-45min to install a driver? I have not installed 8.9 yet since 8.8's still work and I'm lazy but when I did install 8.8 it took less than 5 min including the restart. Same with the most recent nvidia driver I installed (WHQL release before last), took only a few min to install...

Originally posted by: Azn

Definitely true. Beta drivers are just as good as WHQL drivers without microsoft testing for Windows compatibility for a certified logo.

...

As I stated in the past I have nothing against nvidia and I don't care who's card is in my pc but it seems like if their beta drivers are as good as their WHQL why not certify them? And why specifically state they will offer 0 support when they clearly support their certified drivers in the official forums and via the support line? The cost to certify is not that great (relativly speaking) and they are making a ton of money so why not? Again, I'm not saying their beta drivers are not as good (I only had a single issue with their beta drivers years ago and since then have stuck to certified so I don't know their current status) it just seems odd that if they really do go to all the QA trouble and they are just as stable as the certified ones why not pay to certify them?

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Can someone please tell me why you need driver updates every month...not for performance no, glitches...?. I havent had any on 9xxx series.

And have you played every game/used every piece of software/ran every OS version out there? No? It's great that your 9xxx works for you just as my 7800GT, 8800GTS, and 4870 are all working great for me. However, just like you, I have not played every game so I'm sure there are some that will have issues with my cards. The nice part of monthly releases is that bugs generally get fixed quicker so if/when you run into a problem there are drivers available that may fix that as opposed to waiting for an unknown amount of time.

As I have said, I don't update drivers unless I need to like a game is broken or software is crashing. What I do like is that when that happens there are generally newer ATI drivers available that more often then not fix the problem I was having. No one is saying nvidia drivers suck just that having a known driver release schedule is better than an unknown one, simple as that.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: SolMiester
You know I work with PC's and Servers every day, so coming home to do a driver update every month just seems like a waste of my time. If I fire up my toy, I want to game, not fart around wasting 30-45 min uninstalling and re-installing drivers.

Um, thats nice and all and I think most of us are in the same boat. What the general point here is that IF you encounter an issue it's normally better to have more recent drivers available to download as opposed to months old drivers. And does it really take 30-45min to install a driver? I have not installed 8.9 yet since 8.8's still work and I'm lazy but when I did install 8.8 it took less than 5 min including the restart. Same with the most recent nvidia driver I installed (WHQL release before last), took only a few min to install...

Originally posted by: Azn

Definitely true. Beta drivers are just as good as WHQL drivers without microsoft testing for Windows compatibility for a certified logo.

...

As I stated in the past I have nothing against nvidia and I don't care who's card is in my pc but it seems like if their beta drivers are as good as their WHQL why not certify them? And why specifically state they will offer 0 support when they clearly support their certified drivers in the official forums and via the support line? The cost to certify is not that great (relativly speaking) and they are making a ton of money so why not? Again, I'm not saying their beta drivers are not as good (I only had a single issue with their beta drivers years ago and since then have stuck to certified so I don't know their current status) it just seems odd that if they really do go to all the QA trouble and they are just as stable as the certified ones why not pay to certify them?

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Can someone please tell me why you need driver updates every month...not for performance no, glitches...?. I havent had any on 9xxx series.

And have you played every game/used every piece of software/ran every OS version out there? No? It's great that your 9xxx works for you just as my 7800GT, 8800GTS, and 4870 are all working great for me. However, just like you, I have not played every game so I'm sure there are some that will have issues with my cards. The nice part of monthly releases is that bugs generally get fixed quicker so if/when you run into a problem there are drivers available that may fix that as opposed to waiting for an unknown amount of time.

As I have said, I don't update drivers unless I need to like a game is broken or software is crashing. What I do like is that when that happens there are generally newer ATI drivers available that more often then not fix the problem I was having. No one is saying nvidia drivers suck just that having a known driver release schedule is better than an unknown one, simple as that.

Well, I'm thinking 1-15min download, uninstall, reboot, I have SCSI drives, takes damn near 5 mi to boot my PC, re-install etc, is close to 45mi for me.

I would of thought that multiple releases of drivers would give more chance of glitches etc....if not broken, dont fix...

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: SolMiester
You know I work with PC's and Servers every day, so coming home to do a driver update every month just seems like a waste of my time. If I fire up my toy, I want to game, not fart around wasting 30-45 min uninstalling and re-installing drivers.

Um, thats nice and all and I think most of us are in the same boat. What the general point here is that IF you encounter an issue it's normally better to have more recent drivers available to download as opposed to months old drivers. And does it really take 30-45min to install a driver? I have not installed 8.9 yet since 8.8's still work and I'm lazy but when I did install 8.8 it took less than 5 min including the restart. Same with the most recent nvidia driver I installed (WHQL release before last), took only a few min to install...

Originally posted by: Azn

Definitely true. Beta drivers are just as good as WHQL drivers without microsoft testing for Windows compatibility for a certified logo.

...

As I stated in the past I have nothing against nvidia and I don't care who's card is in my pc but it seems like if their beta drivers are as good as their WHQL why not certify them? And why specifically state they will offer 0 support when they clearly support their certified drivers in the official forums and via the support line? The cost to certify is not that great (relativly speaking) and they are making a ton of money so why not? Again, I'm not saying their beta drivers are not as good (I only had a single issue with their beta drivers years ago and since then have stuck to certified so I don't know their current status) it just seems odd that if they really do go to all the QA trouble and they are just as stable as the certified ones why not pay to certify them?

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Can someone please tell me why you need driver updates every month...not for performance no, glitches...?. I havent had any on 9xxx series.

And have you played every game/used every piece of software/ran every OS version out there? No? It's great that your 9xxx works for you just as my 7800GT, 8800GTS, and 4870 are all working great for me. However, just like you, I have not played every game so I'm sure there are some that will have issues with my cards. The nice part of monthly releases is that bugs generally get fixed quicker so if/when you run into a problem there are drivers available that may fix that as opposed to waiting for an unknown amount of time.

As I have said, I don't update drivers unless I need to like a game is broken or software is crashing. What I do like is that when that happens there are generally newer ATI drivers available that more often then not fix the problem I was having. No one is saying nvidia drivers suck just that having a known driver release schedule is better than an unknown one, simple as that.

Well, I'm thinking 1-15min download, uninstall, reboot, I have SCSI drives, takes damn near 5 mi to boot my PC, re-install etc, is close to 45mi for me.

I would of thought that multiple releases of drivers would give more chance of glitches etc....if not broken, dont fix...

Gotcha, I did not include the download time and I don't have other issues like SCSI and the like.

You may be correct on the frequent drivers breaking more things then fixing, I don't update unless I have a problem so I'm not sure there. All I have is my own experience with both brands and the few times I have had issues with my ATI cards there was always (with once exception) a recent driver that fixed that problem. There have been a few issues with my nvidia cards that took several months to fix as drivers where not out yet. Now, none of these problems where major and I was still able to enjoy the cards immensly so it was not a huge deal.

Regardless, I'm still of the mindset that more frequent, certified driver releases are better than unscheduled releases but that is just my opinion.

 

[apoppin]

Can someone please tell me why you need driver updates every month...not for performance no, glitches...?. I havent had any on 9xxx series.

to a Nvidia fan, no

AMD owners realize that the drivers actually do make some improvements .. *Overall* .. from month-to-month

i got some nice improvements in Cat 8.9 over 8.8 that fixed some screwed up CF X scaling

and i ALSO got some nice improvements with the latest Nvidia drivers

i'd *like* to see monthly driver releases from Nvidia also

but then that is just me .. a Nvidiatic

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Can someone please tell me why you need driver updates every month...not for performance no, glitches...?. I havent had any on 9xxx series.

Just because you haven't had any on your card so far doesn't mean others haven't on their cards. We want driver updates mostly for glitches but performance is appreciated as well.

I got a 8800GTS 640 on launch day and I had definitely had problems running games with that card (ie. Splinter Cell Double Agent and Gothic 3 come to mind). So yes there are glitches (as there are with ATI cards as well).

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Azn

Definitely true. Beta drivers are just as good as WHQL drivers without microsoft testing for Windows compatibility for a certified logo.

...

As I stated in the past I have nothing against nvidia and I don't care who's card is in my pc but it seems like if their beta drivers are as good as their WHQL why not certify them? And why specifically state they will offer 0 support when they clearly support their certified drivers in the official forums and via the support line? The cost to certify is not that great (relativly speaking) and they are making a ton of money so why not? Again, I'm not saying their beta drivers are not as good (I only had a single issue with their beta drivers years ago and since then have stuck to certified so I don't know their current status) it just seems odd that if they really do go to all the QA trouble and they are just as stable as the certified ones why not pay to certify them?

Just because ATI comes up with WHQL drivers every month doesn't mean Nvidia has to. They just have a different way of doing things. It's a different company after all.

Besides have you actually used a beta drivers from Nvidia? They are no different from a certified driver besides a WHQL name on the file itself. Beta drivers are usually continued cycle of revisions progressing to WHQL drivers while ATI likes to do smaller updates at a time by releasing more WHQL drivers and no beta drivers.

As for Nvidia not supporting beta drivers. Probably because it's not certified by microsoft.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Azn

Definitely true. Beta drivers are just as good as WHQL drivers without microsoft testing for Windows compatibility for a certified logo.

...

As I stated in the past I have nothing against nvidia and I don't care who's card is in my pc but it seems like if their beta drivers are as good as their WHQL why not certify them? And why specifically state they will offer 0 support when they clearly support their certified drivers in the official forums and via the support line? The cost to certify is not that great (relativly speaking) and they are making a ton of money so why not? Again, I'm not saying their beta drivers are not as good (I only had a single issue with their beta drivers years ago and since then have stuck to certified so I don't know their current status) it just seems odd that if they really do go to all the QA trouble and they are just as stable as the certified ones why not pay to certify them?

Just because ATI comes up with WHQL drivers every month doesn't mean Nvidia has to. They just have a different way of doing things. It's a different company after all.

Besides have you actually used a beta drivers from Nvidia? They are no different from a certified driver besides a WHQL name on the file itself. Beta drivers are usually continued cycle of revisions progressing to WHQL drivers.

As for Nvidia not supporting beta drivers. Probably because it's not certified by microsoft.

You are correct, nVidia and ATI are different companies and I'm not saying they should release at the same time or on the same schedule. What I can't figure out is if the claim by both the focus group members and users such as yourself is that the beta drivers work just as well and are have the same QA (stated by nrollo) then why not certify and support them? The only reason I can see is a possible cost savings but those are pretty small considering they supposedly went to all the cost of testing and assuring they worked. Again, I'm not trying to argue and I certaintly don't hate nVidia, I love their cards and vendors. I just can't figure out the supposed fully stable drivers yet not taking that last step to get them certified. Something is obviously holding them back, what is it?

I confess that I have not tried a beta nVidia driver in the last few years. I used to use them (7800GT was my main card then) and had substantial problems once which is why I have avoided them since.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Spike

Originally posted by: Azn

Definitely true. Beta drivers are just as good as WHQL drivers without microsoft testing for Windows compatibility for a certified logo.

...

As I stated in the past I have nothing against nvidia and I don't care who's card is in my pc but it seems like if their beta drivers are as good as their WHQL why not certify them? And why specifically state they will offer 0 support when they clearly support their certified drivers in the official forums and via the support line? The cost to certify is not that great (relativly speaking) and they are making a ton of money so why not? Again, I'm not saying their beta drivers are not as good (I only had a single issue with their beta drivers years ago and since then have stuck to certified so I don't know their current status) it just seems odd that if they really do go to all the QA trouble and they are just as stable as the certified ones why not pay to certify them?

Just because ATI comes up with WHQL drivers every month doesn't mean Nvidia has to. They just have a different way of doing things. It's a different company after all.

Besides have you actually used a beta drivers from Nvidia? They are no different from a certified driver besides a WHQL name on the file itself. Beta drivers are usually continued cycle of revisions progressing to WHQL drivers.

As for Nvidia not supporting beta drivers. Probably because it's not certified by microsoft.

You are correct, nVidia and ATI are different companies and I'm not saying they should release at the same time or on the same schedule. What I can't figure out is if the claim by both the focus group members and users such as yourself is that the beta drivers work just as well and are have the same QA (stated by nrollo) then why not certify and support them? The only reason I can see is a possible cost savings but those are pretty small considering they supposedly went to all the cost of testing and assuring they worked. Again, I'm not trying to argue and I certaintly don't hate nVidia, I love their cards and vendors. I just can't figure out the supposed fully stable drivers yet not taking that last step to get them certified. Something is obviously holding them back, what is it?

I confess that I have not tried a beta nVidia driver in the last few years. I used to use them (7800GT was my main card then) and had substantial problems once which is why I have avoided them since.

Why do you think something is holding them back to approve for WHQL cerifications? I say this again because I don't think you got it the first time. Perhaps this is just how they do it. :laugh:

Nvidia never promised their customers to release WHQL drivers every month. While ATI did promise their customers a while back and continuing that cycle. Just because ATI does it doesn't mean everyone has to follow their system. I don't feel ripped off because I didn't get more frequent WHQL drivers than x company does. ATI likes to do smaller updates by releasing frequent WHQL drivers while Nvidia likes the continuation of beta drivers for a bigger update. In emergency case ATI does put out a patch for drivers. Long as they get the fix on my end in timely manner that's all that matters.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Azn
Just because ATI does it doesn't mean everyone has to follow their system. I don't feel ripped off because I didn't get more frequent WHQL drivers than x company does.

He didn't say that nV has to follow what ATI does...all he said was those beta drivers that nV DOES release, if they've gone to all the trouble of FULLY testing them (who knows if that's true), why not get them certified...it doesn't have to be a monthly release...just certify the beta drivers that ARE released.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Don't you have that wrong? nVidia does not support the hardware as thats the responsibility of the people who actually made/rebranded the card. They do, however, create the drivers and therefore support the "official" ones.

Direct from their official support forums on their website:

"NVIDIA Graphics Driver was created by NVIDIA® Corporation. Please contact NVIDIA® Corporation for assistance and troubleshooting information or, to find out if a solution is available. For more information, see the NVIDIA® Corporation Web site"

RTFEULA nVidia has NEVER supported drivers officially. The reality is they support the 'betas' as much as they do the WHQL drivers- but they are EXTREMELY clear on the fact that the WHQL drivers are NOT officially supported in the EULA.

He didn't say that nV has to follow what ATI does...all he said was those beta drivers that nV DOES release, if they've gone to all the trouble of FULLY testing them (who knows if that's true), why not get them certified...it doesn't have to be a monthly release...just certify the beta drivers that ARE released.

Why don't you give me $500? I'll say you are BQL certified, OK? Sound good to you? That is what WHQL is.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Don't you have that wrong? nVidia does not support the hardware as thats the responsibility of the people who actually made/rebranded the card. They do, however, create the drivers and therefore support the "official" ones.

Direct from their official support forums on their website:

"NVIDIA Graphics Driver was created by NVIDIA® Corporation. Please contact NVIDIA® Corporation for assistance and troubleshooting information or, to find out if a solution is available. For more information, see the NVIDIA® Corporation Web site"

RTFEULA nVidia has NEVER supported drivers officially. The reality is they support the 'betas' as much as they do the WHQL drivers- but they are EXTREMELY clear on the fact that the WHQL drivers are NOT officially supported in the EULA.

He didn't say that nV has to follow what ATI does...all he said was those beta drivers that nV DOES release, if they've gone to all the trouble of FULLY testing them (who knows if that's true), why not get them certified...it doesn't have to be a monthly release...just certify the beta drivers that ARE released.

Why don't you give me $500? I'll say you are BQL certified, OK? Sound good to you? That is what WHQL is.

I just read the license agreement you sign when downloading nvidia drivers and it says nothing that I consider extremely clear about nVidia not supporting their drivers. The closest it comes is saying there is no warranty on the software but goes on to explain that applies to whether or not you got the right software for your card and how they don't guarantee it will work. Can you show me where it says that or is my legalese just rusty? I'm not saying your wrong I just can't find it in writing. What I did see was them saying this:

"Without limiting the foregoing, you are solely responsible for determining and verifying that the SOFTWARE that you obtain and install is the appropriate version for your model of graphics controller board, operating system, and computer hardware. "

Regardless, what they do on their site is clearly support the drivers through the forums and tech support line so it's obvious that in practice they do support the WHQL drivers even if they don't state that specifically on their site.

What their site also says about the beta drivers is this:

"Beta drivers are provided by NVIDIA as preview releases for quick bug fixes and access to new features. Beta drivers are under qualification testing, and may include significant issues. It is the end user's responsibility to protect system and data when using Beta drivers with NVIDIA products. It is strongly recommended that end users back up all the data prior to using Beta drivers from this site. Please ensure that newer Recommended/Certified drivers are not already posted on NVIDIA.com prior to installation and usage of Beta drivers. Beta drivers posted do not carry any warranties nor support services."

The bolded line alone tells me all I need to know. If nvidia admits that significant issues may exist in the beta drivers and they they are still under qualification testing then it's pretty clear they are NOT the exact same as the WHQL drivers as people here continue to argue.

This is getting pointless and the arguments clouded by people with obvious bias to either company. I personally don't care who's card I have but I will take a known release schedule any day over a "whenever" approach with beta's in-between, especially if those in-between drivers may include "significant issues"

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Why don't you give me $500? I'll say you are BQL certified, OK? Sound good to you? That is what WHQL is.

I've never had BSODs or anything like that with a WHQL driver, but have with a beta driver (and Spike said he's had problems with betas as well) so I'd argue they are different. Of course this could be pure coincidence that the WHQL worked and the beta didn't but neither of us have proof that they are or aren't different...I just stick to WHQLs now (when they come) and haven't had a problem recently.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The reality is they support the 'betas' as much as they do the WHQL drivers- but they are EXTREMELY clear on the fact that the WHQL drivers are NOT officially supported in the EULA.

Is this supposed to be a good thing? Asus doesn?t write drivers. Gigabyte doesn?t write drivers. XFX doesn?t write drivers. nVidia does, so they should support them.

Why don't you give me $500? I'll say you are BQL certified, OK? Sound good to you? That is what WHQL is.

Uh no, it's nothing of the sort. You can't get WHQL certification just by paying money; your driver has to pass the tests. If it doesn?t pass the tests you don?t get WHQL no matter how much money you pay.

 

[dug777]

One is delivered on a regular monthly basis, prominently displayed and touted as the optimum, supported driver for all AMD products.

The other is released pretty much randomly and considerably less frequently, nvidia suggest you backup all data prior to using beta drivers, and explicitly disavow anything to do with the damn things

'nuff said.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: dug777

One is delivered on a regular monthly basis, prominently displayed and touted as the optimum, supported driver for all AMD products.

The other is released pretty much randomly and considerably less frequently, nvidia suggest you backup all data prior to using beta drivers, and explicitly disavow anything to do with the damn things

'nuff said.

Dug, almost anyone knows that you are "supposed" to back up critical data when making any hardware/software change to your computer. Does everyone do it? Of course not. There is ALWAYS a chance that something can really go wrong. ATI and NV do things differently. Doesn't make one better than the other, just different. Same argument could be brought on about the shaders. Why doesn't ATI follow suit and develop shaders akin to Nvidia's? Are Nvidia's shaders better than ATI's just because they develop them differently? I don't think so.
They're just different.

 

[nosfe]

Why don't you give me $500? I'll say you are BQL certified, OK? Sound good to you? That is what WHQL is.

Uh no, it's nothing of the sort. You can't get WHQL certification just by paying money; your driver has to pass the tests. If it doesn?t pass the tests you don?t get WHQL no matter how much money you pay.

actually, if you give enough money you can change the tests so that your driver passes; isn't that what happened with the intel 915 chipset being "windows vista capable"?

 

[Keysplayr]

Something similar happened with ATI's drivers during the SM2.0b/3.0 timeframe. There were articles about ATI going to have a hard time getting the MS stamp of approval, and worries that they never would. But low and behold, they did it with sub 3.0 hardware. How'd that happen? $$$$.

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Something similar happened with ATI's drivers during the SM2.0b/3.0 timeframe. There were articles about ATI going to have a hard time getting the MS stamp of approval, and worries that they never would. But low and behold, they did it with sub 3.0 hardware. How'd that happen? $$$$.

What are you trying to say here? That ATI bribed MS into certifying their drivers?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Creig

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Something similar happened with ATI's drivers during the SM2.0b/3.0 timeframe. There were articles about ATI going to have a hard time getting the MS stamp of approval, and worries that they never would. But low and behold, they did it with sub 3.0 hardware. How'd that happen? $$$$.

What are you trying to say here? That ATI bribed MS into certifying their drivers?

Ah, snap judgment. Very cool.

More likely extortion by MS. Holding the WHQL certification for ransom IMHO, is not beneath MS. So you don't remember the articles then? The big "uncertainty"? Whether ATI would be able to sell their products in new OEM machines if they didn't have WHQL drivers to go along with them?

 

[Genx87]

My experience with ATI is limited in a gaming sense. We have workstations and laptops with ATI cards in them and they work fine for business.

I had a 9600 AIW Pro that had the most annoying driver install I have ever seen. It was a 50/50 shot they installed correctly. If they failed to install correctly it sent the cpu to 100% and locked you out. You couldnt do another thing.

I just got my 4850 yesterday and havent had a chance to game. However it was uber annoying that it wouldnt by default recognize my monitors resolutions. It showed the correct monitors but my 2001fp was only being allowed to 1440X900 and my samsung 19" syncmaster was being allowed upto 1900X1080. Like wtf? After some fiddling I got the 2001fp to 1600X1200 but the syncmaster still has the option for that ridiculously high resolution. Silly imo.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shangshang
I'm hearing that with the latest Cat 8.9, ATI introduced a problem concerning dual-display under Vista64? While I don't run dual monitor, but the introduction of this kind of bug is horrible IMO.

Oh really? Wonder if that is what caused my annoying issue? What is the bug?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nosfe

actually, if you give enough money you can change the tests so that your driver passes; isn't that what happened with the intel 915 chipset being "windows vista capable"?

I think you're confusing the terms "Vista capable" with "WHQL".

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Something similar happened with ATI's drivers during the SM2.0b/3.0 timeframe. There were articles about ATI going to have a hard time getting the MS stamp of approval, and worries that they never would. But low and behold, they did it with sub 3.0 hardware. How'd that happen? $$$$.

Uh, what? What does WHQL have to do with the DirectX level? Specially where does WHQL require SM 3.0 hardware or better?

There are Vista WHQL drivers for the Radeon 9700 which doesn?t have even SM 2.0b, just 2.0. Likewise there are WHQL drivers for XP (which supports SM 3.0) for cards that don?t even have shaders, like the Radeon 7000.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Azn
Just because ATI does it doesn't mean everyone has to follow their system. I don't feel ripped off because I didn't get more frequent WHQL drivers than x company does.

He didn't say that nV has to follow what ATI does...all he said was those beta drivers that nV DOES release, if they've gone to all the trouble of FULLY testing them (who knows if that's true), why not get them certified...it doesn't have to be a monthly release...just certify the beta drivers that ARE released.

There were some rumors going on that ATI drivers were crap and now probably the same people have been complaining about drivers how Nvidia's driver suck. I've used both of these companies driver exclusively and I can tell you that both of them work and on par. Who get what fixed into their drivers are subjective to particular users.

Fully testing drivers every single month cost time and money. Not to mention it's a bit excessive releasing WHQL drivers every month. I've yet to know a company release more WHQL drivers in a year then ATI. ATI only started to release more WHQL drivers because they had a bad rap for not releasing drivers as often. Their sales weren't that great either when they started this program. It was about time when R600 was released.