No, not snap judgment. That's simply how your statement came across, so I asked you for clarification.
Why would MS need to extort money from ATI (or anybody else for that matter)? When has MS ever needed cash that badly?
No, not snap judgment. That's simply how your statement came across, so I asked you for clarification.
Why would MS need to extort money from ATI (or anybody else for that matter)? When has MS ever needed cash that badly?
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
ATI has more than 3 driver teams, the fact that submiting a driver for WHQL testing takes up to a month proves that. An example, Team A is working on a set of drivers since july and it will be released today, while team B is working on their set of drivers since august and will be released on November while Team C is working on a set of drivers which will be released on December, since Team A finished working on them it will start working on the next set of drivers which will be released on January and so on. That's why you can't say that the drivers are rushed, is true that lots of driver releases has some bugs, but most of them work stable, they keep fixing issues with old cards as back as 2005 like the X1900 series, something that nVidia don't, ATi cards ages much better, nVidia killed the 79X0GX2 6 months later after it's release and that's why it couldn't keep up with the X1950XTX when it should be able to outperform easily. GeForce 7 are no longer updated, GeForce 8 are on the edge with less frequent driver updates, so overall, ATi drivers are better.
ATi has been releasing monthly WHQL drivers since 2002 with the Radeon 9700PRO, at that time ATi got their sh*t up and started to do great drivers, before that, it was a nightmare, the Radeon 8500 never saw it's truly potential thanks to that. R600 was kind of a flop, the RV670 sold very well.
Agreed. ATI has always made decent hardware, but it was held back back their horrible drivers. I never used any ATI card until the 9700 Pro came out. Before then, it was all Nvidia for me (TNT, TNT2, GF256, GF2, GF3, GF4). Now that ATI has driver quality to match their hardware, I've pretty much stuck with ATI due to their price/performance ratio. Although the G92 8800GT I purchased back in December was a good deal at the time.
evolucion8
Platinum Member
- Jun 17, 2005
- 2,867
- 3
- 81
That video is hillarious!!! lol, [Best lines] Why not go and get a GTX 280! nVidia can't even f*****g release drivers, let alone a decent GPU! LMAO Where the f**k is ATi Tool when you need it!! What about Catalyst Control Centre? That couldn't even control my d**c! lolll I still can't believe you mentioned nVidia, you nVidiot!, and what the f**k is with their codenames too? LOL
I remember using the 3.0 for the 9700PRO since the 2.9 was buggy, but they didn't had the CCC, it used the old Classic Control Panel, later in 2005, they released the CCC and launched two driver versions, a CCC version and Classic Control Panel Version. The oldest version that I know is the 2.4 version, you can find it with google, but strangely enough in the Catalyst History revision in ATi's page, only shows down to 4.1.
I remember using the 3.0 for the 9700PRO since the 2.9 was buggy, but they didn't had the CCC, it used the old Classic Control Panel, later in 2005, they released the CCC and launched two driver versions, a CCC version and Classic Control Panel Version. The oldest version that I know is the 2.4 version, you can find it with google, but strangely enough in the Catalyst History revision in ATi's page, only shows down to 4.1.
apoppin
Lifer
are you kidding?
or do you have long term memory issues?
i used to be a ATi fanboy with every GPU since their original performance Rage Fury32. i put up with driver issues for years. ATi had great HW and crap SW; that was the one point i could never defend .. until after r8500. Radeon 8500 was close to the ti series from Nvidia but it took a year to get the performance out of it
that is why - even with 2900xt - you would hear fans say "it will get better with future drivers"
- not anymore .. AMD has very good drivers .. now ... compared to their clusterf#c# before r300
now i think Nvidia needs to commit themselves to monthly releases.
AMD is ahead of them in several ways .. including the CCC has matured while Nvidia's CP is stagnant
- it almost looks like Nvidia does not care about us ["what anymore?"] and is more concerned with their new market
it is a problem they have always had with *perception*
- i think their marketing needs direction .. and a little fresh air .. they are getting stale imo
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Originally posted by: apoppin
are you kidding?
or do you have long term memory issues?
i used to be a ATi fanboy with every GPU since their original performance Rage Fury32. i put up with driver issues for years. ATi had great HW and crap SW; that was the one point i could never defend .. until after r8500. Radeon 8500 was close to the ti series from Nvidia but it took a year to get the performance out of it
that is why - even with 2900xt - you would hear fans say "it will get better with future drivers"
- not anymore .. AMD has very good drivers .. now ... compared to their clusterf#c# before r300
now i think Nvidia needs to commit themselves to monthly releases.
AMD is ahead of them in several ways .. including the CCC has matured while Nvidia's CP is stagnant
- it almost looks like Nvidia does not care about us ["what anymore?"] and is more concerned with their new market
it is a problem they have always had with *perception*
- i think their marketing needs direction .. and a little fresh air .. they are getting stale imo
Good old ATI v Nvidia driver battle ,in my personal experience I've had more issues with Nvidia drivers then ATi,anyway the main thing I look for in new driver updates is stability and bug fixes,performance is a bonus,monthly official updates by AMD/ATi is very nice IMHO and I wish Nvidia did that as well.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: apoppin
are you kidding?
or do you have long term memory issues?
i used to be a ATi fanboy with every GPU since their original performance Rage Fury32. i put up with driver issues for years. ATi had great HW and crap SW; that was the one point i could never defend .. until after r8500. Radeon 8500 was close to the ti series from Nvidia but it took a year to get the performance out of it
that is why - even with 2900xt - you would hear fans say "it will get better with future drivers"
- not anymore .. AMD has very good drivers .. now ... compared to their clusterf#c# before r300
now i think Nvidia needs to commit themselves to monthly releases.
AMD is ahead of them in several ways .. including the CCC has matured while Nvidia's CP is stagnant
- it almost looks like Nvidia does not care about us ["what anymore?"] and is more concerned with their new market
it is a problem they have always had with *perception*
- i think their marketing needs direction .. and a little fresh air .. they are getting stale imo
Come on I said Radeon not rage. I've used original Radeon 64meg VIVO for years without any issue at all. It had better color saturation though.
Never used Rage series. I was using voodoo then.
apoppin
Lifer
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: apoppin
are you kidding?
or do you have long term memory issues?
i used to be a ATi fanboy with every GPU since their original performance Rage Fury32. i put up with driver issues for years. ATi had great HW and crap SW; that was the one point i could never defend .. until after r8500. Radeon 8500 was close to the ti series from Nvidia but it took a year to get the performance out of it
that is why - even with 2900xt - you would hear fans say "it will get better with future drivers"
- not anymore .. AMD has very good drivers .. now ... compared to their clusterf#c# before r300
now i think Nvidia needs to commit themselves to monthly releases.
AMD is ahead of them in several ways .. including the CCC has matured while Nvidia's CP is stagnant
- it almost looks like Nvidia does not care about us ["what anymore?"] and is more concerned with their new market
it is a problem they have always had with *perception*
- i think their marketing needs direction .. and a little fresh air .. they are getting stale imo
Come on I said Radeon not rage. I've used original Radeon 64meg VIVO for years without any issue at all. It had better color saturation though.
Never used Rage series. I was using voodoo then.
he he
i had them ALL
RADEON 64DDR was a great piece of HW that lasted a long time in my case .. but driver support was fair at best
RADEON 8500 was a *disaster* .. i got mine a year after release - just when ATi fixed it driverwise and brought it up to ti4200 performance - it was cheap also then as everyone was *dissgusted* with it .. i loved mine
:heart: .. i think i paid $120 for it and the drivers were - a full year after release - finally fixed.
That 8500 is the BASIS for much HATE against ATi that i still see to this day
And nVidia doesn't have money? ATI isn't exactly swimming in cash.
I can't believe you say releasing monthly WHQL drivers is "excessive"!!
That shows (at least partially) a certain level of commitment. If they started releasing monthly drivers around the time when they were getting a bad rap, at least they were trying to do something to improve the situation.no, i'm not, "vista capable" is just a test as is "WHQL", if the "vista capable" test was subverted with a bit of money/influence then why not WHQL? we ARE talking about the same company
Those that believe that WHQL drivers and beta drivers are more or less the same thing haven't had the pleasure of 64bit Vista which likes to only accept WHQL drivers
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: thilan29
And nVidia doesn't have money? ATI isn't exactly swimming in cash.
I can't believe you say releasing monthly WHQL drivers is "excessive"!!
Who said Nvidia doesn't have money? All I'm saying is it cost money and time to release WHQL drivers. If ATI wants to release WHQL drivers every month that's on them. Not Nvidia.
I do think releasing WHQL drivers releasing WHQL approval is a bit excessive. I don't know any other company who does this. ATI had a bad rep. That just shows why ATI started committing more on drivers through their consumers feedback. Nvidia never had this issue because their driver releasing system actually worked first time around.
Wait, why do people feel the need to update drivers every month?
I've never had a problem with drivers on either side. Any time I update them, it is purely out of curiousity.
I've never had a problem with drivers on either side. Any time I update them, it is purely out of curiousity.
That's been covered, just because you don't have a problem with the games you play on your OS doesn't mean other don't have issues. I certainly don't update my drivers with every release, but it's nice to have the option. What if you did run into an issue? With AMD you'll have a new driver within a month that may or may not address it. There will be another update a month later. With Nvidia there may be a driver update tomorrow, there may be a driver update in 6 months. You just don't know when you'll get an update with a possible fix.
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: thilan29
And nVidia doesn't have money? ATI isn't exactly swimming in cash.
I can't believe you say releasing monthly WHQL drivers is "excessive"!!
Who said Nvidia doesn't have money? All I'm saying is it cost money and time to release WHQL drivers. If ATI wants to release WHQL drivers every month that's on them. Not Nvidia.
I do think releasing WHQL drivers releasing WHQL approval is a bit excessive. I don't know any other company who does this. ATI had a bad rep. That just shows why ATI started committing more on drivers through their consumers feedback. Nvidia never had this issue because their driver releasing system actually worked first time around.
No one is saying that Nvidia has to do what AMD does. Most people are just saying that they way AMD does it is superior in their opinions. Personally, I like getting an official, supported driver update every month, I know that AMD is constantly updating and improving. With Nvidia you just don't know. For most it's not a make or break deal, but to me (and it seems most people) the way AMD does it is indeed better. That's not saying Nvidia does not update drivers, or that their drivers are no good. The method AMD employs is simply better, no more no less.
Well if you think releasing a supported driver every month is not a great idea (whether it's for performance or bug fixes) I don't know what to say to that...doesn't make sense to me.
Of all the cards I've owned, the most driver problems I've had were with the GTS 640 I had (probably because I got it at launch) so no their system doesn't always work the first time around.
Spike
Diamond Member
- Aug 27, 2001
- 6,770
- 1
- 81
It's not that you need to update your drivers monthly it's that if you find a problem and want to update drivers ATI's model is better since most of the time there will be a newer, certified driver ready to go as opposed to a "whenever" approach with nvidia. The longest you will have to wait for a new driver from ATI is ~30 days and chances are if you encounter a problem the last released drivers will fix that.
People can also argue the WHQL stuff all day long, I don't know nor care what the certification does or requires. What I dont like are people stating that nvidia beta's are as good as the certified and can be used without worry. This is blatently false since nvidia's website specifically says they are still in the testing phase and may contain "significant issues" and imply thats the reason they are not certified. It's nice that they provide beta's that can give you a hint of future features and bug fixes but don't expect nor imply that they are as stable as the certified versions.
Anyway, I will continue to use only the certified drivers from both camps and because of the release schedule I can often find more recent drivers from ATI than nVidia. That means that while I will continue to buy from both makers I prefer ATI's method.
And this unwinnable argument marches on.....
Is there anyone here who thinks every known driver issue is listed in the release notes?
(if so, PM me for some deals on valuable old hardware)
If we acknowledge that are issues not listed in the release notes because they are still in testing for to be acknowledged as issues, considered too trivial for the release notes, or are just unknown, we acknowledge we don't know the true state of the drivers.
We have to acknowledge that some issues are important to some people and not to others. For example, BFG used to have a list of issues with old games and 8800s, and I had to Google some of the games they were so ancient. (and I've been a computer gamer since the mid-1980s- didn't remember these existed) So issues relevant to BFG were totally irrelevant to me, what were "bad drivers" to him were fine to me. (I just wasn't going to be installing Serious Sam 1 in 2007- had my fun with it in 2001)
It's conceivable companies withhold the complete list of driver issues to make themselves look better.
"Driver quality" is pretty broad subject:
Linux? Multi GPU? OpenGL? CAD? Stereoscopic? PhysX? D3D? Win 9X/2K/XP/Vista? 2D flexibility and tool set? Compatibility with games? Compatibility with hardware?
It's may well be pretty tempting for some to re-iterate 'Monthly WHQL must be better", but when you think of all of the above, sure you want to make such a narrow statement for such a broad topic?
Is there anyone here who thinks every known driver issue is listed in the release notes?
(if so, PM me for some deals on valuable old hardware)
If we acknowledge that are issues not listed in the release notes because they are still in testing for to be acknowledged as issues, considered too trivial for the release notes, or are just unknown, we acknowledge we don't know the true state of the drivers.
We have to acknowledge that some issues are important to some people and not to others. For example, BFG used to have a list of issues with old games and 8800s, and I had to Google some of the games they were so ancient. (and I've been a computer gamer since the mid-1980s- didn't remember these existed) So issues relevant to BFG were totally irrelevant to me, what were "bad drivers" to him were fine to me. (I just wasn't going to be installing Serious Sam 1 in 2007- had my fun with it in 2001)
It's conceivable companies withhold the complete list of driver issues to make themselves look better.
"Driver quality" is pretty broad subject:
Linux? Multi GPU? OpenGL? CAD? Stereoscopic? PhysX? D3D? Win 9X/2K/XP/Vista? 2D flexibility and tool set? Compatibility with games? Compatibility with hardware?
It's may well be pretty tempting for some to re-iterate 'Monthly WHQL must be better", but when you think of all of the above, sure you want to make such a narrow statement for such a broad topic?
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
That's been covered, just because you don't have a problem with the games you play on your OS doesn't mean other don't have issues. I certainly don't update my drivers with every release, but it's nice to have the option. What if you did run into an issue? With AMD you'll have a new driver within a month that may or may not address it. There will be another update a month later. With Nvidia there may be a driver update tomorrow, there may be a driver update in 6 months. You just don't know when you'll get an update with a possible fix.
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: thilan29
And nVidia doesn't have money? ATI isn't exactly swimming in cash.
I can't believe you say releasing monthly WHQL drivers is "excessive"!!
Who said Nvidia doesn't have money? All I'm saying is it cost money and time to release WHQL drivers. If ATI wants to release WHQL drivers every month that's on them. Not Nvidia.
I do think releasing WHQL drivers releasing WHQL approval is a bit excessive. I don't know any other company who does this. ATI had a bad rep. That just shows why ATI started committing more on drivers through their consumers feedback. Nvidia never had this issue because their driver releasing system actually worked first time around.
No one is saying that Nvidia has to do what AMD does. Most people are just saying that they way AMD does it is superior in their opinions. Personally, I like getting an official, supported driver update every month, I know that AMD is constantly updating and improving. With Nvidia you just don't know. For most it's not a make or break deal, but to me (and it seems most people) the way AMD does it is indeed better. That's not saying Nvidia does not update drivers, or that their drivers are no good. The method AMD employs is simply better, no more no less.
Superior how? Are ATI drivers more functional and less buggy than Nvidia drivers? If ATI drivers are so superior why didn't they release Fixed Aspect Ratio years ago? It took them 2-3 years of complaints before they finally had a working only when most 4.3 games are thing of ancient past.
Nvidia don't know what? nvidia has beta drivers. it tells you exactly what fixes has been done.
Currently I'm using beta drivers before that I used beta drivers. I leave my computer on 24/7 and I frequently play various kind of games on it. ZERO ISSUES except for superficial ones even WHQL drivers include.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Then again Nvidia also provides this service through Beta drivers which you seem to ignore. Just because ATI gets them certified by MS makes them superior I suppose. :roll:
What kind of tests do you think that goes into WHQL logo? For windows compatibility. WHQL doesn't mean it doesn't contain bugs.
I think lot of people are getting confused just because Nvidia labels their non WHQL drivers as beta that it's supposed to be worse than official WHQL drivers. Far as I'm concerned WHQL drivers are beta drivers with MS logo.
Azn, I'm not saying that ATI drivers are superior to Nvidia or vice versa. I'm saying their release schedule is 'better'. You've had good luck with betas apparantly. That doesn't mean that everyone has. AMD releases a tested and supported driver every month. Nvidia does not. To me (and most people here) that is a superior way of doing it. Does that mean Nvidia drivers are bad? No it doesn't. Does that mean that AMD releases supported drivers that contain bug fixes and usually performance improvements more often then Nvidia? Yes.
will889
Golden Member
- Sep 15, 2003
- 1,463
- 5
- 81
The main issues I see with NV drivers are too many beta drivers not enough WHQL's, and the bizarre fact of them taking out temp monitoring and the OC tab out of the CP. Granted Riva and the eVGA util are great, but at least a remedial temp and OC slider could be there. Also, the UI needs reworking in the NV CP. The old CP was actually much better IMO. Take that and and a prettier UI with OC/Temps slider you have a winner.
I've been thinking about doing a blog post on the issue of drivers and release schedules -- would that interest you guys?
I think a lot of people miss a few things --
There are only so much time and resource availability that any company has to do QA on drivers. No one can do everything, and neither NVIDIA nor AMD do.
I think they both have issues and neither one is really overall "better" than the other (though I do think AMD has the appearance of being better due to their schedule).
...
Here's the thing --
In order to get the gamer what he or she wants, a company would need to test all of their hardware to make sure things simply work and regression test all games from the past couple years with that hardware. This is never going to happen.
Both AMD and NVIDIA cut major corners.
AMD has multiple driver trunks, and a rotating schedule of only about 2 dozen titles for regression testing that do not repeat within something like 6 months to a year. If one driver breaks something, it will be at least two months until it gets "fixed" for real (as the next month might not exhibit the same problem, but it also won't necessarily be based on the same code). If one game is dropped from the regression testing schedule, it could break in one driver and not be caught for a very long time (or until reviewers start to complain about it).
We run into the problem a lot, especially with crossfire scaling, of things that used to work not working and then when we point it out, all of a sudden we've got a beta driver with a fix. It's just because AMD dropped that title from their regression testing. Over time they hit a lot of titles, but this is an optimization that does cause issues.
Because you can't have monthly WHQL drivers with the latest features on the latest hardware all regression tested on everything everyone could want to play. There isn't enough time there to do all the necessary QA. All the driver has to do is pass Microsoft's WHQL testing ... which is easier than actually working in all relevant games.
NVIDIA does something else --
They don't always test all their hardware every cycle. We'll see beta drivers tested completely first on high end hardware or newly released hardware. Older stuff is left out of testing, so we have divergent driver versions necessary for different classes of hardware. Since NVIDIA uses a unified model (at the moment), all drivers should work on all hardware, but if it hasn't been released to support a specific card then that means it hasn't been QA'd on that card.
NVIDIA regression tests with many more titles per WHQL release, but at the same time, there is much more time between WHQL releases. This gives them a longer period to look at more things, but at the same time stuff can stay broken for longer.
If all this stuff is really interesting, I could take some time and talk to AMD and NVIDIA again (we've had this discussion with them before) and I could do a write up about it explaining the pros and cons of both approaches.
Frankly, from my perspective, monthly WHQL is just a marketing tool ... it makes people feel better. But NVIDIA's approach isn't necessarily better -- it's just different.
I think a lot of people miss a few things --
There are only so much time and resource availability that any company has to do QA on drivers. No one can do everything, and neither NVIDIA nor AMD do.
I think they both have issues and neither one is really overall "better" than the other (though I do think AMD has the appearance of being better due to their schedule).
...
Here's the thing --
In order to get the gamer what he or she wants, a company would need to test all of their hardware to make sure things simply work and regression test all games from the past couple years with that hardware. This is never going to happen.
Both AMD and NVIDIA cut major corners.
AMD has multiple driver trunks, and a rotating schedule of only about 2 dozen titles for regression testing that do not repeat within something like 6 months to a year. If one driver breaks something, it will be at least two months until it gets "fixed" for real (as the next month might not exhibit the same problem, but it also won't necessarily be based on the same code). If one game is dropped from the regression testing schedule, it could break in one driver and not be caught for a very long time (or until reviewers start to complain about it).
We run into the problem a lot, especially with crossfire scaling, of things that used to work not working and then when we point it out, all of a sudden we've got a beta driver with a fix. It's just because AMD dropped that title from their regression testing. Over time they hit a lot of titles, but this is an optimization that does cause issues.
Because you can't have monthly WHQL drivers with the latest features on the latest hardware all regression tested on everything everyone could want to play. There isn't enough time there to do all the necessary QA. All the driver has to do is pass Microsoft's WHQL testing ... which is easier than actually working in all relevant games.
NVIDIA does something else --
They don't always test all their hardware every cycle. We'll see beta drivers tested completely first on high end hardware or newly released hardware. Older stuff is left out of testing, so we have divergent driver versions necessary for different classes of hardware. Since NVIDIA uses a unified model (at the moment), all drivers should work on all hardware, but if it hasn't been released to support a specific card then that means it hasn't been QA'd on that card.
NVIDIA regression tests with many more titles per WHQL release, but at the same time, there is much more time between WHQL releases. This gives them a longer period to look at more things, but at the same time stuff can stay broken for longer.
If all this stuff is really interesting, I could take some time and talk to AMD and NVIDIA again (we've had this discussion with them before) and I could do a write up about it explaining the pros and cons of both approaches.
Frankly, from my perspective, monthly WHQL is just a marketing tool ... it makes people feel better. But NVIDIA's approach isn't necessarily better -- it's just different.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter