ATi vs nVidia drivers

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Azn
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.

I didn't start ignoring them until one of them actually messed up for me giving BSODs...SINCE THEN I've stuck to purely WHQLs, with which I've never got BSODs.

No one ever said WHQLs don't contain bugs but with a WHQL at least you know they've gone through some extra testing (supposed to have anyway) to ensure some level of stability with your card and Windows version (I don't know the exact testing methods obviously).

How do you know what type of testing is done on the WHQL versions as opposed to the beta ones? You have proof that there's no difference?

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
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.

That would be great.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Looking forward to the article already.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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.

If you don't remember the issue, then I don't know what to tell you. If I got the EXACT terminology incorrect, you can proceed to stick me on a spit and rotate me while I roast slowly.

There was a time, in that period, where ATI was going to have a bit of OEM trouble if they couldn't get the WHQL certification from MS. WHATEVER the details were, ATI was running out of time to get the WHQL which OEMs wanted for their Windows based PC's.

@ Derek: Sure, I think it would be interesting to read about the driver models of each company. Might clear a few things up.

 

[BenSkywalker]

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.

Really? I had a full HD of corrupted data due to WHQL drivers- a known issue MS not only gave WHQL certs for, but included on the actual Windows disk. The horribly sad thing is it required a fairly in depth hack to get Windows not to use it as the driver never worked- and this was widely known(nVidia even acknowledged the fact that it didn't work and told people not to use this WHQL certified driver). WHQL does not mean the driver works in any way whatsoever, that particular driver was the worst I have ever seen, FAR worse then any beta, leaked or even misused driver I have come across.

How do you know what type of testing is done on the WHQL versions as opposed to the beta ones? You have proof that there's no difference?

You have a MSDN sub? If so, you can check out the exact details yourself, it amounts to a caps test. nV and ATi's internal testing is far more robust then the WHQL cert.

 

[nitromullet]

I've always thought "beta" meant "public test". Basically, when installing betas, you are participating in the testing... This to me implies that there may be unknown issues. As serious as I take gaming at times, it is certainly not 'mission critical', so I don't have an issue installing beta video drivers. I am a little bit more reserved with beta BIOS files and chipset drivers because these can really brick your install.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Azn
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.

I didn't start ignoring them until one of them actually messed up for me giving BSODs...SINCE THEN I've stuck to purely WHQLs, with which I've never got BSODs.

No one ever said WHQLs don't contain bugs but with a WHQL at least you know they've gone through some extra testing (supposed to have anyway) to ensure some level of stability with your card and Windows version (I don't know the exact testing methods obviously).

How do you know what type of testing is done on the WHQL versions as opposed to the beta ones? You have proof that there's no difference?

A WHQL certified ATI drivers can give you BSOD as well as Nvidia's beta drivers. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it's happened to anyone either. It could also be user error like most problems out there who are quick to judge X company when it's fault of their own. I've used both beta and WHQL drivers. I use more beta drivers than WHQL drivers and I have yet to find problems with either. they both work equally the same.

I say again WHQL Nvidia drivers are nothing more than beta drivers with MS logo. it doesn't go get tested for system stability. All it does is make sure it works with windows.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Azn
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.

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.

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.

Official Nvidia drivers would not uninstall cleanly on my Vista x64 and this is with me going into safe mode and using Driver Sweeper(I still had Nvidia registry driver files trying to load at desktop, using regedit manually fixed that issue),maybe you should tell Nvidia to work on clean uninstall of their drivers when the consumer switches to a different brand.




Bottomline AMD/ATI drivers have come a long way over the last decade.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Azn
A WHQL certified ATI drivers can give you BSOD as well as Nvidia's beta drivers. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it's happened to anyone either. It could also be user error like most problems out there who are quick to judge X company when it's fault of their own. I've used both beta and WHQL drivers. I use more beta drivers than WHQL drivers and I have yet to find problems with either. they both work equally the same.

I say again WHQL Nvidia drivers are nothing more than beta drivers with MS logo. it doesn't go get tested for system stability. All it does is make sure it works with windows.

Just as it's never happened to you it HAS happened to me (2 sides of the story) so I was just giving you my opinion of how I see beta vs WHQL, judging by my own experience. If they had worked equally the same for me I would still be using betas and would share your opinion.

Give me a break...user error?...installing a driver?? Download, and double-click. So I guess all the bugs that are in drivers could be attributed to user error also? :disgust:

You think betas and WHQLs are the same...I disagree (to a certain extent)...I guess that's as far as we're going to get.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo


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?

i LIKE it better, OK?

that is ALL i said

i'd also LIKE world peace
... AND for Nvidia to move to monthly driver updates

Just .. Pass the request along please ..


MANY of us would like to see it .. it is not a "necessity" .. but it would be COOL if Nvidia copied AMD
-- in THIS case .. it "looks" better

(though I do think AMD has the appearance of being better due to their schedule).

. . . and doesn't cost Nvidia any more to get on a regular schedule
I'm not so sure - after all these years - you guys get it at Nvidia HQ - your PR needs a LOT of polish and you should pay better attention to your fans .. heck, pay attention to a pro reviewer or two

You have a MSDN sub? If so, you can check out the exact details yourself, it amounts to a caps test. nV and ATi's internal testing is far more robust then the WHQL cert.

How much does MS extor .. i mean, charge, for their certification?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Azn
A WHQL certified ATI drivers can give you BSOD as well as Nvidia's beta drivers. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it's happened to anyone either. It could also be user error like most problems out there who are quick to judge X company when it's fault of their own. I've used both beta and WHQL drivers. I use more beta drivers than WHQL drivers and I have yet to find problems with either. they both work equally the same.

I say again WHQL Nvidia drivers are nothing more than beta drivers with MS logo. it doesn't go get tested for system stability. All it does is make sure it works with windows.

Just as it's never happened to you it HAS happened to me (2 sides of the story) so I was just giving you my opinion of how I see beta vs WHQL, judging by my own experience. If they had worked equally the same for me I would still be using betas and would share your opinion.

Give me a break...user error?...installing a driver?? Download, and double-click. So I guess all the bugs that are in drivers could be attributed to user error also? :disgust:

You think betas and WHQLs are the same...I disagree (to a certain extent)...I guess that's as far as we're going to get.

Tell me exactly which drivers attributed to your computer with a BSOD. Let the users here test them. if no one finds faults it's probably user error or specific to your computer set up which can happen to WHQL Drivers or not.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo


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?

i LIKE it better, OK?

that is ALL i said

i'd also LIKE world peace
... AND for Nvidia to move to monthly driver updates

Just .. Pass the request along please ..


MANY of us would like to see it .. it is not a "necessity" .. but it would be COOL if Nvidia copied AMD
-- in THIS case .. it "looks" better

(though I do think AMD has the appearance of being better due to their schedule).

. . . and doesn't cost Nvidia any more to get on a regular schedule
I'm not so sure - after all these years - you guys get it at Nvidia HQ - your PR needs a LOT of polish and you should pay better attention to your fans .. heck, pay attention to a pro reviewer or two

You have a MSDN sub? If so, you can check out the exact details yourself, it amounts to a caps test. nV and ATi's internal testing is far more robust then the WHQL cert.

How much does MS extor .. i mean, charge, for their certification?

Well, you would have thought that Derek's informational post would have ended this topic forever, as each company's methods of driver testing have their pro/cons.

I don't think me passing along to NVIDIA "Apoppin wants you to hire additional staff to maintain your ways of testing more games, but do it more frequently" is going to change staffing or workflow at NVIDIA.

For me, I can see good and bad to both methods, and superiority in neither. Seems to boil down to a lot more games tested less often or a lot less games tested more often.

In BFGs thread on nZone I beleive I already stated that his 6-9 year old games are outside of their radar unless people report the issues.

People want everything to just work like consoles, but that is not the way of computer gaming and never has been. People would have to be willing to pay more for that kind of QA when you consider the 100s of games out there and all the cards to test them on.

 

[apoppin]

who cares what you or i really think
- Derek THINKS it also looks better the way AMD does it .. did you miss another "professional" opinion in your haste to defend your out of touch company?

there is a lot of requests for monthly drivers .. right here .. can't you see it

you don't need to "defend" Nvidia . they don't need ANY

i JUST made a great suggestion for your company
- i don't want a frickin argument from you

just pass it on

or Nvidia loses out on making a better impression then they do right now

 

[Keysplayr]

I want ATI to make their shaders better so they don't have to have 800 of them. If I ask, do you think they'll do it?

You said it yourself. It "looks" better. That's all. Doesn't mean it "is" better, or worse.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I want ATI to make their shaders better so they don't have to have 800 of them. If I ask, do you think they'll do it?

You said it yourself. It "looks" better. That's all. Doesn't mean it "is" better, or worse.

it is PERCEPTION

it LOOKS better to have monthly updates

that is all, Keys

my opinion .. Derek Wilson's opinion .. look at the other member's opinions

Yours is clearly the same as Nvidia's opinion that they do everything *perfectly*

i have never seen a single bit of criticism from you or your fellow FG members - nor any constructive suggestions

Why not? does Nvidia not tolerate dissent? Nor suggestions?


Your comment about AMD's shaders is silly and sarcastic; we can say the same thing about Tesla's oversized die .. please shrink it - i KNOW they are taking that bit of advice.
HOWEVER, it is a CONSTRUCTIVE suggestion to have monthly updates .. it would help Nvidia "look" more organized - for NO cost!

Nvidia moving to monthly updates would give AMD fans nothing to talk about and this thread would not exist
- that is improvement for NO cost to Nvidia .. unless you think it "costs" AMD more to have monthly updates - it does not

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
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.

[b}Frankly, from my perspective, monthly WHQL is just a marketing tool ... it makes people feel better. [/b]But NVIDIA's approach isn't necessarily better -- it's just different.

Apoppin:

Derek straight out says the monthly drivers are a marketing tool that only give the appearance of better service.

I don't think NVIDIA's end goal is the "apearance" of anything- their goal is customer satisfaction with their drivers. The methods were developed through years of cost/benefit analysis, and your suggestion that they should change their business model based on some guys "thinking it would be better" isn't going to flip policy at a big corporation.

They got to be big by doing things right and making mostly good business decisions, not by knee jerk reactions to what some guys on an internet forum post. Don't you think they've considered ATi's method of doing business, and picked another path?

Or do you think they "just needed the idea" from us?

NVIDIA either leads or splits the market based on the strength of their product line- not the frequency of driver releases.

As noted before, I'd think Derek's post would have basically put this issue to bed across the internet.

 

[BenSkywalker]

it LOOKS better to have monthly updates

To you it does. To me, it looks better to install a driver and then forget about it because all of my games work. You are supporting knowingly shorting testing on drivers for the sake of pushing them out the door. That is precisely what ATi does.

Don't have MSDN sub active atm btw, used to be a somewhat small amount($1Kish, maybe less) but the actual test came down to pretty much a caps test and that's it.

Bottomline AMD/ATI drivers have come a long way over the last decade.

Hmm, a decade ago has them in the RagePro era, the timeframe where their drivers used to detect a benchmark and skip rendering frames(anyone else remember ZD's old single buffered 3D benches? ATi released a driver that 'increased performance by 50%'- heh).

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Azn
Tell me exactly which drivers attributed to your computer with a BSOD. Let the users here test them. if no one finds faults it's probably user error or specific to your computer set up which can happen to WHQL Drivers or not.

I'm sorry this was when I first got my 8800GTS 640, which is almost 2 years ago now, and so I don't remember which beta driver it was that caused the BSODs. I just know that since then I've stuck to WHQLs and haven't really had any trouble (of course I don't game as much as I did when I had the GTS 640)...so I continue to use them.

Again, this was MY experience. I'll reiterate it couldn't be user error (in this case) as there isn't much to installing a driver (driver cleaner in safe mode then install is the way I usually go)...system setup could have been it...but then it was fine when I installed the WHQL driver.

 

[AzN]

User error happens a lot more than you think thilan29. Driver uninstallers are probably the biggest problem because it doesn't wipe the registry or wipe them off the system folders. A BSOD can happen to anyone. It's no way an indication it's due to Nvidia beta drivers. It's too bad we can't explore what your problem was further.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Azn

Fully testing drivers every single month cost time and money.

Why can ATi afford it when they?re bleeding millions per quarter, but nVidia can?t?

Not to mention it's a bit excessive releasing WHQL drivers every month.

Excessive for whom? Certainly not for a consumer. It's not excessive for me because I potentially get fixes faster.

I've yet to know a company release more WHQL drivers in a year then ATI.

This puts ATi in a good light because they are truly well above other IHVs when it comes to driver support. If someone picks up a supported ATi board they can look forward to regular monthly drivers. As you say, no other vendor offers this.

Their sales weren't that great either when they started this program. It was about time when R600 was released.

This is nonsense; the monthly WHQL cycle started back in 2002 when the Catalyst brand arrived, shortly after the 9700 Pro was released.

And to this day 9700 Pro owners enjoy monthly drivers on all currently supported OSes (XP, XP64, Vista 32 and Vista 64). The same cannot be said about the GF5 FX series or in fact any nVidia chipset.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Azn
User error happens a lot more than you think thilan29. Driver uninstallers are probably the biggest problem because it doesn't wipe the registry or wipe them off the system folders. A BSOD can happen to anyone. It's no way an indication it's due to Nvidia beta drivers. It's too bad we can't explore what your problem was further.

Considering the BSOD happened when I tried installing the beta driver and didn't when I later installed the previous WHQL driver, I'm inclined to believe it WAS the beta driver at fault...just my opinion.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: nosfe

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?

So in other words you think the two are the same because they're both tests, and your assumption based on this thought is that if you pay Microsoft enough money you can pass WHQL?

That?s quite an assumption. Got any evidence?

Specifically, do you have evidence of ATi failing WHQL, giving Microsoft enough money, and then passing with the same driver as a result of the tests changing?

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

Actually that's wrong too; Vista 64 only accepts signed drivers which may or may not be WHQL.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

If you don't remember the issue, then I don't know what to tell you.

You're right, I don't. Please enlighten me by posting credible evidence to back your claims. Thank you.

There was a time, in that period, where ATI was going to have a bit of OEM trouble if they couldn't get the WHQL certification from MS. WHATEVER the details were, ATI was running out of time to get the WHQL which OEMs wanted for their Windows based PC's.

Why couldn?t they get WHQL? At that time XP was the current OS and even a Radeon 7000 had WHQL drivers and doesn't even have shaders. Again I?ll ask what the DX level of hardware has to do with WHQL?

Also if SM 3.0 was a requirement for WHQL like you imply, was nVidia also "running out of time" for the GF5 FX series?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Really? I had a full HD of corrupted data due to WHQL drivers- a known issue MS not only gave WHQL certs for, but included on the actual Windows disk.

You aren't addressing the point. The point is you can't get WHQL just by paying money like you implied. You have to pass the tests first.

That it's possible for WHQL drivers have problems in no way provides proof of your claim; in fact this was not even under debate.

What was claimed is that a monthly WHQL cycle is far better than some random unscheduled cycle propped up by betas which nVidia themselves distance themselves from.

With ATi I get fixes quicker in general (I?ve already seen it on a 4850: 8.8 had issues in two games, 8.9 fixed it) and I get more robust drivers for my gaming library.

Again no-one is claiming that all WHQL drivers are good and that all betas are bad, just that I?d take ATi?s release cycle over nVidia?s.

WHQL does not mean the driver works in any way whatsoever, that particular driver was the worst I have ever seen, FAR worse then any beta, leaked or even misused driver I have come across.

Again nobody claimed WHQL drivers are always problem free and that they're always guaranteed to be better than betas.

As for your game problems, you appear to have listed two: Sacrifice and WoW. I can list dozens of games that I've had mores issues on nVidia than ATi, going right back to 2002 with the 9700 Pro. I can also unequivocally state that in general moving to ATi hardware gives me less trouble with my games than comparative nVidia hardware.

I can also list wide-spread issues that affected multiple games for months (alt-tab, DEP, Unreal 2 stuttering) and physically prevented the play of many titles. In particular the alt-tab issue persisted for around four years on multiple generations of nVidia hardware and could potentially affect any game at any time.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Azn

Fully testing drivers every single month cost time and money.

Why can ATi afford it when they?re bleeding millions per quarter, but nVidia can?t?

No one said Nvidia can't afford it.

Not to mention it's a bit excessive releasing WHQL drivers every month.

Excessive for whom? Certainly not for a consumer. It's not excessive for me because I potentially get fixes faster.

As a business practice it is excessive.

Fixes faster? I don't know where you get this idea that somehow if you release more WHQL drivers you get faster fixes.

I've yet to know a company release more WHQL drivers in a year then ATI.

This puts ATi in a good light because they are truly well above other IHVs when it comes to driver support. If someone picks up a supported ATi board they can look forward to regular monthly drivers. As you say, no other vendor offers this.

It's not like somehow ATI driver team has increased 2x more work than Nvidia driver team. ATI/AMD is smaller company I'm guessing they have less people working at ATI programming drivers. So ATI release more WHQL drivers. So what? It doesn't mean the drivers are less buggy than Nvidia's. I'll say it again ATI or Nvidia are both competent in creating drivers. ATI had a bad rep but it was mostly superficial than anything created by Nvidia gpu users like some people are trying to do now.

Their sales weren't that great either when they started this program. It was about time when R600 was released.

This is nonsense; the monthly WHQL cycle started back in 2002 when the Catalyst brand arrived, shortly after the 9700 Pro was released.

Show me some evidence than I believe it. Other wise I won't. I know R300 was first when CCC was released but it was much later ATI started creating WHQL drivers every month.

And to this day 9700 Pro owners enjoy monthly drivers on all currently supported OSes (XP, XP64, Vista 32 and Vista 64). The same cannot be said about the GF5 FX series or in fact any nVidia chipset.

LOL you are bad as keys. Who wants to use Nvidia chipset when they can go intel or whoever was dumb enough to buy FX series deserves no drivers.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K


With ATi I get fixes quicker in general (I?ve already seen it on a 4850: 8.8 had issues in two games, 8.9 fixed it) and I get more robust drivers for my gaming library.

So ATi testing those 24 games every month gives you the more robust drivers than NVIDIA testing many more games every three?

Interesting that AT's video editor doesn't agree with you and flat out says neither approach is better than the other.