ATI wont support R2xx cards (radeon 9200) on x64

[otispunkmeyer]

the only cards that get 64bit drivers are the R3xx and above

good or bad move?

ii think most people with a 64bit capapble machine have something better than a 9200, but who knows

could be a shame for all those A64 laptop owners that use mobile varients of these cards

its interesting to see nvidia supporting their entire range all the way down to the TNT series of cards for 64bit windows. both driver teams are very good, but its the little touches nvidia provides in theirs that makes me like them more

edit link

 

[Sonic587]

link?

Bad move if this is true.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I though there was a unified driver for the Radeon series? Perhaps they mean they won't have robust gaming support for the lower end Radeons? Not supporting them at all seems like a really stupid move...

 

[Peter]

The current (and first) release of x64 drivers indeed supports only the DX9 hardware series - Radeon 9500 and up.

I'm not sure, but I don't think I've seen A64 platform notebooks with lesser graphics.

 

[Bateluer]

I say good move. Honestly, who is going to buy an A64 CPU and WinXP64 and stick a Radeon 9200SE in it?

Plus, since any OEM vendors who ship A64 based systems win XP64 will have to place a more powerful graphics solution in it, gaining more money for ATI and increasing performance for the end user.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I say good move. Honestly, who is going to buy an A64 CPU and WinXP64 and stick a Radeon 9200SE in it?

Plus, since any OEM vendors who ship A64 based systems win XP64 will have to place a more powerful graphics solution in it, gaining more money for ATI and increasing performance for the end user.

Yup, anyone who would deserves neither the CPU nor the OS. 😛

 

[doublejbass]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I say good move. Honestly, who is going to buy an A64 CPU and WinXP64 and stick a Radeon 9200SE in it?

Plus, since any OEM vendors who ship A64 based systems win XP64 will have to place a more powerful graphics solution in it, gaining more money for ATI and increasing performance for the end user.

Typical idiocy.

could be a shame for all those A64 laptop owners that use mobile varients of these cards

Them.

 

[McArra]

Bad movement, not everyone on 64bit must be a player... I hope ATi change their mind, this is poitless.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: McArra
Bad movement, not everyone on 64bit must be a player... I hope ATi change their mind, this is poitless.

Not all will be, but there are the X300s, 500s, etc for them.

 

[RussianSensation]

From a consumer's perspective this is a bad move since some users do not care for 3d much and cards at 9200 or below level will suffice for their 2D gaming needs. Why should they spend more money just to have a 64-bit system with R3xx cards or higher?
From ATI's perspective this is a good move since they will force users to upgrade to more expensive cards.

 

[McArra]

That's PCI-E, in AGP 9500+ would be their ONLY way to go 64bits, I think that's sad...

 

[otispunkmeyer]

bump mit link

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: doublejbass

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I say good move. Honestly, who is going to buy an A64 CPU and WinXP64 and stick a Radeon 9200SE in it?

Plus, since any OEM vendors who ship A64 based systems win XP64 will have to place a more powerful graphics solution in it, gaining more money for ATI and increasing performance for the end user.

Typical idiocy.

could be a shame for all those A64 laptop owners that use mobile varients of these cards

Them.

them? i really hope this is isnt a your grammar sucks post :|

 

[doublejbass]

No, it isn't. That would be a my grammar sucks post if it was. 🙂 "cletus, it's them cards"

I was just pointing out where you delineated someone who would be using an A64 but stuck with a R2xx, since it can happen.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: doublejbass
No, it isn't. That would be a my grammar sucks post if it was. 🙂 "cletus, it's them cards"

I was just pointing out where you delineated someone who would be using an A64 but stuck with a R2xx, since it can happen.

well i knew what i meant 😛

 

[housecat]

Typical ATI legacy video support.

As if the 9200/9250 is really "legacy"..

This is PRECISELY why I suggest anyone who needs a PCI DVI video card or just needs something to get away from Intel Integrated video problems (but does not hardcore game) to go with a low end Geforce.
You never know when it might end up in a 64bit rig, not everyone pairs fast rigs with fast video cards.

Most people need fast machines, and video cards do little to help that in Windows.
The fastest video cards for Windows (either 32 or 64) are Nvidia.. highly optimized drivers to accelerate the Luna and more than likely the Longhorn GUI.
Heres an example of proof link
Nvidia made press announcements BEFORE XP was even available that they had the best GUI optimized drivers in the industry.. and that is still true.

Any variation of the Geforce or even TNT will work in XP64.. while ATI leaves people out in the cold.
This isnt anything new, but good news to hopefully wakeup a few dumb kids who think ATI ROCKZOZRZ!

This is their usual, historical typical song and dance.

You get better driver support (all platforms) from Nvidia, hands down. Its a first round knockout without question.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: housecat
Typical ATI legacy video support.

Nvidia made press announcements BEFORE XP was even available that they had the best GUI optimized drivers in the industry.. and that is still true.

This isnt anything new, but good news to hopefully wakeup a few dumb kids who think ATI ROCKZOZRZ!

This is their usual, historical typical song and dance.

You get better driver support (all platforms) from Nvidia, hands down. Its a first round knockout without question.

You know, I can't imagine why anyone might think you're biased... :disgust:

Heres an example of proof link

You keep posting this article. It really does not show much other than that (maybe) ATI's drivers have a slightly bigger memory footprint (although, according to ATI, at least some of that memory is freed on demand). It certainly proves nothing about the overall quality or stability of the drivers wrt any real applications.

Actually on topic, yes, this is a bad move. Will it impact many people? Probably not (since most new systems being sold these days use PCIe, and all ATI's PCIe cards are supported -- only upgrades of older AGP systems would really be affected). I understand the difficulties in supporting disparate product lines over multiple platforms, but not being able to support the 9000/9200 in WinXP-64 is kind of lame.

From the OP's linked article:

Of course, older cards will still work in x64 wwith default drivers.

It sounds like some amount of functionality is available, maybe just not 3D acceleration? Not really enough info here.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: housecat
Typical ATI legacy video support.

Nvidia made press announcements BEFORE XP was even available that they had the best GUI optimized drivers in the industry.. and that is still true.

This isnt anything new, but good news to hopefully wakeup a few dumb kids who think ATI ROCKZOZRZ!

This is their usual, historical typical song and dance.

You get better driver support (all platforms) from Nvidia, hands down. Its a first round knockout without question.

You know, I can't imagine why anyone might think you're biased... :disgust:

Heres an example of proof link

You keep posting this article. It really does not show much other than that (maybe) ATI's drivers have a slightly bigger memory footprint (although, according to ATI, at least some of that memory is freed on demand). It certainly proves nothing about the overall quality or stability of the drivers wrt any real applications.

Actually on topic, yes, this is a bad move. Will it impact many people? Probably not (since most new systems being sold these days use PCIe, and all ATI's PCIe cards are supported -- only upgrades of older AGP systems would really be affected). I understand the difficulties in supporting disparate product lines over multiple platforms, but not being able to support the 9000/9200 in WinXP-64 is kind of lame.

From the OP's linked article:

Of course, older cards will still work in x64 wwith default drivers.

It sounds like some amount of functionality is available, maybe just not 3D acceleration? Not really enough info here.

Everything I said is still true.. "biased" or not.

The article shows the attention to detail they put in their drivers. Not only do they have the best Linux/64bit support, they have the most optimized XP32 support.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Heh, this does not suprise me.


Win 2K drivers for RageFury MAXX anyone?

 

[Peter]

At least they had an excuse that held some water back then ... W2K doesn't really allow "strange" graphics setups - anything but a 1:1 relationship of graphics engines and screens doesn't fit its view of the world. Even a driver for something simple like a dual-screen capable card meant jumping through a lot of hoops. Two graphics engines rendering to one screen? Argh!

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: housecat
Everything I said is still true.. "biased" or not.

My point is you have a tendency to say everything about ATI in the most inflammatory way possible, and seem much more lenient towards any problems NVIDIA may have. People might take you a little more seriously if you at least appeared to be impartial.

The article shows the attention to detail they put in their drivers. Not only do they have the best Linux/64bit support, they have the most optimized XP32 support.

From that very article:

...I don?t really think it is a big deal though, as once those memory resources are reallocated, they are then there to be used by the program/game in question. Therefore, subsequent map loads won?t be affected by the memory footprint of CCC. One final comment is that, when 2 users were logged on, Windows was initially noticeably more sluggish on exiting Doom 3 with the ATI drivers. I assume this is because Windows is again reallocating memory to the ATI drivers.

...The overall results are quite interesting. It is obvious that the series of tests took longer under the ATI drivers, but looking more closely at the figures it is clear that it is only in the first few tests, especially those that are more memory intensive, that there is any significant difference. It seems that once Windows has reallocated the memory away from the ATI drivers to Photoshop, there is no further performance penalty. So again, like the Doom 3 tests, the initial hit is only in the early stages.

What started off for me as having a bit of fun has completely taken over my weekend. And for what? Is it really important? On the whole, probably not. As for the results and how you, as the reader (assuming you?ve gotten this far) feel about them, I can only say that at present, NVIDIA have a faster and more streamlined set of drivers. That said, ATI?s drivers are also good and have only a negligible effect on overall system performance.

First off, they measured the ATI drivers with the CCC also installed (instead of just using the regular control panel). I like the new control center, but it does obviously use more memory than just a regular control panel. It would be more valid to test against the base drivers without the CCC, as this is optional.

Second, there did not appear to be any performance difference after a program had been running for a short time. Frankly, the performance differences they did show were pretty small, especially with only one user logged on. This is getting WAY off topic now, though.

I do actually agree that ATI not supporting these cards is very lame. They didn't seem to have any issues supporting them in WinXP -- the basic architecture of these cards is just not that different.

 

[xtknight]

blah...ATI is getting lazy. I thought since all Radeon cards had unified drivers (Catalyst) it would be quite easy.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: housecat
Everything I said is still true.. "biased" or not.

My point is you have a tendency to say everything about ATI in the most inflammatory way possible, and seem much more lenient towards any problems NVIDIA may have. People might take you a little more seriously if you at least appeared to be impartial.

And I hear you completely, I agree.
I dont claim to be completely impartial, using both ATI/NV has shown me the way.. at least for me (and I would suspect most other enthusiasts).
If people dont take me seriously because of the tone of my posts, its their loss.. I do try to speak truth.. and if I'm wrong I beg others to show me the way.
I just demand on proof, or at least reason/logic.

I see NV and ATI as both doing a more than adequate job in gaming on the XP platform. But I think NV takes the support to a higher level, thats why I go with them more often than not.
I'd never bought an ATI if the 9xxx series had not been so exceptional.

I never did buy a FX card. Besides the 5200s because they are such great little pieces to get away from Intel Integrated on PCI.. with the same driver support as any other NV.
Granted, on PCI the 5700 is the best out there, but too expensive.. while still sucking.

Out of all the current PCI cards, the 5200/5700 will more than likely do the best job in Longhorn or 64bit OS... if it ever finds its way to a Longhorn/64bit OS based machine.

The only other card I'd consider on PCI is the ATI 9100, and I can't find those anywhere any longer.

In the end, I have a 5200 PCI here and it is the best backup video card anyone could ask for.. even is ready for my high res LCD (works in 1680x1050) and I can slip it into a Linux box, my current XP32 machine or my future XP64 box if my main video ever fails.
Also great for trouble shooting others machines on any OS.
Good for fixing a video card on a bad GPU bios flash as well.. but of course any PCI card can do that. 😉

Thats the rant for today.

 

[housecat]

boy these threads die fast.. wouldnt this be a nice distraction from any of the 5 daily SM3 threads? 😉