ATI's latest drivers allegedly more stable than those of nVIDIA...

[Sqube]

The article can be read here.

DISCLAIMER: Since I know it'll most likely be used as evidence that there are shady dealings going on, ATI hired the independent company that did the survey. Take that for what you think it's worth.

/has owned ATI cards for the past 3 years

 

[sharkeeper]

They're both fine IMO.

ATi needs a damn equivalent to Digital Vibrance though.

 

[Lonyo]

Somebody has to hire them, they ain't gonna do it for free.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
They're both fine IMO.

ATi needs a damn equivalent to Digital Vibrance though.

Eh what is the point of DV to screw up contrast? I thought it was cool when I first used it then it got pretty pointless to have overly bright colors because nothing looked right.

 

[Continuity27]

I've been going back and forth from nvidia and ati, latest were GeForce 3 TI 500, ATI Radeon 9800 PRO, 6800GT x2... I've never really noticed any driver sets being very unstable or anything. I think they are both good.

 

[sharkeeper]

DV definitely does not screw up the contrast.

If it looks weird you're using it improperly. IMO the range is far too strong. 100% (full winged starboard) should be about where the first notch is currently which is 25%?

I'm stuck in ATi land with my XPS lappie - no DV lovin' but I shore did enjoy it for games on my 6800UE boards back home.

The default settings look way to washed out. This needs to be corrected in the SW. Let's face it, the CRT is dead!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Continuity27
I've been going back and forth from nvidia and ati, latest were GeForce 3 TI 500, ATI Radeon 9800 PRO, 6800GT x2... I've never really noticed any driver sets being very unstable or anything. I think they are both good.

The pre Radeon 8500 days was when their drivers were "bad".

 

[sharkeeper]

The pre Radeon 8500 days was when their drivers were "bad".

<cough>rage fury<cough>

OR

Hey! my 16 bit looks like 4 bit VGA!