available gaming resolutions?

rogue1979

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2001
3,062
0
0
I have both an Asus GF4 Ti4200 128MB @300/640 and a retail Radeon 8500 128MB @312/306. Performance is very close between the two at higher resolutions. The Catalyst 2.5 driver gives me 1600 x 1200 options in all my games. The games in question include:

Giants
Janes WWII Fighters
Need for Speed Porsche Unleashed
Unreal Tournament

Now when I use the Detonator 30.82 I usually get a max of 1280 x 1024. Detonator 41.09 which is 1000 pts. faster in 3DMark 2001SE limits two of those games to 1024 x 768. While I can play 1280 x 960 with FSAA on 2X and get the same enjoyment as 1600 x 1200 with no FSAA, 1024 x 768 just isn't acceptable.
There must be a way to edit the 41.09 driver files to raise the available gaming resolutions. I have no idea how to do this, if anyone knows, could you please give me instructions?

Up until now I have given the nod to Nvidia for driver support, but I must say the Catalyst 2.5 seems to be working better. Congratulations ATI.


 

rogue1979

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2001
3,062
0
0
OK, after a lot of messin' I figured out how to change the available resolutions in the games themselves.

I gotta bust on Nvidia for the 41.09 drivers though. After several days of testing, I think I know why the 3Mark2001 score with the 41.09 is 12,000 and the 30.82 is 11,000. The default image quality of the 41.09 is lower than that of the 30.82. While not readily apparent in 3DMark itself, it is definately noticable in the 10 or 12 games I tested in. When using higher display settings for the Asus Geforce 4 Ti4200 128MB @ 300/640 to make the 41.09 look as good as the 30.82 at lower display settiings, the performance was the same. On the other hand, when turning the display settings to max quality for both drivers, the 41.09 was considerably slower without a porportionate increase in image quality.

Last time I tested GF4 128MB against Radeon 8500 128MB I used a Gainward at 300/540 and the same retail Radeon 8500 @ 312/306 and noticed the same things.

Turn the image settings down, and use resolutions of 1152 x 864 or lower, and the GF4 takes a commanding lead. Turn the display settings to max and run 1280 x 960 or 1600 x 1200 and the Radeon is decisively faster, sometimes by 20fps or more. You can run the display settings down and the GF4 is faster, but not looking very good. Overall the Radeon 8500 looks better in 2D and 3D, the only thing going for the GF4 in the image quality department is slightly better color saturation.

I guess I have read too many web reviews, because the all say the GF4 Ti4200 is faster than the Radeon 8500 and looks just as good. This Asus card has purple pcb, a large gold colored fan, bga memory chips, TV and DVI out as well as some other video out jack (don't even know what it is). I really wanted it to perform better than my plain green retail 8500 128MB. But with the Catalyst 2.5 drivers backing it up, the Radeon 8500 128MB is a head and shoulders above the Geforce4 Ti 4200 in almost all categories in this gamers humble opinion.
 

rogue1979

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2001
3,062
0
0
UPDATE: Flip flop!

Not one to give up easily I switched from my beloved Win98 SE to Win2K Pro. After alot of Detonator trying I found a cherry. Win2K Pro and 30.82. Boy, what a difference from 30.82 and Win98. Now 3D image quality is about dead even between the Radeon 8500 128MB and the Geforce4 128MB. The Radeon's sweet spot is 1600 x 1200, 16x anisotropic, no FSAA, where it averages about 105fps in Unreal Tournament. The GF4 likes 1280 x 960, 4x anisotropic and Quincunx where it belts out 135fps! Now it is definately faster across the board in all games, looking better in some and not quite as good in others, image quality is pretty even. In 2D the Radeon still has slightly crisper fonts, but the Geforce makes up for it with much richer color saturation. If I run the Radeon at 1280 x 960, 16x anisotropic, quality 2X FSAA, it drops to about 95fps and does not look as good.

The Asus Geforce4 Ti 4200 128MB @ 300/640 now takes over in my primary gaming machine.
 

rogue1979

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2001
3,062
0
0
Further progress. I tried the Omega drivers based on the 30.82 and 40.72 Detonators. The 40.72 Omega was a little glitchy in Unreal Tournament, just like the 41.09 Detonator. I am now using the 1.1.82 Omega with fantastic results. Now the 2D sharpness is equal to the Radeon in all respects, with the GF4 still showing much richer color saturation. WOW! it really looks good. I used the "quality" settings, and this does take a pretty big performance hit. All benchmarks and games are penalized around 10%, so flat out speed freaks might not like this option. But I am as happy as a clam. Now I have the texture quality an ATI and the color richness of Nvidia. Consequently, the overall speed of the Geforce4 Ti4200 128MB @ 300/640 is now about equal to the Radeon 8500 128MB @ 312/306. I am really wondering if there will be visual quality benefits for the Omega catalyst driver? Maybe they tweaked the color saturation settings to bring it up to par with the Geforce4? At any rate a 10% or more performance hit might be a little steep for the 8500 performance, but I bet anyone running the 9700 with power to spare would really benefit.
 

rogue1979

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2001
3,062
0
0
Anyone try the Omega drivers for ATI yet?

One thing I noticed with the Detonator version, I now have all the higher resolutions available in all my games. So I dropped the FSAA and tried Unreal Tournament at 1600 x 1200 with the Omega 1.1.82 on quality. I was suprised to see my average fps chugging along at 165, a full 55 fps faster than the Radeon 8500 at the same settings! Porsche Unleased now gives me a maximum of 1520 x 1140, and running with 2X FSAA it is smooth with no hesitations.
Both my kids are running Radeon 8500 64MB cards, so I will try the Omega based on the 2.5 Catalyst and see what the improvements and performance losses are.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS