Does AMD/ATI make stable drivers?

[Firestorm007]

NVIDIA also had nearly 70% of the video card market and was first out with a DX10 card. So.....yeah.

By that measure I guess Matrox has the best drivers.

Either way would should take bets each month to see how many hot fixes there will be. I'm guessing at least 2 this month.

You know, you're right. Stupid AMD! How dare they support their products with software updates that were most likely reported by users having issues. I think I'll just go ahead and sell my 5870 now...I'd much rather wait for drivers every three months or so.

 

[GaiaHunter]

NVIDIA also had nearly 70% of the video card market and was first out with a DX10 card. So.....yeah.

By that measure I guess Matrox has the best drivers.

Either way would should take bets each month to see how many hot fixes there will be. I'm guessing at least 2 this month.

70% of discrete graphic cards.

I doubt that NVIDIA was present in 70% of all the computers with Vista, although Microsft was certainly present in 100% of them.

it is hard to achieve any conclusion with only that data, though.

 

[badb0y]

NVIDIA also had nearly 70% of the video card market and was first out with a DX10 card. So.....yeah.

By that measure I guess Matrox has the best drivers.

Either way would should take bets each month to see how many hot fixes there will be. I'm guessing at least 2 this month.

By that measure Intel has the best graphics since they own the most market share.

 

[SolMiester]

You know that the latest driver from NVIDIA, for example, is also a 100MB release?

Tit for tat?....At least it not a lucky tip with versions to get one that's stable or doesn't require a fix for a bug..

 

[SolMiester]

By that measure Intel has the best graphics since they own the most market share.

This is true.....for 2D

 

[GaiaHunter]

Tit for tat?....At least it not a lucky tip with versions to get one that's stable or doesn't require a fix for a bug..

First I don't know how can someone infer the quality of a graphics driver based on their size. Do you?

That was the point of my post.

It is interesting that both companies have similar sized drivers though. Maybe it is hard to get smaller drivers with all the things both companies need to support in their drivers.

Second do you have any hard data that allows you to infer if you need to be lucky or not to get a stable AMD driver? It seems that you are saying it is something like a shot in the dark.

On the other hand it seems you are saying that nobody has problems with NVIDIA drivers. Again any hard evidence?

I've been using a 4850 for more than 2 years, updating drivers montly and had no problems.

I've been using a 6850 for 2 months now and again had no issues.

Of course all of this is anecdotal evidence, but if it really was a shot in the dark, I should have problems in at least a few of those 24+ drivers.

 

[Termie]

He is using a multi monitor setup, idles around 400/900.

Oh, that's right. Maybe 61C does make sense with the dual-monitor load. Others will have to chime in. Maybe I led him down the wrong path asking about the temps. He probably doesn't need the fan at 100% to get the temp down to 35C though. Maybe 50% would get it down to a comfortable temp, even with the dual screens.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

NVIDIA also had nearly 70% of the video card market and was first out with a DX10 card. So.....yeah.

By that measure I guess Matrox has the best drivers.

Either way would should take bets each month to see how many hot fixes there will be. I'm guessing at least 2 this month.

Actually Intel was included in those numbers so Nvidia had well under 50% of the market.

 

[Twinpeaksr]

Oh, that's right. Maybe 61C does make sense with the dual-monitor load. Others will have to chime in. Maybe I led him down the wrong path asking about the temps. He probably doesn't need the fan at 100% to get the temp down to 35C though. Maybe 50% would get it down to a comfortable temp, even with the dual screens.

100%, 50%, no difference, the noise difference is so minimal, might as well max the fan speed, lower temp is better.

Anyone confirm 60C is reasonable with 3 monitors running?

 

[Twinpeaksr]

NVIDIA also had nearly 70% of the video card market and was first out with a DX10 card. So.....yeah.

By that measure I guess Matrox has the best drivers.

Either way would should take bets each month to see how many hot fixes there will be. I'm guessing at least 2 this month.

Based on my experience yes, 4 Matrox cards for 7 years, 0 issues. If they were more readily available I would probably still be using Matrox.

 

[Twinpeaksr]

First I don't know how can someone infer the quality of a graphics driver based on their size. Do you?

That was the point of my post.

It is interesting that both companies have similar sized drivers though. Maybe it is hard to get smaller drivers with all the things both companies need to support in their drivers.

Second do you have any hard data that allows you to infer if you need to be lucky or not to get a stable AMD driver? It seems that you are saying it is something like a shot in the dark.

On the other hand it seems you are saying that nobody has problems with NVIDIA drivers. Again any hard evidence?

I've been using a 4850 for more than 2 years, updating drivers montly and had no problems.

I've been using a 6850 for 2 months now and again had no issues.

Of course all of this is anecdotal evidence, but if it really was a shot in the dark, I should have problems in at least a few of those 24+ drivers.

Perhaps I was not clear, I am not inferring quality based on size but on performance. What I am saying is as the size goes up, the number of lines of code went up (duh). More lines of code, more possible problems and more testing is needed. It seems that the testing that was used when drivers were a few MB is the same that is used when they are over 100MB and it is no longer sufficient. Size determines complexity and complexity leads to more problems.

 

[BigDaddyD]

I just got a Sapphire 4670 HD for my rig for now and the drivers have been crashing me as well. I am running XP SP3 on a fresh install. In fact, I downloaded the newest drivers from the Sapphire website and then uninstalled them. The error message suggested that I turn hardware acceleration off, which I did. I am using whatever the generic driver is now. ATI Radeon 4600 series, I think. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Perhaps I was not clear, I am not inferring quality based on size but on performance. What I am saying is as the size goes up, the number of lines of code went up (duh). More lines of code, more possible problems and more testing is needed. It seems that the testing that was used when drivers were a few MB is the same that is used when they are over 100MB and it is no longer sufficient. Size determines complexity and complexity leads to more problems.

You are basing that on the fact that you are having problems, that might or not be caused by drivers.

Is that a fresh windows install? Is the card capable of running games at all?

 

[nitromullet]

70% of discrete graphic cards.

I doubt that NVIDIA was present in 70% of all the computers with Vista, although Microsft was certainly present in 100% of them.

it is hard to achieve any conclusion with only that data, though.

I dunno, 70% of all discrete graphics cards with Vista is probably not an unrealistic estimate for NV market share at the time. You have to consider that Vista was brand new and that ATI didn't even have a DX10 card, so the early adopter would have been using Vista and a GeForce card. For instance, I was running an 8800 GTX at the time of Vista's launch quite simply because there was absolutely nothing from ATI that could compete. This remained largely true up until the Radeon 48xx card launched, which really turned the tide for AMD.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I dunno, 70% of all discrete graphics cards with Vista is probably not an unrealistic estimate for NV market share at the time. You have to consider that Vista was brand new and that ATI didn't even have a DX10 card, so the early adopter would have been using Vista and a GeForce card. For instance, I was running an 8800 GTX at the time of Vista's launch quite simply because there was absolutely nothing from ATI that could compete. This remained largely true up until the Radeon 48xx card launched, which really turned the tide for AMD.

Where in my post was I contesting that NVIDIA probably had 70% of discrete graphic cards at that time?

Windows vista didn't require a DX10 card to run. And don't forget IGPs.

 

[busydude]

Oh, that's right. Maybe 61C does make sense with the dual-monitor load. Others will have to chime in. Maybe I led him down the wrong path asking about the temps. He probably doesn't need the fan at 100% to get the temp down to 35C though. Maybe 50% would get it down to a comfortable temp, even with the dual screens.

Ok.. I am doing about 43C.. up from 37C when running at 400/900. This is on reference 5770.

 

[Skurge]

Oh, that's right. Maybe 61C does make sense with the dual-monitor load. Others will have to chime in. Maybe I led him down the wrong path asking about the temps. He probably doesn't need the fan at 100% to get the temp down to 35C though. Maybe 50% would get it down to a comfortable temp, even with the dual screens.

I was getting about 70-75C with my 4870 running dual monitors with the fan speed set to lowest FWIW.

Maybe the OP should try his card in a different system. Someone here said the XFX said system ram setting caused a lot of issues with AMD cards and suggested you run it at default settings.

 

[QuantumPion]

I've had all sorts of crazy driver problems with my 5870 since I got it last year. It is my first and will be my last ever ATI card.

Driver crashes flash videos? Check.
Mouse cursor disappearing? Check.
GBOD? Check.
GrBOD? Check.
WBOD? Check.
FLOD? Check.
ATI acknowledgement that problems are driver issues and will issue a hotfix? Check!

ATI fails to release hotfix or working drivers for over 2 years? Check!

 

[Termie]

I was getting about 70-75C with my 4870 running dual monitors with the fan speed set to lowest FWIW.

Maybe the OP should try his card in a different system. Someone here said the XFX said system ram setting caused a lot of issues with AMD cards and suggested you run it at default settings.

I mentioned that issue with system ram. Although the OP runs at stock, I'd even consider underclocking the ram (e.g. DDR3-1066), as I saw someone posted that solution for problems with his XFX HD6850.

 

[Skurge]

I mentioned that issue with system ram. Although the OP runs at stock, I'd even consider underclocking the ram (e.g. DDR3-1066), as I saw someone posted that solution for problems with his XFX HD6850.

Yeah, I'm still having a hard time believing that every driver he's tried has the issue. Could be something with his system, but thats even harder to track down.

 

[Wreckage]

Yeah, I'm still having a hard time believing that every driver he's tried has the issue. Could be something with his system, but thats even harder to track down.

Here's some issues apparently not fixed since at least November. So it could be every driver he's tried has the issue.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1559534

 

[SolMiester]

First I don't know how can someone infer the quality of a graphics driver based on their size. Do you?

That was the point of my post.

It is interesting that both companies have similar sized drivers though. Maybe it is hard to get smaller drivers with all the things both companies need to support in their drivers.

Second do you have any hard data that allows you to infer if you need to be lucky or not to get a stable AMD driver? It seems that you are saying it is something like a shot in the dark.

On the other hand it seems you are saying that nobody has problems with NVIDIA drivers. Again any hard evidence?

I've been using a 4850 for more than 2 years, updating drivers montly and had no problems.

I've been using a 6850 for 2 months now and again had no issues.

Of course all of this is anecdotal evidence, but if it really was a shot in the dark, I should have problems in at least a few of those 24+ drivers.

I said nothing about driver size, i have however seen at least 5 different versions of driver suggested in order to get the problem resolved...ridiculous! That sounds like a lucky dip to me, whether or not you have trouble with your drivers....

 

[Skurge]

Can't speak for some of those issues, but.

OGL games have been working for me since September 2009, through multiple driver updates. Those games include Q2, Q3, Quake LIVE, Star trek elite force, Doom3 and Quake 4.

The 6400k issue happened once, I just set colours back to default, hasn't come back through multiple driver updates,

Never had the cursor problem to this day.

Thats just my experience though. But with all the weird things we do with our systems, you never know.

 

[Skurge]

I said nothing about driver size, i have however seen at least 5 different versions of driver suggested in order to get the problem resolved...ridiculous! That sounds like a lucky dip to me, whether or not you have trouble with your drivers....

Like you would know.

 

[digitaldurandal]

I am running 3 monitors, DP to VGA adapter for the 3rd. Problem exists on 2 monitors as well as 3 monitors configuration.

Using VGA eliminates the issue requiring the active DP adapter.

but it does not eliminate the issue with the maximum supported resolution. This is why you cannot run the correct resolution with the third monitor enabled.

To answer your initial question the answer is no, AMD has been doing better with their drivers but most of their drivers have a glaring fault or two and often older drivers are better for everything except benchmarking the latest game. With my 5870 I learned only to upgrade if something new came out that I wanted to play.

Great hardware, mediocre software.