been there done that before, its hilarious, i do recall some previous drivers being horrible, it happens.
one thing i noticed, Stop complaining here and use the catalyst Feedback program, use AMD forums aswell. Big companies don't always monitor these Tech Forums.

InnocentCriminalAren't the problems half the fun?

That's pretty damn true, I had a blast getting raid 0 to work, overclocking my CPU, troubleshooting gpu drivers getting games to work on crossfire(Which is easily done by changing exe name now).

When I don't have problems to fix I tend to want to change things in my rig to make it perform/look even better but I end up screwing something up and more problems arise lmao. I can't remember the last time I went hardcore on gaming :toast:

In the end its so much more rewarding!

Exactly!

:rockout:

niko084Ya, something goofy, 650/1051 I'm solid.
700/1051 it locks... But ONLY in crysis...

Runs 3dmark Vantage and 3dmark06 and supcom's test perfectly fine at my 745/1051.

Just goes to show you how much Crysis taxes our PC hardware to the hilts.

Super XPJust goes to show you how much Crysis taxes our PC hardware to the hilts.

I switch back to 9.1's and clock 745/1050 and get a steady 30ish FPS 1920x1080 Enthusiast, in some area's I can even manage 2x AA.

niko084I switch back to 9.1's and clock 745/1050 and get a steady 30ish FPS 1920x1080 Enthusiast, in some area's I can even manage 2x AA.

My Sapphire Radeon HD 4870's in ATI's OverDrive shows a max potential OC of 850MHz for the GPU and 2,000MHz for the GDDR5 Mem. The stock GPU speed is @ 750MHz. I can also add another 200MHz on the GDDR5 from the stock speed.

I've run games at 850MHz on both HD 4870's in CrosfireX and in single card config's with no problems, but once I try to play CRYSIS, the graphics crashes and an ATI display screen comes up telling me that my Graphics has recovered and reset to default.

But if I OC to 830MHz and not 850MHz with CRYSIS, it runs just fine. Like I said something is wrong with CRYSIS and its game engine, it just requires way too much processing power. Then again, I play every single game in my personal library at Absolute Disgustingly High Picture & Audio Quality. i.e.: (Smoothvision HD plus Adaptive AA @ 24x, AF @ 16x with everything else MAXED to the Hilts :rockout: running @ 1920 x 1080p / 60p on my large 46 HDTV.

Left 4 Dead purrs like a pussycat and looks wildly amazing while Crysis looks wildly amazing, it still kills my FPS big time when benching it.

I had the same crashes in Crysis with my 4870@ 850MHz in DX10 mode, but as soon as I switched it back to DX9 it was OK.

oli_ramsayI had the same crashes in Crysis with my 4870@ 850MHz in DX10 mode, but as soon as I switched it back to DX9 it was OK.

Yes, same here, but overall it defeted the purpose of having a DX10 game and card. This is why I would rather run my HD 4870 @ 830MHz Rock Stable in DX10 with the added DX10 features then DX9 at 850 stable.

Super XPI've run games at 850MHz on both HD 4870's in CrosfireX and in single card config's with no problems, but once I try to play CRYSIS, the graphics crashes and an ATI display screen comes up telling me that my Graphics has recovered and reset to default.

It very well could be Crysis, but as I said it doesn't happen with the 9.1's...

Also I can play supreme commander on dual 1680x1050s maximum settings with that clock without any issues, even while both are zoomed in I get no problems, and that game run like that gets my system way hotter all around then Crysis ever dreamed of.

Doesn't matter too much, I just found it odd, don't know who to blame, and I don't really care, I barely get the time to play games anymore, and I have been playing GRAW2 a lot anyways.

DX10 is faster than dx9 anyway right? so the small sacrifice in lower clocks should be made up for by using dx10

silkstoneDX10 is faster than dx9 anyway right? so the small sacrifice in lower clocks should be made up for by using dx10

No DX10 is slower.

niko084No DX10 is slower.

Agreed, because DX10 is a little more complex to work with. It also produces better PQ. By the time DX10 becomes as fast as the already well known DX9, DX11 will be out the door killing them both.

Super XPAgreed, because DX10 is a little more complex to work with. It also produces better PQ. By the time DX10 becomes as fast as the already well known DX9, DX11 will be out the door killing them both.

Sorry people do you know what in earth is DX10 or DX9 ?? Do you ?

I will give a simple example .

DX its like an empty book .

The DX9 book had room as 10 pages

The DX10 book had room for 15 blank pages .

The blank pages can contain extra programming code , extra commands , that the game makers can use .... if they like so .

The DX10 its one protocol with many more possibility s, its larger in size and that makes it heavy too .

If programmers does not make use of this empty book , the DX10 its exactly the same with the DX9 .

Did ever the programmers , made full use of DX9 , No never ...
Why? its very time consuming ...

Will those people use the DX10 ? Not really
Why ? .... Its more time consuming than DX9 .

What DX do in gaming ?
Its software commands , that effects color blending .

What subsystem executes the DX10 ? mainly the GPU .

If we had a game title , who had full use of DX9 ....
And the same game title with full use of DX10 .....
Who will be faster - better frame rates ?

The DX9 my friends .... smaller book = less work load .




.

Umm, DX10 has the ability to produce a much better and realistic image compared to DX9.
It takes game developers time to familiarize themselves with something new like DX10.
DX9 getting better FPS vs. DX10 is completely irrelevant. It's the same thing as DX8 vs. DX9.

gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/directx-9-vs-directx-10-worth-upgrading-to-vista-for-243099.php
www.legitreviews.com/article/487/1/

Super XPUmm, DX10 has the ability to produce a much better and realistic image compared to DX9.

Wrong .... developers do the job and only if they have to .

Super XPIt takes game developers time to familiarize themselves with something new like DX10.

Wrong .... excuses from the game developers , that they wish to stay neutral ...
DX9 after all this marketing from Microsoft , looks like old food , and DX10 looks like new .
Still is the same food .
Its bad for the reputation of game developers to blast DX10 .

Plus DX10 its an extension of DX9 , if they have the knowledge of DX9 ,
the extra tools of DX10 , its small pack to learn .

Super XPDX9 getting better FPS vs. DX10 is completely irrelevant. It's the same thing as DX8 vs. DX9.

You got mixed again .... All DX its the same book , with more empty pages .
The Gaming developers write in the pages of the book , and only if they like so .

Like it or not, thats the naked truth ...

whats odd is MS continued to update DX9, last redist is from Nov 2008, i wonder if we will expect a Redist for May or something.

If MS does not update " dll 's " of the DX engine , its because it works, as is .

dx10.1 ftw ;)

btw when is 9.3 coming? There aren't that many bugs so I was hoping they'd come out with one that makes this perfect... maybe they could fix the dust and skylight bug on nuke for cs:s that has been around since the dawn of ATI.

kiriakostIf MS does not update " dll 's " of the DX engine , its because it works, as is .

ya to me when i do a driver upgrade i also do a DX upgrade aswell, but i guess they release new updates when needed, as the current DX9API is much larger than at the beginning.

niko084It very well could be Crysis, but as I said it doesn't happen with the 9.1's...

Also I can play supreme commander on dual 1680x1050s maximum settings with that clock without any issues, even while both are zoomed in I get no problems, and that game run like that gets my system way hotter all around then Crysis ever dreamed of.

Doesn't matter too much, I just found it odd, don't know who to blame, and I don't really care, I barely get the time to play games anymore, and I have been playing GRAW2 a lot anyways.

If it crashes at 850 in Crysis, that just means it's not 100% stable. It doesn't matter how many other games work fine at those clocks. If lowering the clocks give stability in any situation, you have an unstable OC.

kiriakostWrong .... developers do the job and only if they have to .

Wrong .... excuses from the game developers , that they wish to stay neutral ...
DX9 after all this marketing from Microsoft , looks like old food , and DX10 looks like new .
Still is the same food .
Its bad for the reputation of game developers to blast DX10 .

Plus DX10 its an extension of DX9 , if they have the knowledge of DX9 ,
the extra tools of DX10 , its small pack to learn .

You got mixed again .... All DX its the same book , with more empty pages .
The Gaming developers write in the pages of the book , and only if they like so .

Like it or not, thats the naked truth ...

I'm getting my info from CPU Magazine's Alex St. John which was one of the founding creators of DirectX technology off an older magazine. You may be right but anything new takes time to get familiar with. Game creators are already well familiar with DX9 and are now starting to close the gap with DX10.

But overall, what you are saying if true does sound like something Micro$oft would do.:D

Super XPBut overall, what you are saying if true does sound like something Micro$oft would do.:D

Now you have come close to my thinking ... MS all ready did what she had planed .
There are a large base of DX9 capable systems , and a smaller one of DX10 capable.

What it was their job , was to make them capable , now its on the developers hand , to "take and use " anything useful for this capability .. ;)



.

In Micro$ofts world its all about the $
I understand your point now.

kiriakostNow you have come close to my thinking ... MS all ready did what she had planed .
There are a large base of DX9 capable systems , and a smaller one of DX10 capable.

That was their job , to make them capable , not its on the developers hand , to "take and use " anything useful for this capability .. ;)

More than enough information here to show that there are indeed large changes between dx9 and dx10. Whether or not games use it is their problem.

www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/95/2

Wile EIf it crashes at 850 in Crysis, that just means it's not 100% stable. It doesn't matter how many other games work fine at those clocks. If lowering the clocks give stability in any situation, you have an unstable OC.

Well, that would be my initial thoughts too, but this is a "driver crash", and again only with the "9.2 drivers", with the "9.1 drivers" everything is perfectly fine. Also Crysis is the only program it has issues with, including numerous stress tests, benchmarks and other games for extended periods of time.

Now ruling out that it is not a perfectly stable clock, but it doesn't seem to fit all in properly. No artifacts, no excessive heat, every other piece of software runs perfectly well.