CATALYST 09.11 vs. CATALYST 09.12

[erocker]

He should still be getting more fps than he is though.

Some reviews say the 5870 should be about 200fps average and 110 minimum.

Those reviews are most likely using an overclocked i7. He's using a E8400.

Dead Center 60 seconds using FRAPS.

My system w/multicore disabled:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6718, 60000, 59, 204, 111.967

Enabled:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
11775, 60000, 128, 280, 196.250

If it's over 60fps, it doesn't matter anyways.

Cards are stock and CPU is at 3.6ghz.

 

[DrPepper]

Those reviews are most likely using an overclocked i7. He's using a E8400.

My system w/multicore disabled:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6718, 60000, 59, 204, 111.967

Enabled:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
11775, 60000, 128, 280, 196.250

If it's over 60fps, it doesn't matter anyways.

Cards are stock and CPU is at 3.6ghz.

I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[Kei]

Man I still swear I am the only one who hasn't had any problems with these drivers...... I put them on my 5870, 4850, 3870 and my 3850 All with no problems.

Nope...no problems with my 5770 here either. I've never really had any driver issues....ever. I always uninstall using Catalyst Install Manager, reset and go into safe mode. Run Driver Cleaner Pro twice, go through the drive to make sure there are NO folders with ATi stuff in them. Then run CCleaner registry cleanup until there are no more conflicts found, then run the cleaner itself to ensure everything is fresh.

Finally before leaving safe mode I open Device Manager and uninstall the Standard VGA Display Driver before resetting the computer. Load up Windows7 normally, it installs the Standard VGA Display Driver, and I install the new driver package when it's done. Reset the machine and enjoy the new driver.

Most times the speed is roughly the same, sometimes I get a little boost, rarely the performance is a little lower so I revert back. I also don't change drivers just because they come out, I usually only get them if there is a reason to do so. If the drivers are specifically for my card(s) like this time with the 5000 series updates, then I check what others are saying and go from there.

This time I needed the new drivers for the Hotfix since I'm on Windows7 and recently started getting the randomly enlarged mouse cursor lol. Messed my mind up a little because it was during cpu stability testing and a few times I just assumed it wasn't stable and checked the next voltage setting up lol. Oops...at least I know now.

Kei

 

[Fahim]

Just finished testing CAT 09.12 and 09.12 hotfix. Please check below:

HIS RADEON 5870 1GB (850, 4800)

All test were ran at 1920 x 1080 resolution, three times.


3DMark Vantage

9.12 - P14808 3DMarks
9.12 Hotfix - P14834 3DMarks

Call Of Juarez DX10 NoAA

Min. / Max. / Avg.

9.12 - 41.3 FPS / 160.6 FPS / 81.8 FPS
9.12 Hotfix - 39.4 FPS / 160.6 FPS / 82.9 FPS

Call Of Juarez DX10 4x AA

Min. / Max. / Avg.

9.12 - 28.5 FPS / 128.2 FPS / 67.4 FPS
9.12 Hotfix - 29.1 FPS / 128.2 FPS / 68.4 FPS

Crysis Warhead - Ambush Level, DX10, Enthusiast

No AA / 4x AA

9.12 - 36.35 FPS / 31.37 FPS
9.12 Hotfix - 37.12 FPS / 32.12 FPS

Dirt 2 Demo (Maximum Settings)

Min. / Avg.

9.12 - N/A
9.12 Hotfix - 59.6 FPS / 69.7 FPS

4x AA

9.12 - N/A
9.12 - 60.1 FPS / 39.6 FPS

Unigine Heaven 1.0

Tessellation / No Tessellation

09.12 - 36.9 FPS / 62.7 FPS
09.12 Hotfix - 37.5 FPS / 62.8 FPS

FurMark 1.70

09.12 - 131 FPS / 7846 o3Marks
09.12 Hotfix - 131 FPS / 7859 o3Marks

 

[JRMBelgium]

Again still not right. Since I've got the same settings at 1920 x 1080. Try turning multicore rendering off that limits your FPS. It's only usefull if you have a 3450 and a quad.

Dude, who cares? I'm not that geeky that I'm going to start tweaking games that don't need tweaking. If I play on the highest settings, everything looks sharp and the draw distance is good, then why should I bother changing settings that provide higher frames...

 

[DrPepper]

Well you did provide a graph showing the difference between the 9.11 and 9.12 and if you do that you'd want to make sure the results were accurate. I was mearly pointing out that the results might have been off. I don't care about the result I just think it would be misleading to post a graph that could be wrong.

 

[bobzilla2009]

I do agree that tweaking left 4 dead is ultimately pointless, since it really has no problems whatsoever running on a hd5870. However it's a pity crysis still only runs half decently, I want 60fps dammit! Still, an average of 37fps @ 1680x1050 4xAA on very high ain't too bad.

 

[Lionheart]

Crysis is just a shit unoptimized game

 

[Binge]

Crysis is just a shit unoptimized game

Can't say that's an accurate statement. People used that as an excuse to scorn a game they couldn't run. Honestly there's a lot of elements of that game which no other games use. It's a ground up engine capable of lush vegetation, wonderful objects, buildings, and even their own physics.

 

[Lionheart]

Can't say that's an accurate statement. People used that as an excuse to scorn a game they couldn't run. Honestly there's a lot of elements of that game which no other games use. It's a ground up engine capable of lush vegetation, wonderful objects, buildings, and even their own physics.

Yes I get your point but i still stand by that crappy excuse (its a poorly unoptimized game) and Im sticking to it.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Can't say that's an accurate statement. People used that as an excuse to scorn a game they couldn't run. Honestly there's a lot of elements of that game which no other games use. It's a ground up engine capable of lush vegetation, wonderful objects, buildings, and even their own physics.

Well my system should be more than enough to push that game and it damn sure doesn't move it the way it should. I feel the game doesn't scale well. That and the new Crysis is being made for consoles and its rumored to look BETTER than its PC prequel. That to me seems like they rushed it for the PC which you know makes it really unoptimized. IMHO.

Oh and CHAOS_KILLA stop your crying. You are an early adopted of bleed edge technology. You have to expect some bumps in the road. Give it time my friend.

 

[awallabilla]

there is no big difference between 9.11 and 9.12.. 1-2 fps is not a big deal..

 

[eidairaman1]

Well my system should be more than enough to push that game and it damn sure doesn't move it the way it should. I feel the game doesn't scale well. That and the new Crysis is being made for consoles and its rumored to look BETTER than its PC prequel. That to me seems like they rushed it for the PC which you know makes it really unoptimized. IMHO.

Oh and CHAOS_KILLA stop your crying. You are an early adopted of bleed edge technology. You have to expect some bumps in the road. Give it time my friend.

He is what is called a Pioneer of Technology: He always gets arrows in the back

 

[erocker]

Yes I get your point but i still stand by that crappy excuse (its a poorly unoptimized game) and Im sticking to it.

So you are saying they should of made the game with worse graphics and take out other resourse using features? Well, then the game wouldn't of looked so good. Then all we would of had was a sub-par FPS shooter.

 

[Lionheart]

So you are saying they should of made the game with worse graphics and take out other resourse using features? Well, then the game wouldn't of looked so good. Then all we would of had was a sub-par FPS shooter.

No Im saying they should of made it more optimized, simple!

 

[DrPepper]

No Im saying they should of made it more optimized, simple!

To make it more optimise you need to sacrifice graphics quality. It's not some magical programming trick that would instantly give you more FPS. Crysis was already tweaked like crazy before it was released and then tweaked some more. The reason warhead runs better is because there is less draw distance and less ambient occlusion.

 

[solofly]

I had some problems with dual display (DVI+HDMI) but driver 9.12 fixed it all and now I'm in love with my HD5770...

 

[jjFarking]

To make it more optimise you need to sacrifice graphics quality. It's not some magical programming trick that would instantly give you more FPS.

There's no need whatsoever to sacrifice graphics quality when optimising code.
Allow me to demonstrate with a *very* basic example:
if %a=1 then { %i=%a+1 | goto next }
elseif %a=2 then { %i=%a+1 | goto next }
elseif %a=3 then { %i=%a+1 | goto next }
else { %i=%a }
:next
blah blah blah

Can also read:
if { %a<4 && %a>0 } { %i=%a+1 } else { %i=%a }

I know.. very basic indeed, but the point is still the same.

Sloppy coding has plagued the PC world ever since Intel introduced the 32-bit CPU (80386); as these CPUs were capable of executing code rapidly, sloppy coding didn't have that much impact on the overall performance. So the cycle began (and predominantly continues to this day).
As it is, software is still catching up with the true capabilities of hardware (CPU/GPU/etc) - it's usually a generation or so behind the hardware it's meant to run on.

Now, I honestly have no idea how [un]optimised Crysis is, but optimisation is what most coders spend most of their time doing

Back on topic: I must agree that the difference between the 9.11 & 9.12 drivers is sketchy. In some apps/games there's a noticeable difference, in others there's no difference or a loss.
It's still early days I guess

 

[20mmrain]

CHAOS_KILLA

Have you got the problem fixed yet bud???

 

[InTeL-iNsIdE]

Dude, who cares? I'm not that geeky that I'm going to start tweaking games that don't need tweaking. If I play on the highest settings, everything looks sharp and the draw distance is good, then why should I bother changing settings that provide higher frames...

What the hell you doing here then??? jk man

 

[DrPepper]

There's no need whatsoever to sacrifice graphics quality when optimising code.
Allow me to demonstrate with a *very* basic example:
if %a=1 then { %i=%a+1 | goto next }
elseif %a=2 then { %i=%a+1 | goto next }
elseif %a=3 then { %i=%a+1 | goto next }
else { %i=%a }
:next
blah blah blah

Can also read:
if { %a<4 && %a>0 } { %i=%a+1 } else { %i=%a }

I know.. very basic indeed, but the point is still the same.

Sloppy coding has plagued the PC world ever since Intel introduced the 32-bit CPU (80386); as these CPUs were capable of executing code rapidly, sloppy coding didn't have that much impact on the overall performance. So the cycle began (and predominantly continues to this day).
As it is, software is still catching up with the true capabilities of hardware (CPU/GPU/etc) - it's usually a generation or so behind the hardware it's meant to run on.

Now, I honestly have no idea how [un]optimised Crysis is, but optimisation is what most coders spend most of their time doing

Back on topic: I must agree that the difference between the 9.11 & 9.12 drivers is sketchy. In some apps/games there's a noticeable difference, in others there's no difference or a loss.
It's still early days I guess

Interesting but crysis is already optimised yet it still lags and people say it needs more optimisation, they can't possibly make the most efficient code any more efficient.

 

[Binge]

Interesting but crysis is already optimised yet it still lags and people say it needs more optimisation, they can't possibly make the most efficient code any more efficient.

That's not entirely accurate. The issue is that the foundation for the Crytek 2 engine allows very little room for improvement in optimization. The Crytek 3 engine is a lot more polished, but it's remade from the ground up. When people talk about optimizing Crysis I think to myself, they must want the next game because there's no cost effective way for them to simply rewrite the engine immediately. Since they have Crytek has done amazing things with getting less powerful hardware to move massive amounts of pixels with a very small performance hit. To me that means there's some sort of large improvement with how the engine handles physics, textures, shading, and light sources. The 3d Models were never too complex even for old GPUs. Crytek did a great job with those to begin things, but the game is texture rich with tons of in game effects that change lighting and shading. There's the performance hit. Call it unoptimized but how easy is it to get even modern GPUs to render a particle rich environment? Make those particles also a light source and tell me it won't make rendering a scene more complex. It's these details and much more that made Crysis hard to handle. Regardless I don't think it's an issue. The hardware caught up with the application, and the application has been rewritten to require less hardware to operate.

Win-Win

 

[bim27142]

You're right abt ATI, and although I'm disappointed with 9.12, I am still an ATI fan and will be. I am using ATI cards since RADEON started....

me too...

 

[bim27142]

Does anyone know where to get ATI's previous drivers? I think I've seen it before on their website... :shadedshu

 

[Fahim]

I have all ATI drivers since the first radeon.......my driver folder is about 48gb...