Final Words
We are definitely looking forward to the new features coming down the line. For now, the Catalyst Control Center has become a useable feature with the improved load time and the decreased lag in changing options. We feel that the interface still needs to be massaged in order for the enthusiast crowd to embrace it. Right now, if you know what you are doing, there is really no compelling incentive to install CCC when the control panel works fine.It is commendable that ATI have begun pushing their mobility driver along side their desktop Catalyst offering, but unless most OEMs opt in on the program, the end users won't see any benefit.
The video options now available in Catalyst are getting better, but we would like to see more finely grained control and a useful preview. If we could select a preview source and play with the options, that would be more compelling. The issue is that every video clip is unique and responds differently to settings. Of course, the current preview shows ATI's motion adaptive mode to be the best option, but in some cases, we may see better results from something else.
Better control of HDTV modes is long over due. NVIDIA gave it a shot a few months ago, but even their controls are still too clunky. We will be interested to see what ATI can do with this. Adding the Media Center Extensions is also a good effort to make. Easily adjusting TV settings is a difficult task in itself, but doing it via a 10-foot UI is even better.
It goes without saying that we are disappointed in the performance of Catalyst 5.6. We had been expecting at least a small improvement in our OpenGL titles, but none of the games that we tested showed any improvement (less than 1% improvement falls into the "noise" category).
While Lock On may have shown some significant improvement and application specific optimizations are of interest, a single game gaining performance isn't as compelling as what a general improvement in OpenGL performance would be.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
30 Comments
View All Comments
tanekaha - Friday, June 10, 2005 - link
#29mike go windows update and let windows scan ya
in sov...... ahh nm
miketheidiot - Friday, June 10, 2005 - link
so where do i download .net? All i get is this: http://www.microsoft.com/Net/Default.aspxi see nothing about downloads.
chucky2 - Friday, June 10, 2005 - link
#24....possibly the problem is that CCC requires .NET to be installed (and when you do that, make sure to run WindowsUpdate about 5 times to get all the updates for it).If you don't have .NET installed (and hopefully patched), that's probably your problem.
Chuck
LoneWolf15 - Friday, June 10, 2005 - link
At least the drivers are available without CCC. Checked and downloaded them last night, but haven't installed them yet (life intervenes).chucky2 - Friday, June 10, 2005 - link
I can't wait for 5.8 as my only display is my Syntax Olevia 32" LCD TV....while it looks fine at 1280x720, it's native is 1366x768...it'd be nice using just ATI's driver (if it indeed takes up small meg'age instead of 100MB; didn't know that) instead of debating the use of Powerstrip (which is an excellany program).Come'on ATI, 5.8 with a small foot print, you can do it!!!
Chuck
Gatak - Friday, June 10, 2005 - link
#24Think of .NET as Microsofts version of Java. It is an interpreted language run in a virtual machine. This is why it is so horribly slow.
miketheidiot - Thursday, June 9, 2005 - link
i have ccc install but it fails to load and i get error messages every time it tries to load on boot. WTF? Its a worthless pos but it would be nice not to deal with the error messages every time i load up. Yes i know i could uninstall, but thats way to much work.BTW what is .net?
ariafrost - Thursday, June 9, 2005 - link
One last comment about another grammar error - "OEMs that focus mainly on the business computing side of the market would rather have all their clients running exactly the same software configuration and DOWN want to allow end users to download and install their own drivers."I believe it should be don't rather than DOWN. BTW, is there any way to measure minimum frame rates? Maybe their OpenGL driver has simply gotten better to where minimum frame rates are higher even if the average is the same...
yacoub - Thursday, June 9, 2005 - link
I'M SORRY #21, WHAT'S THAT?? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE BLOAT.j/k ;)
sinisterDei - Thursday, June 9, 2005 - link
Complaining about the performance of the drivers is unfair:From the 5.6 release notes, performance section. And I quote:
"
# Doom3: A performance gain of up to 7% is noticed at lower resolutions as a result of more efficient memory use
# Chronicles of Riddick: A performance gain of up to 10% is noticed as a result of more efficient storage of vertex data
# Halo: A performance gain of up to 20% is noticed as a result of generic driver Z-optimizations
# 3DMark05: A performance gain of up to 5% is noticed as a result of generic driver Z-optimizations
"
Only one of these titles was tested (Doom 3) and the release notes specifically state lower resolutions as the affected bit, and last I checked 1600x1200 with or without AA/AF does NOT qualify as "lower resolutions."
In truth, I'd be most interested in the Halo gains.