If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
omega vs catalyst (performance vs quality?) - anyone know?
I've been following some explanations of the diffs between Omega and Cat
drivers in this group. I've seen ATI endorse Omega drivers, and some other sites talk about them, too. Nothing detailed though. The usual explanation of the diff between the two is that Omega is optimized for speed. Well, that's nice, but the explanation is too general. Also, ATI said that Omega changes registry settings ONLY. What would be of use is some kind of actual comprehensive benchmark and video quality comparison between the two. I mean, for the most part, you can't have performance increase without sacrificing some quality. So how much quality, and in what areas, is being sacrificed? Does anyone know for sure? Is there site that has done a professional comparison between the two? I'm looking for something that isn't an opinion. Anyone ever encountered empirical data that came from a side-to-side comparison between Omega and Catalyst? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Czajko" wrote in message
ogers.com... I've been following some explanations of the diffs between Omega and Cat drivers in this group. I've seen ATI endorse Omega drivers, and some other sites talk about them, too. Nothing detailed though. The usual explanation of the diff between the two is that Omega is optimized for speed. Well, that's nice, but the explanation is too general. Also, ATI said that Omega changes registry settings ONLY. What would be of use is some kind of actual comprehensive benchmark and video quality comparison between the two. I mean, for the most part, you can't have performance increase without sacrificing some quality. So how much quality, and in what areas, is being sacrificed? Does anyone know for sure? Is there site that has done a professional comparison between the two? I'm looking for something that isn't an opinion. Anyone ever encountered empirical data that came from a side-to-side comparison between Omega and Catalyst? You do it and let us know. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Czajko" wrote in message ogers.com... I've been following some explanations of the diffs between Omega and Cat drivers in this group. I've seen ATI endorse Omega drivers, and some other sites talk about them, too. Nothing detailed though. The usual explanation of the diff between the two is that Omega is optimized for speed. Well, that's nice, but the explanation is too general. Also, ATI said that Omega changes registry settings ONLY. What would be of use is some kind of actual comprehensive benchmark and video quality comparison between the two. I mean, for the most part, you can't have performance increase without sacrificing some quality. So how much quality, and in what areas, is being sacrificed? Does anyone know for sure? Is there site that has done a professional comparison between the two? I'm looking for something that isn't an opinion. Anyone ever encountered empirical data that came from a side-to-side comparison between Omega and Catalyst? Do a Google....This is a very very old topic..... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
sites talk about them, too. Nothing detailed though. The usual
explanation of the diff between the two is that Omega is optimized for speed. I have not tried the Omega drivers yet, but I think I have experience with "optimized" Catalyst drivers ... in the game Far Cry. I've been through the game at least a dozen times now. Something I've noticed .... is under Cat 4.6, when I played the game in realistic mode, I got a definate drop off in AI with missing characters who were there when I played the game in Challenging mode. I switched to Cat 4.8, and not only did I get a slight improvement in speed and frame rate, but I got a big improvement in AI, and the game for the first time played very hard in realistic mode. My opinion is Cat 4.8 is smaller cleaner code, allowing all the AI to load as it should thus making the game play as it should in the advanced level of difficulty. So, sometimes a "speed" increase means that the code is leaner, leaving room for the entire program to load to memory. What would be of use is some kind of actual comprehensive benchmark and video quality comparison between the two. I mean, for the most part, you can't have performance increase without sacrificing some quality. I guess that depends on the gross amount of code being run. Quality is not necessarily a product of more code. johns |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LMAO@johns
johns" wrote in message ... I have not tried the Omega drivers yet, but I think I have experience with "optimized" Catalyst drivers ... in the game Far Cry. I've been through the game at least a dozen times now. Something I've noticed ... is under Cat 4.6, when I played the game in realistic mode, I got a definate drop off in AI with missing characters who were there when I played the game in Challenging mode. I switched to Cat 4.8, and not only did I get a slight improvement in speed and frame rate, but I got a big improvement in AI, and the game for the first time played very hard in realistic mode. My opinion is Cat 4.8 is smaller cleaner code, allowing all the AI to load as it should thus making the game play as it should in the advanced level of difficulty. So, sometimes a "speed" increase means that the code is leaner, leaving room for the entire program to load to memory. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
u smokin dope or what?
-- Almeyda AMD2500XP @3200XP-11X200-2.21Ghz A7N8X-E Deluxe Corsair TWINX1024 XMS3200LL DualChannel HIS Excalibur 9800XT 256mb @463/399 (Omegas 2.5.51 & ATI tool 0.20 No Artifacts) 1x80GB SATA Seagate 8mg cache 2x40GB ATA Seagate SB AudigyES ANTEC SuperLanboy 350 Case (350W SmartBlue PS) "johns" wrote in message ... sites talk about them, too. Nothing detailed though. The usual explanation of the diff between the two is that Omega is optimized for speed. I have not tried the Omega drivers yet, but I think I have experience with "optimized" Catalyst drivers ... in the game Far Cry. I've been through the game at least a dozen times now. Something I've noticed ... is under Cat 4.6, when I played the game in realistic mode, I got a definate drop off in AI with missing characters who were there when I played the game in Challenging mode. I switched to Cat 4.8, and not only did I get a slight improvement in speed and frame rate, but I got a big improvement in AI, and the game for the first time played very hard in realistic mode. My opinion is Cat 4.8 is smaller cleaner code, allowing all the AI to load as it should thus making the game play as it should in the advanced level of difficulty. So, sometimes a "speed" increase means that the code is leaner, leaving room for the entire program to load to memory. What would be of use is some kind of actual comprehensive benchmark and video quality comparison between the two. I mean, for the most part, you can't have performance increase without sacrificing some quality. I guess that depends on the gross amount of code being run. Quality is not necessarily a product of more code. johns |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:59:49 GMT, "Daniel Czajko"
wrote: I've been following some explanations of the diffs between Omega and Cat drivers in this group. I've seen ATI endorse Omega drivers, and some other sites talk about them, too. Nothing detailed though. The usual explanation of the diff between the two is that Omega is optimized for speed. Well, that's nice, but the explanation is too general. Also, ATI said that Omega changes registry settings ONLY. What would be of use is some kind of actual comprehensive benchmark and video quality comparison between the two. I mean, for the most part, you can't have performance increase without sacrificing some quality. So how much quality, and in what areas, is being sacrificed? Does anyone know for sure? Is there site that has done a professional comparison between the two? I'm looking for something that isn't an opinion. Anyone ever encountered empirical data that came from a side-to-side comparison between Omega and Catalyst? Sigh. 30 seconds with google "omega comparison" get's this: http://www.rage3d.de/catalyst_vergleich_eng_p1.php http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/driverarticle/ The only way is to try them.. you should see a major improvment in IQ and if you're one of the lucky ones.. an increase in framerates in some games. Pluvious |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Alex" @ wrote in message ...
LMAO@johns Why? Because you are a dumbass? If you think benchmarks are the answer to "quality" of operation, then you are a dupe. The only "benchmark" that works is to take something you have experience with, and watch it improve with changes you make. If you are a 3D coder, then explain those changes. And for those of you who think this is an old topic, you are even more stupid than this idiot. The Catalyst drivers have been poop for ages, and only now, are they catching up and showing definate improvements in both games and CAD apps. I'm not the best coder in the world, but I can write AUTOCAD down to the last mouse event. So you bums can go screw yourselves. To the original poster: You are right. There are no benchmarks that make sense in this comparison right now, because the only decent Catalyst drivers ever written just came out with 4.6 to 4.8. The improvements are dramatic, and I think some of them are due to the obvious problems with OpenGL in both directx and high-end CADD apps. I've got ATI Radeon 9600xt and 9800xt both running Solidworks using Catalyst driver 4.8, and Realview is working just fine. So, I've got Far Cry and Solidworks doing well on the new Catalyst drivers ... putting $150 Radeons right up there with $800 FireGLs. As for the Omega drivers ... they are specialized game drivers. The guy says he leaned out the code, and gets speed that way. He also says his drivers can crash a marginal system. That tells me not to test the Omega drivers on a box that is critical in my environment. I'll try those drivers when I have a test box to play with. Right now, my Engineers need every machine I can put on line. And the rest of you can go back to Junior High School and pick your noses. Stupid *******s! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Heeeeere we go!
"johns" wrote in message om... "Alex" @ wrote in message ... LMAO@johns Why? Because you are a dumbass? If you think benchmarks are the answer to "quality" of operation, then you are a dupe. Why are you so ****ed? And what exactly is a "dupe"? The only "benchmark" that works is to take something you have experience with, and watch it improve with changes you make. If you are a 3D coder, then explain those changes. And for those of you who think this is an old topic, you are even more stupid than this idiot. The Catalyst drivers have been poop for ages, and only now, are they catching up and showing definate improvements in both games and Not trying to be a grammar nazzi - but cumon... "definate"? You spelled it wrong in your first post too. You "definately" shouldn't be pointing the stupidity finger at anyone besides yourself. CAD apps. I'm not the best coder in the world, but I can write AUTOCAD down to the last mouse event. So you bums can go screw yourselves. To the original poster: You are right. There are no benchmarks that make sense in this comparison right now, because the only decent Catalyst drivers ever written just came out with 4.6 to 4.8. Oh is that right? The improvements are dramatic, and I think some of them are due to the obvious problems with OpenGL in both directx and high-end CADD apps. I'm not sure how to respond to this one but... LOL. Seriously dude... do your homework before you post any more garbage like this. As it stands already, it's gonna take a few years for your credibility to return. However though, if you must, please explain to me the problems with "OpenGL in directx". I've got ATI Radeon 9600xt and 9800xt both running Solidworks using Catalyst driver 4.8, and Realview is working just fine. So, I've got Far Cry and Solidworks doing well on the new Catalyst drivers ... putting $150 Radeons right up there with $800 FireGLs. As for the Omega drivers ... they are specialized game drivers. The guy says he leaned out the code, Hmm......... you can't "lean out the code" if you don't have the code in the first place. The source code to ATI's drivers is the intellectual property of ATI and has not and will not be released to the public. As such, Omega does not have access to the source code, nor does he modify it in any way, shape, or form. and gets speed that way. He also says his drivers can crash a marginal system. That tells me not to test the Omega drivers on a box that is critical in my environment. I'll try those drivers when I have a test box to play with. Right now, my Engineers need every machine I can put on line. I think you should let __your__ "Engineers" proof-read your posts for technical accuracy. And the rest of you can go back to Junior High School and pick your noses. Stupid *******s! I'll go back to Junior High School when you can write me an "OpenGL DirectX App with leaned-out ATI Radeon driver code. That should definately impress your Engineers too" Tony |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poor quality from OKI C7350 with S700 Scancopier | Tonny Iversen | Scanners | 0 | December 7th 04 04:10 AM |
Poor quality from OKI C7350 with S700 Scancopier | Tonny Iversen | General | 0 | December 3rd 04 01:26 PM |
GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY receives highest honors—15th Annual National Quality Award | Gigabyte USA Marketing | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | November 4th 04 08:35 PM |
2D performance ATI compared to Matrox | Jo Vermeulen | General | 17 | January 14th 04 08:25 PM |
MP3s to CD: does "on-the-fly" burning give same audio quality as doing it in 2 steps?!.. | Anonymous Joe | Cdr | 15 | October 27th 03 07:55 AM |