ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

ATI has released version 4.5 of its Catalyst driver suite for its Radeon range of products. We are also offering a link to the very highly regarded Omega version of these drivers, for those of you who wish for a tweaked gaming esperience.

Note: Omega Drivers are not supported by ATI and you should make sure you know what you are doing before using any of their features.

Catalyst 4.5

This version provides a solution to some well-known game issues with ATI cards including Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Homeworld 2 and IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles.

The full list of fixes includes the following:

- Playing the game Desert Rats vs. Afrika Korps with the game resolution set to 1600x1200 and the desktop display set to 1024x768 32bpp along with Anti-Aliasing set to 4x no longer results in flashing and or corrupt shadows
- The game Prince of Persia: Sands of Time no longer fails to play under Windows XP with an ATI RADEON 9100 or 8500 series product installed
- Setting the graphics quality to anything higher than Fastest in the game Virtual Skipper 3 no longer results in the operating system failing to respond when the game menu loads
- Playing the game Nascar 2003 with the display resolution set to 1280x1024 32bpp no longer results in display corruption being seen
- Texture corruption is no longer seen when playing the game Second Life under Windows XP with an ATI RADEON 9800 or 9700 series card installed
- Textures are no longer missing when moving the mouse around to change the camera angle in the game Joan of Arc.
- Intermittent display corruption noticed on the players image with in the game Madden NFL 2004 is now resolved
- Playing the game Homeworld 2 under Windows XP with an ATI RADEON 9500 series, 9600 XT, or 9700 series no longer results in the game failing to respond when the shadow option within the game is selected
- Missing polygons on the satellite within the main menu is now resolved in the game Hegemonia.
- A performance decrease is no longer noticed when setting the game option to Perfect in the game IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles.

Driver issues resolved:

- Display corruption is no longer seen when applying rotation mode to a secondary monitor

Omega Driver What's New 2k/XP 2.5.44:

- Based on the Catalyst 4.5 drivers.

- Updated the Omega version of RadLinker (1009), now the Profiler include options to enable TAA modes and to establish the desired TAA Threshold for D3D apps.

- Added and removed a LOT of tweaks, ATI changed some internal settings and some old tweaks won't work anymore from now on.

- Fixed support for Mobility 9700.

- Fixed the Hibernation not working problem in laptops.

- Added support for the Following laptop wide screen resolutions: 800x480, 960x600, 1024x600, 1024x480, 1280x600, 1280x768, 1280x800, 1680x1050, 1920x1200

- Re-enabled a desktop wide resolution: 1280x768

- Added an EXCLUSIVE new Omega utility which adds the ability to SWAP between the soft-mod and the normal driver without the need to re-install the whole drivers. (Thanks to Chris W, Author of RadLinker)

- Removed Artifact Tester 5 from the package. (Sorry Alberto)

- Included the latest version of ATITool. (Thanks W1zzard)

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

ATI cheats too!ATI was highly critical of Nvidia after they realized Nvidia was cheating on benchmarking tests to make their scores higher and thus make it seem like their video card was better. At the time, I was in the market for a new video card and the whole cheating scandal swayed my decision more towards ATI (not by much, the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro was the best card out at the time). After having been an Nvidia customer for a long time, I bought an ATI.Now, ATI is admitting that it too employs secret cheats to boost their benchmark scores. What?!?! They hammer on Nvidia for cheating while knowing deep down that they are too! Well, I think its time I start paying attention to Nvidia again. Their drivers are 10x the quality of ATI's. I just hope they'll let me come back :-)

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Can i just point out that ATI got caught cheating in 3dmarks 2003 last year along with Nvidia.[url removed] cheating is nothing new, it just seem Nvidia always ges ta hard time for it but ATI fanyboys think its ok for ATI to lie and cheatDouble standards somewhat

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

No double standard. They all cheat and lie. I don't think their drivers are 10x the quality of ATI's. Not anymore. There new released drivers that will be out soon Might fix the issues it had with FarCry, Unreal 2004. And Trilinear filtering at times. They all cheat. They are all liars. They just want our money.Nvidia still lies also inregards to HDTV support. What a P.R release they gave. WOW. More B.S. Will it ever stop for either of these 2 companies?

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

"Whos card has support for pixel shader 3?Thats right the 6800..."Will it be used in the life time of the 6800? Nope. When it becomes a factor, the 6800 will be a memory as the next wave of chips come out. The same as PS1.4 was and T&L.Ps3.0 looks amazing for the 6800 on the packaging and for PR reasons. For actually use? Not one game will employ it full until 2005 that will make a difference. Nor will FP32 or 128bit true color make a difference until 2006.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

I am looking ot buy a high-end next generation card. And what i do with it is overclock all my cards. The 6800Ultra is out for me as i don't plan on using a 480W power supply to keep the card running well. If you don;t plan on over clocking the 6800Ultra then your fine. Otherwise, why so much power consumption Nvidia? Damn

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

LOLFar cry already had ps3 implemented in the last patch, ask crytek if you dont belive me.They just arent using it in the enigne until the new Far Cry mod.Currently there are 5 ps3 ready titles scheduled in 2004 including Stalker.Will it be used in the 6800 lifetime, of course it will.Is that the best you can do, play down the importence of ps3?Pathetic

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

"Far cry already had ps3 implemented in the last patch, ask crytek if you dont belive me."Another Nvidia fanboy. We all know that FarCry is PS3.0 capable with it's last patch. And we also all know that it made no difference in performance and IQ also. So much so that the R420 runs it faster at higher resolutions and FSAA enable because the R420 can clock higher with a more effiect Anti-Alaising engine.They are just using PS3.0 for lighting effects which have no advantages in IQ whatsoever. And you won't see a speed increase of any degree worth mentioning BECAUSE IT'S A EXTENSION OF ps2.0 THAT NEEDS TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE GAMES DEVELOPMENT FOR SHADER EFFECTS. No game coming this year will do that. Why don't you check that out for yourself. Even Stalker is not FULLY PS3.0.So keep "Laughing out loud" Nvidia fanboy and tell use which of those "5" titles will exclusively use PS3.0...Those 5 "titles" can you name them besides stalker? ;) Those titles will only use partial ps3.0 effects. Just the same way FarCry is doing and the way Halo used PS2.0 for those same type of effects. In order for Stalker and those "5 so-called titles you cannot mention" to be PS3.0 fully capable, those game makers would have had to be using that shader code at the earliest stages of the games development. And that is not the case with Stalker. That game was in the making over 12 months to 18 months ago. Otherwise, they would have to start from scratch again with new shader code. And a "patch" won't cut it as seen by the results of FarCry. Also DX9.0C has not even come out yet so this is all mute anyways. Also, those so-called 5 titles will come out when? 2004? It's 2004 now? Where are they? You might be thinking, LATE 2004. Opps, that's when you will see the NV50 and R500. Both of those chips will support DX10 and MS next shader code.And the big issue you are forgeting dummy: The vast majority of game developers are holding off making their titles fully PS3.0 capable because

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

continued...And the big issue you are forgeting dummy: The vast majority of game developers are holding off making their titles fully PS3.0 capable because only 1 generation of chips will support it! Not much money in that considering the majority of people still have last years chips. And you still cannot buy the 6800 yet. That means all the FX chips, all the R3xx chips and older will play those games poorly if PS3.0 is implemented FULLY. This is why those titles ALWAYS USE PARTIAL SHADER EFFECTS. Just like FarCry. Just like Halo. Just like almost every title out there. It would be suicide for a game developer to take on new technology fully right away. Who would buy the game when their hardware does not support it. PS1.4 is a prime example. The 8500 had it. The Geforce3 did not. No developer wanted to bring it out as only one set of cards supported it. Games that finally did came 1 year later when Nvidia also had it in their harware. And to this day still, most games still use PS1.1, PS1.4 in many games. DEVELOPERS ALWAYS MAKE GAMES FOR THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. In other words, the slowest possible gaming rigs and cards. It's called business sense. Only 1% is allocated to the top end cards. And considering that ATI holds market share over Nvidia now in the GPU market, alot of game companies would lose alot of money if they made all their games PS3.0 fully capable with no hybrid shader support."Tell you what id rather have a card that supports it than doesnt, even if its not used :)"Why? It won't be used fully and it cost Nvidia 60 million transistors and the ability to push the card's clock speeds higher.And "5" games does not exactly make a huge testiment on why ATI should have incorporated PS3.0 in it's hardware. 5 titles don't exactly make a difference. Now if one of those titles were DOOM3 or HL2, then i would say, "hell ya" But that's not the case. ATI went the smart route and saved itself wasted silicon.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

And more about liars. We know ATI lied big time about trilinear filtering. You seem to forget the nice lie Nvidia told the press and others about FarCry running PS3.0 and comparing those results and IQ shots versus PS2.0 IQ shots. Then they claimed what a HUGE difference between the two. Then the world found out that Nvidia was comparing PS3.0 to PS1.1. And then when asked if there is any IQ differences in PS3.0 over PS2.0 Nvidia said, "no"And you say you cannot trust ATI? I say you cannot trust ANYONE OF THEM. They all lie. The only people pushing PS3.0 like crazy is Nvidia and it's closest game partners. And all those game "partners have no game coming out that will fully exploit PS3.0 this year. They just don'y have the time to do it. Unless of course they want to start those titles all over again and delay them.....

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Nvidia accused of cheating over graphics techFar Cry PS 3.0/2.0 paths are the same[url removed] i said, THEY ALL LIE LIKE CHEAP PERSIAN RUGS.[url removed] that link also. It sums it up good. Little deception. Little Out right lies. Gee, whats new. ATI...Nvidia...who's next to lie. Anonymous, stop being a Nvidia fanboy. They all cheat.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

yeh and DOOM3 runs faster on the 6800 due to ultrashadow 2...i know what ill b playing doom3 on(and you forget the doom3 engine will be the basis for A HELL OF A LOT OF NEXT GEN FPS)The source engine on the other hand, mehYou know already who has won in the next gen engine stakesBTWtheinquirer????????LMFAOthats where you get ur news from???lmfaoMan i dont need to say anything, you already made yourself look stupidlololThe ATI fanboys just cant take the factsAnd HarDOCP is the biggest ATI fanboy site out there (apart from rage3d)lolololYou can play down the importance of the technology leap , i on the other hand would rather respect it.There is no visual difference between ps2 & ps3, i thought we already cleared that up.Performance????Why do you think the u3 tech was running on nvidia hardware?As was already stated , yes it can be done on ps2 but it was only running at 5fps on ATI hardware withps2..Thats why it coded utilising ps3, PERFORMANCENvidia never tried to hide there optimisations, you can turn TRUE TRI on with the drivers.ATI CatsYou cant turn it off, thats called CHEATING

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

The sad thing is that some of their crap (both sides spew it you know!) is true. ATI is behind the tech curve. They cut their trilinear precision down to near-bilinear levels to speed up AF. They use 96-bit internal color processing rather than 128-bit to speed things up. And the X800 is simply an overclocked 9800XT with more pipes.SM3? "Oh, it won't be used for years!" Many games already have it implemented, such as Painkiller and Far Cry anyone?nVidia has won this round, and those are the facts. Unless ATI has some monster megaoptimization up their sleeves, they're screwed this round. And this time ATI, rather than nVidia, is the cheater.As I've always said--every round, the roles switch.GeForce 3 vs Radeon 8500 (Radeon 8500 wins by far, but it is delayed so its really like a GeForce 3 and a half)GeForce 4 vs Radeon 8500 (Again, the Radeon is like a GeForce 3 and a half, so it competes with the 4 also. The GeForce 4 pummels it, destroys it, and comes off as a great card, just like the 8500 did to the GeForce 3)GeForce FX vs Radeon 9x00 (This time, nVidia cheats, and ATI wins in performance in pixel shaders)GeForce 6800 vs Radeon X800 (This time, ATI cheats, and nVidia wins in performance in pixel shaders)See the pattern?

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

whats the big bloody deal?? ppl wont shutup over whos better??most of the ppl hear probly wont bother getin new gfx..y?? coz most of em still probly play CS (also known as counter-puss)whats the big deal? both are good...both provide good play...if u can say u care about 2 fps u really need a life...if u can tell the difference between 50fps and 400fps u need to get laid...as long as games can get a constant 30fps im happy..y?? thats what ur TV is locked at and u never c a TV get laggy do u??thats what some1 should do..hire a bunch of hookers and get the fanboyz laid its probly the only way theyd shutup bout gfx..theres nothin 2 b ashamed about when ur a 25yo virgin..honest

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

"Why do you think the u3 tech was running on nvidia hardware?"LOL. Oh god. Buddy, when Unreal 3 comes out you will see 3 new chips from Both ATI and Nvidia. Give me a break. That was a demo. Not even the game playing...please Nvidia fanboy. You need help."SM3? "Oh, it won't be used for years!" Many games already have it implemented, such as Painkiller and Far Cry anyone?"Ya, and those games play no different on ATI hardware over Nvidia hardware as they only using lighting effects for PS3.0. I will wait until it becomes standard shader operation...

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

YEH AND WE ALL KNOW ALL THOSE BENCHMARKS ARE INVALID..Are you ppl completley stupid?They used adaptive filtering and told reviewers to turn off the same optimisations on the nvidia cards...BTW aniso is way better on nvidia cards did u happent o read that in ur reviewslmaoFace it the x800 is old major suckage technology and the only way it could keep up with the 6800 was to give everyone different clock speeds and fix the drivers..LMAO[url removed] X800, it can only win benchmarks using adaptive filtering and the aniso quality is BETTER on the 6800...Those are the REALFACTS, get over them FanATIcs..BTWGet up to date with ur reviews and stop posting links from ages gone byelmao

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Yeh the FSAA is better on the X800, LOLAt obtuse angles ,yeh when u Zoom in on photoshop at low screen resolutions..LmaoIs that the best you can do?Use a 2 year old argument to defend new tech?PatheticI can i reitarate , i own both ATI and Nvidia cards.Nvidia card provide me with stability and performance, the ati cards only offer performance and the performance is no better than the FX..BTW to the person who was talking about 32 full precision..I can currently run FAR CRY on Nvidia FX cards forcing the full 32fp path while the ATI card can only do 24, mmmmmmSound like the gap between the cards is even bigger this generation.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

AhemThe 9800XT has better IMAGE QUALITY due to the fact it is not affected by the adaptive cheats.Only the 9600 and X800 are affected, so you see if the 6800 can match the 9800xt IQ then the X800 cant touch the IQ of either fo them without turning the cheats offThat was the reason for posting the links comparision..Seem you dont have the brains to work this stuff out for yourself though.LMFAO

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Wow, what a bunch of Nvidia fanboys. Read the review at HardOcp.com. The IQ between the 12 pipeline x800pro vs. the 6800 Ultra 16 pipeline card are almost idneticle. Nvidia has always done Ansiotropic filtering better. And ATI has always done FSAA better. Big deal. We all know that.What is plain to see is the 2 anonymous fools are fanboys of their respected cards. You both make me laugh hard. Even with ATI's adaptive filtering, the card still runs on par with the $100 more expensive Nvidia flagship and looks the same. What ever filtering method ATI is using it looks fine to me."Yeh the FSAA is better on the X800, LOLAt obtuse angles ,yeh when u Zoom in on photoshop at low screen resolutions.."When you zoom in with Photoshop???? Wow. Fanboyyyyy. You can not tell the difference when playing the game. Zooming in. Holy shit man. If you need to stop the game frame by frame and zoom in, then whio gives a shit. It's when the game is running what counts. If i see IQ loss there, then i bitch. At this time, the 6800 and the X800PRO show no IQ loss when games are running. 32bit fp shows no differece either. If it did you would notice right away. Can you tell the difference between FP24 and FP32? Good luck if you can. Maybe you can zoom in with Photoshop.Both of these cards are so evenly matched. But the x800pro is $100 cheaper. In all the reviews i have seen so far, the x800pro only loses out by margins and looks the same, even with adaptive filtering.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

lmaoYeh when nvidia done the same filtering it was called cheating, remember?SO why are you sitting 12 months later after slaggin nvidia for the same optimisations?Yeh, fanboysAS i said before, Nvidia won ALL the benchmarks due to ATI cheating, Nvidia's Trilinear was turned ON,ATI's was AdaptiveYou really dont have enough brains to understand this do you:?>~I rest my case

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Anonymousat 9:51 7/6/2004 you are such a Nvidia fanboy it's almost sicking. Then again so is that ATI fanboy. Nvidia and ATI cheat. That's not new. Both cards are good. Period. But i wonder why they are comparing the x800Pro to the 6800Ultra? That's not the match up. The match up should be the XT800 Plat. card which is 16 pipelines vs. the 6800Ultra. The 6800GT VS. X800PRO is the match up. For the plain fact that the X800pro can keepo pace with the 4 more pipe Nvidia card is quite amazing if you ask me. Now lets see when they retail release the XT800 and the 6800Ultra then the real test should happen.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

From indications the retail X880XT should beat the 6800Ultra at higher resolutions because it's clocked higher with or without Adaptive filtering. From indications ATI has felt the heat and is employing true Trilinear filtering with the X800XT series and the new Cat drivers. Which is good news. BTW adaptive filtering looks the same. It looked the same when Nvidia did it for the entire FX line and it looks the same with the X800PRO when games are running. Maybe this is why Nvidia is not screaming that ATI cheated because Nvidia did the same exact thing with the FX series of cards. Also, you have to figure if the X800XT beats the 6800Ultra by decent margins, Nvidia will more then likely employ their own version of "adaptive" filtering to increase speeds.Oh the joys of "optimizations"

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

HAHAHAHAThe 6800 GT owns the X800 Pro, and everyone knows it..And yes ATI did cheat, you see they sent out specific instructions for benching saying that Nvidas optimisations should be turned off but kept quiet about there own, fair?NoCheating?YesAnd every reputable site is reporting the sameJust got over the whole sorry affair, both companies have been caught red handed several times.With all things considerd the 6800 absolutey dominated the X800 not only in opengl but in 3dmarks , shadermark,Cod,Halo, the list goes on.The ATI cheating fiasco only solidifies nvidias lead even more so this generation.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Funny how Extremetech says otherwise when running REAL WORLD GAMES AND NOT A BENCHMARK LIKE 3DMARKS2003. What games did the 6800GT dominate the X800pro in? Please tell use or give use links to this effect."All Things Being EqualIf you've read most of this feature, you no doubt have noticed a recurring theme: image quality on the GeForce 6800 and Radeon X800 cards is essentially equal. We can empirically show that the anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing algorithms are different. We can scrutinize extremely blown-up still images and see that the two cards do not, in fact, produce identical pixels. What we cannot do is see instances where one is visibly superior to the other.Older cards by ATI and nVidia had bigger differences in image quality, but the new series of cards use very similar anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering sampling patterns. As much as we like that saying, "the devil's in the details," we looked at the details here, and there's just no devil. If you put two computers side-by-side, each running the same game with the same settings, you wouldn't be able to tell which one had a GeForce 6800 and which had a Radeon X800 without looking in the case.""There has been so much noise lately in the 3D graphics community over the trilinear optimizations by ATI and nVidia that you'd think it had some huge impact on image quality. Honestly, we can't see what all the commotion is about. If you look at a still image from a game at 4x magnification and can't really see the difference, it's a non-issue."[url removed] proof for me. Plus i cannot tell at all. And a benchmark since you cannot play it, means squat to me.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Oh, by the way, FutureMark is not exactly a non-biased source of fact these days for either ATI or Nvidia due to their recanting past. They fliped-flopped with Nvidia with cheating in 3dmarks2003, and they flip-flop again when Nvidia threatened to sue them and Nvidia then re-entered the Beta program with the FX cards. Now they are saying this about ATI regarding this issue.Not exactly a reliable non-biased source.This trilinear issue is a non-issue if you ask me. The very reason this issue is a dead one on all other sites now and only brought up by this forum. If this were a monumental issue, Nvidia would still be screaming about it. They are not. Wonder why? Because optimizations and other trilinear hacks have been used for years by both companies. And will continue to do so.[url removed] that link. It sums this up pretty well. If anyone on this forum can tell the IQ difference when running a game, then i will wire you $1000US. Funny how KNOW ONE KNEW THAT ADAPTIVE FILTERING WAS BEING DONE ON THE 9600 CARDS WHEN THEY CAME OUT.................."We've examined quite a few other applications and the story is basically the same as you would get from our two cases presented here. First, enabling or disabling the trilinear optimization has no real visible impact on visual quality on the GeForce 6800 cards. The difference is certainly not something you can see with the naked eye, even looking at a still screenshot under magnification. Second, the X800 generally has identical trilinear filtering quality, but in a few cases creates a smoother transition between mipmap levels than the 6800."

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

"This is becoming disappointing. In game after game, we're unable to find substantial differences in anisotropic filtering quality between the Radeon X800 and GeForce 6800. World of Warcraft is no exception – aside from slight variances is color due to the screens being captured at different times, the shots look almost identical. Take away the 4x magnification and you'd never spot a difference.It looks like anisotropic filtering is a wash. We're able to empirically prove that the filtering algorithms are different by looking at colored mipmap levels, but at either 8X or 16X levels, the resulting images look nearly identical. We have to scrutinize a still screenshot under 4x magnification to find even the smallest differences. Let's take a look at anti-aliasing quality.""Like 3DMark and Serious Sam, UT2003 gives us the ability to colorize the mipmap levels. When we do this, we can see that there are definitely some differences in the filtering algorithms between the Radeon X800 and GeForce 6800. Transitions between mipmap levels are smoother in some places on the nVidia card (between blue and green at the bottom), but ATI is smoother in others (from green to yellow further up). As we could see in the previous screenshot, these differences make little to no difference in perceptible image quality. The important part is that the color bands match up fairly well, and are much, much further "back" in the scene compared to the shot without AF.""Going back to our UT2003 test scene, we can see virtually no visible difference in filtering quality. If you squint and put your nose up to the screen you might notice a very slight difference here or there, but remember that you're looking at a 4x magnification of a still screenshot. In practice, the look is identical""We see the same basic properties here as we saw in the 8XAF tests with colored mipmap levels. The overall sampling algorithm is quite similar, but ATI begins filtering in a new mipmap level closer t

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

continued..."We see the same basic properties here as we saw in the 8XAF tests with colored mipmap levels. The overall sampling algorithm is quite similar, but ATI begins filtering in a new mipmap level closer to the camera and keeps using it further into the distance, making for smoother transitions between levels. We have to point out the obvious – if you can only see a difference with colorized mipmap levels, does it really matter?"[url removed] you have Superman x-ray vision people, you aint seeing the difference. That, is what you call a legit Optimzation. And to me it was legit when Nvidia did their version of adaptive trilinear filtering on the FX line.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

What was cheating was ATI not telling it was adaptive. And if memory serves me correctly, Nvidia did not say theri trilinear filtering was really "their" version of bilinear until it was pointed out......In other words, both ATI and Nvidia are deceptive but the results were fine.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

ATI DONT GIVE YOU THE OPTIONS TO TURN IT OFF, NVIDIA DOATI TOLD REVIEWERS TO TURN OFF NVIDIAS OPTIMISATIONS BUT NEVER TOLD REVIWERS ANYTHING ABOUT THERE OWN OPTIMISATIONS....What is it you people acutally have a problem understanding???? huh?.NO one is arguing about what card is best or who does there optimisations in whatever way..ATI were dishonest in the testing of X800 sample cards and are guilty of misleading consumers.Nvidia have used similar tactics in the past and had there fingers burned but NEVER did Nvidia HIDE there optimisations in such a way and mislead many reputable sites..This is why its caused such a stink..Ati have had the reputation damaged badly due to this and anyone with half a brain can work it out...

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Inserting custom clipping planes in a timed demo or running a benchmark on set camera paths is not a way of hiding a so-called optimization? Nvidia also used the exe. detection program for Unreal2003 to run it in Bilinear filtering also. And never told ANYONE about this until the shit hit the fan. Buddy, Nvidia with the whole FX line did this. Running DX9 games in FP12 and FP16 only to be caught about it later. Please buddy. Be fair on all sides. They both do this. Nvidia just did it in the last generation of cards 3 or 4 times. And got busted

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Yeh but the memo from Ati to reviews sites telling them to turn off competitors optimisations but not mentionging theres is just another typical example that both companies are hype marketing machines.The Fx is gone, forget about it. most of the line sucked apart from the 5900's and ultras.Radeons 9800 pro's too, theres tons of BAD cheap radeons with there memory bandwith cut to 128bit and they are S h I T and not to be confused with the more expensive Radeon 9800Pro with 256 bit memeory interface but i still hear idiots claim they got there pros for £130 and wonder why it performs like shit, well now you know.I couldnt give a shit for either company, and ive no idea what card ill buy this time.Im still split over the 6800Gt and the X800 pro...MMMIll wait till i see the DoomIII & HL2 benchamrks before i make any decsision on ANY card.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Nvidia hid major optimizations and cheats with last generations cards. Quite more so on many occassions then ATI did with the X800pro THIS YEAR. With the FX cards you lost count on the many cheats and optimizations Nvidia pulled. Now ATI has pulled the same thing with Bilinear filtering Nvidia has done with the fx line. All i care about is IQ effected. By what they are saying with this bilinear filtering issue. It has not. At least by the human eye. That's all that counts for me. If Nvidia does the same. I don't care either. As long as IQ is not effected that i can see in game playing.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Finished reading a review about the 6800Ultra from MSI vs. the 9800XT and the X800PRO using Nvidia's newest drivers. The 6800Ultra wins in all tests. However, like the reviewer has said, they are pitting the lowest end X800 vs. Nvidia's highest end card. 12 pipelines vs. 16 pipelines. I want to see the XT800 vs. The 6800ultra. The results for the 6800Ultra vs. the X800Pro were pretty close however. Let's see the real battle of high-end cards

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

Yeh i just read the x800 XT review at Guru3d and the 6800 ultra wins most of the tests???[url removed] glad i held back and didnt buy the X800 ,with the nvidias latest drivers the 6800 is clearly faster on most benchmarks even when forcing pixel shader 2 and doing full 32 precision, scary.

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

I really dont know where these ATI fanboys get their facts from but you guys are just annoying.The 5900 FX blew away the 9800 pro and XT last gen[url removed] this gen the 6800 Totally dominates the field.Yeh and everyone is jumping ship to Nvidia with Dual SLI tech and ps3 ...The ATI corner has went awfull quietATI are bricking themselves and Nvidia knows it..

ATI Catalyst 4.5 and Omega 2.5.44

SO shader model 3 doesnt make a difference does it?LMAOwhos laughing now?[url removed] Far cheaper 6800GT destroys theATI Fastest card basically cause ATI card CANT DO shader model 3.Is this starting to sink in FanATIcs??Well what comes around goes around..

Pages

Add new comment