5.6's out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bratboy
  • Start date Start date
Just an FYI that ATI has em out this AM
Click to expand...

Installed and ran 3DMark05 as a quick test and the result for my
Radeon9700 Pro improved by 7.7%. I still can't come bring my system
back online when it has been suspended. I'm pretty sure it is the ATI
video driver, as it did work with one of the catalysts.

Ak
 
I have this problem as well - Athlon64 3200+ in MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum with a
Sapphire X700 Pro 256MB - which is annoying because I didn't with my
previous hardware - Athlon XP 2200+ in MSI KT3 Ultra2 with Tyan Tacheon 9600
Pro 128MB!!!!

I am currently in discussions with ATI as to the problem. Although I am also
considering talking to MSI tech support.

What is your hardware??
 
Installed and ran 3DMark05 as a quick test and the result for my
Radeon9700 Pro improved by 7.7%.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty decent boost. I'll wait for Omega as usual. For some
time each new version has been slower for me so I'm glad if this evens
up the score.
--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
 
I have an Abit NF7-S v2.0 with a Radeon 9700 Pro. The suspend only
worked with one of the catalysts - think it was 5.4 or 5.3.

I do like 5.6 though, game playing seems to be much better.

Ak
 
Bratboy said:
Just an FYI that ATI has em out this AM
Click to expand...


Good to hear...now if only Creative Labs would get around to finishing and
releasing the new drivers for the Audigy 2 ZS that have been listed as beta
since April 5th...
 
First of One said:
Is it worth it? Anand's tests showed zero improvements in five popular
games...
Click to expand...
I got them running on my dfi board. Seems to work okay.

I get a small hang when closing down windows, ...program not responding
..net thingy, its very brief...

xman
 
xmradio said:
I got them running on my dfi board. Seems to work okay.

I get a small hang when closing down windows, ...program not responding
.net thingy, its very brief...

xman
Click to expand...

very likely everyone has this small hang...
 
Steve K said:
very likely everyone has this small hang...
Click to expand...

What is ATI thinking? Why are they the only major video card
manufacturer who requires the .NET framework for their full
driver?

Or a more direct question, is there a way to get custom monitor
resolutions on my 9700 Pro without installing the .NET framework,
or installing third-party software like Powerstrip?
 
First of One said:
Is it worth it? Anand's tests showed zero improvements in five popular
games...
Click to expand...

The 5.6 drivers seem fine in my game with a 9800 pro but it slows my
benchmark (3dmark2001SE) 6% and crashes the benchmark program half the time.
I went back to 4.12.
 
Rick said:
What is ATI thinking? Why are they the only major video card
manufacturer who requires the .NET framework for their full
driver?
Click to expand...

I don't know if they're counted as a "major" manufacturer anymore, but
Matrox started using .net in their driver interface long ago.

-a
 
Taking a moment's reflection, JB mused:
|
| The 5.6 drivers seem fine in my game with a 9800 pro but it slows my
| benchmark (3dmark2001SE) 6% and crashes the benchmark program half
| the time. I went back to 4.12.

Why not use a more current benchmark?
 
JB said:
The 5.6 drivers seem fine in my game with a 9800 pro but it slows my
benchmark (3dmark2001SE) 6% and crashes the benchmark program half the
time. I went back to 4.12.



My 3dmark 2003 score went from 6500 to 6000 on a 9800pro. Can't really tell
any difference on Half-Life 2
Click to expand...
 
mhicaoidh said:
Taking a moment's reflection, JB mused:
|
| The 5.6 drivers seem fine in my game with a 9800 pro but it slows my
| benchmark (3dmark2001SE) 6% and crashes the benchmark program half
| the time. I went back to 4.12.

Why not use a more current benchmark? <
Click to expand...

The Futuremark server dumps me after several hours of downloading or I would
use both old and new.
 
Well, my results weren't all that impressive. I did see an increase in every
game tested (using BenchEmAll) but it was only by a few FPS. My system specs
are:
AXP Mobile 2500+ @ 2.4 GHz.
1GB Corsair XMS RAM, dual channel
Asus A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard
ATi 9500 Pro, BIOS modded to 9700 speed

And the Results...

Half-Life 2
Filtering mode:Trilinear; Antialiasing mode: none
Cat 5.5
640x480 38.16 fps 2.827 fps variability
800x600 39.21 fps 1.999 fps variability
1024x768 39.02 fps 2.108 fps variability
1280x1024 33.45 fps 2.315 fps variability
1600x1200 28.55 fps 1.849 fps variability

Cat 5.6
640x480 37.92 fps 3.199 fps variability
800x600 39.69 fps 2.028 fps variability
1024x768 39.52 fps 2.079 fps variability
1280x1024 33.72 fps 2.118 fps variability
1600x1200 28.23 fps 1.620 fps variability

3DMark05
Cat 5.5 1024 x 768 1960 3DMarks
Cat 5.6 1024 x 768 2006 3DMarks

Doom 3
Cat 5.5
640x480 69.2 fps
800x600 68.1 fps
1024x768 59.9 fps
1280x1024 42.3 fps

Cat 5.6
640x480 70.6 fps
800x600 69.2 fps
1024x768 60.3 fps
1280x1024 42.4 fps

Far Cry
Using Max settings.
Cat 5.5
800x600 run# 0: Average FPS: 50.70
1024x768 run# 0: Average FPS: 46.84
1280x1024 run# 0: Average FPS: 33.58
1600x1200 run# 0: Average FPS: 19.33

Cat 5.6
800x600 run# 0: Average FPS: 52.11
1024x768 run# 0: Average FPS: 46.78
1280x1024 run# 0: Average FPS: 33.50
1600x1200 run# 0: Average FPS: 19.94

I omitted tests for CoD and Q3 since the engine is so old, the difference
between 250 and 255 FPS is just a waste of time to read
 
Back
Top