omega vs catalyst (performance vs quality?) - anyone know?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel Czajko
  • Start date Start date
D

Daniel Czajko

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?
 
Daniel Czajko said:
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?
Click to expand...



You do it and let us know.
 
Daniel Czajko said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do a Google....This is a very very old topic.....
 
sites talk about them, too. Nothing detailed though. The usual
explanation
of the diff between the two is that Omega is optimized for speed.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on the gross amount of code being run. Quality is
not necessarily a product of more code.

johns
 
What the hell are you talking
about???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
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)
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Alex said:
LMAO@johns
Click to expand...

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
Bastards!
 
Heeeeere we go!

johns said:
"Alex" <@> wrote in message

Why? Because you are a dumbass? If you think benchmarks are
the answer to "quality" of operation, then you are a dupe.
Click to expand...

Why are you so pissed? 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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Bastards!
Click to expand...

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
 
Thank you Johns for discharging a months worth
of corn filled excrement from your oral colon.
 
Back
Top