ATI Catalyst versus NVIDIA Forceware

Shaga · Mar 28, 2005, 07:12 AM

Nice benchmark with the drivers(like how fast they load and stuff)
http://www.elitebastards.com/page.p...ad=1&comments=1

"Conclusion
What started off for me as having a bit of fun has completely taken over my weekend. And for what? Is it really important? On the whole, probably not. As for the results and how you, as the reader (assuming you’ve gotten this far) feel about them, I can only say that at present, NVIDIA have a faster and more streamlined set of drivers. That said, ATI’s drivers are also good and have only a negligible effect on overall system performance."

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 28, 2005, 03:01 PM

THis is already a couple weeks old topicd... @ lest it is to me there was a post about this on rage3d.. I'll cut and paste my responces here....

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_neon_cowboy

Download Test
funny where I live it's 465K adverage download speed on the ati drivers
funny where I live it's 475K adverage download speed on the nvidia drivers
on my 4mb down / 500k up connection
the differance just a few is few seconds...
download speeds are subject to useage (how many downloaders) his modem,
his network card, his router if any, his ISP, internet routieing, net traffic /
congestions... so thats nut to try to compair... everyones milage will verry on alot of these results
I could have a field day with parts of this arical this but it's not worthy my
time.... nor is really productive so i'll let it be..

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_neon_cowboy

I know but when a user has a 6800U / and a 9800 pro at home wich is the newer purchance? wich is the user to be likey more bias twards? considering thier recent purchace?

I'm not claiming bias but what some people will think. I'd look at it the same way if he had a X850PE and a 5900FX or simular he was looking at... should have been a card of simular generation used... like going to use a 9800 should of compaired to a 5900FX..useing a 6800U should of compaired to a X800 or X850 series just for fairness just becouse there are so many factors at play isn't not funny...

For fairness should of also compaird the old syle CP + 5.3 version package
especally since nvidia has yet to release thier .NET version of thier control panel thats been in the works (rumors from good sources) for quite a while as they will uneveatablly will have to do... sooner or later.. but seem to be waiting since ati has taken alot of flack for it...
Doesnt explain comment charge is virtual memory (hard drive page file) + physical memory ram used ... CCC uses not verry much physical memory at all it's mostly page file useage and he seems to leave out there also is a real opengl 3d game simulation running with CCC priview pane... make CCC look like a massive ram hog when it isn't page file use yes. real memory? no...
like i said i'll leave some stuff unsaid but the artical leves some to be desired
thats just my personal openion... I try to look at things from all possable angles. I'm stange in that i look at things in 3 dimentions /from diffent perspectives/ etc.. so you got to excuse me sometimes

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_neon_cowboy

I know I take things a little too seriously. But a lot of people don't look at things seriously enough. I try to look at any given thing from multiple perspectives I look at the big medium and little picture so to speak. I maybe being harsh but no harsher then I try to be on myself. Like I said I think differently….
Believe it or not there will be users who will base their purchases or long term options of this and other thing the may read. They don’t look at who wrote it, when and stuff like that most will just breeze over look at the results/charts and move on. If it were a mere post it would be a different story but it’s an official sites article. It wouldn’t have taken much effort to do additional testing and or to even mention your results may very. Obvious to some or not you have to remember there are users of all levels out there. There are for more of the “don’t know” then do knows…You’d be surprised how many users don’t have a comparable ATI & NVIDIA card to compare so they as I do rely on what they read in some cases.
Interesting info with in like drive roll back not working with ATI? Funny that works for me or did the last time I used it assuming you have a previously installed driver and installed over. There are points made but also points missed etc… Soon as it become an official article it opening the door for me to go over it with a fine toothed comb like I do too many things… I know I should "CHILL"

ATI and NVIDIA’s drivers are also notorious for not playing well with each other even after de in stallion driver cleaners has helped that situation lot. But it used to be you had to format to switch brands smoothly...
Like I said I think differently…. just winded my openion...
just as you have yours.. I'm not in an argueing or debateing
mood so i'm moveing on... I'm wasteing CPU time that could
be used by my folding @ home

wasn't a full and fair review

Shaga · Mar 28, 2005, 03:12 PM

Might be old but I don't hang out too much time on ATI forums, anyway...

I thought this comparing was funny mostly, wasn't that serious when decided to post here.

Anyway one small thing got my eye

"For fairness should of also compared the old syle CP + 5.3 version package especally since nvidia has yet to release thier .NET version of thier control panel thats been in the works (rumors from good sources) for quite a while as they will uneveatablly will have to do"

That's totally wrong. When comparing drivers, you should compare newest sets and how they do work out-of-box. Otherwise we could already say that "ATI is better because it has .net framework and whole longhorn will be based on that". Future or modifications(like using old controlpanel or modified drivers) cannot be tolerated when comparing. Perhaps "modification easyness", but not own/public mods nor future releases.

And by the way, are you actually telling that ATI has better drivers? That's not true, because forceware ain't that bad and .netframework makes ATI look very bad for comparisation.

Seems to me that you love ATI and are telling your thoughts so seriously because ATI didn't win, am I correct? no offense, just some idle chatter

Cheers

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 28, 2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaga

Might be old but I don't hang out too much time on ATI forums, anyway...
I thought this comparing was funny mostly, wasn't that serious when decided to post here.

Anyway one small thing got my eye

"For fairness should of also compared the old syle CP + 5.3 version package especally since nvidia has yet to release thier .NET version of thier control panel thats been in the works (rumors from good sources) for quite a while as they will uneveatablly will have to do"

That's totally wrong. When comparing drivers, you should compare newest sets and how they do work out-of-box. Otherwise we could already say that "ATI is better because it has .net framework and whole longhorn will be based on that". Future or modifications(like using old controlpanel or modified drivers) cannot be tolerated when comparing. Perhaps "modification easyness", but not own/public mods nor future releases.

And by the way, are you actually telling that ATI has better drivers? That's not true, because forceware ain't that bad and .netframework makes ATI look very bad for comparisation.

Seems to me that you love ATI and are telling your thoughts so seriously because ATI didn't win, am I correct? no offense, just some idle chatter

Cheers

Ok you need to realise more the 1/2 of all ATI users still DO NOT USE CCC!!!
They use the classic control panel....So regardless it wouln't of took him long at all to include 5.2 Classic... and would have then been "fair" but he still left of that there where alot of veriable that make his resoults diffrent, and other people results will verry greatly

ALSO KEEP IN MIND he used 5.2 , not 5.3 wich of course has improvements and this was posted after the 5.3's release...

Shaga · Mar 28, 2005, 03:37 PM

Agreed, but anyway comparing modified set to non-modified ain't the right way. And also, you can't use argument that "it has been improved" because that's how all things work out.

You cannot review SLI because it will improve by your method.

Just my 2 cents, and yes.. review was fair, but there are too much facts that cannot be ignored, and results can be non-realistic, but it doesn't make it unfair.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 28, 2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaga

Agreed, but anyway comparing modified set to non-modified ain't the right way. And also, you can't use argument that "it has been improved" because that's how all things work out.

You cannot review SLI because it will improve by your method.

Just my 2 cents, and yes.. review was fair, but there are too much facts that cannot be ignored, and results can be non-realistic, but it doesn't make it unfair.

UM the clissic control panel pack, and CCC control panel pack arent modded
thier direct from ATI. They are pavked that way for easy download...

other wise you download and install the drivers and control panel serprately

I didn't say it would inprove or decline but that the results will chage as the enviroment changes! the slighlt change anywhere along the line = diffrent results...

I mean do you think the results wouln't be different with a 5900FX vs a X850XTPE?
hell they'd change a little when going from a 9700 to 9800

not to mention a leap like that where talking a large generational gap

Shaga · Mar 28, 2005, 03:45 PM

I didn't know ATI gives out old control panel as a different pack, but using statement as a 5900FX vs X850XTPE, why didn't you say GF6800ULTRA 512mb vs ATI radeon 9800?

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 28, 2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaga

I didn't know ATI gives out old control panel as a different pack, but using statement as a 5900FX vs X850XTPE, why didn't you say GF6800ULTRA 512mb vs ATI radeon 9800?

becouse he's already compairoing a 9800 SETUP TO A 6800 ULTRA....

Also another factor that wasnt coverd is there is a massive improvment
in .net 2.0 beta over .net 1.1 wich goes right to how well CCC works

Shaga · Mar 28, 2005, 03:54 PM

Didn't even notice. But I still don't think it would change the facts like installing/rebooting/driver tab load/etc.. but as I said, I wasn't seriously believing in that review, I feel it more likely humorous

mkk · Mar 28, 2005, 04:01 PM

I think PowerVR beats them both.

Well seriously they were way early on having a good working per-application settings feature that was got little notice at the time. And resource-wise it's ultra slim. Just something one rediscovers when putting a trusty old Kyro2 back in the box after having another card failure.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Mar 28, 2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkk

I think PowerVR beats them both.

Well seriously they were way early on having a good working per-application settings feature that was got little notice at the time. And resource-wise it's ultra slim. Just something one rediscovers when putting a trusty old Kyro2 back in the box after having another card failure.

You know we'd all like that I wish PowerVR, S3, XGI etc the best of luck...
The have interesting things to bring to the table but lack what it takes to compete with
the two top contenders. I'd really like to see a 3 or 4 + way race again... Becouse it us who benifit.. just imagine if 3dfx was stil around

pr0digal jenius · Mar 29, 2005, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

Also another factor that wasnt coverd is there is a massive improvment
in .net 2.0 beta over .net 1.1 wich goes right to how well CCC works

NEVER should beta issue programs be included in mainstream reviews...EVER.

rushko · Mar 30, 2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkk

I think PowerVR beats them both.

Well seriously they were way early on having a good working per-application settings feature that was got little notice at the time. And resource-wise it's ultra slim. Just something one rediscovers when putting a trusty old Kyro2 back in the box after having another card failure.

QFT, kyro cp was the best, very simple but very functional. somethin that u get neither from ATI nor from nVidia ;(

Nicky-chan · May 3, 2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

You know we'd all like that I wish PowerVR, S3, XGI etc the best of luck...
The have interesting things to bring to the table but lack what it takes to compete with
the two top contenders. I'd really like to see a 3 or 4 + way race again... Becouse it us who benifit.. just imagine if 3dfx was stil around

*agrees* I was looking at both the companys not too long ago and thinking they have the right ideas but they dont have the stuff. =|

3Dfx was cool but I think there pritty dead now sadly.

Mar 28, 2005, 07:12 AM	#1
Shaga Intelligent Life Form Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nordic Region Posts: 383 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	ATI Catalyst versus NVIDIA Forceware Nice benchmark with the drivers(like how fast they load and stuff) http://www.elitebastards.com/page.p...ad=1&comments=1 "Conclusion What started off for me as having a bit of fun has completely taken over my weekend. And for what? Is it really important? On the whole, probably not. As for the results and how you, as the reader (assuming you’ve gotten this far) feel about them, I can only say that at present, NVIDIA have a faster and more streamlined set of drivers. That said, ATI’s drivers are also good and have only a negligible effect on overall system performance." __________________ Server: Currently Offline

Mar 28, 2005, 03:12 PM	Thread Starter #3
Shaga Intelligent Life Form Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nordic Region Posts: 383 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	Might be old but I don't hang out too much time on ATI forums, anyway... I thought this comparing was funny mostly, wasn't that serious when decided to post here. Anyway one small thing got my eye "For fairness should of also compared the old syle CP + 5.3 version package especally since nvidia has yet to release thier .NET version of thier control panel thats been in the works (rumors from good sources) for quite a while as they will uneveatablly will have to do" That's totally wrong. When comparing drivers, you should compare newest sets and how they do work out-of-box. Otherwise we could already say that "ATI is better because it has .net framework and whole longhorn will be based on that". Future or modifications(like using old controlpanel or modified drivers) cannot be tolerated when comparing. Perhaps "modification easyness", but not own/public mods nor future releases. And by the way, are you actually telling that ATI has better drivers? That's not true, because forceware ain't that bad and .netframework makes ATI look very bad for comparisation. Seems to me that you love ATI and are telling your thoughts so seriously because ATI didn't win, am I correct? no offense, just some idle chatter Cheers __________________ Server: Currently Offline

Mar 28, 2005, 03:37 PM	Thread Starter #5
Shaga Intelligent Life Form Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nordic Region Posts: 383 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	Agreed, but anyway comparing modified set to non-modified ain't the right way. And also, you can't use argument that "it has been improved" because that's how all things work out. You cannot review SLI because it will improve by your method. Just my 2 cents, and yes.. review was fair, but there are too much facts that cannot be ignored, and results can be non-realistic, but it doesn't make it unfair. __________________ Server: Currently Offline

Mar 28, 2005, 03:45 PM	Thread Starter #7
Shaga Intelligent Life Form Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nordic Region Posts: 383 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	I didn't know ATI gives out old control panel as a different pack, but using statement as a 5900FX vs X850XTPE, why didn't you say GF6800ULTRA 512mb vs ATI radeon 9800? __________________ Server: Currently Offline

Mar 28, 2005, 03:54 PM	Thread Starter #9
Shaga Intelligent Life Form Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nordic Region Posts: 383 Rep Power: 48 System Specs	Didn't even notice. But I still don't think it would change the facts like installing/rebooting/driver tab load/etc.. but as I said, I wasn't seriously believing in that review, I feel it more likely humorous __________________ Server: Currently Offline

Mar 28, 2005, 04:01 PM	#10
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,489 Rep Power: 132 System Specs	I think PowerVR beats them both. Well seriously they were way early on having a good working per-application settings feature that was got little notice at the time. And resource-wise it's ultra slim. Just something one rediscovers when putting a trusty old Kyro2 back in the box after having another card failure.