CATALYST 3.2 Rating

*CATALYST maker* · May 16, 2003, 05:02 AM

Can you give me an indication from 1-10 how you rate the drivers? 1 being the lowest 10 being the highest?

PS. Zardon or other mods, any idea how I can get an average from these polls automatically? (If not I will have to dig up my old school calculator and do it manually... gasp)

**G.I.BRO** · May 16, 2003, 05:08 AM

What do you mean average? What average your looking for?
If you look at the 3.4 poll thread, it gives you a break down on the far right of screen.

This is not what your looking for?

If not, i think you may have to pull out the calculator. As far as i know, stats on what your looking for are not given with VB.

Below 30 · May 16, 2003, 05:11 AM

[COLOR=skyblue]6

The drivers are fine with the games I play on my 9700pro. The negative is, lack of HDTV/DVI control panel screen size controls.

You can always use windows gui calculator, new-old skool.[/COLOR]

*CATALYST maker* · May 16, 2003, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by **G.I.BRO**
What do you mean average? What average your looking for?
If you look at the 3.4 poll thread, it gives you a break down on the far right of screen.

This is not what your looking for?

If not, i think you may have to pull out the calculator. As far as i know, stats on what your looking for are not given with VB.

you know like a 6.7 out of 10 simple average forumla (x1+x2+x3+...xn) / n

where x1 = fist persons score
x2 = seconds person score
etc
n= of course total number of votes

why am I explaining this now, I gotta go to sleep but damn, we had too many coffees today and I'm wired

off to bed

grog · May 16, 2003, 05:39 AM

I gave the CAT 3.2 only an 8. I would have given 3.2 a higher score but with the CAT 3.4 it is now hard to do.
Although I only have a 8500DV card I must give the higher marks to CAT 3.4.

With CAT 3.2

SPEC Viewperf 7.0 ugs-01 test failed
Comanche 4 Benchmark is would crash when running the offical test.

Still these were the only functional problems I had with this set. I guess if I ran Half-Life I would have had more to add.

It would have been better is this was a score from 1 to 100. I would give CAT 3.2 95% and CAT 3.4 98%. They are both damn good drivers.

Greg

*CATALYST maker* · May 21, 2003, 08:21 PM

anyone else wanna vote?

Kombatant · May 21, 2003, 11:05 PM

Yeah sure.. i did

Alpha · May 22, 2003, 03:51 AM

I gave them an 8
Always room for improvement

May 16, 2003, 05:02 AM	#1
CATALYST maker ATI driver guru Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: ATI, Canada Posts: 678 Rep Power: 63	CATALYST 3.2 Rating Can you give me an indication from 1-10 how you rate the drivers? 1 being the lowest 10 being the highest? PS. Zardon or other mods, any idea how I can get an average from these polls automatically? (If not I will have to dig up my old school calculator and do it manually... gasp)

May 16, 2003, 05:11 AM	#3
Below 30 Video Games Fo Life Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Region of Peel, Ontario, Canada Posts: 109 Rep Power: 0	[COLOR=skyblue]6 The drivers are fine with the games I play on my 9700pro. The negative is, lack of HDTV/DVI control panel screen size controls. You can always use windows gui calculator, new-old skool.[/COLOR] __________________ [color=yellow][color=#ff1493]When Skills Ruled [/color][/color]

May 21, 2003, 11:05 PM	#7
Kombatant DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Athens, Hellas Posts: 644 Rep Power: 62	Yeah sure.. i did __________________ There is no spoon... Kombatant's Lair

May 22, 2003, 03:51 AM	#8
Alpha Catalyst Beta tester Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 33 Rep Power: 0	I gave them an 8 Always room for improvement __________________ System: Mobile Athlon XP2500+@2600mhz, Abit NF7-S 2.0, 1024mb DDR, Viewsonic A90 19", ATI Radeon 9700PRO - Windows XP + SP2 + DX9b

May 16, 2003, 05:08 AM	#2
G.I.BRO To Have and to Hold Join Date: May 2003 Location: Ontario Posts: 527 Rep Power: 0	What do you mean average? What average your looking for? If you look at the 3.4 poll thread, it gives you a break down on the far right of screen. This is not what your looking for? If not, i think you may have to pull out the calculator. As far as i know, stats on what your looking for are not given with VB.

May 16, 2003, 05:39 AM	#5
grog Roxy Music Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 623 Rep Power: 66 System Specs	I gave the CAT 3.2 only an 8. I would have given 3.2 a higher score but with the CAT 3.4 it is now hard to do. Although I only have a 8500DV card I must give the higher marks to CAT 3.4. With CAT 3.2 SPEC Viewperf 7.0 ugs-01 test failed Comanche 4 Benchmark is would crash when running the offical test. Still these were the only functional problems I had with this set. I guess if I ran Half-Life I would have had more to add. It would have been better is this was a score from 1 to 100. I would give CAT 3.2 95% and CAT 3.4 98%. They are both damn good drivers. Greg

May 21, 2003, 08:21 PM	Thread Starter #6
CATALYST maker ATI driver guru Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: ATI, Canada Posts: 678 Rep Power: 63	anyone else wanna vote?