4.8 CATALYST Control Center, Investigated

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 04:21 PM

[color=#ff0000]4.8 CATALYST Control Center, Investigated

[/color]If seen you seen my articles before then you’ll know when I see a lot of
rumor going around and have the ability to test and prove one way or
another I do so. This round ATI has as released the new CATALYST
Control Center to the public. Many users have been quick to judge the
new control panel based on three things.

Being Microsoft .Net Based
It’s use of Memory & Resources compared to the old CP
Users claiming poor performance [color=#000000][color=#000000][/color]

[/color][color=#000000][color=white]Some users are claming it adds 30+ seconds to their boot time, that’s [/color][/color]
[color=#000000][color=white]its using 80+ MB of ram, other users calling it bloat ware and other [/color][/color]
[color=#000000][color=white]names.. Some user’s giving it bad reviews and leaving comments on it [/color][/color]
[color=#000000][color=white]with out even loading it’s just because its .net based. People are relying [/color][/color]
[color=#000000][color=white]on what they’ve read and been discouraged to even try it for them [/color][/color]
[color=#000000][color=white]self’s…[/color][/color]
[color=#ffffff][/color]

[color=#000000]
[/color][color=royalblue]Note: I was surprised with swiftness in wich Ati released an updated [/color]
[color=royalblue]CCC and the 4.9's after the inital release. since then my system has [/color]
[color=royalblue]Changed. It was released about a day before I intended to post this. [/color]
[color=royalblue]I’ve looked over my result and didn’t want to have to go back to square[/color]
[color=royalblue]1 and re do everything just to include the 4.9 results. Also in the game [/color]
[color=royalblue]that I used as a bechmark has had a major update. Which has affected[/color]
[color=royalblue]greatly the benchmark scores. So fallowing this at a later date I will [/color]
[color=royalblue]post a 4.9 CCC Vs. 4.9 Old Syle Control Panel comparison.[/color]

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 04:23 PM

[color=#ff0000]Test Rig Setup:

Test bed hardware:[/color]
AMD 2500+ @ 2.08 GHz
ASUS A7N8X DELUXE –E (everything defaults except clock rate)
ATI 9600XT (overdrive disabled)
ATA133 Maxtor 120GB HDD w/8mb cache
Kingston 512 pc 2700 CAS 2.5 (3-3-7)

[color=red]Not test related but connected hardware:[/color]
NEC 2510A DVDRW + DL
SONY 1.44MB FLOPPY DRIVE

[color=red]Test bed software:[/color]
Windows XP SP2 (classic theme)
Microsoft .Net 2.0 beta
Steam + Counter stick source beta
5.03 nForce drivers (remix)
Screen Print 32 ver. 3.5

[color=red]Not test related but loaded software:[/color]
Norton anti virus and firewall 2004
Microsoft office 2003
WinRAR 3.30
Lava soft Ad-aware SE 1.03
Spybot 1.3
Spyware Blaster 1.3
Download Accelerator 7
Adobe photo shop CS

[color=red]System Setup[/color]

I uninstalled my current drivers, and then I uninstalled the control
panel, .net frame work and installed the Official Cat. 4.8’s (drivers only,
no control panel). Then ran a hard drive defrag, each times the test
environment was changed I rebooted, defragged the HDD, shut down
and boot up and began testing.

Secondly, I have used MSCONFIG from the run command to disable
everything but my screen shot program from loading to prevent them
from adversely affecting my results.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 04:26 PM

I will start off we will a quick look at .Net it self. Since the biggest
grievance I’ve seen in the forums of many boards is that ATI’s New
CCC is .NET based. I figured it would be a greatest as any place to start.

[color=red]Net Overview:[/color]

What is .NET? (MS Long version):

.NET is the Microsoft solution for Web services, the next generation of
software that connects our world of information, devices, and people in
a unified, personalized way.

.NET technology enables the creation and use of XML-based
applications, processes, and websites as services that share and
combine information and functionality with each other by design, on
any platform or smart device, to provide tailored solutions for
organizations and individual people.

.NET is a comprehensive family of products, built on industry and
Internet standards, that provide for each aspect of developing (tools),
managing (servers), using (building block services and smart clients)
and experiencing (rich user experiences) Web services. .NET will
Become part of the Microsoft applications, tools, and servers you
already use today—as well as new products that extend Web service
capabilities to all of your business needs.

Excerpt from: [color=#0000ff]http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics/faq.asp[/color]

Another good source
[color=#0000ff]http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Code/2004/May/WhitePapers_DotNetFramework.asp[/color]

[color=red]What is .NET? (Short version):[/color]

The Microsoft .Net Frame Work is an advanced framework on top of
which .NET enabled languages/applications (like C#, XML, VB.NET etc…) operates.

[color=red]Why use .NET?[/color]

[color=yellow]*[/color]It's easier, faster, and less expensive to build and integrate Web
services through .NET tools

[color=yellow]*[/color]The user experience is richer and more compelling because of smart
devices and information agents.

[color=yellow]*[/color]It's built from the ground-up for the next generation of software with XML at the core.

[color=yellow]*[/color]Can drastically cut development time

[color=red]If .Net is so important why didn’t they include it in SP2?[/color]

They did but it’s still an optional component of windows.

On a XP sp2 CD (slip streamed or RTM) it can be found here:

D:\cmpnents\netfx\i386\netfx.cab

In the SP2 network installer unpacked it can be found here:
i386\root\cmpnents\netfx\i386\netfx.cab

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 04:27 PM

[color=red]On to the testing:[/color]

There was an error I corrected, did not catch till after my testing. It
seems I’ve caught windows auto update couple times all I had to do is
subtract the 1 process wuauclt.exe and the memory usage I have
noticed and easily adjusted my figures accordingly. Windows update
pops on for a moment when the system boots but drops off so it’s
actually shouldn’t had affect my test bench results as by then auto
update has closed it self..

First off I remind you about memory usage. When you read memory
you immediately think of your computers ram which is not all ways so,
people often forget about the virtual memory. You’ll notice I’ve broke
down usage into multiple parts. Physical ram used, Virtual ram better
known as your swap file. There is a massive difference between the two
both in performance and speed. An application that uses a lot of
memory can slow the whole system down. An application that uses a
lot of swap file will be slower but will allow other applications the free
memory so that aren’t affected.

The second thing to remember is this is an over all result. Not just the
control panels’ them self’s but every application running on the system.
There is always a margin for error since conditions and usage
constantly changes slightly you results may and will and likely very to
some extent.

Lastly and most importantly this is a total system result. Not just the
Control panel applications them self’s usage but the system usage as a
whole while running them. Other programs affect other programs and
may make them use more or less memory etc. That actual programs
them self’s are used less then the number here. I tried to paint an over
all picture the best I could…

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 04:29 PM

[color=red].NET test results[/color]

[color=white]Notice any thing odd about the results? .Net doesn’t seem to add anything [/color]
[color=white]Where is all that mythical bloat people were complaining about??? [/color][color=white]Where is [/color]
[color=white]that mythical performance hit? No were to be found, I surprisingly [/color][color=white]saw a gain[/color]
[color=white]here! I wonder maybe it’s different with the older .Net but I’m not [/color][color=white]someone [/color]
[color=white]who downgrades willingly. As for adding to boot times no difference![/color]

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 04:38 PM

[color=#ff0000]Now onto the CCC Vs. the old style
[/color]
[color=#ff0000]

[/color](* Time to boot to useable desktop / taskbar application loaded...)

So that’s a maximum gain in boot time seen 13 seconds far from the
30+ seconds I’m been seeing people claim.

These next two screens are more for reference rather then comparison.

Now you’ll see the running difference:

A little memory useage and alot of swap file useing going on on my system.

Now for a little stress testing…. I have my desktop at 1024x768x32bit
and the counter strike source beta is running at 640x480

I noticed something add. Apparently set like this the CS: Source beta
only uses up to 199MB of ram by default which appeared a bit odd to
me. Not quite the effect I wanted but it works for this example.

You should ever run other programs, control panels etc while
gaming/benchmarking this next screen is just for reference…

[color=#000000][color=#000000][/color]
[/color]Notice when the system needs more memory it’s freed but you see
more programs paging out memory.

Well now that we’ve seen the results let me leave you with a couple of
clarifications.

It appears the new CATALYST Control Center uses very little physical
memory better known as RAM. At peak when it was loading the system
used just 59 MB extra of ram. With the normal use differences ranging
from 4-16 MB more when compared to the system running the old style
control panel. much lower then the 60-80+ MB being clamed by others.

On the other side I’m seeing a lot more virtual memory usage up to
196mb more in the stress test. Even with this extra usage my games
FPS was not affected. But I’d rather see virtual memory used for apps
etc and leave my ram free for my games etc…

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 04:39 PM

[color=red]One last test: NO swap file[/color]

I have even more numbers to sling at you.I another quick look, this
time I’d turned off my page file to see how the system reacts under
those circumstances .

This is a good example of why you’re supposed to have a swap fill no
matter how much memory you have installed. Hopefully you’ll find
these numbers as interesting as I did. If you wonder why I didn’t
benchmark I would never run a bench mark this way especially with
out a swap file the result would be horrable.

As I stated before Remember to keep in mind this chart represents the
system use as a whole not just CCC but the entire system. But gives an
ideal what impact CCC has on a system in it current state.

Remember this is just the first release of many and that there will be
changes made as the new control panel progresses. The new control
panel also has a massive advantage that is way easier to make
changes, and options etc... That would have taken much longer with the
old style Control panel. There are changes coming with each release
just like they do with the drivers. In my opinion a lot people are not
giving the new CP a fair shake. After all this is just the first release! As
more people are now using any bugs that weren’t caught will be found
and user feed back will help shape the path of the new CATALYST
Control Center.

[color=royalblue]As I’ve said before these numbers are for reference your results can and will [/color]
[color=royalblue]likely very. But it will give you a basic idea of the total over all impact on the [/color]
[color=royalblue]system not just CCC’s usage but the system as a hole as it reacts with CCC…[/color]

Zardon · Sep 11, 2004, 07:18 PM

good work Neon, very interesting.

swatX · Sep 11, 2004, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

[color=red].NET test results[/color]

[color=white]Notice any thing odd about the results? .Net doesn’t seem to add anything [/color]
[color=white]Where is all that mythical bloat people were complaining about??? [/color][color=white]Where is [/color]
[color=white]that mythical performance hit? No were to be found, I surprisingly [/color][color=white]saw a gain[/color]
[color=white]here! I wonder maybe it’s different with the older .Net but I’m not [/color][color=white]someone [/color]
[color=white]who downgrades willingly. As for adding to boot times no difference![/color]

just a correction its 64 fps not MB.. :P

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swatX

just a correction its 64 fps not MB.. :P

Fixed

~~REGENERAT1ON~~ · Sep 11, 2004, 10:09 PM

very nice! i wanna mention CCC load time rofl
on my rig its takes 30-60 secs to load up

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 11, 2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REGENERAT1ON

very nice! i wanna mention CCC load time rofl
on my rig its takes 30-60 secs to load up

I think that relies alot of the other stuff you may have starting...
IE. If you on a fresh XP sp2 install and you've loaded CCC it loads before Nortan AV and firewall etc useally one of the first things loaded

But after yanking it and then putting it back on it would load after Nortan AV and firewall etc wich made it appear to take much longer to load.. it seems to be the last thing to load, but it also seems the last thing to start to load...
Don't know why ...

HENNESSY · Sep 11, 2004, 10:25 PM

i dont understand why no swap file

swatX · Sep 11, 2004, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

I will start off we will a quick look at .Net it self...

grammer error.

Zardon · Sep 11, 2004, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swatX

grammer error.

its spelt "grammar" and can we get this thread back on track please?

zerodamage · Sep 12, 2004, 01:10 AM

Very nice job Neon.

TaWasNe · Sep 12, 2004, 01:57 AM

nice one Neon_Cowboy I'm happy with the way it works wow it takes alittle longer to boot up he he i have had no problems with the New CCC

I'm just happy

Blazer · Sep 12, 2004, 02:20 AM

Nice article Neon, I just reformated my harddrive, and now I know I won't be installing the new CCC.

mainman · Sep 12, 2004, 04:14 AM

Very nice work my friend, i was really suprissed by the end results..

No_Style · Sep 12, 2004, 04:58 AM

Kudos for the work, Neon.

BWX · Sep 13, 2004, 01:44 AM

So it ads up to 30 seconds boot-up time on some people's machines, and up to 13 seconds on yours. -that is a huge amount of time to add to boot-up time.

When you are running a game, It causes your PC to use more than the amount of physical ram, when without it you are under the amount of physical ram? Isn't that was this says? If so all these reasons seem like a good reasons not to use the CCC.

You said you have 512mb of system ram- that said 518mb used .. Not good.

pr0digal jenius · Sep 13, 2004, 02:59 AM

very nice work neon, but i'm gunna stick out with the old one until i can figure out what on my system made windows crash whenever i tried to adjust the AA/AF...lol

my personaly blunders aside...very nice/interesting review, as always

MindlessOath · Sep 13, 2004, 08:39 AM

i just uninstalled the old ones and reinstalled the new drivers and control panel myself. tho i did see memory sized slightly higher than they were before, it wasnt bad.

and when i loaded up unreal2k4 which was going around 200mb in memory(ram) the CCC desolved to a lower size aswell. so i beg of u to realize that its NOT HOGGING memory like u might think it is.

The_Neon_Cowboy · Sep 13, 2004, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

So it ads up to 30 seconds boot-up time on some people's machines, and up to 13 seconds on yours. -that is a huge amount of time to add to boot-up time.

When you are running a game, It causes your PC to use more than the amount of physical ram, when without it you are under the amount of physical ram? Isn't that was this says? If so all these reasons seem like a good reasons not to use the CCC.

You said you have 512mb of system ram- that said 518mb used .. Not good.

It still didn't click for you man... 512mb- 280mb = 232 mb of free/unused ram! you don't really count page file use becouse thats not being used to run anything, it being used to store code thats not actively running....

your still not differenating ram as in a memory stick you put in your pc and virtual ram aka a swap file on your hdd... that is whats being more greatly used.. people keep lookingt @ comment charg and think ram it's not unless you've disabled your swap file!

also ccc has no control over what resourse other apps use becouse it's running.. not realy thier fault

again the order in with applications start, another thing ccc has no conrol over...

BWX · Sep 13, 2004, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

It still didn't click for you man... 512mb- 280mb = 232 mb of free/unused ram! you don't really count page file use becouse thats not being used to run anything, it being used to store code thats not actively running....

your still not differenating ram as in a memory stick you put in your pc and virtual ram aka a swap file on your hdd... that is whats being more greatly used.. people keep lookingt @ comment charg and think ram it's not unless you've disabled your swap file!

also ccc has no control over what resourse other apps use becouse it's running.. not realy thier fault

again the order in with applications start, another thing ccc has no conrol over...

Ok then, do the same test with Doom 3 or Farcry. I wonder what the results would be then since you will most likely be way over the 512mb of physical ram anyway.... It would be interesting to also do a test without .net installed at all AND all the services needed to run .net (such as the server service, file sharing, etc) which many people turn off on a free standing gaming rig.. It would be interesting to see those results too, and see what the difference is in memory usage when you are actually pushing your system, not sticking with games that don't even come close to using up up your physical ram.

No_Style · Sep 13, 2004, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

It would be interesting to also do a test without .net installed at all AND all the services needed to run .net (such as the server service, file sharing, etc) which many people turn off on a free standing gaming rig..

Server service is the one which enables file sharing over the network.

BWX · Sep 13, 2004, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No_Style

Server service is the one which enables file sharing over the network.

Yeah ya still need it on for the CCC to work..

Basically it would be interesting to see the difference in mem usage and boot-up time between a fully tweaked out system with all unnecessary services turned off and .net not even installed, and a system with the CCC and all the required services that it and .net need to function installed and running..

No_Style · Sep 13, 2004, 04:43 PM

Is that the only service needed for .Net? If so I've been leaving it on for all my PCs for sharing of printers and etc. I've left .Net SP1 installed.. since it works fine and I may need it in the future.

HENNESSY · Sep 13, 2004, 05:34 PM

are you saying use a swap file to save physical ram? then whats the point of having more physical ram if ur not going to use it? hdd swap file is slower..

Zardon · Sep 13, 2004, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HENNESSY

are you saying use a swap file to save physical ram? then whats the point of having more physical ram if ur not going to use it? hdd swap file is slower..

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/supertweaks.htm

number 5.

Sep 11, 2004, 04:21 PM	#1
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	4.8 CATALYST Control Center, Investigated [color=#ff0000]4.8 CATALYST Control Center, Investigated [/color]If seen you seen my articles before then you’ll know when I see a lot of rumor going around and have the ability to test and prove one way or another I do so. This round ATI has as released the new CATALYST Control Center to the public. Many users have been quick to judge the new control panel based on three things. Being Microsoft .Net Based It’s use of Memory & Resources compared to the old CP Users claiming poor performance [color=#000000][color=#000000][/color] [/color][color=#000000][color=white]Some users are claming it adds 30+ seconds to their boot time, that’s [/color][/color] [color=#000000][color=white]its using 80+ MB of ram, other users calling it bloat ware and other [/color][/color] [color=#000000][color=white]names.. Some user’s giving it bad reviews and leaving comments on it [/color][/color] [color=#000000][color=white]with out even loading it’s just because its .net based. People are relying [/color][/color] [color=#000000][color=white]on what they’ve read and been discouraged to even try it for them [/color][/color] [color=#000000][color=white]self’s…[/color][/color] [color=#ffffff][/color] [color=#000000] [/color][color=royalblue]Note: I was surprised with swiftness in wich Ati released an updated [/color] [color=royalblue]CCC and the 4.9's after the inital release. since then my system has [/color] [color=royalblue]Changed. It was released about a day before I intended to post this. [/color] [color=royalblue]I’ve looked over my result and didn’t want to have to go back to square[/color] [color=royalblue]1 and re do everything just to include the 4.9 results. Also in the game [/color] [color=royalblue]that I used as a bechmark has had a major update. Which has affected[/color] [color=royalblue]greatly the benchmark scores. So fallowing this at a later date I will [/color] [color=royalblue]post a 4.9 CCC Vs. 4.9 Old Syle Control Panel comparison.[/color] Last edited by The_Neon_Cowboy; Sep 11, 2004 at 04:40 PM.

Sep 11, 2004, 04:29 PM	Thread Starter #5
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	[color=red].NET test results[/color] [color=white]Notice any thing odd about the results? .Net doesn’t seem to add anything [/color] [color=white]Where is all that mythical bloat people were complaining about??? [/color][color=white]Where is [/color] [color=white]that mythical performance hit? No were to be found, I surprisingly [/color][color=white]saw a gain[/color] [color=white]here! I wonder maybe it’s different with the older .Net but I’m not [/color][color=white]someone [/color] [color=white]who downgrades willingly. As for adding to boot times no difference![/color] Last edited by The_Neon_Cowboy; Sep 11, 2004 at 10:01 PM.

Sep 11, 2004, 04:39 PM	Thread Starter #7
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	[color=red]One last test: NO swap file[/color] I have even more numbers to sling at you.I another quick look, this time I’d turned off my page file to see how the system reacts under those circumstances . This is a good example of why you’re supposed to have a swap fill no matter how much memory you have installed. Hopefully you’ll find these numbers as interesting as I did. If you wonder why I didn’t benchmark I would never run a bench mark this way especially with out a swap file the result would be horrable. As I stated before Remember to keep in mind this chart represents the system use as a whole not just CCC but the entire system. But gives an ideal what impact CCC has on a system in it current state. Remember this is just the first release of many and that there will be changes made as the new control panel progresses. The new control panel also has a massive advantage that is way easier to make changes, and options etc... That would have taken much longer with the old style Control panel. There are changes coming with each release just like they do with the drivers. In my opinion a lot people are not giving the new CP a fair shake. After all this is just the first release! As more people are now using any bugs that weren’t caught will be found and user feed back will help shape the path of the new CATALYST Control Center. [color=royalblue]As I’ve said before these numbers are for reference your results can and will [/color] [color=royalblue]likely very. But it will give you a basic idea of the total over all impact on the [/color] [color=royalblue]system not just CCC’s usage but the system as a hole as it reacts with CCC…[/color] __________________

Sep 11, 2004, 10:25 PM	#13
HENNESSY DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 67 Rep Power: 0	i dont understand why no swap file __________________ P4 2.6GHz / 1024 MB DDR / Medion Radeon 9600 TX (Yeah TX not XT)

Sep 12, 2004, 02:20 AM	#18
Blazer Tweeker Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kitchener Posts: 611 Rep Power: 61 System Specs	Nice article Neon, I just reformated my harddrive, and now I know I won't be installing the new CCC. __________________ ASUS Maximus Formula, OCZ 780MXS ps, Core2 Duo 8400 @ 3.80GHz,Corsair Water cooling kit, 4x2gb Mushkin DDR2 8000, 5 hardrives totalling 1.75 TB, Sapphire Theatrix, SyncMaster 2343, Logitech MX-518, 2 Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 Crossfired , running on Windows7 64 bit, all in an Antec P160w Case.

Sep 11, 2004, 04:23 PM	Thread Starter #2
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	[color=#ff0000]Test Rig Setup: Test bed hardware:[/color] AMD 2500+ @ 2.08 GHz ASUS A7N8X DELUXE –E (everything defaults except clock rate) ATI 9600XT (overdrive disabled) ATA133 Maxtor 120GB HDD w/8mb cache Kingston 512 pc 2700 CAS 2.5 (3-3-7) [color=red]Not test related but connected hardware:[/color] NEC 2510A DVDRW + DL SONY 1.44MB FLOPPY DRIVE [color=red]Test bed software:[/color] Windows XP SP2 (classic theme) Microsoft .Net 2.0 beta Steam + Counter stick source beta 5.03 nForce drivers (remix) Screen Print 32 ver. 3.5 [color=red]Not test related but loaded software:[/color] Norton anti virus and firewall 2004 Microsoft office 2003 WinRAR 3.30 Lava soft Ad-aware SE 1.03 Spybot 1.3 Spyware Blaster 1.3 Download Accelerator 7 Adobe photo shop CS [color=red]System Setup[/color] I uninstalled my current drivers, and then I uninstalled the control panel, .net frame work and installed the Official Cat. 4.8’s (drivers only, no control panel). Then ran a hard drive defrag, each times the test environment was changed I rebooted, defragged the HDD, shut down and boot up and began testing. Secondly, I have used MSCONFIG from the run command to disable everything but my screen shot program from loading to prevent them from adversely affecting my results.

Sep 11, 2004, 04:26 PM	Thread Starter #3
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	I will start off we will a quick look at .Net it self. Since the biggest grievance I’ve seen in the forums of many boards is that ATI’s New CCC is .NET based. I figured it would be a greatest as any place to start. [color=red]Net Overview:[/color] What is .NET? (MS Long version): .NET is the Microsoft solution for Web services, the next generation of software that connects our world of information, devices, and people in a unified, personalized way. .NET technology enables the creation and use of XML-based applications, processes, and websites as services that share and combine information and functionality with each other by design, on any platform or smart device, to provide tailored solutions for organizations and individual people. .NET is a comprehensive family of products, built on industry and Internet standards, that provide for each aspect of developing (tools), managing (servers), using (building block services and smart clients) and experiencing (rich user experiences) Web services. .NET will Become part of the Microsoft applications, tools, and servers you already use today—as well as new products that extend Web service capabilities to all of your business needs. Excerpt from: [color=#0000ff]http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics/faq.asp[/color] Another good source [color=#0000ff]http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Code/2004/May/WhitePapers_DotNetFramework.asp[/color] [color=red]What is .NET? (Short version):[/color] The Microsoft .Net Frame Work is an advanced framework on top of which .NET enabled languages/applications (like C#, XML, VB.NET etc…) operates. [color=red]Why use .NET?[/color] *[color=yellow][/color]It's easier, faster, and less expensive to build and integrate Web services through .NET tools [color=yellow][/color]The user experience is richer and more compelling because of smart* devices and information agents. *[color=yellow][/color]It's built from the ground-up for the next generation of software with XML at the core. [color=yellow][/color]Can drastically cut development time* [color=red]If .Net is so important why didn’t they include it in SP2?[/color] They did but it’s still an optional component of windows. On a XP sp2 CD (slip streamed or RTM) it can be found here: D:\cmpnents\netfx\i386\netfx.cab In the SP2 network installer unpacked it can be found here: i386\root\cmpnents\netfx\i386\netfx.cab

Sep 11, 2004, 04:27 PM	Thread Starter #4
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	[color=red]On to the testing:[/color] There was an error I corrected, did not catch till after my testing. It seems I’ve caught windows auto update couple times all I had to do is subtract the 1 process wuauclt.exe and the memory usage I have noticed and easily adjusted my figures accordingly. Windows update pops on for a moment when the system boots but drops off so it’s actually shouldn’t had affect my test bench results as by then auto update has closed it self.. First off I remind you about memory usage. When you read memory you immediately think of your computers ram which is not all ways so, people often forget about the virtual memory. You’ll notice I’ve broke down usage into multiple parts. Physical ram used, Virtual ram better known as your swap file. There is a massive difference between the two both in performance and speed. An application that uses a lot of memory can slow the whole system down. An application that uses a lot of swap file will be slower but will allow other applications the free memory so that aren’t affected. The second thing to remember is this is an over all result. Not just the control panels’ them self’s but every application running on the system. There is always a margin for error since conditions and usage constantly changes slightly you results may and will and likely very to some extent. Lastly and most importantly this is a total system result. Not just the Control panel applications them self’s usage but the system usage as a whole while running them. Other programs affect other programs and may make them use more or less memory etc. That actual programs them self’s are used less then the number here. I tried to paint an over all picture the best I could…

Sep 11, 2004, 04:38 PM	Thread Starter #6
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 90 System Specs	[color=#ff0000]Now onto the CCC Vs. the old style [/color] [color=#ff0000] *[/color]( Time to boot to useable desktop / taskbar application loaded...) So that’s a maximum gain in boot time seen 13 seconds far from the 30+ seconds I’m been seeing people claim. These next two screens are more for reference rather then comparison. Now you’ll see the running difference: A little memory useage and alot of swap file useing going on on my system. Now for a little stress testing…. I have my desktop at 1024x768x32bit and the counter strike source beta is running at 640x480 I noticed something add. Apparently set like this the CS: Source beta only uses up to 199MB of ram by default which appeared a bit odd to me. Not quite the effect I wanted but it works for this example. You should ever run other programs, control panels etc while gaming/benchmarking this next screen is just for reference… [color=#000000][color=#000000][/color] [/color]Notice when the system needs more memory it’s freed but you see more programs paging out memory. Well now that we’ve seen the results let me leave you with a couple of clarifications. It appears the new CATALYST Control Center uses very little physical memory better known as RAM. At peak when it was loading the system used just 59 MB extra of ram. With the normal use differences ranging from 4-16 MB more when compared to the system running the old style control panel. much lower then the 60-80+ MB being clamed by others. On the other side I’m seeing a lot more virtual memory usage up to 196mb more in the stress test. Even with this extra usage my games FPS was not affected. But I’d rather see virtual memory used for apps etc and leave my ram free for my games etc…**

Sep 11, 2004, 07:18 PM	#8
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 177	good work Neon, very interesting.

Sep 11, 2004, 10:09 PM	#11
~~REGENERAT1ON~~ NGO Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 409 Rep Power: 0	very nice! i wanna mention CCC load time rofl on my rig its takes 30-60 secs to load up

Sep 12, 2004, 01:10 AM	#16
zerodamage HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia, USA Posts: 3,478 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Very nice job Neon.

Sep 12, 2004, 01:57 AM	#17
TaWasNe DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 83 Rep Power: 0	nice one Neon_Cowboy I'm happy with the way it works wow it takes alittle longer to boot up he he i have had no problems with the New CCC I'm just happy

Sep 12, 2004, 04:14 AM	#19
mainman Mr. Nobody Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: OmniPresent Nightwatcher Posts: 5,961 Rep Power: 69	Very nice work my friend, i was really suprissed by the end results.. __________________

Sep 12, 2004, 04:58 AM	#20
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	Kudos for the work, Neon. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Sep 13, 2004, 01:44 AM	#21
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	So it ads up to 30 seconds boot-up time on some people's machines, and up to 13 seconds on yours. -that is a huge amount of time to add to boot-up time. When you are running a game, It causes your PC to use more than the amount of physical ram, when without it you are under the amount of physical ram? Isn't that was this says? If so all these reasons seem like a good reasons *not* to use the CCC. You said you have 512mb of system ram- that said 518mb used .. Not good. __________________

Sep 13, 2004, 02:59 AM	#22
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	very nice work neon, but i'm gunna stick out with the old one until i can figure out what on my system made windows crash whenever i tried to adjust the AA/AF...lol my personaly blunders aside...very nice/interesting review, as always

Sep 13, 2004, 08:39 AM	#23
MindlessOath DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,121 Rep Power: 0	i just uninstalled the old ones and reinstalled the new drivers and control panel myself. tho i did see memory sized slightly higher than they were before, it wasnt bad. and when i loaded up unreal2k4 which was going around 200mb in memory(ram) the CCC desolved to a lower size aswell. so i beg of u to realize that its NOT HOGGING memory like u might think it is. __________________ ATI Radeon X800XT PE <---- LOOK UPDATED!! AMD Athlon 2Ghz, nforce2, 512mb ddr3500 LINKS U SHOULD KNOW!!!! DriverCleaner - use every time u install new drivers! ATI driver feedback - to report driver problems Tacticalcenter - my Gaming website and forums ATI 3rd party Optimized Driver Compairison

Sep 13, 2004, 04:43 PM	#28
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	Is that the only service needed for .Net? If so I've been leaving it on for all my PCs for sharing of printers and etc. I've left .Net SP1 installed.. since it works fine and I may need it in the future. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here Last edited by No_Style; Sep 13, 2004 at 04:49 PM.

Sep 13, 2004, 05:34 PM	#29
HENNESSY DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 67 Rep Power: 0	are you saying use a swap file to save physical ram? then whats the point of having more physical ram if ur not going to use it? hdd swap file is slower.. __________________ P4 2.6GHz / 1024 MB DDR / Medion Radeon 9600 TX (Yeah TX not XT)