Catalyst 7.8 beta

SS-89 · 30 Jul 2007 at 14:42

lol sorry for my vagueness i was actually asking for coh but thanks for the LC one

.

willhub · 30 Jul 2007 at 14:45

SS-89 said:
lol sorry for my vagueness i was actually asking for coh but thanks for the LC one .

Lol I was wrong

I did a CoH test the other day, at 1280x1024, 8xAA, all ultra, DX9 I got 67fps average, will do it again later and post a screenie.

SS-89 · 30 Jul 2007 at 14:50

willhub said:
Lol I was wrong

I did a CoH test the other day, at 1280x1024, 8xAA, all ultra, DX9 I got 67fps average, will do it again later and post a screenie.

all ultra? some settings only show high as the maximum possible setting for me... :confused:

cuke2u · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:19

Hi, I tried these drivers on my HTPC yesterday but unfortunantely PowerDVD Ultra crashes with them so I went back to the 7.7's. Shame as they are looking promising, maybe AMD will work out the incompatibility issue before they are released...
ChrisC

jrodga2k5 · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:20

they are beta's of course

should be ironed out by go time

willhub · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:26

SS-89 said:
all ultra? some settings only show high as the maximum possible setting for me...

I know, thats normal.

Vogon · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:50

Same old for me

performance in IL2 Stalker FEAR all the same or a fps or 2 worse, still BSOD trying to run a replay in GTL.

Those hoping the drivers will get faster, I wouldn't hold your breath, if they aren't now then they wont ever be, the only exception being specific games with issues.

This card is as fast as its going to get

I can only summise those with gains are running lower resolutions than I.

The exception being 3dm06 as thats a std res, not sure why Raven would gain a bit, but mine is within a handful of points of 7.6 and 7.7 ....

willhub · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:52

Vogon said:
Same old for me
performance in IL2 Stalker FEAR all the same or a fps or 2 worse, still BSOD trying to run a replay in GTL.

Those hoping the drivers will get faster, I wouldn't hold your breath, if they aren't now then they wont ever be, the only exception being specific games with issues.

This card is as fast as its going to get

What makes you think that? I've got some performance increases with the 7.8, I'm sure stalker went up by 5-10fps.

Vogon · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:55

willhub said:
What makes you think that? I've got some performance increases with the 7.8, I'm sure stalker went up by 5-10fps.

Becuase I ran the short timedemo and got near identical figures ..... like I mention it might be a res thing, I am running 1920x1200, I suspect most of you are max 1680x1050...

silversurfer · 30 Jul 2007 at 15:59

Last ati card I owned was a 9800pro but just trying these out on a 1800xl. Can anyone tell my noob self if the overdrive overclocking thing is any good or would atitool be better

willhub · 30 Jul 2007 at 16:08

Vogon said:
Becuase I ran the short timedemo and got near identical figures ..... like I mention it might be a res thing, I am running 1920x1200, I suspect most of you are max 1680x1050...

My max is 1440x900, I need a new monitor

RavenUK · 30 Jul 2007 at 16:10

willhub said:
My max is 1440x900, I need a new monitor

You keep saying that, for god sake go buy one already..

jrodga2k5 · 30 Jul 2007 at 16:13

silversurfer said:
Last ati card I owned was a 9800pro but just trying these out on a 1800xl. Can anyone tell my noob self if the overdrive overclocking thing is any good or would atitool be better

If you can go higher in ATitool then do that but if its just in the limits of overdrive then its fine

Vogon · 30 Jul 2007 at 16:55

willhub said:
My max is 1440x900, I need a new monitor

No not really ... higher res = less performance, so there is an advantage to a 1440 screen

willhub · 30 Jul 2007 at 18:01

Vogon said:
No not really ... higher res = less performance, so there is an advantage to a 1440 screen

Well I think at 1600x1200 there is an advantage, you dont need as much AA, which means better performance, as at my res I need 8xAA - 16xAA, and you know what needing no AA means at higher res on a HD2900XT

SS-89 · 30 Jul 2007 at 18:02

willhub said:
Well I think at 1600x1200 there is an advantage, you dont need as much AA, which means better performance, as at my res I need 8xAA - 16xAA, and you know what needing no AA means at higher res on a HD2900XT

Skinner · 30 Jul 2007 at 20:34

X2900XT's don't use AF properly (there's hardly any AF)when using ingame AF.

See it youreself by comparing CCC and ingame AF while standing on a road. This explains the diff. in perf.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Jul 2007 at 20:39

Skinner said:
X2900XT's don't use AF properly (there's hardly any AF)when using ingame AF.

See it youreself by comparing CCC and ingame AF while standing on a road. This explains the diff. in perf.

LOL.

SS-89 · 30 Jul 2007 at 21:05

Skinner said:
X2900XT's don't use AF properly (there's hardly any AF)when using ingame AF.

See it youreself by comparing CCC and ingame AF while standing on a road. This explains the diff. in perf.

wt...f

Tom|Nbk · 30 Jul 2007 at 21:10

SS-89 said:
wt...f

Yea the most absurd statement I've seen on here in a long time. Completely unfounded BS.