OpenGL 4.0


I think he is reffering to all the hot-fixes that is needed due to the locked in iron driver schedule...or stuff like this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3463&p=6

Maintaining a monthly driver release schedule is detrimental to AMD's ability to release quality drivers. This is not the first or only issue we've seen that could have been solved (or at least noticed) by expanded testing that isn't possible with such tight release deadlines. Yes, consistent and frequent driver releases to improve compatibility and performance are a necessity, but doing anything to excess is a very bad idea. Moderation is key and AMD severely needs a better balance here.
We've been mentioning this as an issue in passing when it pops up and causes us problems, but this is starting to get ridiculous. It is one thing when previous fixes are broken or when older games fall off the grid and are neglected. But when a major title like Far Cry 2 is released to incredibly poor driver support, it is time to wake up and realize that something is wrong. This is not the first time we've seen issues with a newly released game, but the problems we've had with AMD drivers and Far Cry 2 are some of the worst we've ever experienced.
And this time it isn't just us. This isn't prerelease hardware or a beta software package. This isn't a quick fix "oops I forgot something" kind of bug. Though we tend to see problems a lot more frequently than end users, we do see a lot more issues with AMD drivers than NVIDIA. Even though not all those issues are things that we need to bother end users with, the probability of hitting a bug that will affect end users is much higher when you've got a higher number of bugs to worry about in general.
Now don't get me wrong, AMD drivers are still much better than they were before Catalyst. Back during the transition to Vista, ATI drivers were hands and feet above NVIDIA drivers for a long time (and they didn't hang XP out to dry either). AMD has maintained a unified driver model where NVIDIA had to break up their driver for different hardware generations for a while.
And now it is time for AMD to learn from their mistakes and change over to a more manageable and sensible driver release policy. Double the time between driver releases, do much much more testing across hardware platforms and games, and maybe even regularly release partly QA'd beta drivers in between WHQL drivers if there's something that needs a quick fix.

You seem to always be behind NVIDIA when it comes to supporting games...or OpenGL.

A single "on time" dosn't make the other stuff go away.
 
[off-topic] these newer than 10.3a?
Yes and no. AFAIK its a somewhat different branch and some of the perf updates might not be in there. Use if you are interested in OGL dev, if not then stick with the currents. They will all be merged in a future WQHL post of course.
 
Whoa....

I don't recall AMD being this quick to support OGL in the past. BIG :love: for AMD ogl driver team.

And now, please port them to linux and add UVD for those afflicted with ssh and the commandline, who are pining for some driver luv from AMD.
 
Whoa....

I don't recall AMD being this quick to support OGL in the past. BIG :love: for AMD ogl driver team.

And now, please port them to linux and add UVD for those afflicted with ssh and the commandline, who are pining for some driver luv from AMD.

The Linux build is on the linked page. I wouldn't hold my breath about UVD becoming all that interesting on Linux anytime soon though, and if you have an Evergreen I wouldn't hold my breath about it being exposed at all anytime soon.
 
Also Alex... hmmmm:

Alex on the frontpage said:
Some theorise that an OpenGL "revival" in the consumer space is on the verge of happening...

Citation needed! :devilish:
 
I wouldn't hold my breath about UVD becoming all that interesting on Linux anytime soon though, and if you have an Evergreen I wouldn't hold my breath about it being exposed at all anytime soon.

Ain't that a bitch.:devilish:

Personally, I am very hot on hw video decode. I hope ihv's start treating it like a first class feature for the neglected OSes.
 
I think he is reffering to all the hot-fixes that is needed due to the locked in iron driver schedule...or stuff like this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3463&p=6



You seem to always be behind NVIDIA when it comes to supporting games...or OpenGL.

A single "on time" dosn't make the other stuff go away.

Anand should rethink their statement about Nvidia Unified drivers. They had to drop support for previous gen cards with the launch of the G80 as the driver before that launch had support going back to the TNT when the unified driver first started, a good 4-5 years before ATI started theirs. Eventually, dead weight has to get dropped. Det driver 2.xx(1996/7) to Forceware 97.xx(2006/7), TNT thru 7x00 cards, thats over 10 years of GPUs. they had to draw the line somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anand should rethink their statement about Nvidia Unified drivers. They had to drop support for previous gen cards with the launch of the G80 as the driver before that launch had support going back to the TNT when the unified driver first started, a good 4-5 years before ATI started theirs. Eventually, dead weight has to get dropped. Det driver 2.xx(1996/7) to Forceware 97.xx(2006/7), TNT thru 7x00 cards, thats over 10 years of GPUs. they had to draw the line somewhere.

I think they have a unified driver for all >=Geforce6 gpu's. All of those are still supported.
 
Having unified drivers was/is a measure to fight user ignorance. It shouldn't be based on the technical aspects of the parts covered by them. If nV was still releasing parts based on NV1 alongside the GF100 in a parallel universe those drivers still ought to be in the same driver download. By the same token, if there are no users with older parts you can leave them out of the unified package regardless of whether they follow or break or any technical architecture.

Having said all that, now that Windows Update is pushing video card drivers I'm not convinced we still need these unified bundles any more. Certainly, anyone that doesn't need WU to install any driver for them, can click the relevant download link for their respective hardware. id Software alongside the IHVs also fought against this for OpenGL with the venerable "GLSetup" program that was eventually made obsolete when IHVs started paying attention to end-user experience. Perhaps it's too soon and far too many people still use XP for it to be viable but I don't believe unified driver packages are as important now; in fact, I'd wager that having a single binary is of more interest to IHVs to ease development.
 
Are you sure that the Windows updates push all the components and not just those that are required for Windows operation? I'm not sure things like (for AMD drivers) CCC is included.
 
Having unified drivers was/is a measure to fight user ignorance. It shouldn't be based on the technical aspects of the parts covered by them. If nV was still releasing parts based on NV1 alongside the GF100 in a parallel universe those drivers still ought to be in the same driver download. By the same token, if there are no users with older parts you can leave them out of the unified package regardless of whether they follow or break or any technical architecture.

Having said all that, now that Windows Update is pushing video card drivers I'm not convinced we still need these unified bundles any more. Certainly, anyone that doesn't need WU to install any driver for them, can click the relevant download link for their respective hardware. id Software alongside the IHVs also fought against this for OpenGL with the venerable "GLSetup" program that was eventually made obsolete when IHVs started paying attention to end-user experience. Perhaps it's too soon and far too many people still use XP for it to be viable but I don't believe unified driver packages are as important now; in fact, I'd wager that having a single binary is of more interest to IHVs to ease development.

I'll agree with Dave and add that anyone who trusts MS driver updates for their video card is a loon. I've seen there "Recommended" drivers in those updates BSOD machines more than once for Nvidia, ATI and S3/Via based GPUs.
 
Are you sure that the Windows updates push all the components and not just those that are required for Windows operation? I'm not sure things like (for AMD drivers) CCC is included.
No, CCC isnt included - but is it needed for casual users?
I know a couple users who are running on 78xG chipsets and there is no need for the CCC, multimonitor can be configured from Windows panels aswell. (And I dare to say that I wouldnt use CCC aslong there are alternatives)

On the Nvidia side the controlpanel is included, but physx and cuda isnt. Games using it install the runtime anyway so its no big deal either.

A possible advantage using unified drivers (binaries) could be when you are using multiple different cards (from the same vendor of course).
 
Back
Top