AMD / ATI Catalyst 10.2 (+ 10.3 sneak peek)

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by Kaotik, Feb 17, 2010.

  1. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    17,037
    Likes Received:
    6,321
    Like I said, I don't think any 24" monitor can do 1920x1050 full screen. You'll get a situation where the monitor will not display anything if you try.

    So 1680x1050 = possible. 1920x1050 = impossible. And thus not even a consideration with regards to eyefinity.

    Now if it were possible for the monitor to do full screen 1920x1050, then it would thereotically be possible to do eyefinity if the driver writers were able to make it such that only 1 common side needed to be equal across all monitors (IE - all verticle res 1050).

    Regards,
    SB
     
  2. Karoshi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mars
    I touched on this point in another thread derail.
    Make eyeFinity ignore monitor resolution in 3D mode. Configure it to have a 9000x3000 backbuffer on 3x 1280x1024 monitors, for example (shitty SSAA). Currently it can do upscaling (only to EDID defined resolutions?). Make it able to do downscaling and to different resolutions monitors. GPU upscaling is already implemented.

    It could make eyeFinity easier on the consumers. No need to play puzzlepieces with your monitors, just buy/inherit/steal some random monitor, connect and enjoy. I have a 1600x1200 20", i could buy a 22" 1900x1080 (cheapest) and put it along, or 2x 24" and put it in the middle rotated.

    Not sure scaling the desktop is a good idea, but I've seen people drive LCD below their native resolution because of eyestrain. OTOH scaling 3D should be less noticeable (but for fonts).
     
  3. eastmen

    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    10,820
    Likes Received:
    2,020
    If they can get a display port adapater down to under $50 i'm all set. You can get 24 inch specter 1920x1200 monitors for $200 or under at microcenter (they go on sale every other month) I already have one. two more would get me into eye infinty for $400 but that adapter is expensive. I can't justify the cost of half a monitor for the adapter.
     
  4. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    15,822
    Likes Received:
    3,004
    you need to buy an adapter ?
    just 1 or 1 for each monitor
     
  5. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    9,052
    Likes Received:
    2,925
    Location:
    Finland
    You need (at least) 1 monitor with DP support, or 1 active DP adapter
    So if you have 3 displays with DVI, you need 1 adapter
    If you have 1 display with DP and 2 with whatever, you don't need adapters
     
  6. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    17,037
    Likes Received:
    6,321
    I don't think I'm understanding you.

    The video card must see a uniform display surface. So at the very minimum one side of the resolution must be the same across all monitors.

    It's not like you can have a 1680x1050 monitor + 1920x1200 monitor each rendering at native resolution and then just have the display driver render 1920x1050 on the 24" monitor and then have the video card scale it up rather than the monitor scaling it up.

    If you try to do that the video card stills see's a 1920x1200 surface and 1680x1050 surface. And thus you can't do eyefinity/single display surface.

    Either the monitor scales the image in which case 1680x1050 (as the video card sees it) = 1680x1050 (the rendered image) or your video card scales the image in which case the monitor is running at 1920x1200 (as the video card sees it) and your graphics card scales a 1680x1050 image to 1920x1200.

    So if you want the video card to scale a 1920x1050 image to 1920x1200 then the video card must see a 1920x1200 surface, in which case you can't combine that with a 1680x1050 surface to form a single surface.

    Regards,
    SB
     
  7. eastmen

    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    10,820
    Likes Received:
    2,020
    I would think if a monitor had a scaller you could just render it at a fixed resolution and let each monitor upres or down res ?

    Is that possible ?
     
  8. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    17,037
    Likes Received:
    6,321
    Yes, but what he wants is an image that spans the entire width of the monitor but limited in vertical resolution. In this case 1920x1050 fullscreen.

    Regards,
    SB
     
  9. V3

    V3
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    3,304
    Likes Received:
    5
    Does this fixed the big pointer problem, if it does I got to find the time to upgrade my mum's PC.
     
  10. Broken Hope

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    England
    It used to show correctly though, it's only been since the 10.1s that it's been bugged, so it seems to me there's something happening with the driver that is confusing DXDiag.

    Here's one from a while ago with it displaying properly.

    [​IMG]

    Here's the 10.2s

    [​IMG]

    The only major difference I can see is the driver files are different between versions, the filenames that is.
     
  11. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,081
    Likes Received:
    651
    Location:
    O Canada!
    If its saying WHQL on non-WHQL NVIDIA drivers, why assume that this is specific is something to do with the driver?

    Until recently DXdiag was reporting DX10 for DX11 devices.
     
  12. Karoshi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mars
    Lots of "can't"s in that reply. I wish there weren't, that's my point.

    Rationale: one might have monitors with similar edge lengths (in real life units, say centimeters) from different sources/for historic reasons. It feels natural to try and pack them similar edge to similar edge to try and form a reality escaping shell around ones eyes. The probability the similar edges have exactly the same resolution is low. Humans don't care so much about resolution (provided the panels have similar DPI densities (say 80-120?)).

    I understood eyeFinity only worked with exactly equal edge resolutions (that being either native LCD resolution or a supported (EDID announced) sub-resolution (less than native).

    I wish one could just add a custom resolution to eyeFinity to have not quite matching panels (for example, portrait widescreen 22" 1050x1680 + landscape 30" + portrait 4:3 1200x1600) work together. The desktop will be GPU scaled on some panels, but that shouldn't be so important for 3D gaming, where there isn't much (crisp) text. A backbuffer that was 1:1 on the 30" and with the extra pixels on the sides to not distort the image too much on the side panels would be nice. It would reduce the logistics of eyeFinity somewhat, making it more of a "just add another panel" impulse buy. (Or if there is the power for it, one might try to add an oversized backbuffer, much like ArmA2 does, for cheap-quality FSAA. But this is another derail :) )

    On the example you propose: for historical reasons you have two 22" monitors, one 1600x the other 1900x. Their edges match in real life units (centimeters), you may want to run both at the same time for the ultimate FSX experience. Either you run a (2x1680)x1050 backbuffer or a (2x1920)x1200 backbuffer. One case it upscales, the other downscales. Are both configurations supported by eyeFinity? What if you want to run (4x1920)x(2x1200)? Or just (2x1280)x800 so crysis 4AA runs >20fps?

    Coincidentally today i got BF:BC2 to run with a custom resolution of 1600x900 on my 1600x1200 monitor and noticed it's possible to flexibly add resolutions over the native LCD resolution in CCC (1920x1080 in this particular case) and have the GPU scale the image. So maybe it's just possible to do what i wanted with a bit of button smashing in CCC, configuring each monitor with wacko resolutions until you can edge-match them.

    I hope I made myself clear. My point is native panel resolutions shouldn't matter that much. Of course, it could be that I completely misunderstood the eyeFinity restrictions.
     
  13. ECH

    ECH
    Regular

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    7
    Is there a way to fix DDI reporting 10/10.1 instead of 11 when using Dxdiag's display tab? Or is this something that MS needs to fix?
     
  14. Broken Hope

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    England
    Request this hotfix, make sure to click show all versions if you're using x64

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/975243/
     
  15. MistaPi

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Norway
    I don't know how common the problem is, but there is still people struggling with 5970 locking up in Windows/2D use while it runs stable in 3D. It seems to be a 2d/3d clock rate switching issue that is causing it and "disabling" powerplay helps in some cases.

    Is there a proper fix for it? Will it be resolved in Catalyst 10.3?
     
  16. ECH

    ECH
    Regular

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    7
  17. Lightman

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,819
    Likes Received:
    491
    Location:
    Torquay, UK
    Just few benches to get a feeling of what's coming with Cat. 10.3!

    System:
    Phenom II 940BE @3750MHz NB @2500MHz 4GB MEM @1000MHz 5-5-5
    HD5870 1GB @1GHz core 1.2GHz MEM
    Win7 x64

    All tests done in 1920x1200 mode.

    Lightsmark2008
    10.2
    [​IMG]
    10.3B
    [​IMG]

    CoP DX11
    10.2
    [​IMG]
    10.3B
    [​IMG]

    Anno1701 DX10 AAx4 AFx16
    10.2
    [​IMG]
    10.3B
    [​IMG]

    Dirt 2 DX11 AAx2 Max. Det. except Crowd @HIGH and distant car details @HIGH
    10.2
    Malasya Free Race Ladara Rally start dash view - 76FPS
    10.3
    Malasya Free Race Ladara Rally start dash view - 82FPS
     
  18. Karoshi

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mars
    First 2 screenshots show 10.2 running at 901Mhz and 10.3B running at 1000Mhz. Which one is it?
     
  19. Squilliam

    Squilliam Beyond3d isn't defined yet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    114
    Location:
    New Zealand
    So could they have been holding back performance improvements in drivers so that Nvidia wouldn't know what level of performance they were facing when they released Fermi? I haven't seen any real changes in performance until now.
     
  20. Lightman

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,819
    Likes Received:
    491
    Location:
    Torquay, UK
    Sorry! It is 1000MHz in both cases, but I've opened GPU Caps while still running 900MHz on GPU :oops:

    So as stated in the text ALL TEST were done on GPU running 1GHz and 1.2GHz for mem.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...