new radeon drivers

[jvd]

These are just the core files as said above. I thought that drivers with names like 7.7X were supplied to manufacturers of Powered by ATI cards but I may well have misread this somewhere else on the forum.

Anyhow to get them working fully I just copied the driver files for XP in these new drivers into the drivers location in the omega/plutonium xk1.0.71b's and yipee get all the new driver bits but all the tab functionaloty and tweaks from omega and plutonium.

Here are some preliminary benches:

Unreal Tournament (Loki OpenGL) [1280*1024*32 high settings, detailed textures, ansio at 16]......113fps was 103fps with the omega/plutxk1.0.71b's.

Quake 3 Arena [1280*1024*32, high settings, ansio at 16].......154fps was 122fps with the omega/plutxk1.0.71b's.

GLExcess 1.1a [1024*768*32].......6353points on benching just before installing these drivers I got 6090 with the omega/plutxk1.0.71b's.

Now I'll have to test 3DMark2001SE...

3DMark2001SE [1024*768*32].......8465points previously with the omega/plutxk1.0.71b's it was 8293points(8438 overclocked).

this was posted by reaper_666 on the rage3d.com forums... i haven't test yet... just got a new monitor for 20 bucks and am playing with the hydrovision

 

[Doomtrooper]

Wow..hmmm ...I wonder who leaks these babies

 

[Bambers]

Finally a 7? month old issue is fixed- the gamma

 

[jvd]

hmmm

i still haven't tried ummm got a date and all.... man i want to play with the drivers why'd i get a date with some dumb girl....

 

[Mystiq]

8000? Damn you, I get 7143. What CPU do you have and what are the rest of your settings.

 

[Doomtrooper]

These drivers give another significant Increase in all games/benchmarks tested...

Serious Sam Valley of the Jaguar Demo 16 X Anistropic 1024 x 768

34 fps Patched 6071 drivers
52 fps with leaked 6093

Unreal Tournament Loki OGL 16X Anistropic

Patched 6071 UT Thunder Demo

Leaked 6093

GLexcess Patched 6071 vs 6093

Score -6219 - 6071 driver
Score -6360 - 6093 driver

Original Glexcess score was @ 16-bit

 

[Bambers]

These are just the core files as said above. I thought that drivers with names like 7.7X were supplied to manufacturers of Powered by ATI cards but I may well have misread this somewhere else on the forum.

The drivers have 2 numbers. 7.xx and either 60xx (xp/2000) or 90xx (9x). Sometimes the 7.xx can cover more than one 60xx/90xx drivers.

Good to see ati are doing better with drivers. The 8500 has gone from struggling against the gf3 to only just behind the ti4200.

 

[stevem]

What's more interesting are the entries in the inf (WinXP):

"RADEON RV250" = ati2mtag_RV250, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4966
"RADEON RV250 SECONDARY" = ati2mtag_RV250, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_496E

Secondary...?

"R300_4E44" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E44
"R300_AD" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4144
"R300_AE" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4145
"R300_AF" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4146

If we asume 4144-6 are ATI, I wonder who sub_vendor 4e44 is?

 

[Althornin]

What's more interesting are the entries in the inf (WinXP):

"RADEON RV250" = ati2mtag_RV250, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4966
"RADEON RV250 SECONDARY" = ati2mtag_RV250, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_496E

Secondary...?

"R300_4E44" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4E44
"R300_AD" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4144
"R300_AE" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4145
"R300_AF" = ati2mtag_R300, PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_4146

If we asume 4144-6 are ATI, I wonder who sub_vendor 4e44 is?

Maybe the RV250 will have a maxx verion using ATI's AFR?

 

[KimB]

Possible...but why in the world would ATI launch a rather expensive dual-chip design when the R300 is right around the corner?

It's more likely that there will be two bins of the RV250. Especially since the RV250 is rumored to be a value chip. After all, why in the world would ATI undercut their R300 by designing a lower-cost board that could potentially compete will in performance with it?

 

[OpenGL guy]

Anyone tried the new drivers under Win 9x? With the 9030 drivers, I am getting 8543 in 3D Mark 2001 SE on my Athlon 1900+XP w/ 512 MB DDR.

Just want to see if it's worthwhile updating at this time.

 

[quattro]

my guess would be accelerated secondary display. or maybe trick to support overlay.

 

[Tahir2]

OpenGL Guy, it depends on the games you play.
You might get an increase of 100 or so points in 3DMark 2001.

 

[Bambers]

You'd get an extra 100-200 points in 3dmark but there would be 5-10% increases on most of the theoretical tests (DOT3, point sprites etc) even the fillrate goes up a bit.

If you want the highest 3dmark score though I find that the 9013 drivers give the fastest results in the game tests.

 

[Dolemite]

Hey OpenGL Guy,

I was hoping you could give us the inside perspective on the issue Carmack described in his .plan update back in February. Specifically, the unexpectedly low performance in a high poly count scene that may or may not be a hardware issue:

February 11, 2002

...

A high polygon count scene that was more representative of real game graphics under heavy load gave a surprising result. I was expecting ATI to clobber Nvidia here due to the much lower triangle count and MUCH lower state change functional overhead from the single pass interaction rendering, but they came out slower. ATI has identified an issue that is likely causing the unexpected performance, but it may not be something that can be worked around on current hardware.

Some people came to associate what he said with the low performance under GLExcess test #6 (I think), another high poly count test, which we all remember as the infamous "high poly count bug." That issue was fixed with a driver update, but I don't think we can safely make the assumption that this was the same problem, and was thus actually fixed.

I've asked Reverend to ask JC, but I'd be interested what you might know about it as well, especially on whether this is something that has been fixed, will be fixed, or is "unfixable."

 

[OpenGL guy]

I was hoping you could give us the inside perspective on the issue Carmack described in his .plan update back in February

As I don't work on the 8500, nor do I have permission to speak on such issues, I can't answer your question.

 

[Dolemite]

That's understandable, but would you mind checking with the 8500 people and see if there's been any progress on this? Or even just let me know who I should talk to? I'd really appreciate it.

 

[Dolemite]

Still curious...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Carmack did publically say at one point that the "GLExcess" fix was NOT the same issue that he was encountering with Doom3. (Carmack said that the drvier build he had that fixed the GLExcess bug did not address the Doom3 issue he was concerned with.)

I don't know if he has some newer drivers that address the issue, but we do know that the GLExcess bug was not the same problem.

 

[Dolemite]

Hmmm, that's basically what I had thought, but its good to know for sure.

Now if we can just get an answer from ATI...