Hellbinder
Banned
Mintmaster said:
No the real Question is why didnt they freaking FIX IT in hardware by now???
Why Does ATI Get Beat Down on OGL
- Thread starter memberSince97
- Start date
No the real Question is why didnt they freaking FIX IT in hardware by now???
Joe DeFuria said:
I wonder how long WHQL takes? I can see a (justifiable, in my view) hissy if ATI tries to rush this into a non-WHQL release for reviewer benchies against whatever-it-is the rumors say NV will have 'round XT availability time. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
geo said:
I take my same stance as always: as long as the driver is available to the public in some form direct from the provider, I don't really care about WHQL. When it's made public, all aspects of the driver can be scrutinized by the public, and that's what matters.
I'd agree that's one level of quality control. It seems to me ATI has a standard and history for Catalyst tho, and I'd at least want to know it had been submitted for WHQL as well, and then follow up that the resulting WHQL-certed version is also provided to the public and provides the same performance. Your own standards that you assumed voluntarily should not break under the pressures of convenience --bend a little maybe 
, but not break.
Edit:
, but not break.Edit:
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Don't get me wrong, I put some value on WHQL.
It's just that for reviewing purposes (especially where significant performance changes are involved), "the public" should have access to the drivers used. If the provider is not willing to let the public have at it at least in beta form, then the drivers should not be made available to reviewers either.
It's just that for reviewing purposes (especially where significant performance changes are involved), "the public" should have access to the drivers used. If the provider is not willing to let the public have at it at least in beta form, then the drivers should not be made available to reviewers either.
I don't. I've used WHQLed Volari drivers. I've used WHQLed DeltaChrome drivers. It's not even funny what kinds of bugs you can have in your drivers and still pass WHQL. IMO this boils down to pure money making and political games.Joe DeFuria said:
The only practical reason why you'd ever want WHQL is to get rid of the Windows XP nag dialog. And you can easily just turn that off, especially if you're an OEM who ships systems with the OS preinstalled.
I totally agree.Joe DeFuria said:
Joe DeFuria said:
Oh, I don't disagree with that. I'd probably even go a step further and say it is more important than WHQL if you put me in that damnable "either/or" place I try mightily to avoid. I just want both, or at least a serious step towards the second (submission), based on their own standards and statements. You know what they say --if you'll cheat at solitaire, who knows what other character faults you may have.
I wonder what would happen if ATI just dropped support for OpenGL altogether with their gaming cards? Would OpenGL become the new Glide for games? Vista certainly makes you think of what the future is for OpenGL in terms of gaming. Only reason I like OpenGL is because it isn't limited to Windows, other than that, I bet ATI and co would prefer to only have to do one set of drivers for their products.
serenity said:
That's what I was waiting for - tests on an XL. Very impressive. Don't think it will catch a GT with those numbers though. Oh thanks neliz, didn't even notice it was only at 4x. Seems like sireric wasn't joking about the "empirical" nature of the fix..
Last edited by a moderator:
trinibwoy said:
I think jawed is on a streak with regards to the way the MC handles data and 4xAA samples seem to fall RIGHT in it's alley.
now, a conspiracy theorist would see this as ATI optimizing for the 'high" end benchmarks since most sites only seem interested in running a game with 4xaa for "apples to apples" sake.
Oh well, *IF* they implement this on a game by game basis we might seem some nice improvements with 2x and 6x as well but for me, it seems someone just struck gold and driver dev. ISN'T getting a day off this weekend. Do you think ATi would stick to it's normal release schedule now that they have some OGL gold in their hand?
Hellbinder
Banned
Why fix it...
Oh, i dont know.. perhaps to sell more hardware and make more money and have an even better reputation??
There are still a few big games comming that use OpenGL, specifically in a "Doom-III" way. Why not fix the issue so that the benchmarks are dominated on all fronts?? Dont you think that would in turn sell more hardware?? Of course it would.
There would no longer be a "its good but it sucks in x".
Oh, i dont know.. perhaps to sell more hardware and make more money and have an even better reputation??
There are still a few big games comming that use OpenGL, specifically in a "Doom-III" way. Why not fix the issue so that the benchmarks are dominated on all fronts?? Dont you think that would in turn sell more hardware?? Of course it would.
There would no longer be a "its good but it sucks in x".
Guess ya missed the entire page 2-3 discussion concerning older OpenGL applications (Quake3, Serious Sam, etc.etc.)... ATI's remain quite competitive. Websites just don't use these as benchmarks anymore since they require special care to ensure you're not CPU bound due to engine age... but at higher resolutions + AA/AF, they are GPU bound and ATI's OGL remains similarly competitive.bdmosky said:
That was the entire gist- by the same logic: "NVidia's suck at Direct3D".. if "win some, lose some" becomes the measuring stick for "competitive" vs. "sucks at XYZ API"
Similar threads
