radeon 4850
category: general [glöplog]
so, anyone got his hands on this new GPU ?
is it worth it like first review seem to claim ? or is it ruined by ATi drivers again (oh Catalyst bloat, .NET control center overhead, and other bad memories :/)
those who work for the gaming industry, did you already have feedback on those ?
is it worth it like first review seem to claim ? or is it ruined by ATi drivers again (oh Catalyst bloat, .NET control center overhead, and other bad memories :/)
those who work for the gaming industry, did you already have feedback on those ?
The drivers are pretty ok (as crappy as nividia's) if you don't install the control center...
The card looked pretty nice in the reviews I read.
The card looked pretty nice in the reviews I read.
Hey, nothing against CCC, isn't it NORMAL that a program takes 20 seconds to react to a click on its tray icon? I certainly think so! :)
not if it doesnt play music in the meantime ;)
That'd be an excellent proposal to the ATI guys :)
Pfft, I had a 9600 years ago already ;)
:p
Quote:
I had a 9600 years ago already ;)
I still do; it can run some demos.
4850 is more than twice less the 9600. Yeah!
this card actually scares me. It's half the price of 9600. But on the other hand - c'mon they don't have ANY DX10 compliant extensions for OpenGL. It means that you can only have DX10 effects on Vista. Piggy.
bonzaj: What's this then?
elsewhere > i think he meant the new radeon HD 4850 just sucks at opengl
Yeah well true, I have only tested it on my Geforce.. ATI sucking at OpenGL is hardly news indeed :)
actually, it's not so sucky at all... well. maybe in case of SM 4.0 (4.1 actually), but it's still not bad at all, especially when looking at benchmarks like this (unfortunately, in polish):
http://www.in4.pl/recenzje.htm?rec_id=468&rectr_str_numer=11
http://www.in4.pl/recenzje.htm?rec_id=468&rectr_str_numer=11
what quakewars has to do with " DX10 compliant extensions for OpenGL"?
with dx10 - nothing. with overall opengl performance - a little bit more.
performance != sucky openGL.
I remember blend modes not working correctly, framebuffer objects functioning incorrectly, glcopytexsubimage2d copying onl white and the performance of VBOs grinding into an absolute halt wth more than 40 of them on the screeen. In other words, lousy drivers.
I remember blend modes not working correctly, framebuffer objects functioning incorrectly, glcopytexsubimage2d copying onl white and the performance of VBOs grinding into an absolute halt wth more than 40 of them on the screeen. In other words, lousy drivers.
do not want!
if ATI starts shipping demoboxes I will reconsider of course
if ATI starts shipping demoboxes I will reconsider of course
I've just run into this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2fS9covXBs&feature=related
It's interesting that ATI hired David Fincher for their tiny tech demo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2fS9covXBs&feature=related
It's interesting that ATI hired David Fincher for their tiny tech demo.
What's so special about that? I could direct that! :|
CCC takes more like 4 seconds to open (ie to be ready, not just the splash) nowadays, it really became a lot faster something like a little year ago.
And it sounds like elsewhere is still using 10 years (almost ;) old drivers (unless in some cases "incorrectly" doesn't mean "not according to specs" but "different from my nvidia drivers" ;)
There's still no dx10 specifc extensions though (I guess that's basicly geometry shaders and texture arrays), but afaik all/most of the stuff not requiring extensions (ie loosing up restrictions like shader length etc etc) is working.
And it sounds like elsewhere is still using 10 years (almost ;) old drivers (unless in some cases "incorrectly" doesn't mean "not according to specs" but "different from my nvidia drivers" ;)
There's still no dx10 specifc extensions though (I guess that's basicly geometry shaders and texture arrays), but afaik all/most of the stuff not requiring extensions (ie loosing up restrictions like shader length etc etc) is working.
ive got a ati 2600xt at home now, im pretty happy with it - the drivers (despite the amount of stick they get) overall seem to have less cpu overhead and better overall stability during normal system usage than the nv ones (from my highly unscientific test of "using my pc for a few months"). it's fast and very cheap.
when it comes to opengl being dodgy though preacher isnt kidding. lightwave is basically unusable on an ati card bceause it crashes so much, but it's a-ok on nvidia.
when it comes to opengl being dodgy though preacher isnt kidding. lightwave is basically unusable on an ati card bceause it crashes so much, but it's a-ok on nvidia.
hm... I never had problems with ati drivers, other than the fact that it was not until last month that they implemented fbo with multisample, but thats another story nothing to do with stability or opengl compliance. Actually it was nv driver that I always found buggy, specially when speaking glsl. Never understood what is all that noise about ati drivers, really, my r9800 worked like charm since the beginning until today.
iq: as I always say with bleeding edge opengl: "Tell me what card you code on, and I'll tell you what it works on" ;)
That's also why I always try to have the opposite vendors at home and work.
But traditionally the nvidia drivers are more forgiving / less strict to the spec, meaning more problems going nv->ati than the other way.
That's also why I always try to have the opposite vendors at home and work.
But traditionally the nvidia drivers are more forgiving / less strict to the spec, meaning more problems going nv->ati than the other way.
in a sense, i would find it good if ATi follows the spec more strictly - i would prefer that