A quick doom3 comparison with my X850XT...
8.40.4, demo1, 45.7
8.41.7, demo1, 55.6
I'll try with my X1300 next.
The driver does seem to install and run fine here.
Adam
I've done some benchmarks now, and it doesn't look good.
Here are the results:
8.40:
doom 3 = 35.7 fps (timedemo demo1 usecache)
nexuiz = (min/avg/max) 5/17/44 fps (-benchmark demos/demo1)
8.41:
doom 3 = 41.7 fps
nexuiz = 8/28/50
Quake 4 still runs in Ultra-Crappy mode, despite any settings that I choose, so a benchmark for it is pointless.
Every benchmark was ran twice, with maximum visual quality except for AA and vsync (ex: Ultra Quality in doom3) at 1280x1024. Nexuiz was ran without VBOs or Offset mapping, in order for it to work on 8.40.
The two games really are more playable when a lot of action is happening on screen, but the performance improvement is really not impressing. I wanted to do some more testing, but, after these two benchmarks, I'm really not going to put any more effort in proving that 8.41 is gold.
I hope x1k and HD users got a lot more from this new code base. I'll just go back to 8.40 (in order to play x2) and wait for the next release...
EDIT: at some point I got the screen "corruption" that a few people were talking about, but a quick switch to tty1 and back fixed it
Last edited by Xipeos; 09-12-2007 at 01:43 PM.
A quick doom3 comparison with my X850XT...
8.40.4, demo1, 45.7
8.41.7, demo1, 55.6
I'll try with my X1300 next.
The driver does seem to install and run fine here.
Adam
Add the 20 months since this bug was introduced (and reported by me and others). It appeared between 8.21 and 8.22. Shouldn't be so hard for them to figure out what was changed at this time, should it?
I don't know and I don't care. What I do know is, that within open source projects of similar complexity, an email to one of the developers is usually enough to get bugs like this fixed within days, if not hours. By people who don't get any money for their work.
Again, Michael is not to blame here, nor is AMD, for that matter. If you look the at the page, with the official release, they pretty much state there what is the situation, and from the looks of it, they do not lie there. Sure, we (and I include myself here, even though I don't use ATI ATM) got our hopes high, but you gotta stay somewhat skeptic, or at least try and understand that a driver release is no panacea
Sure they are! I understand your frustration, maybe better than what you think I do (I was really pissed when ATI brought the development from Germany to Canada to further the development of the driver when they had made some really nice advancements in Germany, only to feel that they were starting from 0 again).
On the one hand you have what was actually written, and on the other you have what you make out of that information, interpretation. Again, I don't mean to defend Michael, some times I read his articles a little bit too optimistic, but I know that maybe it is me who is interpreting the writing in an optimistic way![]()
Sadly there's not much I can say about that. I felt pretty much the same back in 2003 about a GeForce2 beating the crap out of my R9500 in Linux. I tried to stay positive, but the only thing I could do was to actually move away, and not complain, as it isn't ATI's obligation to support us, when they've got a much bigger Windows market. Time and time again, Matthew Tippet said that support for Linux was geared towards the Workstation market segment, pretty much consumer support was an added "by product". This release seems to mark a shift in focus towards consumer products... I certainly hope it is.
And you have every right to complain... and air out the frustration. I must confess, I'm really interested in these developments, not only for the new code in the drivers and support for the newer generation of cards, but also for the release of the specs. Company policies are not easily changed, and AMD has I'm sure, battled internally quite a bit to get to this point.
Michael, IIRC you published an article a while back about what it takes from ATI-AMD to get to a fglrx release, I don't seem to be able to find it anymore (I suck at teh search), actually that article made understand a few things about the drivers and actually stop having too high hopes for each release.
If you try gl2benchmark, you can best see that 8.41 has OpenGL bugs that need to be fixed. Please compare the performance with 8.42 before you make conclusions.
Well, it doesn't work for me. I'm running in Ubuntu Feisty a X1650 Pro and my X won't start.
I have to say, after reading all the glowing reviews on this site and all the talk of performance increases, I'm really not impressed.
I think next time, I am going to go somewhere else for my reviews on ATI releases, as this site obviously has some "fan-boy" issues. And instead of just saying "Okay, maybe we hyped this up a little too much," we get a lot of excuses and complaints about people complaining.
This driver doesn't work for the majority of people, it seems. The impression most people seemed to have gotten from this site's hype is that it would. There is no way to sugar coat that.
Perhaps next time, less hype and more facts.
Except that, unless you've polled everyone who's installed 8.41, you can't honestly say that it doesn't work for the majority of people. Based on the complaints here, you may get that impression, but most people don't pop on-line to say something works... They pop on-line to bitch and moan when something doesn't work.
Adam
I uploaded video about high performance train from ATI to YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2XnuTTV23M