Just trying to get a feel from people who've upgraded to ATI's new Catalyst 3.7 drivers with a 9700 or 9800- do you see any meaningful performance boost in FPS? I'm still running the 3.2's with my 9700 Pro (haven't really seen a need to upgrade I guess), but a boost in performance and/or image quality would be reason to make the change.Thanks for any info,Joel

Joel,No performance boost at all going from 3.6-based Omega driver (2.4.74a) to Catalyst 3.7. If any difference at all, I got the impression the image with the new driver was slightly worse than with the Omega driver. FYI, I have Radeon 9800Pro 128 Mb. I am back to the Omega driver.Best regards,Henrihttp://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

I can't say I have been able to notice any difference between the version 3.6 Cats and version 3.7, regardless of whether we're talking about image quality, frame rates or anything else. Then again, I have only had my Radeon for a few days, so maybe my senses are not yet sufficiently honed to be able to notice any minute differences. BTW, I'm writing this while en route from EDDF to Budapest as Lufthansa Flight 423, piloting the PA A320 in Lufty colours :-hah .

I have a huge performance boost in FS2K2. I am running 16001200x32, 4xAA and 8xAF. With the DF C310 flying over Georender 5 I cannot get the fps below the 25 mark whatever crazy action I might do. Yahoo. Cannot say a lot about FS9 as I am harly using it.Alex

I've tried Cat 3.2, The 2.74a Omegas (Cat 3.6) and ATI's Catalyst 3.6 with virtually the same results, and Cat 3.7 are no different.The biggest performance problem for me is the Autogen bug in FS2004. I emailed MS about it yet again today so I hope they fix that. Sure you can disable additional autogen, but the rural autogen enhancements really help at..well rural airstrips.

No boost here. Flickering marginally improved. Almost always hangs when changing window sizes or sometimes when changing from window to full screen. If the 3.8's don't fix this hassle it will be good-bye ATI. :-mad 9700pro/[email protected]/1GbPC2100/ASUSP4PE/XPPro.RegardsHoward

Got radeon 7200. Downloaded drivers and am getting great results. See my post "Marked Improvement".

Still no haze with my 9200 card, just the same "white wall" defining the vis limit. Frame rates might be better tho...Still disappointed...Dave

I have a HUGE performance boost! I installed the Catalyst 3.7 drivers after using the latest omega drivers and My FPS have almost doubled!! In areas where I was getting and average of 12-18 I now get 26-35 FPS!! I have locked FPS at 30 and it almost always displays a contant 30 FPS and I have not changed a thing as far as settings. Rarely does a situation, or highly demanding location cause my FPS to drop below 20. However, there DOES seem to be SLIGHTLY lower image quality, but for the amount of increased perfmormance, it is not a big deal. By the way I am using an ATI 9800 Pro 128MB.

Big boost here. I fly around oceans quite a bit. I would usually have the detail and effects on water turned off and would stay at my target speed of 25 fps. Now I have details and effects on and have moved my target up to 30 and it stays there. Also, very smooth.My Specs:AMD Athlon 2700+Eppox 8RDA+ mobo512meg PC3200 dual channel memATI Radeon 9700 ProSB Audigy GamerWinXP Pro

I saw no appreciable difference in FS9 with these drivers but on my Testing rig I saw a bump in 3DMark2001SE from 19,126 to 19,264 and 3DMark03 went from 5986 to 6458. Not bad at all for a [email protected] 512 megs RDRAM and a 9700Pro at 405/371. As I run 1600x1200x32 w 4XAA and 16X AF I see no more menu flickering. Framelock set to 30.Bobby

19,126 to 19,264 in 3dMark2001 is nothing, but 5986 to 6458 certainly is a big leap. There were some DX9 improvements in 3.7 so that might account for your large boost in 3d2003.

Panz,Your right the jump in 2001SE was nothing really and I expected it to be as the drivers are optimized for DX9 as you say. I will take the almost 7 percent jump in Mark03 though. That was nice to see...I'm still trying to decide if I like them image quality wise or not. Need to spend a few more hours with them.Bobby

I tried 3.7s and found a slight but significant degradation in perf over the 3.6s, mostly in the form of slower texture updates and my fps counter, which normally stays almost always locked on 22 began sporadic drops to 10 or 11 then right back to 22. Don't ever have that with 3.6s.Cheers,Noel

6000 to 6500 3DMarks is only a couple of FPS. It's also possible that FPS only increased in ONE of the tests because of specific optimizations in the drivers, increasing the overall score. Also, how many actually play 3DMark? It's not a real game, so it means nothing. What matters is performance in real apps and games.