Sign in to follow this  
Cruachan

Catalyst 3.7 Drivers- Performance Boost?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/Intel3.06@3.02/1GbPC2100/ASUSP4PE/XPPro.RegardsHoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 3.06@3.45 512 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, My 3DMark 2003 score fell slightly from 5311 with the 3.5 cats to 5277 with the 3.7 Don't see any difference in FS2004 although I did wonder whether the sky appeared a more intense blue - probably just the time of day selected before flying.Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmie,Actually you need a little more than a couple of frames per second increase to raise your score 500. Especially when you consider how many rigs can actually attain those kinds of numbers. That's not a brag just a factual statement. Actually there was an increase in every test.Test 1 was up 6.8 FPSTest 2 was up 5.1 FPSTest 3 was up 5.4 FPSTest 4 was up 4.8 FPSCPUMarks were up 8.6CPUTest 1 was up 4.6 FPSCPUTest 2 was up 4.2 FPSSingle texture fill rate was up 84 Texels/secMultitexture fill rate was up 227 Texels/secVertex shader up 4.8 FPSPixel shader 2.0 up a nice 9.5 FPSRagtroll test up 4.9 FPSSo as you can see it takes more than just a few FPS increase or an increase in just one test to raise the score that much. I'm sorry to hear how you feel that it's not important to point out the results of any 3DMark tests because in your words "It's not a real game". Your right it's not. It's a tool to benchmark performance based on hardware config, drivers and Bios that will result in the best performance overall for a system. Your right the performance in the real world is what counts. But I can gaurantee you if your performance in any of these benchmarks is bad, your performance in your games is going to be bad. One can draw an almost direct comparison to the performance of a race car. If we follow your logic than if I only gain a few horsepower it means nothing. And we can't use the results of Dyno runs to judge performance on becuase that doesn't show how the car will perform in the real world. To a point your correct. But I will tell you that if a part costs horsepower on the dyno run it will never make it to the track.I posted the numbers from a benchmark program becuase that is something that can be compared evenly across the board removing as many variables as possible. Perhaps someone will create a benchmark based on FS9. You probably wont see it though due to the tremendous variables involved.They were posted for info purposes only. I noticed no visual quality degradation and no loss in performance. This may not hold for everyone.Why not take all the passion you showed in trying to prove an autogen bug existed in FS9 and create a repeatable benchmark scenario that can be used to judge performance from within a "REAL" game. This would allow everyone to base there performance on something.I just feel bad for all the magazines and testing centers that use the same benchmark (Either version of 3DMark) to verify performance increases or decreases instead of a real game.Like I said I understand your point to a degree, you just need to give more creedance to the use and usefullness of these type of benchmarks that's all.Have a good nightBobbyP.S. just some more numbers...Both UnrealTourn.2003 benchmarks I ran showed an improvement. 17 FPS in one and 16.4 in the other. A real world performance increase in a real game.I included this picture just to show there is no issue at least on my machine w image quality compared to the 3.6's. Actually, after running the sim for a few hours now I actually think the 3.7's look better visually.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/35472.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I agree, My 3DMark 2003 score fell slightly from 5311 with>the 3.5 cats to 5277 with the 3.7 Don't see any difference in>FS2004 although I did wonder whether the sky appeared a more>intense blue - probably just the time of day selected before>flying.>>MikeMike,Try rerunning the benchmark after doing a fresh defrag. The point difference you saw is a wash as it's less than 50 points. You could gain 50 points w just a defrag. Also, your machine was probably not in the same state it was when you first ran the benchmark also.Just some info.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this