Game developer blasts ATI's drivers

[Lucid]

Includes opinions on nVidia, Matrox and Hercules as well..

http://www.3000ad.com/soapbox/index.shtml

[Guru]

Re: Game developer blasts ATI's drivers

Originally posted by Lucid
Includes opinions on nVidia, Matrox and Hercules as well..


http://www.3000ad.com/soapbox/index.shtml

Wow wonder how much NVidia payed this guy?

[Greebe]

He must obviously use a 15" monitor and not do shit but play with himself (gamer only).

[rugger]

He is largely right

Apart from the Kyro boards (which I believe have a great present and future), He appears to be pretty spot on in his anaylisis of the gaming card industry, confirming my beliefs:

ATI drivers still suck (the Radeon 8500 should rip nvidia a new one, but it just doesn't, presumably due to crappy drivers)

Nvidia doesn't get it right all the time, but they do give reasonable support (I have sent bug reports to nvidia, and have got a personal response)

Matrox doesn't seem to piss off its customers too much, but really, really need to release something new (something that isn't based on the G400 core)

[Indiana]

Re: He is largely right

Originally posted by rugger

ATI drivers still suck (the Radeon 8500 should rip nvidia a new one, but it just doesn't, presumably due to crappy drivers)

You're partially correct. There is no real explanation on how the Gefroce3Ti can be faster than the Radeon8500 except for better drivers on NVidias side (I'd more put the emphasize on good driver by NVidia than calling the ATI ones bad).

But I think ATIs drivers lack mostly in performance, stability-wise I didn't have major problems with my Radeon in Win2k up to now - and I definitely can live with the speed of the "old" Radeon even with ATIs "slow" drivers (especially if I think of the performance I'd get with a G550.... ).
I'll take the Radeon8500 over the NVidia with it's currently lower speed anytime even if it cost the same as the Geforce - because ATI has a so much better 2D-quality (with my Iiyama even the 2048x1536 is usable, while with the NVidia cards that I've seen up to now, even 1600x1200 seems to be nearly unusably blurry) and, of course, because of ATIs DualHead Clone and the MUCH better multimedia features.

Now, the Radeon costs much less than the Geforce, so at least I am sure what to choose. (If Bitboys don't suddenly pull a rabbit out of the head, of course).

EDIT: I agree, though that ATIs latest Q3-cheating driver-trick is a major turnoff. NVidia tactics, anyone? (NVidia is releasing drivers that are faster in Q-I/II/III and 3DMark99/Max/2000/2001/ ..., but slower in everything else since the first Detonators and seem to live quite well with this BS...)

[rugger]

Indiana,

Looking at the Anandtech review for the radeon 8500, ATI seems to be slowly getting thier drivers in shape. There doesnt seem to be a huge performace delta between win9x drivers and win 2000/XP drivers anymore (which is good). However, all of the drivers are still far too slow given the specifications of the hardware they are driving. Plus all this mess with the quake3 only optimizations (that throw away image quality) ATI still seems to have a fair way to go with thier drivers (and development mentality)

Maybe ATI will get their drivers right one day, but it will probably require a change of attitude on ATI's part.

BTW, comparing the G550 with any ATI radeon simply isn't a fair comparison. The matrox G550 is such a crappy card, my geforce DDR likely kicks its butt.

As for 2d image quality, it isn't as important for me at the moment since my monitor is a crappy Diamond VIew 17inch (highest res I use is 1152x864, where I can't tell the difference between my geforce ddr and the matrox G400)

And the kyro, I probably will not get it for the moment because:

1) There is no real linux support for it.
2) I am addicted to Matrox, Nvidia TNT+ 2d graphics performace (bloody fast, at whatever resolution I want)

[Greebe]

I suppose it doesn't need to be said... BUT I WILL ANYWAY

BTW, comparing the G550 with any ATI radeon simply isn't a fair comparison. The matrox G550 is such a crappy card, my geforce DDR likely kicks its butt.

It's not fair to compare ANY Gf*ck card to Matrox cause their 2D simply SUCKS OUT THE ARSE!

If you have a tiny monitor, run low res and/or only play games then I suppose you're fine in stating that.

Let alone that comment actually making sense.

[Indiana]

Yes, the ATI drivers are too slow, still the speed they achieve is enough for me. I do not need more than "enough" speed just to brag with it. I'll rather have DualHead and good 2D than NVidias faster drivers - it's simply the choice: are you willing to sacrifice some fps (that noone really needs with speeds in excess of 150fps, btw) for an IMO overall better balanced card. And this "better balanced" card even is quite a bit cheaper.

I only brought the G550 in the game because to those that care about 2D ATI and Matrox seem to be the only valid options. When you care about 2D AND 3D, well:
Kyro has fair 3D speed but sucks at 2D speed, and the cards I've seen have low display quality. NVidia has decent speed in 2D and 3D but are blurry 2D, so they're both out.
Matrox has fair 2D speed and great 2D-quality but 3D performance simply is pathetic so they're out, too - at least for me at this point in time.

[rugger]

Didn't I say that greebe

sigh,

I know the geforce cards do not handle high resolution 2d particularly well, but they do seem to be getting better with each new release.

Also, I don't understand why people contually refer to products using slang terms (eg Windows == winblows, ect). It shows an degree of childishness and an unwillingness to allow a product to stand for its own merits and weaknesses.

(i mentioned my crappy 17inch screen, where it doesn't make any difference, so don't pick on me, because I havn't said that you should buy a geforce or anything)

[rugger]

It sucks to care about both 2d and 3d

It seems nobody has their game together if you need both high quality, fast and clear 2d and high quality, fast and clean 3d.

The reason I am wary of ATI is not so much the bad drivers (which can be fixed), but the support atittude that lead to such bad drivers. The most important aspect of any computer component purchase in my opinion is the after sales support, so until ATI convinces me that they have their drivers sorted, I simply cannot trust them in any my machines.

[Greebe]

Calling it winblows isn't per se childish, it's calling it a horse a horse... ie by it's weaknesses

And this is brought on by Bill Gates himself... when an egocentric arse like him makes a comment like (refering to Win9x) Well what do you expect for a $90 OS?!
(Gee Bill you can't even get that right... that only refers to the UPGRADE you freakin moron!)

If He can't except critism for the blunders, then why should we cut him some slack?!