Catalyst 4.1

Discussion in 'AMD Graphics Cards' started by CATALYST maker, Jan 19, 2004.

  1. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Yeah, I want to know to-

    If this is the case I should have just saved 300 dollars and kept my ti4200, it was plenty fast w/o antialiasing .:annoyed:

    I didn't realize that there was a change in the Catalyst drivers somewhere along the line that
    BASICALLY DISABLES ANTIALIASING in games that don't have built in antialiasing controls..

    I wondered why Jedi knight Academy kept reverting back to no antialiasing after reloading a level.. This is disturbing and I would really like to know what the last version of catalyst is that lets me decide whether or not AA is enabled in a game, not the game if it doesn't happen to have a control for it.. Maybe they don't have a control for it because they knew the graphics card driver has sliders for AA and AF controls.. or maybe not, but still, this really is BS.

    What gives?
     
  2. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    73



    Ok, here's something I found that I think kind of proves what I was thinking.


    In the update read-me to Toca RD it says this:


    http://files.filefront.com/844936
    -------------------------------------------
    Known Issues
    -------------------------------------------

    Enabling Antialiasing from the Windows display properties may cause problems when displaying at the game very high resolutions. It is recommended that the Race Driver Hardware Setup program is run [color=66ff33]after turning on antialiasing in this way.[/color]



    I'm only trying to get AA working at 1024 x 768, so whatever bug they are talking about shouldn't be affecting me in this situation.

    This is just an example of a game that needs the antialiasing to be turned on via the ATI control panel because there is NO in-game control for it, and the game needs the video card driver to force AA on.

    If all the ATI drivers won't force AA on, guess what? no antialiasing. This is going to be a problem in many games and ATI should let the user decide whether or not they want to force AA on in a game..

    I hope Omega knows about this, maybe there is a tweak somewhere that will allow for forced AA that he could implement.


    Anyway- I still want to know what the last Catalyst was that forced AA on so I can go back to that version and use it until all games come with extensive antialiasing control- (which will probably never)

    This is just unacceptable- please at least tell me what catalyst version to use.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2004
  3. easyrider

    easyrider New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think, not 100% sure, but if I remember right, from testing, 3.8's had fsaa correctly for me in madden 2004, but after that there was no fsaa, not even when forced in the cp. Might try those. I know for a fact the 3.5's do, and 3.7's are also spose to have correct fsaa, if I can call it correct, because it's obviously not correct fsaa past 3.8's, with 3.9's and above.
    I'de say try the 3.8's, if not then 3.7's I'm almost sure will work, to bad they have 32 bit opengl set to 16 bit though, or I'de use them :(. Be aware though, for me, 3.5's did not work with CoD, gave me something to the effect of, "your card does not have the right hardware to run this game" or something, then just closed, wich is why I am in the process of decideing wich driver to use. My card had to be rma'd, so I won't be able to test for another week or two, so good luck and let me know how it goes.


    Yes I sorta agree, this is getting rather untollerable, with stuff breaking it seems, in this case it's fsaa in some games, wich I can only speak for one, and 3.9, 3.10 sets, fsaa does not work in this game.
    I just don't understand how people can think it's user error, wich it's not, or hardware, wich it's not, because I have been doing this for at least 20 yrs now, slightly over, and I am in no way some low end user who doesn't know anything about pc's, plus the fact I have had a tnt1 32 meg, tnt2 32 meg, gforce 1 32 meg, gforce2 gts 64 meg, then I started with ati, and had a 64 meg vivo, 8500, and now a 9700pro aiw. That is 7 cards now I have had, and had reasonably good luck with the hardware and drivers, up till as of lately, and the last like 5 sets, wich has had something wrong with each one. I have installed, uninstalled, adjusted, etc.. all, sorts of settings, game ini's etc. I do not know all thier is to know, but I am sure not stupid to it all either.
    User error?...think what you want, but it's not user error in this case
    Hardware error?....again think what you want but it's not hardware error either
    I will agree there are alot of factors, but we are talking drivers here, not rocket science, for as many times as I have done this stuff, it's not hard at all, simple actually.
    We'll deal with a single game atm, since it's the one I can tell for sure or not fsaa is working, that game is madden 2004. I had read in forums, because I wanted to help people, and see if I too had the issues, well this was dealing with 3.9's and fsaa was not enabled, so I decided to try the 3.9's, and sure enough, madden 2004 had NO fsaa. Well I was curious so I checked to make sure fsaa was enabled in the cp, and it was. I have tried app pref AND 4xfsaa, and both game me no fsaa in madden 2004. There have been reports that the game needs a patch to make fsaa work, well this doesn't make since either, becuase if that was the case, wouldn't it not work in the driver set before? I tend to think so, yes. So we need a patch, for what exactly may I ask, because fsaa DOES work in madden 2004, because it works with 3.5's, yet we need a patch to fix what already works? I tend to think not. It's quite simple actually, numerous people have posted fsaa being not present in "some" games, (notice I did not say ALL games, just some) and in my case, since I don't have some of the other games people are reporting, all I have is madden 2004, fsaa WITH 3.9, and 3.10 is indeed broke, not working, whatever you want to call it.
    So I ask you this, how is it we need a patch, for something that obviously works, yet when upgradeing a driver set, it does not, commen deduction would tell us, the only thing that changed, was drivers, so what would you point the finger at? user error? needing a patch? this logic and reasoning still, does not make ANY since to me.
    Also the fact I see ati saying that forceing thru the cp is not a good idea, well I would ask you this then, if it is not a good idea, then why even have the option there?, also, how many games out there do you know of, that have either fsaa or aniso adjustments, or both, within the game setting? I do not know of many myself, while yes there are a few, but not many at all, so the games that do not have adjustments, what would you say to do with those games? don't use fsaa and/or aniso at all? because I know for a fact battlefield 1942 does not by default use aniso or fsaa at all, and since my card is being rma'd at the moment, I can't check, but I don't think bf:1942 has an fsaa setting either.
    This post is n no way a flame or anything else, just mainly a concern, so please don't take it as such, and look at the post as it is, a concern, and a person voiced opion.....and I hope I did not offend anyone with what I said.
     
  4. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    73
    That is my only problem really- I have a very nice 17" flat screen CRT monitor that will only push 85hz @ 1024 x 768, at 1280 x1024 it only runs at 60hz, which is headache zone for me. So I run all my games at 10x7 w/ 4xAA and 16xAF, even if I had a monitor that would run 12x10 @85hz I would still want at LEAST 2xAA. So hearing someone say that ATI drivers will no longer force antialiasng in games makes me want to go buy an Nvidia card, I'm not kidding, that's what I'm thinking now- I want to use (or force) AA, and the way I have ALWAYS done it without problems is by using the ATI Catalyst control panel. There should AT LEAST be a button or option in the control panel or something to enable 'FORCING ANTIALIASING' if the user decides to, and if they experience some kind of problems or something they can uncheck it..

    I really want to know what problems forcing AA through the drivers actually causes, (I have never experienced any) and why ATI decided to take that control away from people completely and permanently with all the latest drivers.
     
  5. easyrider

    easyrider New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well thing is, it's not avtually ALL games, only select few, wich as I said, work in earlier releases, and don't now, by earlier I mean 3.5 thru 3.8 fsaa works fine.
    I did notice CM saying
    , well if this is true, wich it may be, because I am in no way a programmer or write drivers, but how is it with 3.5's, thru 3.8's, if I force fsaa on, I have smooth lines, on arms, and such, and when I set to app preference I have no fsaa, IE: jagged edges on arms and such?? I'm not sure by what exactly you mean you all had issues, because fsaa did seem to work, and doesn't have an fsaa setting within the menu, so it couldn't be adjusted other than the ati control panel, plus the fact it was there in 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7and 3.8, so your saying you didn't see the issue until 4 revisions later? I'm kinda lost as to what you mean by this now, please can you fill me in a little more as to this issue and it working with the slider as compared to in game?


    Edit:
    BWX232, I left a PM
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2004
  6. germanjulian

    germanjulian Back in London

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i want to force aa and AF as well. if a game doesnt work i can just switch of aa and AF in the cp. so ati please let the user decide on aa anf af
     
  7. wolfran

    wolfran New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Totally agree here.
    Another question here, which may not be suitable in this thread but here, what agp aperture size is recommended by ATI if anyone knows? I've been testing with 128MB which seems to give me the highest points in benchmark but other people say that 64 MB gives smoother gameplay. I mean this could be the problem for people that are having sudden fps drop (not smooth gameplay) in games.
     
  8. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    basic rule of thumb is keep the aperture the same size as the memory on the video card. I always set mine to 256 though.
     
  9. rgreen83

    rgreen83 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So let me get this straight, is terry essentially saying that first we never recieved the promised SSAA, and now they are taking away MSAA also? If so, I must agree with BWX232 about going back to the good old TI4200 as it will play all the games I play fast enough, although without the eye candy that I guess my 9800xt cant give me either. But hey at least I can play at 400 fps! :)
     
  10. OxfordDon

    OxfordDon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well if all this is true about AA, then it is unbelievable, and I can tell ATI now that my 9800 Pro is the last graphics card I will buy from them.
     
  11. Wojtek

    Wojtek New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  12. HolyAvenger

    HolyAvenger New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AGP aperture same size as RAM ? Ugh, that would be 256 MB for me as well. Bit much with "only" 512 MB system RAM.
     
  13. easyrider

    easyrider New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well from my own experience, I have a 9700pro aiwc ard, and had mine set at 256 for awhile, wich in "most" cases, that works fine, without a problem, but in some cases, some games do not like 256....I am guessing it's older games, in this case it was, if I remember right, tom clancy's rainbow six, it slips my mind what the game is atm, but it was one around like 1998 I think it was, you could drive copters, drive vehicles, etc....and was kinda a first of it's kind sorta game.....the first level was to grab a car, that was a bug and wasn't actually on the map......ANYWAYS, this game didn't like 256, so I had to experiment and finally set it at 128, wich worked. This game, (wich I can't think of the name right now, arg, hate when that happens), was the only one I really had as issue with not likeing anything above 128. As a general rule, I've found most everything so far, likes 128, so I'de say try it at that, and see what happens. If everything works, don't bother changing it.
    I also have 1 gig of system ram, so I'm not really sure that would effect how the games handled the agp app size. I was told it was a factor, but if this was true, then that game would not have given me problems, so I think it depends more on what game yer playing as compared to what your system ram amount is, also your memory ram. I noticed zardon mentioning setting it at 256, while I'm not exactly 100% sure on what the factors are on app size, I personally have found 128 to be a good spot, and that system ram wasn't always a factor, in this case, with this game, it was not. This game was the only one I had issues wit thus far, but then again I have not set it at higher than 128 ag app size since then, but everything seems to work fine, with no slowdowns really.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2004
  14. FR4GGL3

    FR4GGL3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well dudes (i just love "finding nemo" :) )

    aperture size has always been a mystery to many people!

    for most people it is best to set it to 128MB, but there may be problems in certain games like unreal2 or aquanox2 (some hitching an stuttering, but the framerate shows no loss) then it may help to reduce the ammount of the aperture size to 64mb or even 32mb!

    there is a simple rule:

    minimum 32mb, maximum half of your RAM and double size of the memory of your grafix card, but NOT above 128MB!!!

    e.g.:
    radeon 9700 pro with 128MB memory and 512MB RAM
    set it to 128MB
    riva tnt with 32MB memory and 256MB RAM
    set it to 64MB (remember: double size grafix card memory in this case, cuz 128MB will do nothing on this setup!)

    did you dudes get it?

    oh, did forget to mention that anything above 128MB will do nothing for benchmarks, but may slow down your machine by eating up too much RAM!

    if i am wrong, pleaze correct me! :)
     
  15. easyrider

    easyrider New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I have heard like 3 different way of doing it 1: set 1/2 of your system ram 2: set half your video ram 3: set the amoutn equal to your video ram.

    From searching with google, and reading some articles, I cam across one link, that was simple enough to understand and from reading other articles, this one said:
    "64 megabytes is the default setting but you will not "free up" 32 megabytes of memory by setting the Aperture size to 32. The Aperture can be thought of as a "virtual" memory block, so it is not physically taking anything away from your system memory."
    http://www.es.com/resources/realimage/hardware_issues/bios_options.htm

    I tend to agree with this, because in alot of tests done, setting say 128, as comapred to 64, not much if any difference was achieved, for speed, and/or increase of any sort.
    I have also been told that setting half the video cards memory size is optimal, and best, because technically, more isn't always better, and as stated, sometimes it's worse in some cases.
    If we go off that info, and the statement given from that article, then technically, setting it to 128mb ap size, doesn't mean you will get a speed increase, because you upped the agp app size.
    I'de say do some testing of your own, since it can and sometimes does, depend on your system, and how it reacts to settings, so set it to 128 if you have a 256 meg card, and run some tests to see, then compare that with setting it at the same size as your id card, wich would be 256.

    Hope this helps.
     
  16. easyrider

    easyrider New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I kinda agree with that, but the system ram thing I think doesn't have much effect now with cards haveing more and more memory on them, therfor they don't need system ram as much or at all now. It was said to use 1/2 your system ram, well that would kinda be throw out the window, if I had say 2 gig of ram, now wouldn't it :), kinda shoots that theory down. Yes I saw your "not more than 128" so I dunno, I just think it depends less and less on system ram, as the cards get more and more mem.
     
  17. FR4GGL3

    FR4GGL3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well, i think i doesn't do anything on todays video cards, nearly no matter if you set 32, 64 or 128MB, cuz they are fast enough and have enough memory "on board" - i always use 32mb, cuz i realized some problems (hitching) in unreal2 on 128mb. (sry should read other postings before posting :D )

    but i really realize a speed decrease by setting it to 256mb!

    so i recommend anything between 32 - 128mb, as you said: test it and find your own "sweet spot"
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2004
  18. easyrider

    easyrider New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2002
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just to be the devils advocate so ta speak, lets do a hypothetical test here:
    Say we have a 64 meg vid card, and only 64 megs of ram. Yes I know 64 megs of system ram is small, but we're testing a theory here :).
    Ok so we have 64 megs of ram, so you said use maximum half of your system ram, so that's 32 mb of system ram, and doule size of your vid card, wich wouldbe 64*2=128, so that'd be 128+32=160 agp app size, so that would be basically 128, since you said not more than 128.

    Well this kinda doesn't make any since really, it would make more since to use 1/2 your video cards ram size, especially in the case of 128 meg or 256 meg video cards, wouldn't it?

    Not saying your theory is wrong, just putting it into a larger picture, so ta speak, showing how it would make more since ta use 1/2 the card ram, rather than use system ram, as a base of measurement.

    I to could be wrong though :).
     
  19. FR4GGL3

    FR4GGL3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    errrm...NO!

    i see, i have to point out my view a little bit clearer!

    if you would have such a crappy system :) then you have to choose on which part you have to go out and say YES

    take it like coding a programme:

    if
    video mem x2 <= RAM/2 AND <= 128
    then
    set aperture size to video mem x2
    elif
    video mem x2 > RAM/2 AND <=128
    then
    set aperture size to RAM/2
    elif
    video mem x2 >128 AND RAM/2>=128
    then
    set aperture size to 128
    else
    call 0800 HELPME :)

    i don't know if this programm would run (i'm a poor coder)
    but
    what i wanted to say is, that the most important issue is, that you should not go OVER 128mb!
    then, you have to choose:
    a) max half of your RAM (IF half of your RAM is less then double of video cards mem, choose this one)
    b) double of your video cards mem (IF double of your video cards mem isn't more than half of your RAM)

    so, YOU should choose 32MB (half of RAM) in your example!

    does it now make more sense?


    I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR MY VERY POOR "CODING TRY" PLEASE DON'T DAMN ME FOR THIS R*BBISH!

    :D
     
  20. DosCervezas

    DosCervezas New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There so many theories about AGP aperture size that one can get really confused after reading all of them. My theory is this: Try 32, 64, 128 and 256 and see which one gives you the smoothest performance on a wide range of games and apps. Use the one that works best. Personally my MOBO detects the Video Card and sets AGP to what it thinks is right. With my 8500 128mb AGP was set to 128. With my 9800XT the AGP is still set to 128 and I left it there. I did try 256, but got some hitches. So, try different aperture sizes and see what is right for your system :)

    There is no Magic number!!
     

Share This Page

visited