Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Vega on August 24, 2012, 10:25:56 pm
-
Screw you. Screw you and your ****ty drivers. I'm tired of worrying whether a new game that should play fluidly at high settings will put up horrible fps just because your ****ty cards and ****ty drivers go crazy facing certain types of lighting and smoke. After all these years, screw you. I'm defecting to nVidia for good. Screw you.
-
intel+nvidia <3
-
I've never had a hint of bad luck with catalyst on windows. Sure you're installing everything properly?
-
It's something I've have experienced from many ATI/AMD cards up to the 4000 series (read an earlier thread I made ranting about my history with ATI cards, although the particular issue that sent me over the edge turned out to be my fault entirely). And believe me, I learned how to do a proper ocd (re)installation a very long time ago, driver cleaner and everything. It's not that, I assure you. And the high end 5000 cards have acquired a rather infamous reputation for glitches as well. So unless someone tells me they made a great leap forward with the Northern Islands cards, I'm fed up with them.
I really don't care at this point whether or not I'm being fair to ATI, or whether the problems stem from devs using nVidia cards for development. I just want to be able to buy a card and not have to worry about it for a while. I would have gotten a 6870 for my new computer. I'm getting a 560 Ti instead. I just want a card that won't drive me crazy.
-
Cut to 2 years later when you're making the same complaints about Nvidia. :p
-
intel+nvidia <3
AMD+nVidia here
Intel is the devil
-
the devil <3
-
Cut to 2 years later when you're making the same complaints about Nvidia. :p
Oh, don't worry. After the rant I started looking at the 7850 benchmarks and the prices compared to the 560 and slipped back into abused spouse mode trying to talk myself back into them. It's just that my friends all use nVidia and I've never heard much of a gripe from them ever. I got to try out a machine with a budget nVidia card today and it humiliated my comp on all the games I get hung up on. It's just....grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
-
i once had an NVIDIA card. Geforce MX 440. my GOD what a piece of ****. back in that day at least, i found it was nvidia drivers that were well and truly ****. ever since then, i've had an ATI/AMD. i had brief driver issues when i was still on AGP when they dropped support in new drivers, and just today when the power play levels weren't working right after installing the newest. that is partly my fault for interfering a bit with a modified BIOS and using MSI Afterburner, and nevertheless was solved by re-installing after, as you say, an OCD driver sweeper purge of the old ones (which i didn't do the first time. i normally do, but i was feeling lucky.) that said, i don't consider myself a fanboy, and i am on the whole disappointed with anti-aliasing on AMD chips. it's never easy to get it to work, and often i can't at all. the "override application settings" rarely works, i'm not sure what "enhance application settings" is even supposed to be doing, and it seems to be down to the particular game whether the in-game settings will play nice with AMD. which, more often than not is no, since it seems 90% of the games i play have the NVIDIA logo slapped in the intro movies. i still haven't ever been able to get AA working in FSO.
my next purchase is likely to be an nvidia 670, solely because they finally took the price/performance title from AMD. unless i haven't committed until a new gen comes out, in which case i'll have to see how the chips fall. if i do make the switch, i'll be looking forward to hopefully having the brand that plays nicer with games, but i will sorely miss how familiar i've become with radeons and how to tweak and overclock them well. i'll have a lot of re-learning to do.
-
This is one of those things where you'll find an endless amount of people on either side, saying they've never had any problem with X but were constantly being screwed over by Y.
I've always been an Nvidia person. Some years back, a friend of mine upgraded his GPU to a (then) ATi card, and we had an absolutely endless headache trying to get ATi's software to stop wrecking itself and the system, Catalyst Control Center especially. Circumstances before that ended up with me never having used an ATi card, but after that, I made sure to actively avoid them.
A couple of months ago, building my new PC, I was on a pretty strict budget. I had the choice between a 550ti and an HD 6850. I got the latter because it stomps all over the 550ti in benchmarks. From what I've heard, since AMD bought ATi a while back, their software has been steadily improving, and Nvidia has had some problems, to where they're basically split down the middle. I've had zero problems with my own 6850 and it handles a ~15% overclock like a champ.
Gotta say though, the 660ti looks damn sexy.
-
Had both NVidia nad ATI card. Currently I have ATI.
Never had any problems with either.
-
I prefer NVidia. I've had an ATI card (granted, it wasn't new, but it wasn't too bad either), and it had continuous problems with OpenGL support. Most games ran normally (though not on the highest settings, but that could be expected), but FSO sometimes glitched.
-
Had problems with both, probably more with nV but I had a lot of nV cards that were budget and their budget line is terrible.
Realistically, you should just buy the best card at the time. :P
ATI's drivers have really come on, it's not often a big new release will struggle on an ATI card any more unless you're running crossfire... that's a whole different kettle of fish..
-
yea i would assume budget line cards would have many more issues than something a little higher end, regardless of who makes it. they are definitely going to put the resources where the money is. its been a very long time since i spent less than a couple hundred bucks on a video card. im sure if i bought a higher end ati card id have a similar experience as i do with nvidia. honestly the only experience ive had with ati products are laptop video chipsets, which tend to be wonky regardless of who makes em.
-
ATI tend to do a little better when it comes to budget cards, they're somewhat higher quality than the nV budget ones, but when you move on to the higher quality cards both manufacturers are of a quality you would expect :P
-
Screw you. Screw you and your ****ty drivers. I'm tired of worrying whether a new game that should play fluidly at high settings will put up horrible fps just because your ****ty cards and ****ty drivers go crazy facing certain types of lighting and smoke. After all these years, screw you. I'm defecting to nVidia for good. Screw you.
Could you elaborate? I have a HD4890 and haven't seen any problem at 1920x1200 unless it's one of those games that force you to reduce the settings regardless of what card you have (e.g. Metro 2033).
-
I've used both. Catalyst Control Center is ****ing awful compared to the nVidia panel, which is why I tend to prefer nVidia products for the moment, but ATI is a lot cheaper in general...
-
I had tons of trouble with catalyst 12.3/4's. 1.26 have been ok so far
-
I've had, and have extensively used both nvidia and ati cards. Overall, I have to say I prefer nvidia - I simply had less issues while things were running. However, I do have to say my ATI cards had a better track record where longevity is concerned; I'd replace my ATI cards when they were really, truly obsolete but they still worked. I had 3 nvidia cards cook their video memory modules (but all 3 were kind of old at that point anyway). The current nvidia card I have has a pretty elaborate cooling system installed over the whole card - the thing is just encased in piping and fans - so I'm hoping this one won't die on me in that fashion. Sure, they last for at least 3 years, but it's nicer when you get to decide when to replace a card as opposed to the card itself.
...that all being said, I still do prefer nvidia's cards - when they're not fried they just give me less grief in both gaming and work. I seem to recall catalyst drivers doing some funky stuff while working in max.. nothing major, but annoying.
-
Personally use ATI myself. The reason simply being that I find that to get a similarly spec'd nVidia card, they cost far more than the ATIs.
-
My experience with ATI is the following: Usually it works and you never really have to bother (or should bother) to update drivers as long as it works. Then it suddenly doesn t work for a game... hilarity ensues.
My experience with Nvidia is the same.
Both companies have driver issues regularily and installing the newest driver always appears to be a bad idea, to the point that issues are pretty much guarranteed with either company if you update every month :)
On the other hand... once you have found the "right" driver you are often fine for months.... again, with either company.
-
Been using the new cats every time they come out for ATi every month since the 5870 came out, had one problem thus far and that was for FSO and was resolved the month after.
-
i mostly use nvidia because its the evil i know. id like to see a video card with more open architecture, but thats not going to happen any time soon, at least till faster/better fpgas come around.
-
just ordered a GTX 670. will report back results.
-
initial impressions: nvidia drivers have many more options, and i ether got lucky and hit the winning combo on the second try, or they stick better than AMD. that said, graphics drivers and the individual games don't play together any better than with AMD so far, but forcing it through the control panel works. CCC beats the hell out of nvidia's control panel though. much more user friendly, and a lot better design/features, like overdrive, monitoring, fan control, etc. displays management much better too. i still haven't been able to get my HDMI connected TV to work. that's a HUGE negative, as i watch movies and tv and stuff from my computer ALL the time. it's also my dvd/blu-ray player.
very pleased with the performance. i saw a jump well past what i was expecting from just one generation difference, and not even going to the top-end with the new one. as of now, i'm giving the drivers fight to AMD, because CCC is just THAT much better than the incredibly basic nvidia control panel. working (and easy to use) multi-display is far more important to me than anti-aliasing working all the time.
-
initial impressions: nvidia drivers have many more options, and i ether got lucky and hit the winning combo on the second try, or they stick better than AMD. that said, graphics drivers and the individual games don't play together any better than with AMD so far, but forcing it through the control panel works. CCC beats the hell out of nvidia's control panel though. much more user friendly, and a lot better design/features, like overdrive, monitoring, fan control, etc. displays management much better too. i still haven't been able to get my HDMI connected TV to work. that's a HUGE negative, as i watch movies and tv and stuff from my computer ALL the time. it's also my dvd/blu-ray player.
very pleased with the performance. i saw a jump well past what i was expecting from just one generation difference, and not even going to the top-end with the new one. as of now, i'm giving the drivers fight to AMD, because CCC is just THAT much better than the incredibly basic nvidia control panel. working (and easy to use) multi-display is far more important to me than anti-aliasing working all the time.
I'd be inclined to agree with you that Nvidia's control panel sucks. Driver-level overclocking would be a really nice option to have for Nvidia cards from the control panel. But the Nvidia card manufacturers like the status quo too much for that. They like to "factory" overclock the cards and charge a nice, fat premium for it. Not that that's fundamentally wrong, I guess - letting the end user screw around with things opens up all kinds of avenues of stupid.
I hate that Nvidia's proprietary postprocess AA is better than ATI's, but that's just REALLY nitpicking. Also, I envy your 670.
-
even if there's not built-in overclocking, there still needs to be at least basic monitoring IMO. when i got this, the first thing i wanted to do is verify it was running the right clock speeds, power stepping was working right, temps are ok, etc. i needed a 3rd party app for that. granted, it was one i was going to use anyway, but i really shouldn't have to do it that way if i don't want extra programs interfering with my video drivers, because honestly that's a crapshoot. it can cause MAJOR headaches.
one other thing i want to kind of vent on, though it's hardware related not drivers, is WHY have manufacturers not figured out yet to not place the ports where they will be nearly blocked by the edge of the expansion slot cutout on the case? the ends of cables are wider than the actual plug. always. this is not new. there needs to be some clearance around the port. the past 3 video cards i've owned had this problem. it's remotely possible that TV problems are a result of this, because i don't think the HDMI cable is going in all the way. although it is sometimes detected by the control panel, just not selectable, and it did make the new hardware sound when plugging it in.
-
I forget how I got HDMI working on my other laptop, but have you tried extending your desktop onto it? I can't remember, but that may have been how I got it to actually fire up and display on the TV at my grandparents' house when we were visiting.
-
Never, ever had problems with Catalyst drivers. I've played everything from legacy DOS games to Crysis and Battlefield on release dates. No issues.
Well, other than the age-old issue of ATI having texture issues with older games. But I'm thankful said applications even run in the first place on modern hardware.
-
initial impressions: nvidia drivers have many more options, and i ether got lucky and hit the winning combo on the second try, or they stick better than AMD. that said, graphics drivers and the individual games don't play together any better than with AMD so far, but forcing it through the control panel works. CCC beats the hell out of nvidia's control panel though. much more user friendly, and a lot better design/features, like overdrive, monitoring, fan control, etc. displays management much better too. i still haven't been able to get my HDMI connected TV to work. that's a HUGE negative, as i watch movies and tv and stuff from my computer ALL the time. it's also my dvd/blu-ray player.
very pleased with the performance. i saw a jump well past what i was expecting from just one generation difference, and not even going to the top-end with the new one. as of now, i'm giving the drivers fight to AMD, because CCC is just THAT much better than the incredibly basic nvidia control panel. working (and easy to use) multi-display is far more important to me than anti-aliasing working all the time.
I'd be inclined to agree with you that Nvidia's control panel sucks. Driver-level overclocking would be a really nice option to have for Nvidia cards from the control panel. But the Nvidia card manufacturers like the status quo too much for that. They like to "factory" overclock the cards and charge a nice, fat premium for it. Not that that's fundamentally wrong, I guess - letting the end user screw around with things opens up all kinds of avenues of stupid.
I hate that Nvidia's proprietary postprocess AA is better than ATI's, but that's just REALLY nitpicking. Also, I envy your 670.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/isthiswhatyouweretalkingaboutbro.png)
-
yea they did that to keep noobs from bbqing their geforces. you can tweak your clocks, but you need a second download to make it happen.
-
that section is not in my nvidia control panel. nor is the system update one. and the problem with the HDMI TV is that it's either not detected at all, or not detected properly, and is just a "generic display" that can't be adjusted or displayed to with the control panel. time to contact support methinks. :shaking:
-
theres a utility from nvidia you need to download to get it. its name slips my mind.
-
I downloaded that back when I had my old 9800 GTX+, but I don't remember it actually doing anything, because the manufacturer locked the card.
-
could be either coolbits or nvtweak
-
i thought coolbits/nvtweak was 3rd party. i was under the impression that nvidia had its own version.
-
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-system-tools-6.08-driver.html
Doesn't look like they're updating it anymore. Shouldn't be an issue for most, though.
-
it seems that in order to get my TV to work properly, i must start up my computer with the TV already on and set to the PC input.
wut. :wtf:
-
tvs make horrible monitors. i hope you like latency.
-
i use it for movies, tv and stuff. my PC serves as my dvd/blu-ray player and home theater.
-
tvs make horrible monitors. i hope you like latency.
Still? :wtf: I'd like to think that would be fixed by now...
-
there's all kinds of processing and decoding it has to pass through. i've just been researching for maybe buying a new TV, and one of the articles i read said the signal can be converted as many as 7 times. granted that was including cable boxes, but some of that is definitely being done by the TV. it's only going to get worse as more encoding is put on TV signals to "protect" the content. remember when you could screw a coax cable in the back of your tube and get basic cable? or TV tuners in computers worked?
-
well there is encryption going on. theres also a lot of filtering and resolution conversion, supersampling, interframe interpolation (for 120 hz tvs) etc. its better to buy screens that support a native hdtv resolutions so that at least some of those steps can be averted. tvs dont really care about latency because your seldom doing any thing performance critical. so what if your tv show is delayed by a few ms. its not really a big deal for current gen game consoles either, as most of those demand a lot less performance out of the screen. a computer wants to send an entire frame buffer right the **** now and it gets buffered up the wazoo and can even skip frames on you. also with a lot of the hdmi/dvi/vga ports on those tvs, its impossible to output to its native screen resolution with a computer. you usually sub/super sample from the nearest common resolution.
of course its been a year or two since i tried using a tv, it may be better now. i hope john carmack can have his way with tv manufacturers to get the signal latency in monitors way down.
-
I have a 60" plasma TV that I occasionally hook up to my computer. It looks fine. A few milliseconds isn't going to make or break you unless you're playing at a tournament or something. Games on a 60" TV look pretty awesome.
I might use a smaller TV as a monitor, but it would have to be a REALLY nice TV; good contrast ratio, response time, etc etc.
-
TVs generally suck as PC monitors for the simple reason that their pixel per inch ratio is incredibly low, resulting in an overall lower resolution.
-
TVs generally suck as PC monitors for the simple reason that their pixel per inch ratio is incredibly low, resulting in an overall lower resolution.
Assuming you sit as close to the tv as you would a conventional computer monitor, yes, but I'd imagine that's the entire reason you'd use a tv instead of a monitor: so you could sit on the couch on the other side of the room and still see things.
-
i had to use my 32" LCD HDTV as a monitor for a while when i moved, before my real monitor arrived. it really wasn't that bad, but definitely slightly inferior. it was kindof fuzzy at ANY resolution, even it's native. like it really WASN'T native 1080p. i didn't do much (any?) gaming while i was using it, so i didn't really notice the lag. since then i've occasionally put it on clone with my normal monitor, and there you can DEFINITELY see the lag.
-
i had to use my 32" LCD HDTV as a monitor for a while when i moved, before my real monitor arrived. it really wasn't that bad, but definitely slightly inferior. it was kindof fuzzy at ANY resolution, even it's native. like it really WASN'T native 1080p.
Sounds like your TV's overscan was turned on. Overscan is when the electron beam of a CRT screen passes outside the viewable area of the screen and all CRTs had different amounts. Broadcasters know about this and generally don't bother to clean up this area (for SD transmissions at least). Now flat panel TVs don't build up the image like CRTs do so there is always a guaranteed amount of screen area and can show all of the broadcast image. Theres a problem tho, called 'the average person'. The average person does not like to see garbage around the edge of the image. So flat panel manufactures added in a simulated overscan by zooming in the picture slightly. Gets rid of the junk in SD broadcasts, kills the sharpness in a native 1080p image. Most modern TVs have the ability to turn it off somehow. Most put the option into the screen aspect control selction, some (like Panasonic) have it as a seperate option buried away in a menu somewhere.
Also once you have that sorted, if the TV doesn't do it for you automatically turn the sharpness all the way down or if its one of those odd TVs like Philips then stick the setting in the middle. Artificial sharpness filters again remove detail from native 1080p images. The early Sony BraviaEngine equiped sets had a problem where the sharpness filter was on all the time unless you switched to photo viewing mode (which made the TV unable to cope with anything much over 24Hz refresh. OK for films, no good for games).
i didn't do much (any?) gaming while i was using it, so i didn't really notice the lag. since then i've occasionally put it on clone with my normal monitor, and there you can DEFINITELY see the lag.
Some TVs have a special mode to reduce the image processing and reduce the input lag effect. Usually it's called Game mode or if your TV has a PC mode try that.
-
By the way, I talked myself into another Radeon. An MSI Twin Frozr 7850 OC, to be exact. The price and the performance ratio did have something to do with it. Looking back a lot of blame can be put on my super slow old cpu (a goddamn Pentium D) for my bad experiences, which shouldn't be a problem seeing as my new comp is a core i7. Ok ATI, I'll roll the dice with you one more time, with a genuine performance card, and see how it goes.
-
the "genuine performance card" would have been the 7950.
-
My last radeon before that was a 4670. And I don't have 320 dollars to spare (and the 7870 has almost the exact same performance as the 7950 anyway so it's kinda dumb to get one).