It has an incredible shading engine that promises nearly double the performance of anything on the nVidia card. It has a highly efficient way of managing memory bandwidth - of which it has more of than the nVidia card. Unbound by drivers, it could very well have higher performance than most of the nVidia chipsets - it already pushes the envelope set by the Ti3 very well.
Now that ATI sells chipsets to other manufacturers (following nVidia's lead), we might see them start beating on the capabilities of their drivers soon enough.Ĭase in point: On paper, the Radeon 8500/128 has some features that could give it a definative edge on the Ti4. They don't release performance fixes well or often enough, although they've made some good strides to get better. Where ATI has always fallen down is the quality and efficiency of their drivers. nVidia's "Personal Cinema" is quite a bit clunkier and not integrated with the other media "bits" as well. And ATI's "multimedia" applications are tightly integrated and work well.
Hydravision, ATI's multiple monitor-support software, is still head and shoulders better than any other video card manufacturer's setup. In terms of the "all-in-one" Video Input-capable cards, ATI has always had the best set of utilities and hardware for people who didn't care about getting a bit higher in Quake's frame rate. The poster that you're complaining about is actually right. Last I checked, the "Find a Driver" link on the front page went right to a selection screen for card and OS. ATI's website is hell (dont know how bad it is currently, but historically it's been a huge mess) so it's near impossible to find out which driver you need.
0 kommentar(er)
