AMD & NV drivers - now with OpenGL 4.2 & OpenCL 1.1 support

[Gil_Hamilton]

I was under the impression that HDMI only supports up to 60Hz signals anyway, and that 3D signals just stack two frames next to each other or on top of each other or something.

For display purposes it's split into alternating frames, with LCD shutter glasses ensuring each eye only sees the proper data. So you need a 120Hz display even though the stream is only 60Hz.

[kode54]

Yes, I knew that much, I was just saying that it would probably be impossible to feed an actual 120Hz signal to the display, even if it supports 120Hz 3D.

[Gil_Hamilton]

Yes, I knew that much, I was just saying that it would probably be impossible to feed an actual 120Hz signal to the display, even if it supports 120Hz 3D.

If it's a 120 Hz LCD monitor, it should be.

In any case, we were discussing what should be, not what is. So NYAAAAH!

[franpa]

my tv has a 1080p24 mode.

the frequency still looks unnatural to me, but i'm pretty sure it's like gil said and it's because of the interpolated frames.

the 240 Hz tv's i've seen at best buy seem to overcome that issue for me.

I wouldn't touch 240/200hz displays ever. They interpolate between source frames and interpolate between interpolated frames and source frames so it just magnifies any deficiencies in it's algorithm.

[sweener2001]

the 240 Hz tv's i've seen at best buy seem to overcome that issue for me.

[kick]

Coming soon (this week):

http://img687.imageshack.us/i/94887307.png

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/2642/880newpanel.jpg

* Brand new AMD Control Center (replaces the old, shitty ATI CCC)

* improved OpenGL performance + more extensions

* new extensions for the OpenCL SDK - now it's finally ready for Open Physics support

[DataPath]

my tv has a 1080p24 mode.

the frequency still looks unnatural to me, but i'm pretty sure it's like gil said and it's because of the interpolated frames.

the 240 Hz tv's i've seen at best buy seem to overcome that issue for me.

I wouldn't touch 240/200hz displays ever. They interpolate between source frames and interpolate between interpolated frames and source frames so it just magnifies any deficiencies in it's algorithm.

My understanding of what they did and why they did it belies that statement.

First of all, some of the products that pitch themselves as 240Hz are really just doing 120Hz interp + backlight strobing.

Second, my understanding of the reason for 120Hz in the first place (please correct me if I'm wrong) was to compensate for LCD overshoot, which is a method of getting faster pixel switching times, but creates some visual artifacts. And so the interpolation being done on 120Hz displays doesn't in fact *create* blurriness, it compensates for LCD's inherent blurriness at higher framerates. And I also understood that with 240Hz, really all they were doing was reducing by half the amount of time that the interpolated frame is displayed, which should reduce slightly the blurring effect created by that interpolation.

[Clements]

Like the look of the new CCC, shame that I switched back to NVIDIA though. AMD won't update my laptop drivers as the hardware is considered depreciated even though it supports DX9 and Aero.

[kick]

The new AMD driver (Catalyst 10.12) is finally out and includes a preview of the brand new Catalyst Control Center 2.

The drivers are very good, but CCC2 is something that you might not want on install on your PC - it's loaded with bugs

The bad and the ugly:
------------------------
* No new features, now it takes a lot more clicks to do the same thing (esp. in Basic Mode)

* CCC2 adds even more bloat:
- Uses more memory and the startup is even slower
- Adds two new (buggy) 'AMD Fusion for Desktops' services: 'AMD FUEL Service' and 'AMD Reservation Manager'

These services can compromise the security and stability of your AMD-based PC.

The first thing you'll notice after installing CCC2 is that it will disable the Windows 7 security services (Firewall Service, UAC, etc.) leaving your system vulnerable to attacks. There's no way to disable this 'aggressive optimization' done by the Fusion services.

* Still using .NET, doesn't work under Windows XP


The good stuff:
------------------
* The window is (finally!) resizable, but the horrible non-resizable 'inline frames' from the old CCC are still there

* It looks good, but still not as good as that prototype screenshot


After uninstalling CCC2, the services are removed and everything is back to normal: The firewall works again, the system is stable and feels snappier.

[kick]

Beware of the new Crapalyst out-of-Control Center 2 (see previous post)

[sweener2001]

i'm very surprised that there are issues with a beta release.

[kode54]

AMD lists that as an option of their Fusion service/software. Namely, disabling all Windows security features. I bet it also disables UAC on Vista/7.

[paulguy]

Bugs are understandable, but I think the biggest complaints people have are with adding more crap that slows things down. Seems silly to me to stack more crap on top of more crap.

[Gil_Hamilton]

The bad and the ugly:
------------------------
* No new features, navigation is even more confusing than before and now it takes more clicks to do the same thing.

I cannot disagree strongly enough.
The new one is infinitely better.
...
Well, unless you didn't switch to advanced view. I didn't even look at standard view.

* CCC2 comes with even more bloat (in the form of two new services):
- AMD FUEL Service
- AMD Reservation Manager

These services will compromise the security and stability of your PC.

They aren't running on my machine, so... I disagree?

The first thing you'll notice after installing CCC2 is that it will disable the Windows Firewall Service (!) and leave it like that, rendering your system vulnerable to attacks. The buggy AMD service resets the FW to a 'stopped' state on every reboot.

Yes. Windows Firewall is all that stands between you and being anally raped.

If you ask me, if it ever comes down to Windows Firewall being the only thing saving you, you're screwed. A service running on the machine being attacked is NOT the same thing as a real firewall.
...
Neither is a router with NAT(especially one with UPnP), but hey, why let a little thing like truth in advertising get in the way?

[Deathlike2]

If you are resorting to using the Windows firewall for actual protection, you have problems.

.NET is not slow. Poor coding is still poor. I use Intel's Rapid Storage software... it uses .NET 2.0 (it uses .NET 3.0 in the 10.x series). I've used other .NET stuff.. it's not slow either.

[kick]

[NINJA EDIT] Updated / corrected a lot of stuff in the original post

[kick]

AMD lists that as an option of their Fusion service/software. Namely, disabling all Windows security features. I bet it also disables UAC on Vista/7.

The 'AMD Fusion for Desktops' utility is already integrated into the new CCC2, but for some weird reason, the optimizations are enabled by default if you have an AMD CPU.
The optimization is set to 'advanced mode' (disables all security services, including UAC) and there's no setting in the CP to turn it off (not implemented yet, LOL)

[kick]

They aren't running on my machine, so...

That means they're installed only on machines equipped with AMD CPUs / APUs.

[kode54]

Another excellent reason to buy Intel processors.

[Gil_Hamilton]

[NINJA EDIT] Updated / corrected a lot of stuff in the original post

I still dispute your claim about it taking more clicks to do the same thing in advanced mode.

And UAC offers even less security than Windows Firewall. I can think of no reason to keep it enabled.

[kick]

I still dispute your claim about it taking more clicks to do the same thing in advanced mode.

I was comparing CCC2 with CCC1 rev.B

The old CCC1 went through 3 revisions. The second one was the best. The third one (currently used) is much worse.

Getting to the page with all settings (advanced mode) in CCC2 still takes 1 more click than in CCC1 rev.B

[Gil_Hamilton]

I still dispute your claim about it taking more clicks to do the same thing in advanced mode.

I was comparing CCC2 with CCC1 rev.B

The old CCC1 went through 3 revisions. The second one was the best. The third one (currently used) is much worse.

Getting to the page with all settings (advanced mode) in CCC2 still takes 1 more click than in CCC1 rev.B

Ah.

I just assumed you were comparing it to what it was replacing, not what what it was replacing replaced.
Especially since you said now, like this was a change from the prior status. Should probably say "now it takes less clicks, but still not as few as it used to"

[franpa]

And you can install.NET under Windows XP allowing the control panel to work...

[kode54]

And UAC is a useful tool, as not every process that is launched can pop up a UAC dialog to ask for full elevation, and even for processes that can, it's still a measure better than every single process that opens having total access to your complete Windows installation. Then again, as everyone becomes conditioned to just stab the Yes button, or tab-tab-tab-enter/space, it won't be so useful anymore. On the other hand, some people may be suspicious of random processes suddenly needing elevation to do things other than install software... Oh wait, installing, that's all malware needs to do anyway. Elevated once, then it sets itself up the rootkit or whatnot and never needs to be elevated manually again. Well, whatever.

[Rashidi]

I still don't get it why M$ need to make someting like this on win-xp (2k?) or newer:

Code: Select all

TCP    0.0.0.0:445            0.0.0.0:0              LISTENING

i have experiencing hostile process able to pass the antivirus (avira) and start spamming port-445 throught the world...