Catalyst 3.8 queimam hardware?!?!?

CANADIAN firm ATI rang us to say that not only were reports of Catalyst drivers busting monitors untrue, it was a little suspicious that the rumours were started by people who arrived on forums on the same day, spreading this gospel.
See Are Catalyst drivers damaging monitors? It seems not.

Indeed, we doubt very much indeed that the rumours, reported on hardware web sites have much validity. We do remember a long time ago that you could POKE a Commodore Pet and make it burst into flames, but that happened very infrequently, as we recall.

These days, said the ATI representative, there is absolutely no possibility of duplicitous INF files being picked up by the software and used to wreak havoc on the screen that sits before you.

Then he started talking techie talk, saying: "In XP and 2K, we don't have access to monitor INF information in our driver component that manages display capability. We have never used monitor information. We rely on EDID data or user override information to determine monitor capability. Even though OS may use the monitor information to expose high refresh rate based on monitor INF content, driver always restricts the actual refresh rate going to the monitor based on EDID or the user override. i.e. user may be able to select from OS controlled monitor page (in advanced property pages) a high refresh rate but internally driver will restrict the refresh rate going to the monitor based on EDID information or user override information. If user set the override information incorrectly then incompatible signals would sent to the monitor."

Sheesh!

The ATI rep said that the firm's top engineers had worked all over the weekend to see if they could replicate conditions in which cards were borked or monitors went phut, and the firm is confident there's no such problems.

"You know how rumours start, Mike", the ATI rep said. "We're pleased to be able to say this one hasn't got any legs at all".

We tried to ask him about Half Life 2 and the lawyer firm run by Bill Gates' dad, but he wanted to know what hockey was like over here in Old Europe. We explained that it was usually played by women – they use a wooden ball, and in fact once one had hit us between the eyes.

Next thing we knew, the phone was off the hook... µ

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12239

É mesmo falso... :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Facies
eu uso os 3.8 e a unica coisa que noto é que a grafica aquece mais, de resto nao tenho qq problema

ah e tenho uma 9700pro e um sony f520 21" , esta a 1600x1200x32 a 100hz

abraço

Pelo que li nas 9700 pro aconteçe (se acontecer) raramente, eu nunca dei por nada e quanto ao aquecimento , isso só se lá colocar o dedo..:D

Mas por acaso Já alguém aqui em PT notou alguma coisa ??

É que muito se escreve mas nada de concreto :P acho isto um bocado estranho :confused: :confused:
 
Fui eu que lhes dei na cabeça, agora eles andam sérios! :D

Só falta o toms e o Kyle! :D

Agora falando a sério, tal como eu disse no meu 1º post nesta thread, acredito tanto nisso como o outro queimou o teclado ou o rato por causa da placa gráfica...

Que a placa aqueca, tudo bem, até faz sentido, mas ir dai a queimar monitores, esquecam!
 
Como eu tinha dito:


RESPONSE TO ALLEGED MONITOR FAILURE ISSUE

We have spent a great deal of time trying to reproduce this problem and analyzing our driver code. There is nothing in our driver code that has changed since CAT 3.7 to CAT 3.8 that could possibly cause this behaviour.

We believe that our drivers are not causing these alleged problems. We do not currently believe these stories are valid. We have already confirmed that of the nearly 100 OEM customer programs have asked for and received this driver, we have received no reports on any such problem from the OEMs. We have also run comprehensive QA tests on the driver before releasing it and have had no cases of failed monitors.

Since we announced CATALYST 3.8 on October 8th, we have recorded hundreds of thousands of downloads, and thus far there have been absolutely no reports whatsoever to ATI’s Customer Support department to report monitors failing.

TECHNICAL REBUTTAL OF MONITOR FAILURE ALLEGATIONS

There have been many posts in the forums discussing this issue, it seems it is a common theory, picked up from one place and keep being circulated. One such theory suggests the following:

“Instead of reading the refresh rates from the PRIMARY display INF files, it is reading the SECONDARY display INF refresh rates.”

In XP and 2K, we don’t have access to monitor INF information in our driver component that manages display capability. We have never used this monitor information for any purpose. We rely on EDID data or user override information to determine monitor capability. Even though the OS may use the monitor information to expose high refresh rate based on monitor INF content, the driver always restricts the actual refresh rate going to the monitor based on EDID or the user override. In essence, the user may be able to select from OS controlled monitor page (in advanced property pages) a high refresh rate but internally driver will restrict the refresh rate going to the monitor based on EDID information or user override information. If user set the override information incorrectly then incompatible signals would be sent to the monitor.

In 9x, we can access monitor INF information but due to issues with how OS maps the INF to a monitor, we had disabled reading the monitor INF via registry. Unless someone deliberately changes the registry setting for this in 9x, they would not run into any monitor INF related issues.

RESPONSE TO ALLEGED HARDWARE OVERHEATING ISSUE

We have spent a great deal of time analyzing the temperatures due to the CATALYST 3.8 drivers. We do not under any circumstance see anything near a 10 degree Celsius increase in temperature (but we don’t overclock our test cards either). We do see a slight increase in temperature in certain cases (3Dmark2003 Nature Scene for example). However any temperature increase is well within our safety range. Investigation continues and we are trying to determine why this change in temperature exits. At this point we are reproducing individual driver packages with code being checked in and measuring the temperature. However nothing shows the alleged increase in temperature. One independent website (DriverHeaven.net) even tried to reproduce this issue, and found no measurable difference in temperature between CATALYST 3.7 and 3.8.
 
ainda ontem meti os 3.7 e pensei que eram os mais recentes ... xiça um gaju não pode estar longe 2 semanitas ... o "mundo" da informática gira mais rapido que sei lá o q... !
 
Como alguns já disseram, tb n me admirava nada que fossem mm os gajos da nVidia a lançar este rumor.

Reparem bem no pormenor de ainda dizerem que só afecta as placas de gama alta ou aquelas que uma pessoa faz o modding. Na minha opinião vê-se a milhas o que os gajos querem com isto... Andam com dôr de coto por terem gasto pipas de massa em placas nVidia supostamente super performantes e depois não suportam por ex: ver uma simples ATI 9500NP @ 9700 Pro a bater os "maquinões" deles em DX9 como no Tomb Raider AOD...

Se realmente isto tudo não passar duma história inventada pelos gajos, posso dizer que são mm uns tristes e se fazem isto é porque enfiaram bem o barrete! ( se é que me entendem... :P )
 
Back
Topo