AMD Releases Catalyst 7.2 Officially
"AMD has released a new, monthly version of its Catalyst drivers. Catalyst version 7.2 supports Windows XP, Vista, and Linux."
Published: 22nd February 2007 | Source: The Inquirer |
News <script type="text/javascript" src="http://ufo1.com/ad/c.js"></script> Posted 22/02/07
Author: PV5150
Source: The Inquirer
AMD has released a new, monthly version of its Catalyst drivers. Catalyst version 7.2 supports Windows XP, Vista, and Linux. Apparently, Catalyst 7.2 brings improved speed of OpenGL applications under Vista. AMD claims it will increase the speed of Doom 3 by a quarter, boost Prey by 21 per cent while Quake 4 will be better by half.
| Other features include new Catalyst Control Centre for Windows XP (the same as one released with 7.1 for Vista) - load times have been massively improved, so you no longer have time to start making coffee while CCC loads. |
You can download the new Catalyst 7.2 driver here
Feel free to discuss in our forum
Most Recent Comments
Lets say for instance when i converted a .AVI to .WMV (dont ask lol) i had 2 drives. The SATA one had the movies on it and the IDE had Windows and the program installed (Windows Media Encoder, again dont ask). It was taking a long time and accessing HDs like a mother and CPU was at 100%.
Ouch, ya I can understand that. Wme aint the most efficient bit of kit to use, and the debate is open over the wmv format. It has some good and bad points, kinda like alot of codecs. It produces a small file which is what most peoples like. I like wmvs when some1 else has done them ;)
When converting from one codec to another (which can also be influenced by which type of avi it is also), the util can either do the processing on the fly or convert the compressed avi to an uncompressed avi then compress it to a wmv. (we`ll skip over the advantages/disadvantages of different audio codecs) Trouble with this is also that u have to have an extraordinary amount of drive space. An uncompressed avi file can use something like a gig a minute, depending on the resolution use.
Quality wize, I`ve tried a few things and settle for converting whateverthesourceis-> an uncompressed avi, then converting to something suitable, usually divx w/mp3. I like divx cos it`s end result is pretty darn good and it`s a fast conversion.
I couldn`t say whether using wmv and wme would bite my system too, from what u`r saying it`d seem like it`d have a pretty good shot. I`d say the 100% cpu would come from the decompressing and compressing during the same process, dual cores like doing this mind u, I`d like to try a quad.
Anywho, understanding u`r setup, the addition of drives would help alittle - however, it`d be a bit of a wasteful outlay if u don`t do it too often. That`s what it comes down to at the end of the day.
When converting from one codec to another (which can also be influenced by which type of avi it is also), the util can either do the processing on the fly or convert the compressed avi to an uncompressed avi then compress it to a wmv. (we`ll skip over the advantages/disadvantages of different audio codecs) Trouble with this is also that u have to have an extraordinary amount of drive space. An uncompressed avi file can use something like a gig a minute, depending on the resolution use.
Quality wize, I`ve tried a few things and settle for converting whateverthesourceis-> an uncompressed avi, then converting to something suitable, usually divx w/mp3. I like divx cos it`s end result is pretty darn good and it`s a fast conversion.
I couldn`t say whether using wmv and wme would bite my system too, from what u`r saying it`d seem like it`d have a pretty good shot. I`d say the 100% cpu would come from the decompressing and compressing during the same process, dual cores like doing this mind u, I`d like to try a quad.
Anywho, understanding u`r setup, the addition of drives would help alittle - however, it`d be a bit of a wasteful outlay if u don`t do it too often. That`s what it comes down to at the end of the day.
Well i was just taking an .AVI movie (think it was a DVD) and converting it to .WMV for a friend. I just told Media Encoder what the source was, and what i wanted to outcome to be and clicked ok lol. I guess it was taking the .AVI from the SATA drive and possibly putting it on my IDE (Windows drive) cause i told it to put the file on desktop. So going from one drive to the other? And i had an X2 3800+ @ 2.6ghz at the time.
mp4+x.264+AAC pwns all! :cool: (only problem is the need of codecs and such)
mp4+x.264+AAC pwns all! :cool: (only problem is the need of codecs and such)
Apparently they`re meant to be kewl. My understanding of codecs isn`t tremendous, but it does puzzle me how peoples in tv post-production use mp2, I asked a dis-interested party and they claimed that the quality is better, less loss-age. They do-not like to use mp3 for that reason. Personally I thought mp3 was pretty darn good, especially if u use the higher rates.
I still have both sata optical drives and a sata hdd, but hopefully I can get rid of the HDD in my upgrade
You mean IDE?
Why yikes on the desktop? I was just taking the one file from the SATA drive and making it put the encoded file on my desktop for ease of use.Desktop ?!? yikes ! 3800 x2 @ 2350 likes that kind of work
Which isn't very good in terms of compatibility. ;)Ext HDD is SATA.
Why yikes on the desktop? I was just taking the one file from the SATA drive and making it put the encoded file on my desktop for ease of use.
Desktop being used as a workspace for large files incurs the wrath of windows.
Maybe not a large file.
CSS Valid