Catalyst 10.6 and GeForce 257.21 performance analysis
Benchmarks & Conclusion
Here are our results of 21 benchmarks – 20 games and one synthetic – compared between Catalyst 10-5 and 10-6 and GeForce 197.75 versus 257.21
“Wins” are in bold; if there is a tie, both results will be in bold type. First up is GTX 480 benched with GeForce 257.21 vs 197.75:
Here is the HD 5870 and HD 5870 CrossFire benched with Catalyst 10-5 versus 10-6
We see some performance improvement over Catalyst 10-5 with Catalyst 10-6 in some games but very little real change. Call of Duty showed an increase in performance with Catalyst 10-6 that it lost with 10-5 and Just Cause 2 continues to make small gains. However, we would recommend upgrading to Catalyst 10-6 because there is no real disadvantage and whatever slight pluses we found outweigh any slight negatives and it makes reasonable sense to use the latest WHQL drivers . Of course, if you have a 5870 series Radeon, it would be wise to upgrade just for the features of Catalyst 10-6.
On the other hand, we finally see good reason to upgrade from GeForce 197.75 to 257.21. There are many games that benefit from the newer drivers.
We will be back next month to compare performance of Catalyst 10-7 versus 10-6 and perhaps we can also cover the new GeForce WHQLs when they are released later this month or next. Happy gaming!
Please join us in our Forums
Become a Fan on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
For the latest updates from ABT, please join our RSS News Feed
Join our Distributed Computing teams
- Folding@Home – Team AlienBabelTech – 164304
- SETI@Home – Team AlienBabelTech – 138705
- World Community Grid – Team AlienBabelTech
Thanks for the benchmarks apoppin! It’s nice to see side by side comparisons between drivers versions.
Thanks for yet another driver review. I think I’ll wait for 10.7
I do miss the “%-Changed” to the right of the scores and an overall percentage gain or loss however, like you did in the 197.13 Driver-review. But this is still great, keep it up!
Nice review!
I’m curious though, why was such a high level of aa used on Crysis for the GTX 480? At 26fps, 8xq is not a realistic and playable amount of aa. No aa or 4x would be more appropriate I think.
Thank-you. The percentage of change might get added back in future driver reviews.
The reason that such a high level of AA was used on Crysis for the GTX 480 is that these results are being used in another review where most of the testing is at 8xAA or higher. Realistically, when I play Crysis at 2560×1600, I use 2xAA and lower some of the settings.
For a overall driver review, I prefer to set the bar very high and use similar (maxed out) settings. The purpose is to find the change from one driver revision to the latest.
he, why no article in ABT has BFBC2 bench, i mean c’mon, that’s all guys’ favourite today. and also empire: tw/ napoleon: tw, too.
one more question please, is there any difference forcing AA from ati Catalyst driver vs in-game AA? which one that you use? what about the general image quality? do they differ? THANX
I haven’t even got BFBC2 yet. As I am SP only, it is not high on my priority list. It also takes me awhile to add a game to my benching suite. I need to play it first and relate the benchmark to actual performance in gameplay. Metro 2033 is my next scheduled game for adding to my suite. Perhaps Leon will do some BFBC2 benchmarks for us.
Applying AA depends on the specific game; with most games there is no difference where it is applied – from the vendor’s CP or in-game. With some games – and specifically with Batman AA – Anti-aliasing is optimized for NVIDIA drivers in the game and can be set in the game’s control panel. However, with ATI drivers, you must force AA with CCC and it takes a bigger performance hit because it must now use a brute-force approach.
Set AA in game if possible first; if there is no option for it, then set it in your vendor’s CP.
Hello, am extremely interested in becoming a tech reviewer, problem is, i dont know how!!!! If you would please lead me in the right direction, maybe i can review producs for your website. Thank you~ luis campos
It looks like Call of Duty 4’s performance is still hosed.
Hi,
why there is no nvidia result in Arma2?
I have been using the ARMA2 demo and the results have been unreliable for this set of drivers. This game is such a difficult game on PC HW resources that I am dropping it altogether from my benching suite.
Would it be possible to do minimum FPS numbers in future comparisons?
There was one site ([H] possibly) which did a pre-release vs 9.12 vs 10.3 or so, and the minimum fps showed a large improvement over time.
It would be interesting to see minimum FPS changes as well as just average changes with new driver releases.
I actually do have the minimums and maximums and they mostly show no improvement over the averages; it is proportional in most cases.
The purpose of doing these comparisons is to get a quick idea of the driver changes in about 20 games before the drivers get old. If these charts were to be expanded, it would take much longer for them to be published.
However, there is a *series* of articles that I am working on right now – these will show the minimums and maximums as well as the averages and they will span from Catalyst 10-5 through 10-7 and we can compare to GeForce 197.75, 257.21 and also the next set.
You will be able to see for yourself beginning next weekend with a review of PowerColor HD 5870 PCS+ in Part One as we attempt to find the limits of HD 5870 architecture; and we continue right on through analysis of the Dragon Platform and explore the number of CPU cores and scaling on game performance. GTX 480, HD 5870 and HD 5870 CF will be featured and the minimums and maximums will be mostly shown in the graphs.