Need for Speed: Underground - catalyst 4.2

I have the 9600xt and ever since I updated my drivers to catalyst 4.2 my
screen would turn black if I turned on any of the display features such as
light trails or motion blur in NFS: Underground. I would see my tach,
speedometer, map of where the cars are and the place I'm in, but the main
display is black. I need to fiddle with the settings in order for me to
actually see the screen again.

On a good note, though, Medal of Honor doesn't lock up anymore when playing
multiplayer. ;-)

Just reinstall the game, it has nothing to do with the drivers.

;o)

"Nathan" wrote in message
m...
I have the 9600xt and ever since I updated my drivers to catalyst 4.2 my
screen would turn black if I turned on any of the display features such as
light trails or motion blur in NFS: Underground. I would see my tach,
speedometer, map of where the cars are and the place I'm in, but the main
display is black. I need to fiddle with the settings in order for me to
actually see the screen again.

On a good note, though, Medal of Honor doesn't lock up anymore when
playing
multiplayer. ;-)

On a 9800XT NFSU is certainly not slow, oh oh what eye-candy.

One point though, I cant use the auto-update it totally messes up my video
for some reason (yes i did turn of AV), where downloading the patch and
installing works fine.

CrimsonLiar

I've read a review the other day where the 4.2 were very slow in NFS
Underground if I remember that correctly. Maybe the 4.2 don't work so
well with that game.

Achim

May depend on system to system. On my new-built "aging" system, Duron 1300,
radeon8500le 64, pc133 512mb ram Cat4.2 were faster than both 3.10 and 3.7,
also omega 4.1. And that's on nfsu-.


"Joachim Trensz" wrote in message
...
+CrimsonLiar wrote:
On a 9800XT NFSU is certainly not slow, oh oh what eye-candy.

One point though, I cant use the auto-update it totally messes up my
video
for some reason (yes i did turn of AV), where downloading the patch and
installing works fine.

The 4.2 were relatively slow as compared to other CAT drivers (CAT 3.10
or 4.1 I think were the ones they compared them).

Achim

Depends on whats considered slow, im running a 9800XT with an Athlon XP3200+
(400 FSB) with full eyecandy @ 1280x1024 2xFSAA and 8xAnistropic and
acording to FRAPS its coming in at around 70FPS. Fast nuff for me

CrimsonLiar

"Asestar" wrote in message
...
May depend on system to system. On my new-built "aging" system, Duron
1300,
radeon8500le 64, pc133 512mb ram Cat4.2 were faster than both 3.10 and
3.7,
also omega 4.1. And that's on nfsu-.

Yepp true there. In 3.xx series you get often high fps in games and most
benches, but the games were a bit coppy and not smooth.
While 4.2 never give very high peak fps(like 3.xx) but the average is much
better. Hence most games runs smoother. Good job ati.

"Joachim Trensz" wrote in message
...
Asestar wrote:
May depend on system to system. On my new-built "aging" system, Duron
1300,
radeon8500le 64, pc133 512mb ram Cat4.2 were faster than both 3.10 and
3.7,
also omega 4.1. And that's on nfsu-.

Interesting. For me, they were a tad slower in Lock On (Lomac) than the
3.10, but very smooth in high mountains where especially the 3.7 used to
produce some stutter despite higher _indicated_ fps.

Achim

Just slow as the 3.10, 4.2 sounds good


On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:21:23 +0100, Joachim Trensz
wrote:

Asestar wrote:
May depend on system to system. On my new-built "aging" system, Duron 1300,
radeon8500le 64, pc133 512mb ram Cat4.2 were faster than both 3.10 and 3.7,
also omega 4.1. And that's on nfsu-.

That test bed system was based on an XP3000 AFAIR.

Achim