Don't forget that you don't actually have to install the whole new driver package to take advantage of the new openGL module, just extract all the files from the .exe using winzip and then find the file "atioglxx.dl_" and expand it using winzip also (that "_" at the end instead of an "l" means it is zipped ) and you'll have the file "atioglxx.dll" which you can just copy over into your "D:Windowssystem32" folder and voila' you got the new openGL. (I recomend backing up your old atioglxx.dll, just in case. I rename mine according to the cat version it's from...this one is now "omeg4.7atioglxx.dll", in case I ever want it later. ) These give a very minor improvement to R3xx cards, but a healthier boost to the R4xx class ones. (.5-1 fps compared to a 5-6fps roughly, but that's only tests between 3 people.)

I do three runs everytime now and the last two are the ones I trust. The first run thru all those stalls are textures loading into memory for the first time, for the next runs the texts are already there. ;)

interested to see in depth reviews of these drivers, have they really improved the way ATI cards handle openGL, or is it quack all over again..

I ran "timedemo demo1" on Catalyst 4.7 with my Radeon 9700 (non pro, 128 MB) Card in High Detail. The first run was with the OpenGL driver that comes with the 4.7 driver suite. For the second run I changed the OpenGL driver to the 4.9 version. I did 3 passes for each driver. The second and third pass had the same result in both runs. The first runs were slower because of hard disk activity. Results: 4.7: 21.6 fps 4.9: 21.8 fps (+0.2 fps) That isn't really what I call an improvement. :/ But maybe those driver enhancements will only apply to the X800 series. It may also be possible that not only the OpenGL file is responsible for the promised performance gain.

Dont bother using high detail, stick with medium. I cant tell the difference between medium and ultra, other than the huge lag on ultra.. I dont get why people bother.

Okay, we now have two 9700 tests in here. But I doubt that the promised optimizations apply to those old cards. Therefore I'd like to see some X800 and 9800 XT comparisons.

Well, some more tests, since there are already two. ;)

I tried copying over the 4.9 OGL file but now I can't launch Doom 3/Quake 3. (Yes I renamed it to .dll) The file is significally smaller than the older version (2mb versus 6) so I'm guessing that it didn't "expand" correctly? What am I doing wrong?

Not much of a performance gain for me: 9800 Pro 128. If I cannot go from medium to high without lagging after every door opens then it won't be enough of a boost. It plays well enough on medium so no crying here. However, it looks like NVidia is back on top and will likely get my money the next time I'm ready to buy a card unless ATI has a better answer. So far the new cards just aren't as sexy. Sry ATI fans. No disrepect. I don't have a dog in this fight. I own both and will own whichever is better at the time. For the moment, though, I'm hoping for better drivers from ATI - not that I expect much there. The cards have been good but drivers just haven't been all that great compared to the great days of NVidia's drivers.