The driver section of AMD is pretty messy.
Please create a driver-release protocol, which included updating the pages, adding/removing the beta-driver page, adding some numbering that makes sense.
Vincent, thanks for the feedback. I am very happy to get that to the team that owns the page.
Can you provide a specific link to the page you were on that had this sub-optimal information?
The top level page is Download Drivers, but I suspect you were somewhere deeper in the hierarchcy.
Driver 14.12 = omega = 14.501.1003. So if I look in my system, then I see 14.501.1003 and not 14.12 - why have a "package numbering", which is different from the build-number? Please use only "501".
I agree that whenever you need a decoder ring is suboptimal. So Driver 14.12 = omega = 14.501.1003 is not what I personally think is ideal. That and the date numbering feedback I have passed to the interested parties here. (Although I can't resist.... the date isn't switched.... what's wrong with you???? )
For what it's worth, I'm with you, something like 6-Jan-2015. Some day maybe the US will adopt the metric system, too.
As you say, the 14.6 Beta is outdated, since it is from July 11, 2014. But I had to download and extract the archive to find the dates of the component files. Again, suboptimal.
FWIW I have found the Catalyst 15.3 Beta (Windows): AMD Catalyst 15.3 Beta Driver for Windows. I have found no current beta for Linux. Only 14.6.
Ok, let's go for something ideal then.
Dates: http://new4.fjcdn.com/comments/Woot+_765daae1041df9df9d598a3783c15aff.jpg - AMD is operating globally, so using month-names solves it to some extend.
So can the beta be removed, or have a remark that the stable driver is more recent? I find people complaining that the beta-driver had worse performance, and they react with "WTF?" when I explain the beta is older than the stable. No, people don't read, but assume.
I found that Ubuntu 14.04 beta has a the beta-driver 15.200: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fglrx-installer/2:15.200-0ubuntu1 - in HPC we use Linux, not Windows. As it has only been tested on Ubuntu 15.04, I was curious when this was available for other Linux version. But we'll see.
I am reporting this problem as a clear error, and requesting a fix. Sadly, that page is not under my immediate control.
All the rest, clearly reported to the marketing team, with my recommendations - like "use internationally clear dates."
Changing the numbering scheme to align "product" version with driver version, I'm with you as well, but I wouldn't hold my breath on either of these. Big companies are like battleships, hard to turn sometimes.
I got a bit of insight from the packaging team about version numbers. And, duh, I should have thought of this but I just click install and go.
The Catalyst package (e.g. Catalyst 15.3, 14.12, etc) has multiple components. Each internal component has its own versioning. In this case the primary driver version is obviously not the same as the product version. So Catalyst 14.12 Omega has driver 14.501. I don't think that difference is going to go away.
So *technically* it's ok, but the message to the consumer is not. I understand that there are more components (like control centre and installer), but I actually don't care as it's a bundle.
Please understand that technical correct and logical numbering has little to do with sending out a good message to a user who doesn't care about all this. I still think that the driver-version should be communicated, instead of the bundle number. What comes with the driver, just comes with it.