7 Replies Latest reply on Dec 21, 2015 3:27 AM by hoggy969

    I dont want crimson unless... Listen to your customers AMD, its always done you well before.


      Ok, so Ive been building and repairing for over two decades professionally and personally, one of the more annoying things in my opinion of this job is supplying a package to the customer that ISN'T full of bloatware.  Bloatware being three tons of crappy software to perform functions that were already available, but now take up resources just to enable the user some nice system hogging shortcuts via 3rd party rubbish applications, i.e. buy an HP laptop and you spend hours pulling them out like fricking weeds.


      I find the sudden and unwanted imposition of Crimson to be like this. We will leave aside for a moment the fact that your first botched attempt nearly wrote off my graphics card.


      Now, you can convince me of the virtue of crimson by doing one of two things.


      A) Name me a critical function that can ONLY be performed in Crimson and NOT in catalyst.


      B) ~If your unable to answer A and agree with me that its an idiotic duplication of available functions for no good reason, then why not move all functions to Crimson and dump catalyst.


      Anything else is creating and indeed duplicating functions to fit the tech. Not creating tech to do the work better. This is something large tech firms seem to miss with alarming regularity.


      AMD, you've been with me since my childhood. Dont screw it up now. A reply would be good when your able.


      Merry Christmas.

        • Re: I dont want crimson unless... Listen to your customers AMD, its always done you well before.

          wtf are you talking about, crimson is the driver interface, just like catalyst control center was before, how is that bloatware? is just an upgrade to the current interface, you wan to be using catalyst interface for ever, it's you problem and you are alone in this, many people asked for a revamped interface and we got it.

          • Re: I dont want crimson unless... Listen to your customers AMD, its always done you well before.

            No, he's not alone, krelian.


            The new software having every bit as much functionality as the old is very important to some folks.


            As a near 40 year veteran of software engineering who runs a small business, I don't want Crimson unless it can be shown to have every bit as good (integrated and trouble-free) color preset auto-loading as Catalyst.


            Sticking with 15.9.1 for now.



              • Re: I dont want crimson unless... Listen to your customers AMD, its always done you well before.

                Have you tried rebooting with Crimson and then trying with Catalyst?

                There is a VERY noticeable difference in how quickly Windows loads Crimson's front-end application in comparison to CCC. For me, Crimson is already loaded and sitting happy in my taskbar within the 3-5sec it takes to get from BIOS handoff to desktop during Cold Boot. If yours is not loading reasonably quickly, perhaps you need to look at the primary installation drive configuration or even consider diagnosing failing hardware.


                Bootup load speed is the primary benefit that I see to running Radeon Software Crimson Edition. It is otherwise about 90% as capable as CCC, and it has been stated by AMD community representatives that the transition of implementing at least 100% comparable features to CCC is still ongoing, but that the software is well within a position to manage just about any settings that an average user might utilize. (I would love to give you a reference to this, but my primary system is benchmarking in diagnostic mode right now, and this laptop sucks too much to find it within the next 12 hours [why yes, it IS an Intel laptop and it WAS given to me for free])


                As for obtaining JUST the bare minimum driver and no front-end application, such a download is usually an option at the Driver download page(s). For 64bit Win10, it is definitely an option.


                (and that's all I can stand typing for now on this craptastic laptop) I hope I was of at least some help in providing the answers you seek.

                  • Re: I dont want crimson unless... Listen to your customers AMD, its always done you well before.

                    Better performance is always better, but practically speaking time to start the ATI control panel seems a pretty small thing...  I reboot as infrequently as possible (often less than once per month), and I have a quite responsive system.  I really don't wait for anything - including CCC.exe, which starts in about 1 second.




                    Regarding cached shaders.  I captured a performance measurement in my own OpenGL applications for shader compilation.  I got:


                    Performance Message: Total Time = 75.897 milliseconds, InitializeScaledProxyLayer() - compiled all shader source code.


                    I'm not completely sure I'll notice some portion of 75 milliseconds being saved.  :-)


                    Today is the first I've heard that it's possible to retain the function of the Catalyst Control Center, though.  I might be willing to try the latest drivers if there's a way to retain auto-loading of the default preset at logon...



                    Edit:  OK, I went ahead and tried the 12.15 driver.


                    1.  As expected (after asking on the forums for a whole MONTH and still having to test to be absolutely sure), I lost the automatic ability to load a preset that sets color parameters for my three monitors.  No problem, I figured out how to set up the CLI.exe command found in the CCCSlim folder to do it.  All in all it takes a few seconds longer after logon for the color calibrations to be loaded than before.


                    Verdict:  12.15 does NOT improve functionality or logon time for me.



                    2.  Did performance tests.  The new driver did essentially nothing for overall 2D or 3D performance, per Passmark PerformanceTest results.  I really didn't expect them to.




                    Verdict:  12.15 does NOT improve on-screen performance for me in any way.



                    3.  Checked shader compilation times.  First run was similar to the above, 79 milliseconds.  Second run:  46 milliseconds.  Shader caching saved 1/30 of a second of startup time, wow!  Photoshop startup time:  First run 3.2 seconds.  Second run was actually longer:  3.8 seconds.


                    Verdict:  12.15 does not improve graphics application startup performance for me in any practical fashion.



                    4.  Had to figure out what to uncheck in Autoruns in order to stop the cnext.exe program from uselessly running at startup.  Time wasted figuring out how to get a preset to load plus time to figure out how to avert cnext.exe from running:  about 30 minutes of my life I'll never get back.


                    Verdict:  I don't want crimson unless it A) provides me new features I want or better performance and B) doesn't cost me valuable time to get back functionality I already had.



                • Re: I dont want crimson unless... Listen to your customers AMD, its always done you well before.

                  I understand perfectly why AMD might wish to drop .Net and move to a coherent software package that doesn't depend on it.  That's it's easy to understand.  Catalyst was/is not bad at all, imo--its resident components @ idle requiring < 50% the ram of cnext.exe's 41megabytes.  Still, a .Net-free replacement would be superior.


                  But, I don't understand why AMD has foisted this driver on everyone at this time--it's not a replacement for the Catalysts, as you mention.  It still must load .Net to do a few things--things it supports but which it still doesn't do yet--like for instance, the new custom resolution utility--which doesn't actually work inside the Crimson interface because they've stripped out user resolution switching...!  The irony is that if you first install the Catalyst interface, then you use the device manager to install the Crimson driver 15.30.1025.1001-151204a-296874C from its install .inf--you end up with fully functional Catalyst CC--and even the new customRes Utility actually works and writes the resolutions into the registry, as it should do.  You can tell when you do this that the Crimson driver was designed for the Catalyst CC shell, btw. (Crimson being a tacked-on interface.)


                  The crazy part of all of this is that the Crimson drivers/interface should have been released as a beta-only driver, for the obvious reasons--it's not complete in terms of CCC support and it is buggy (I've seen settings just reset themselves with no help from me, etc. This does not happen with the Catalyst CC running the Crimsons.)  Right now, the CCC is a far better interface than the Crimson interface--AMD could easily have released the Crimson interface as a beta driver; and the same drivers in the CatalystCC as the WHQL's for those who didn't want to run a half-finished beta interface.  But for inexplicable reasons, they didn't do the prudent thing and have released the Crimson interface as though it was ready for prime time.  It is far from that.


                  The only function said to exist in the Crimson drivers that is not supported by the Catalsyt CC is the shader cache.  But honestly I've seen no data that indicates to me that it improves anything in the way of performance. Traditionally, AMD drivers have not needed such to keep up with or surpass nVidia drivers in terms of performance.  Hopefully, AMD soon will have common sense enough to put the Crimson interface on beta-only status until such time as it is ready, and let those of us who want and need the full function of the CatalystCC have it with the latest drivers.  No other path forward makes any sense.

                    • Re: I dont want crimson unless... Listen to your customers AMD, its always done you well before.

                      I too do not want Crimson as it has removed some functionality that I had with the Catylist.  I own 4 systems. I overclock, I run dual GPU's all on four systems and dual monitors.  My systems are all I7's for a reason and I want performance as well as ease of use.  Having everything moved and changed goes against what I was taught when I used to work as a programmer, but apparently everyone has forgotten that in the name of progress, starting with MicroCrap.  I have no issue with moving forward but I do have a life after computers and if AMD wants to pay me $60 an hour to search through and rediscover how I used to perform tasks in configuring my monitors and overclocking, more like tweaking up my hardware, sure.  But my time is valuable to me as I work away from home.


                      I have been running ATI cards in my systems for 13 or more years, if this is the direction, then it looks like I'll have to take a hard look at Nvidia.  My cards range from a pair of 5770's, two 7970's, two R9 280X's and a R9295 X2.  I was planning on upgrading the 2 5770's on boxing day to a pair of R9 390's but guess that plan has gone to crap.


                      Hey, I am but one of a few customers not happy with the direction you are going, if you lose me as a customer, guess there are others.