Printable View
Thats a really interesting observation. Someone should test with different clock speeds. Say, 3.0GHz conroe vs 3.5GHz/3.6GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
If CPU score doesn't go up, maybe they are simulating the CPU tests on the board itself??
I wish I had a G80 to do more testing.
Anyone has tried SLI with these drivers?
I´ve installed them yesterday (i have 2 8800GTX). The installation went ok but after rebooting each time i arrived at win i got a BSOD about de NV4-disp (or something like that) driver.
Maybe i´m missing anything? :confused:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1616
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_2k_158.19.html
158.18/158.19 XP
Same performance ect as the 158.16?
yes
i try them with my 8800gtx, seems very stable .
edit : 158.16 under xp 32
158.18 its for VIsta OnlyQuote:
Originally Posted by fornowagain
for XP its 158.19
new XP driver:
158.16 (beta/beta)
158.19 (Official Betal)
165.01 (beta/beta)
new Vista Driver :
158.18 (Official Beta)
165.01 (beta/beta)
regards
very interesting, downloading it now
mascaras do you know is there any differences in performance with these xp drivers
158.16 (beta/beta) 158.19 (Official Betal) 165.01 (beta/beta)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarfall
158.19 and 158.16 are the same driver with same performence , but 158.19 are official beta and 158.16 are beta/beta
158.16 --- 3dmark 2005@ BFG 8800GTS 320mb default >>> 17633 marks
158.19 --- 3dmark 2005@ BFG 8800GTS 320mb default >>> 17643 marks
the 165.01 are beta/beta i didnt try yet but for the users feedback its seems they are not very good
my advice is :
for VISTA >> 158.18
For XP >> 1587.19
BTW: in my opinion in terms of image quality the new drivers are not so good (maybe thats why better performence ;) )
i also saw other ppl with same opinion :
Quote:
Originally Posted by huguinhohgt
regards
ok i have been testing this beta driver for a while now and i really have to say that this 158.19 version kicks serious ass.
Anyone know how to control the fan speed with these drivers in Vista?
I doubt nTune works with these drivers. nTune in Vista is crap, too.
you might want to try speedfan. works with most mobos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikesnav
Probably shoulda clarified that, but Speedfan works with the GPU's fan?
lol i thought that you meant in general.. sorry but it does not work as a gpu fan controller
RivaTuner v2,0 and force the drivers detection to 97.02 :)
hi guys
with new 158.19 i have + 1000 marks in 2005 and +600 marks in 2006 than with 97.94 :D
E6600@3600mhz -- BFG 8800GTS 320mb DEFAULT
http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/33/2k66qw7.jpg
E6600@3600mhz -- BFG 8800GTS 320mb DEFAULT
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/6979/15819qp3.jpg
hehehehhee
regards
I put 158.18/158.19 XP cos theres a typo on the Guru3d pageQuote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1616
Is anyone able to corroborate the increase in CPU scores from post #52? If a driver can increase CPU scores from 06, I'll be damned....insanely interesting if it's true though. Those tests are supposed to be completely software based, no hardware acceleration.
man the 158.19 from nv's driver page sux big time ... .16 is better atm
mascaras ;) entao rapazola ;) ta tudo??
Well, people, can someone give me a direct download link for the drivers?
Btw, wich drivers have you used mascaras? the modded ones or the "untouched" ones?
Say something ;)
Hugs and kisses :D
Better driver-level threading is the likely cause. As in, less overhead on the cpu from the drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
im using 158.19 for WIn XP 32 bitQuote:
Originally Posted by SrJabardo
Forceware 158.19 XP 32bits
Forceware 158.19 XP 64bits
for Vista :
Forceware 158.18 Vista 32bits
Forceware 158.18 Vista 64bits
Quote:
Originally Posted by theteamaqua
i tryed Both (they are the same driver but 158.19 are official ) and i have same 3dmark 2005/2006 score , when you say 158.19 sux and 16 are better ,are you talking about what??? Image quality ???
because in performence they are the same ........
97.94 and 97.92 in image quality are better ..... (maybe thats the reason of 158.xx scores better in benchmarks)
regards
My benchies have increased as well.
But in Flight Simulator 2004, I ran 8XQ AA with 97.94 and all was well.
With 158.19 8XQ AA looked like no AA at all..
Also, the profile for Aquamark 3 F*&d up when I tried to disable AA, started giving me windows error messages...
165.01 did the same.
Back to 97.94 for now.....
These beta are really great for benching, improved 3dmarks a lot :)
They seem to be official and on the Nvidia website now ....mine wouldn't install though.......nice!
yeah, these are on the site now:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_2k_158.19.html