ForceWare 169.28 Vista 32 & 64,XP 32

[KALISPIMENTA]

YES ANOTHER ONE:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/

Forum discussion:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=247872

[Gig4moller]

>_< seriously lol, ah well better than no driver support at all

[Jamesrt2004]

wow i only installed .25 yday lol -downloads new driver-

[fcry64]

changelog?

[Rovtar]

omfg this is silly...

[C0ncrete]

I still see little to no differance in these constant releases.

This is the "illusion" of driver support.

[Envydia007]

is this another beta ?

[KALISPIMENTA]

is this another beta ?

Yes ,go to the forum to read some user testings.

[hecktic]

+1 for changelog please

[s0lid]

Will this never end???
hope not ^^

[Piotrsama]

I will stick with last WHQL's for some time, they seem to work fine

[WRC]

the only reason i hate upgrading is because it resizes the desktop and all my icons get spread out across the screen. Does this happen to anyone else?

[GripS]

the only reason i hate upgrading is because it resizes the desktop and all my icons get spread out across the screen. Does this happen to anyone else?

Yes. It happens for everybody else. Yet takes about 30 seconds to correct.

[Radeon117X]

Yes. It happens for everybody else. Yet takes about 30 seconds to correct.

There's a small way to get around this, since my screen doesnt resize . What you do is that when the drivers are uninstalled and you're running off Vista default WDDM Drivers, simply change your resolution and settings right there to native. Usually, it should just save those settings, and next time you uninstall the nvidia ones and restart, you dont get the resolution resized. Unless you're referring to something else of course...

In any case, yay! More drivers! Won't be installing these ones though...not until it passes 169.4*. Seriously...every three days! Least they do make some change. Everything before 169.17 gave me BSODs everytime my machine came out of sleep in Vista.

[Unbornchild]

the only reason i hate upgrading is because it resizes the desktop and all my icons get spread out across the screen. Does this happen to anyone else?

Haha! No, with ATI Catalyst this never happens. After uninstalling ATI software it apparently stores the desktop settings, after updating it's restored as it was.

[Rovtar]

the only reason i hate upgrading is because it resizes the desktop and all my icons get spread out across the screen. Does this happen to anyone else?

this is not the worst thing..

i hate restarting.,.,.

[triple_A]

Yes. It happens for everybody else. Yet takes about 30 seconds to correct.

doesn't happen to me lol

[Piotrsama]

the only reason i hate upgrading is because it resizes the desktop and all my icons get spread out across the screen. Does this happen to anyone else?

Try Driver Sweeper's desktop icon restorer.

Haha! No, with ATI Catalyst this never happens. After uninstalling ATI software it apparently stores the desktop settings, after updating it's restored as it was.

Interesting.

[hecktic]

these drivers allowed me to reach speeds previously not possible under the stock air cooler on my XFX 8800 ultra XXX edition card.

Stock is 675/1667/2300
core/shader/effective memory
My best overclock was 710/1753/2400
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4336709

Although for some strange reason I scored 69 points higher under lower clocked speeds of 700/1728/2400... to be specific it was:

Main Test Results
3DMark Score 14108 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 6428 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 6780 Marks
CPU Score 3093 Marks

Detailed Test Results

Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 53.459 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 53.677 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 0.98 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 1.562 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 64.761 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 70.848 FPS

Anyone care to explain this to me lol?

[cantankerous]

that means you are pushing the card too hard. When I find I get higher scores from lower clocks it means you are seeing diminishing results from pushing the card too high. It is either erroring in its calculations and it wastes time in doing things not as effeciently as it does at lower clocks.

It could also just be up to margin of error too lol.

700 is a nice clock speed to have. My Evga Ultra sucks. It barely does 660 without artifacts/lockups. 675 is definitely out of the question.

[ANP !!!]

that means you are pushing the card too hard. When I find I get higher scores from lower clocks it means you are seeing diminishing results from pushing the card too high. It is either erroring in its calculations and it wastes time in doing things not as effeciently as it does at lower clocks.

It could also just be up to margin of error too lol.

700 is a nice clock speed to have. My Evga Ultra sucks. It barely does 660 without artifacts/lockups. 675 is definitely out of the question.

Seems like a bad HSF mount ?
My Evga GTX can do 680 3dmark stable.

An Ultra can definitely do better