Nvidia Forceware Driver 60.72 !

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Ulrich" <benchmark@austronaut.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:c55ois$mcu$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
> WIN XP only - non offcial - Beta !
>
> downlaod 12.9 MB
> http://www.googlemaster.plus.com/60.72_winxp2k.exe
>
> screenshot
> http://www.quickbench.mynetcologne.de/sc1_nv60.72.gif
>
> Ulrich
>
> --
> http://www.quickbench.mynetcologne.de
> Benchmarksoftware / Systemanalyser

Just installed the 60.72.

About the same benchmark readings exept:

3Dmark2003 Pixel shader 2.0 went up from 31.2fps (53.03drv.)
to 41.5fps with the 60.72drv.
+200 3Dmark2003 pts.
Haven´t tried any games yet.

Can somebody confirm this improvement ?
G.
 
R

rms

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2003
463
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> Just installed the 60.72.
> About the same benchmark readings exept:
> 3Dmark2003 Pixel shader 2.0 went up from 31.2fps (53.03drv.)
> to 41.5fps with the 60.72drv.

So a 30% gain with a minor driver revision. Does anyone believe this is
possible? How gullible are nvidia customers ?

rms
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Clock´n Roll" <Nospam@2utoo.tx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4076a242$0$303$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
>

> Just installed the 60.72.
>
> About the same benchmark readings exept:
>
> 3Dmark2003 Pixel shader 2.0 went up from 31.2fps (53.03drv.)
> to 41.5fps with the 60.72drv.
> +200 3Dmark2003 pts.
> Haven´t tried any games yet.
>
> Can somebody confirm this improvement ?
> G.
>

Yes, but i noticed that improvement when i changed from driver

53.03 = 36.7
to
54.09 = 44.9


54.09 = 4.9
36.736
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Ulrich" <benchmark@austronaut.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c56c4o$4ll$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
>
54.09 = 4.9
36.736

please don´t notice this entry - my mistake
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that does not
impact the final score?

--
First of One
Formula SAE Racing:
http://fsae.utoronto.ca/


"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:ZVxdc.9976$oH7.1757@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> > Just installed the 60.72.
> > About the same benchmark readings exept:
> > 3Dmark2003 Pixel shader 2.0 went up from 31.2fps (53.03drv.)
> > to 41.5fps with the 60.72drv.
>
> So a 30% gain with a minor driver revision. Does anyone believe this
is
> possible? How gullible are nvidia customers ?
>
> rms
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Clock´n Roll" <Nospam@2utoo.tx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4076a242$0$303$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...

> 3Dmark2003 Pixel shader 2.0 went up from 31.2fps (53.03drv.)
> to 41.5fps with the 60.72drv.
> +200 3Dmark2003 pts.
> Haven´t tried any games yet.
>
> Can somebody confirm this improvement ?
> G.
>

Yes, but i noticed that improvement when i changed from driver

53.03 = 36.7 fps
to
56.64 = 44.9 fps


Ulrich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that does not
> impact the final score?

It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel shader 2.0
test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't improve, so
it seems like a test-specific optimisation.

Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a hell of a
lot with the 56.xx drivers.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that does not
> impact the final score?

Of course there is an score improvement too...

G.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a hell of
a
> lot with the 56.xx drivers.


Not here - using the 60.72.

Actually I´ll keep this 60.72 driver...works just fine with my POV 5900XT.

Last - I simply can´t believe that this should be nothing more than a tuned
3Dmark driver. (....here we go again??? ... *s*...) NO.

G.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that does not
> > impact the final score?
>
> It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel shader 2.0
> test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't improve,
so
> it seems like a test-specific optimisation.
>
> Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a hell of
a
> lot with the 56.xx drivers.
>
>
Well I have to say I got a huge improvement in Far Cry with these drivers on
my FX5900nu - and that uses the new pixel shader 2.0 in the latest patch!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:55:13 +0100, "Bumnuts"
<bumnuts[nospam]@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> > But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that does not
>> > impact the final score?
>>
>> It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel shader 2.0
>> test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't improve,
>so
>> it seems like a test-specific optimisation.
>>
>> Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a hell of
>a
>> lot with the 56.xx drivers.
>>
>>
>Well I have to say I got a huge improvement in Far Cry with these drivers on
>my FX5900nu

Which driver version were you using before 60.72 ?

> - and that uses the new pixel shader 2.0 in the latest patch!
>

V1.1 patch supports PS3.0 ( for NV40); does nothing different in PS
support for existing GPUs.

PS2.0 was already there in V1.0 and enabled for ATi; PS1.x
enabled for Nvidia --- that allocation was not changed in V1.1 patch.

John Lewis

>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

60.72 betas have the same problem for me that the 56.72s had. Back to
53.03, I guess. As I remember, those didn't fail for me.

Stuart
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Bumnuts" <bumnuts[nospam]@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2UTdc.120$AS2.41@newsfe1-win...
>
> "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that does
not
> > > impact the final score?
> >
> > It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel shader
2.0
> > test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't
improve,
> so
> > it seems like a test-specific optimisation.
> >
> > Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a hell
of
> a
> > lot with the 56.xx drivers.
> >
> >
> Well I have to say I got a huge improvement in Far Cry with these drivers
on
> my FX5900nu - and that uses the new pixel shader 2.0 in the latest patch!
>

I tried playing FarCry and BF1942 with the 60.72 using FX5200 card.
Got some frame rate performance but the graphics looked too bad to play.

Tal
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Tal Fucus" <fuchs_t@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:409384ea@news.bezeqint.net...
>
> "Bumnuts" <bumnuts[nospam]@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:2UTdc.120$AS2.41@newsfe1-win...
> >
> > "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that does
> not
> > > > impact the final score?
> > >
> > > It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel shader
> 2.0
> > > test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't
> improve,
> > so
> > > it seems like a test-specific optimisation.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a
hell
> of
> > a
> > > lot with the 56.xx drivers.
> > >
> > >
> > Well I have to say I got a huge improvement in Far Cry with these
drivers
> on
> > my FX5900nu - and that uses the new pixel shader 2.0 in the latest
patch!
> >
>
> I tried playing FarCry and BF1942 with the 60.72 using FX5200 card.
> Got some frame rate performance but the graphics looked too bad to play.
>
> Tal
>
>
>

For the 60.72's to look right in FarCry you have to use the 1.1 patch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"empireAA" <nobody@noSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:cqTkc.536445$Po1.132337@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Tal Fucus" <fuchs_t@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
> news:409384ea@news.bezeqint.net...
> >
> > "Bumnuts" <bumnuts[nospam]@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:2UTdc.120$AS2.41@newsfe1-win...
> > >
> > > "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >
news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > > But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that
does
> > not
> > > > > impact the final score?
> > > >
> > > > It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel
shader
> > 2.0
> > > > test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't
> > improve,
> > > so
> > > > it seems like a test-specific optimisation.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a
> hell
> > of
> > > a
> > > > lot with the 56.xx drivers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Well I have to say I got a huge improvement in Far Cry with these
> drivers
> > on
> > > my FX5900nu - and that uses the new pixel shader 2.0 in the latest
> patch!
> > >
> >
> > I tried playing FarCry and BF1942 with the 60.72 using FX5200 card.
> > Got some frame rate performance but the graphics looked too bad to play.
> >
> > Tal
> >
> >
> >
>
> For the 60.72's to look right in FarCry you have to use the 1.1 patch.
>

Thanks for the info.
It wasn't look good in BF1942 too.
Both games (And all others) works fine for me using the 56.72 driver.
I guess I'll wait for nVidia official release.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

As I've heard, those beta's are for 6800's only so far.

"Tal Fucus" <fuchs_t@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:40941117@news.bezeqint.net...
>
> "empireAA" <nobody@noSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:cqTkc.536445$Po1.132337@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Tal Fucus" <fuchs_t@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
> > news:409384ea@news.bezeqint.net...
> > >
> > > "Bumnuts" <bumnuts[nospam]@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2UTdc.120$AS2.41@newsfe1-win...
> > > >
> > > > "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
> news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > > > But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that
> does
> > > not
> > > > > > impact the final score?
> > > > >
> > > > > It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel
> shader
> > > 2.0
> > > > > test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't
> > > improve,
> > > > so
> > > > > it seems like a test-specific optimisation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN a
> > hell
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > > lot with the 56.xx drivers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Well I have to say I got a huge improvement in Far Cry with these
> > drivers
> > > on
> > > > my FX5900nu - and that uses the new pixel shader 2.0 in the latest
> > patch!
> > > >
> > >
> > > I tried playing FarCry and BF1942 with the 60.72 using FX5200 card.
> > > Got some frame rate performance but the graphics looked too bad to
play.
> > >
> > > Tal
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > For the 60.72's to look right in FarCry you have to use the 1.1 patch.
> >
>
> Thanks for the info.
> It wasn't look good in BF1942 too.
> Both games (And all others) works fine for me using the 56.72 driver.
> I guess I'll wait for nVidia official release.
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Philburg2" <philburg2@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mRUkc.1604$eH1.958186@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> As I've heard, those beta's are for 6800's only so far.
>
> "Tal Fucus" <fuchs_t@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
> news:40941117@news.bezeqint.net...
> >
> > "empireAA" <nobody@noSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:cqTkc.536445$Po1.132337@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Tal Fucus" <fuchs_t@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
> > > news:409384ea@news.bezeqint.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Bumnuts" <bumnuts[nospam]@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2UTdc.120$AS2.41@newsfe1-win...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Darkfalz" <darkfalz@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:c578p7$2o99vb$1@ID-108208.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > > > > "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > news:dyAdc.52448$Bk31.43053@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > > > > But why would nVidia optimize (cheat) in a 3DMark element that
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > > > impact the final score?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It does seem like that doesn't it? Because the synthetic pixel
> > shader
> > > > 2.0
> > > > > > test got a huge improvement, but games actually using 2.0 didn't
> > > > improve,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > it seems like a test-specific optimisation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interestingly, the pixel shader 1.4 test in 3DMark2001 went DOWN
a
> > > hell
> > > > of
> > > > > a
> > > > > > lot with the 56.xx drivers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Well I have to say I got a huge improvement in Far Cry with these
> > > drivers
> > > > on
> > > > > my FX5900nu - and that uses the new pixel shader 2.0 in the latest
> > > patch!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I tried playing FarCry and BF1942 with the 60.72 using FX5200 card.
> > > > Got some frame rate performance but the graphics looked too bad to
> play.
> > > >
> > > > Tal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > For the 60.72's to look right in FarCry you have to use the 1.1 patch.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the info.
> > It wasn't look good in BF1942 too.
> > Both games (And all others) works fine for me using the 56.72 driver.
> > I guess I'll wait for nVidia official release.
> >
> >
>
>
>
The 60.72 were originally released to the press as the default drivers for
the 6800 but they do work with FX cards and tend to be a little less buggy
than the 56.--'s
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Ulrich" <benchmark@austronaut.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:c56ec8$92g$1@newsreader2.netcologne.de...
>
> "Clock´n Roll" <Nospam@2utoo.tx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4076a242$0$303$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
>
> > 3Dmark2003 Pixel shader 2.0 went up from 31.2fps (53.03drv.)
> > to 41.5fps with the 60.72drv.
> > +200 3Dmark2003 pts.
> > Haven´t tried any games yet.
> >
> > Can somebody confirm this improvement ?
> > G.
> >
>
> Yes, but i noticed that improvement when i changed from driver
>
> 53.03 = 36.7 fps
> to
> 56.64 = 44.9 fps
>
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>
Just remembered this thread.
Hmm...don´t get it at all.
Was the 56.64 a official driver - or a beta too?
---------

http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/driverIQ/

Well, ATI did some "driver optimizing" as well...

Confused..

Where to get a " for-sure-quality" not a" slightly boosted" driver for my
POV 5900XT?

Would that be the 53.03?
But - Battlefield Vietnam doesn´t like this one...

:-/ G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom