|
|
 |
| [Mar 06, 2008, 3:40 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
New Beta version 169.44 ForceWare reference drivers are now available for
GeForce FX, 6, 7, and 8 series GPUs, described as the recommended driver for the
new version 1.2 patch for Crysis (thanks Gamer's Hell). There is a driver for
Windows XP, Windows XP
Media Center Edition,
Windows XP x64,
Server 2003 x64,
Windows Vista
32-bit., and
Windows Vista 64-bit.
< Prev [ 1 2 ] Next >
| 22. |
Tried 169.44 |
Mar 8, 2008, 02:02 |
Ant |
|
|
... As I expected, it didn't improve for my Crysis v1.2 and GeForce 7950 GT KO in Windows XP Pro. SP2.  |
| 21. |
174s are the way to go |
Mar 7, 2008, 08:26 |
McSterls |
|
|
The 169 drivers completely run like shit in Crysis, while the 174 drivers are smooth as silk.
|
| 20. |
why? |
Mar 6, 2008, 21:52 |
LittleMe |
|
|
Why should we need a specific video driver for any game? I mean why isn't nVidia and Crytek programming for standards instead of demanding custom software? It seems very backwards to operate this way because over time it will make things more and more complex and difficult to support. This is how openGL used to work anyway. Why can't they (nv and crytek) just optimize for the established and written DX coding standards?
|
| 19. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 21:01 |
Old_Geezer |
|
|
Actually, Crysis has a weird ability to still seem smooth even when the framerates get low. I couldn't imagine trying to play with noticable stutters though (let alone single digits, heh heh). I get the ocassional spot that hits low 20s when I have fraps running, but I never notice them when I'm just playing. Film movies at the cinema still have a standard of 24fps I believe. Things have gotten better with LCD monitors too I think...Old CRT monitors are where refresh rates really mattered and combined with low framerates, they could really induce headaches. I don't know why they even bother mentioning refresh rates with LCDs...it's not the same thing, there isn't only one pixel illuminated at any given moment coz of some scanning electron beam, the whole LCD screen is "lit" up at once, and you can't notice a 60Hz refresh rate like you could on a CRT (60Hz would give me a headache).
I can run Crysis on XP (dx9) with everything set to high (maxed out), but no AA or AF, at 1440x900 and I average in 30s-40s and it's perfectly playable...not sure if this patch made much of a difference though). Crysis and ARMA are the only two games that tax my system at all. COD4 maxed out runs over 100fps...but for visual stimulation, Crysis has spoiled me for all other games it seems. Hope someone creates a good non-alien tactical militaryshooter mod for it someday.
Motherboard: Asus P4N32-E SLI
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz
Ram: 4Gigs Corsair DDR2 800 (4,4,4,12)
Video: Two "BFG 8800 GT OC 512Mb" cards in SLI mode
Sound: Creative X-Fi Extreme Gamer
Hard drive: 500Gb SATA
Case: Antec Nine-Hundred "Ultimate Gamer Case"
Power Supply: Antec TruePower Quattro 1000 Watt
Some DVD Burner.
Total: 1800 bucks Canadian...not bad eh?
This message was edited at Mar 6, 21:12. |
| 18. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 18:53 |
kyleb |
|
|
20 fps isn't completely unplayable. Just barely playable 20fps is barely playable, 21fps average with lows dropping into the single digits is torture.
|
| 17. |
174.20 |
Mar 6, 2008, 18:27 |
Cheese |
|
|
yeah thats the beta im on XP of course. but these drivers and the revision before them fixed the fan bug and the overclocking bug I was having with my now old 8800GTS 640meg card. IQ is nice and performance is great.
Games im playing atm: Soulstorm, Frontlines , Hereos 5, Crysis and Everquest 1.
|
| 16. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 18:10 |
Jerykk |
|
|
20 fps isn't completely unplayable. Just barely playable.
|
| 15. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 17:51 |
kyleb |
|
|
At completely unplayable framerates, I doubt it applies very well to anyone.
This message was edited at Mar 6, 17:54. |
| 14. |
I wonder how much improvements? |
Mar 6, 2008, 16:36 |
Ant |
|
|
I wonder how much improvements I get on my GeForce 7950 GT KO. Hmm! Probably NONE!
This message was edited at Mar 6, 16:48. |
| 13. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 16:05 |
McSterls |
|
|
I'm just confused now. Which ones should I use 174.xx or 169.44 ??
|
| 10. |
No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 15:47 |
necrosis |
|
|
174's are aparently 9XXX only.
|
| 9. |
No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 15:42 |
Tr0n |
|
|
But there are only for 9xxx right? Or do they work with 8xxx also?
|
| 7. |
Re: Driver Version Number |
Mar 6, 2008, 15:38 |
Tr0n |
|
|
McSterls: link please.
|
| 5. |
No subject |
Mar 6, 2008, 15:17 |
DanL |
|
|
That's nice, but they don't say what's improved or why its "recommended". Does crysis 1.2 crash and burn with prev version of the drivers? Plus I'm always leary about installing beta drivers.
|
| 4. |
Driver Version Number |
Mar 6, 2008, 15:16 |
McSterls |
|
|
I've seen version 174.31 on NVIDIAs FTP site - so what are what are these drivers at 169.44 ?
McSterls
|
| 3. |
Re: ... |
Mar 6, 2008, 15:15 |
nin |
|
|
Awesome...maybe between this and the patch, we'll see some improvement.
------------------------------------------------
http://ghosts.nin.com/ |
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Prev [ 1 2 ] Next >
|
News script copyright © 1999-2009 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News.
