160.02 Windows XP WHQL!

Firegod · 17 May 2007 at 12:01

You know the place.

http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1640

Apparently ment for Quadro cards, yet it supports all models and is apparently good for gaming.

Fix the crash in Lost Planet as well. Stalker appears quicker as does CS:Source.

I'm downloading them now.

Darkwave · 17 May 2007 at 12:36

About time we had some XP drivers.

LoadsaMoney · 17 May 2007 at 12:43

yeah they are meant for the Quadro cards, see here, just someones modded the .inf so they work on other models by the looks of it, i'll await more feedback then decide wether to try em or not as im very happy with the 158.22's at present.

Darkwave · 17 May 2007 at 12:53

Working fine so far and no dodgy corruption, missing icons etc. Not tried any games yet though.

My only complaint is that 1:1 pixel mapping still doesn't work for me in Windows XP.

Firegod · 17 May 2007 at 13:23

Well here are some quick results from me.

158.16
------
3DMark06 - 8660

158.19
------
3DMark06 - 8662

158.22
------
3DMark06 - 8655

160.02
------
3DMark06 - 8652

So slightly slower than the official 158.22 drivers, but 3 points! I could probably run it again and get a different result. So I'm saying same score for me in 3DMark06. At least no major loss!

Games, well I tried Doom3, CoH and Lost Planet comparing them to the 158.22 drivers.

Doom3 (16xQ AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / Ultra) - 158.22 = 52.3 FPS
Doom3 (16xQ AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / Ultra) - 160.02 = 51.7 FPS

Wow.... 0.6 FPS lost. So, nothing to write home about there.

Lost Planet Demo ( 4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / High (bar Shadows - Med) - 158.22 = SNOW 35 FPS + CAVE 44 FPS
Lost Planet Demo ( 4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / High (bar Shadows - Med) - 160.02 = SNOW 36 FPS + CAVE 44 FPS

No improvement there either.

Although I have yet to play the game and test stability with these drivers. Nice to know no FPS was lost though.

Finally, Company Of Heroes. Here are the in-game settings,

CoH (4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling) - 158.22

CoH (4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling) - 160.02

As you can see, I gained 4 FPS for the maximum score. Average score remains the same.

To summarise then, it looks like for me no major FPS improvement or loss. They appear stable and I had no werid graphical glitches when running the benchmarks. One thing which will make me stay with them instead of changing back is the IQ. I know people always want to see an improvement, and most of the time it's just in your head. But to me, textures appeared slightly more clear and crisp with these compared to the 158.22 drivers.

So I'm going to stick with them for that reason. Otherwise the 158.22 drivers are just as good.

Cheers.

fobose · 17 May 2007 at 13:54

Maybe its me just being stupid but for my 7 series card I can only seem to get 93.xx drivers from the nvidia website, which are rather old (november 06 I believe)?

Darkwave · 17 May 2007 at 14:01

fobose said:
Maybe its me just being stupid but for my 7 series card I can only seem to get 93.xx drivers from the nvidia website, which are rather old (november 06 I believe)?

Get the NGO drivers, they customise the drivers to support all GPUs since the Geforce2 I think.

fobose · 17 May 2007 at 14:09

Cool thanks, am downloading them now

it even says added support for 7900GS AGP

Greenboi · 17 May 2007 at 14:31

just installed these - noticed no fps differences, Lost Planet same fps, same with CoJ, i dont use any of the control panel things tbh, so i couldnt tell you if they worked or not...if anyone wants i can do a 3d05 test to compare to my sig score(new hdd, havnt got round to downloading 06 yet..)

Doppleganger · 17 May 2007 at 14:46

Firegod said:
Well here are some quick results from me.

158.16
------
3DMark06 - 8660

158.19
------
3DMark06 - 8662

158.22
------
3DMark06 - 8655

160.02
------
3DMark06 - 8652

So slightly slower than the official 158.22 drivers, but 3 points! I could probably run it again and get a different result. So I'm saying same score for me in 3DMark06. At least no major loss!

Games, well I tried Doom3, CoH and Lost Planet comparing them to the 158.22 drivers.

Doom3 (16xQ AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / Ultra) - 158.22 = 52.3 FPS
Doom3 (16xQ AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / Ultra) - 160.02 = 51.7 FPS

Wow.... 0.6 FPS lost. So, nothing to write home about there.

Lost Planet Demo ( 4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / High (bar Shadows - Med) - 158.22 = SNOW 35 FPS + CAVE 44 FPS
Lost Planet Demo ( 4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling / High (bar Shadows - Med) - 160.02 = SNOW 36 FPS + CAVE 44 FPS

No improvement there either. Although I have yet to play the game and test stability with these drivers. Nice to know no FPS was lost though.

Finally, Company Of Heroes. Here are the in-game settings,

CoH (4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling) - 158.22

CoH (4x AA / 16x AF / Supersampling) - 160.02

As you can see, I gained 4 FPS for the maximum score. Average score remains the same.

To summarise then, it looks like for me no major FPS improvement or loss. They appear stable and I had no werid graphical glitches when running the benchmarks. One thing which will make me stay with them instead of changing back is the IQ. I know people always want to see an improvement, and most of the time it's just in your head. But to me, textures appeared slightly more clear and crisp with these compared to the 158.22 drivers.

So I'm going to stick with them for that reason. Otherwise the 158.22 drivers are just as good.

Cheers.

Slightly off-topic here but I'm wondering how your min FPS drops to 7, which seems really low to me. My own scores for everything on full are 84.5 ave, 166.8 max, 47.5 min. I do have a GTX but slower cpu speed. Using 158.19 drivers as it happens.

EDIT: you have enabled supersampling and 16AF so I did too and got 60.6 ave, 167.6 max, 36.6 min. Still doesn't explain your very low min fps score.

Darkwave · 17 May 2007 at 14:53

Doppleganger said:
Slightly off-topic here but I'm wondering how your min FPS drops to 7, which seems really low to me. My own scores for everything on full are 84.5 ave, 166.8 max, 47.5 min. I do have a GTX but slower cpu speed. Using 158.19 drivers as it happens.

Quoting a massive bunch of pictures to ask one question is naughty.

melbourne720 · 17 May 2007 at 15:00

Nice one Firegod, posted the link then tested the drivers, that's what I call a driver thread. Have some stars.

Firegod · 17 May 2007 at 15:33

melbourne720 said:
Nice one Firegod, posted the link then tested the drivers, that's what I call a driver thread. Have some stars.

Haha oooh cheers.

Firegod · 17 May 2007 at 15:34

Doppleganger said:
Slightly off-topic here but I'm wondering how your min FPS drops to 7, which seems really low to me. My own scores for everything on full are 84.5 ave, 166.8 max, 47.5 min. I do have a GTX but slower cpu speed. Using 158.19 drivers as it happens.

EDIT: you have enabled supersampling and 16AF so I did too and got 60.6 ave, 167.6 max, 36.6 min. Still doesn't explain your very low min fps score.

Hmm I don't know tbh. The only score I care about is average, I don't know why it dips to 7 FPS. :confused:

strange indeed saying yours never goes below 47.5 FPS.

I'll defrag my hard disk and give it another go.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Greenboi · 17 May 2007 at 15:38

Just done 3dmark 05, got 17572, 1pt less than my previous score with the 158.22's

Slinky1989 · 17 May 2007 at 15:46

Downloading now

I'll see how it goes on my 7950gt.

I REALLY want some updated drivers, hopefully this is it.

I'll post 3d mark scores when I'm done.

Lolcb · 17 May 2007 at 16:43

Firegod said:
Hmm I don't know tbh. The only score I care about is average, I don't know why it dips to 7 FPS. strange indeed saying yours never goes below 47.5 FPS.

I'll defrag my hard disk and give it another go.

Thanks for pointing that out.

He is right, at that reso, your minimum fps shouldnt dip so low...

pastymuncher · 17 May 2007 at 19:30

Firegod said:
Hmm I don't know tbh. The only score I care about is average, I don't know why it dips to 7 FPS. strange indeed saying yours never goes below 47.5 FPS.

I'll defrag my hard disk and give it another go.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I just tried the COH benchie on my rig and my scores are way different to yours again. My 4300 is at 3ghz at the mo (did'nt see much difference when gaming at 3.4ghz) with my 320mb 8800GTS at 650/1900 and every setting was completely maxxed out including anything that had ultra was set to ultra and at 1280x1024. I did have a low minimum but my max and average are quite a bit higher.

Min 16.7fps
Max 226 fps
Avg 103 fps

This is with the 158.22 set of drivers on XP.

Firegod · 17 May 2007 at 20:26

pastymuncher said:
I just tried the COH benchie on my rig and my scores are way different to yours again. My 4300 is at 3ghz at the mo (did'nt see much difference when gaming at 3.4ghz) with my 320mb 8800GTS at 650/1900 and every setting was completely maxxed out including anything that had ultra was set to ultra and at 1280x1024. I did have a low minimum but my max and average are quite a bit higher.

Min 16.7fps
Max 226 fps
Avg 103 fps

This is with the 158.22 set of drivers on XP.

But you have a C2D CPU and an overclocked card, that'll be why.

Did you run it with the AA and AF settings that I used also?

I can't figure out why the min is so low.... :confused:

Doppleganger · 18 May 2007 at 01:01

Maybe you have some background process that's running, causing your FPS to drop suddenly. Something like an anti-virus prog or similar. Maybe it's just the supersampling with the GTS and the more powerful GTX copes with it better. For example I get a far higher min FPS score than pastymuncher who's running a more powerful cpu than I am, but with a GTS.