• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

**THE NVIDIA DRIVERS THREAD**

There maybe a reason they reverted a branch back down. Im sure they wouldnt have released .23 if there wasnt somit wrong with the .24s Unless there identical and just named differently but are the exact same internally of the drivers?
 
Or they finished the 327.23 before they went onto the 327.24 ;)

Nothing wrong with the .24's at all, even Nvidia hasn't mentioned anything. This happens sometimes that a WHQL has an older branch number than another release.

No point down grading
 
Some other testers and I have been using 327.23 for a bit now and there are some open issues still, but as Manuel said they are working on a BETA driver.
Click to expand...

ManuelG posted on the GeForce.com forum in the v327.24 beta driver thread that those drivers do not contain all the fixes to be included in the next certified driver and I presume he was referring to today's v325.23 WHQL drivers?

It isn't uncommon for a developer to be using a different branch based around an older version of the driver as they are testing for OpenGL 4.4 in this case. Eventually OpenGL 4.4 will be added to the official driver releases which are currently still using OpenGL 4.3, I believe.
Click to expand...
Still R325, yet 327 in name, vs R326 dev with 327 in name too. This is really getting irritating. I'll throw a coin when I come home. Face is 327.23, Back is 327.24 for me.
Click to expand...

So the 327.24 are older, yet newer in branch name... Yet these WHQLs don't contain fixes that will be in the upcoming Beta


picard.jpg
 
Last edited:
I read the release notes and saw no major issues. Every driver has some small ones.

Anything I should be aware of specifically that will be critical in everyday usage?
 
Unsure

Just beta testers and NVIDIA ManualG said that there are "OPEN ISSUES" which will be in the next driver.
 
Yeah theres always open issues. Never a driver without issues.

Probably just minor things. Otherwise they wouldnt have passed whql i would have thought.

Giving them a go now. Was on the 326.80betas then 320.49 whql ones now ill be on these whql ones just come out for a bit.
 
SkeeterUK said:
Yeah theres always open issues. Never a driver without issues.

Probably just minor things. Otherwise they wouldnt have passed whql i would have thought.

Giving them a go now. Was on the 326.80betas then 320.49 whql ones now ill be on these whql ones just come out for a bit.
Click to expand...

Ermmm It's Nvidia we are talking about, plenty of WHQL drivers have been released that were bad. Remember it's just a microsoft stamp!

Though you should notice a difference from the 320's as I did from the 314.22 -> 327.24 :):)
 
Right about nvidia and whql to some extent. Still duno how some past wqhl have been passed like due to them ruined cards not long back. Still id like to think they improve there testing each time somit bad like that happens to keep them types of issues down.
 
That ruining by drivers cards is still an unproven, unconfirmed myth.

It's been discussed several times on many forums including this one and no-one has yet to give any proper proof of it.

Yes, one of the drivers that was supplied on the CD that came with a certain card did not have a voltage limit on it.. but you could NOT exceed that unless you overclocked it yourself. You OC, your risk.
 
Neil79 said:
Ermmm It's Nvidia we are talking about, plenty of WHQL drivers have been released that were bad. Remember it's just a microsoft stamp!

Though you should notice a difference from the 320's as I did from the 314.22 -> 327.24 :):)
Click to expand...

It's not just a stamp tho. It has to go through quality control. If it was just a stamp, then they could stamp any old beta and pass it, but the reason why the drivers have taken a while to come out, is becuase they where failing Microsoft's approval process due to bugs.
 
SkeeterUK said:
Right about nvidia and whql to some extent. Still duno how some past wqhl have been passed like due to them ruined cards not long back. Still id like to think they improve there testing each time somit bad like that happens to keep them types of issues down.
Click to expand...

WHQL certification is just about windows and standard directx functionality tho it doesn't guarantee a driver is in any state for running games or anything else.
 
Anyway I'm sticking with the 327.24's just because they work so well here and on other forums i've read the .24's are prefered! Can't stand it when people rush for the WHQL and act as if the WHQL are perfect, I've found though not always, that the Beta drivers can be even better! So far the ONLY Whql driver that was any good was the 314.22 and it's the most used driver that people go back to when they've upgraded to any higher driver including the WHQL's. However the 327.24 is as good if not better in some instances than the 314, and it's a BETA driver.
 
Neil79 said:
Anyway I'm sticking with the 327.24's just because they work so well here and on other forums i've read the .24's are prefered! Can't stand it when people rush for the WHQL and act as if the WHQL are perfect, I've found though not always, that the Beta drivers can be even better! So far the ONLY Whql driver that was any good was the 314.22 and it's the most used driver that people go back to when they've upgraded to any higher driver including the WHQL's. However the 327.24 is as good if not better in some instances than the 314, and it's a BETA driver.
Click to expand...

I have 23. where can I get 24 at?
 
327.23 performance with Blacklist was 45-50fps on 326.80 now SLI profile works on this one i get 100-120fps.Castlevania SLI still not working correctly though. :(

Other games seem great so far, Outlast in 3D has been tweaked to perfection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom