Nvidia 84.20 drivers

[TriggerHappy101]

http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_downloads_rel70betadriver.html

So that 84.20 one?

 

[samusaraniv]

I got the 84.20 Forceware from this link:

http://www.filehippo.com/download_nvidia_forceware/

The one that you just posted is 17MBs while this one is 29 -- why such a size difference? Are they two different Forcewares?

I did get a little time last night to test out the one from that and it improved my framerates in both BF2 and LOTR: BTME II by quite a bit. However, I did lock up once in BF2 playing multiplayer. I reverted my card back to stock speeds and it didn't happen again, so maybe the OC is what caused it. Impressed with the 29MB 84.20 drivers thus far, will get some more chance to test tonight.

 

[TriggerHappy101]

Hrmmmmm i think you d-loaded the "international" one.

 

[Gstanfor]

goto tweaksrus for the modded 84.20 driver (I reccomend it), you can go here to get the official nVIDIA beta release of 84.20.

84.15 has not yet been released. anything prior to 84.15/84.20 is inferior both in performance and IQ.

 

[BFG10K]

I wondering what's going on, it's obvious that they have the drivers, but they are just not releasing them . . .

I wonder too. Possibly a last minute beta test at the expense of the public - i.e. "release" the drivers but have no responsibility if they fall over because they're not at the main page.

nVidia need to stop flip-flopping and start releasing official drivers on a more regular basis.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I wondering what's going on, it's obvious that they have the drivers, but they are just not releasing them . . .

I wonder too. Possibly a last minute beta test at the expense of the public - i.e. "release" the drivers but have no responsibility if they fall over because they're not at the main page.

nVidia need to stop flip-flopping and start releasing official drivers on a more regular basis.

You lovely little conspiracy theory fails to take into account two things.

1) nVIDIA accepts no responsibility for their reference drivers official or not. You need to use your card vendors drivers if you want anyone to take responsibility.

2) the 84.15's haven't been released or leaked, so it would be kinda difficult for them to do any damage in the first place...

 

[BFG10K]

nVIDIA accepts no responsibility for their reference drivers official or not.

It's pretty hard to not accept responsibility when a driver is plastered on their main page under the "download" section. And technically nobody takes responsibilties for drivers because they're covered by the EULA.

I personally think reviewers should insist on using official drivers and not do reviews without them (i.e. they should only use drivers from the official download page). If the official drivers don't support the card they should stop the review and clearly state nVidia is not currently supporting the card and to ask consumers to wait before purchasing it.

This would stop nVidia from sneaking beta drivers to reviewers and instead force them to put up finished drivers that the public has access to from the minute the reviews hit.

nVidia has been doing "beta review sneaks" since the dawn of time and quite frankly it's more than tiresome now.

 

[Gstanfor]

You have the 84.20's to download, should you so desire. They are faster and more recent than the reviewers 84.17 set. I fail to see what you are moaning about.

BTW: nVIDIA isn't the only company to have ever given reviewers beta drivers - remember QUAK? and that's just for starters...

 

[BFG10K]

BTW: nVIDIA isn't the only company to have ever given reviewers beta drivers - remember QUAK? and that's just for starters...

Agreed - all vendors need to be required to provide official drivers for their products.

Still, for all of ATi's past faults their official monthly driver updates are much better than nVidia's driver update scheme.

 

[BenSkywalker]

If the official drivers don't support the card they should stop the review and clearly state nVidia is not currently supporting the card and to ask consumers to wait before purchasing it.

Trying to push the boundaries of absurdity? nVidia never has and isn't likely ever to support the cards- they don't make them. That said- if say BFG has non WHQL drivers on their site and are offering support for them then what does it matter if they paid MS their driver taxation fee or not? Do you hold large quantities of MS stock by chance? I've never gotten your obsession with MS taxed drivers.

Still, for all of ATi's past faults their official monthly driver updates are much better than nVidia's driver update scheme.

Force install of .NET and robbing a ton of system resources is great and leaking drivers is a scheme....?

 

[Ike0069]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but i must say that I'm extremely impressed with the extreme-G drivers for my 6800GT.

After upgrading from 81.85 extreme-G drivers, my 3DMark score increased by 9.5% with nothing but this driver change. Not sure if this what everyone else is getting, but I'm in awe right now.

 

[BFG10K]

Trying to push the boundaries of absurdity?

What's absurd is waiting 4-6 months for an official driver update while your competitor has released 4-6 officially supported drivers in the same time.

And don't even go down the path of claiming nVidia driver superiority, especially not since you made the crack about ATi failing to get basic rasterization principles right in GLQuake when it turns out nVidia's drivers can't even launch the game (scroll down to the driver bug lists for both vendors).

nVidia never has and isn't likely ever to support the cards- they don't make them.

Then why post reference drivers on their website?

Not to mention that we know that ATi supports their drivers because they have a feedback form.

That said- if say BFG has non WHQL drivers on their site and are offering support for them then

Will BFG support those drivers on my Asus card? It's possible they wouldn't even install if they don't detect a BFG BIOS.

what does it matter if they paid MS their driver taxation fee or not?

It matters for two reasons (1) the drivers have passed MS's tests so there is at least some degree of quality to them and (2) gaining WHQL is about attitude and commitment on the part of the vendor with regards to their drivers.

Force install of .NET and robbing a ton of system resources is great and leaking drivers is a scheme....?

.NET, CCC and CCP are optional components. If you don't like them download the base driver and use any number of the good Radeon tweakers available.

 

[Gstanfor]

WTF are you on about BFG10K?!? Can't launch GLQuake? News to me and my installed copy...

"Then why post reference drivers on their website?" As a courtesy to end-users and for the benefit of the card-vendors, that's why.

"Will BFG support those drivers on my Asus card? It's possible they wouldn't even install if they don't detect a BFG BIOS." Obviously, you use the ASUS drivers, not the BFG ones, you mindless moron!

 

[BFG10K]

Can't launch GLQuake? News to me and my installed copy...

Mine crashes on startup with both 81.98 and 84.21 and the Microsoft bug report is mentioning nVidia's OpenGL ICD.

It has no problems on my X800XL though.

As a courtesy to end-users and for the benefit of the card-vendors, that's why.

It's not much of a courtesy if takes them 4-6 months to do so.

Obviously, you use the ASUS drivers, not the BFG ones, you mindless moron!

That's my whole point - using OEM drivers takes me away from the nVidia reference driver and locks me to a particular OEM. To make the claim "nVidia doesn't support reference drivers" is simply not good enough given ATi does support their reference drivers.

 

[Gstanfor]

Perhaps you are missing the "reference" in reference driver... You were locked to a card maker when you bought the card if you want support for the drivers. It is up to the card maker, not nVIDIA to properly support their product. Some provide more support than others.

If not having support for the driver does not trouble you, just use the reference drivers and be happy.

 

[BFG10K]

Your excuses don't change the fact that in addition to not fixing any of the issues I have with the 81.98s, OpenGL performance has absolutely tanked across the board with the 84.21 drivers.

In Call of Duty alone I lost almost 14% performance over the 81.98 drivers.

Now I can look forward to another 4-6 months of waiting to get another new official driver to try.

 

[ForumMaster]

well, nVIDIA has now caught up with ATI in F.E.A.R.! excellent news!

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Your excuses don't change the fact that in addition to not fixing any of the issues I have with the 81.98s, OpenGL performance has absolutely tanked across the board with the 84.21 drivers.

In Call of Duty alone I lost almost 14% performance over the 81.98 drivers.

Now I can look forward to another 4-6 months of waiting to get another new official driver to try.

??? I really don't know what to tell you, all I can say is I haven't detected a performance loss in OGL with XG84.20 v2, and I haven't seen people posting in forums about such performance losses either, quite the contrary in fact.