Lets Benchmark some of these damn Nvidia Drivers....

PoopyTheJ · Oct 3, 2004, 04:28 AM

Ok, so I'm a little peeved about all theses bloody Nvidia drivers available, none of them official it seems except the 61.77's aeons ago, and gobs and gobs of other Beta drivers available all over the place. So I was running the 66.70's and getting the best performance so far out of them, Thanks to WiredZero and then he told me about these new 6681's available on the ftp, well my son has been sick all day and I've just been on and off running benchmarks and installing the drivers, run benchmarks go play with/take care of my son etc and so I have some benchmark comparisons for you all with both the 66.70's and the 66.81's. I think I'm going back to the 66.70's personally as you'll see, but I'm wondering if we can perhaps get a thread going here where we can benchmark our drivers as we test them and we can all see how everything compares across a wide a range as possible. This way we all know what's the best drivers that we've found and hopefully can be a one stop shop especially for all the new Nvidia guys who might be a bit confused by the mess of drivers available. I first ran the tests using the 66.70's at 415/1100, then the 66.81's at the same clock speeds. My rig is a P4 2.8 @ 3.11GHz, 222FSB, 1GB RAM. and here's the scores I'm getting

66.70
3DMark05 - 5142
3DMark03 - 12475
Aquamark - 62323
UT2004 1280x1024 - 38fps average / 1600x1200 - 40fps average

66.81
3DMark05 - 5104
3DMark03 - 12086
Aquamark - 59098
UT2004 - 1280x1024 - 36fps Average / 1600x1200 - 37fps average
the UT2004 Benches were run using UMark and run on the new map Island Hop with the ECE Bonus pack recently released. All detail settings in game were set at their highest.

To make this a bit more realistic these tests were run with AIM, MSN, Azureus, and AVG running in the background. All tests were run 3 times and the average used as the final score. Also all tests were run on High Detail as far as the NVIDIA control panel goes with AA and AF turned OFF.

So lets get some benchmarks in here, perhaps a mod could sticky this, and we'll get some sort of realistic comparison going between these drivers so we know where we stand.

Wiredzero · Oct 3, 2004, 06:54 AM

I pretty much had similar results. The 66.81's seem to be just a "hair" less capable than the 66.70's. However, for those that would be wanting "official drivers" from nVidia...the 66.81's are a decent set.

(note: Unwinder has added support for the 66.70's in his upcoming rivatuner release...yet made no consideration to add support for the 66.81's.

)

Danhill · Oct 3, 2004, 01:35 PM

PoopyTheJ,

I think this is a great thread, I agree with you regarding the drivers, coming from Ati it's totaly cofusing wich drivers to have.

Zardon · Oct 3, 2004, 01:43 PM

66.70s have worked well for me.

Asmoday · Oct 3, 2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zardon

66.70s have worked well for me.

I agree, 66.70 has worked the best for me too. The 3dmark has been pretty much the same though, within the margin of error.
But the 66.70 has been the smoothest for me in the games ive been playing lately..

edit: i tried the official 66.81 against 66.70 in aquamark, and the difference was quiet big actually....from 599**with the 66.81 to 64***...with the 66.70's
In 05 the difference was only like barely 100 points in favour for the 66.70's..

Danhill · Oct 3, 2004, 02:07 PM

I only tried to bench with 66.70 (5228-3DM05) but never got to play with them, 66.81 (5200 - 3DM05) the 66.81 I played a little with, FS Flight sim seems to have a boost since 61.77, never had so hig FPS when playing with 4AA and 8AF, Farcry, Doom3, Star Trek Elite Force II, Tiger Woods 2005 works flawlessly with 66.81 and 4AA & 8AF - (or maybe it could be my card??) :-)

PoopyTheJ · Oct 3, 2004, 08:12 PM

I also threw the 6651's in for a VERY short while and decided they were not for me at all,

3DMark03 - 11149
UT 1280x1024 - 39fps Avg / 1600x1200 - 40fps Avg on Island Hop

See, the interesting thing about these drivers is the performance in UT compared to 3dmark03, huge drop in 3dmark03 but UT ran about the same, I may throw these back in and do some more performance analysis, I'd like to run some tests with AA and AF as well with the sets and see how they go...

Danhill - whats your card clocked at and what's your FSB? Cause I don't think I've seen 5200 in 3dmark 05 yet, and my P4 is at 3.1, and my card is clocked at 415/1.10. Hmmmmm

Danhill · Oct 4, 2004, 07:04 AM

When I benched with 66.70 I had my card @ 435/1200.
My P4 is @ 2,6 and 220 fsb.

But I know I can get higher, maybe 5500, Asmoday and Pac-man has got there.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=34569

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoopyTheJ

I also threw the 6651's in for a VERY short while and decided they were not for me at all,

3DMark03 - 11149
UT 1280x1024 - 39fps Avg / 1600x1200 - 40fps Avg on Island Hop

See, the interesting thing about these drivers is the performance in UT compared to 3dmark03, huge drop in 3dmark03 but UT ran about the same, I may throw these back in and do some more performance analysis, I'd like to run some tests with AA and AF as well with the sets and see how they go...

Danhill - whats your card clocked at and what's your FSB? Cause I don't think I've seen 5200 in 3dmark 05 yet, and my P4 is at 3.1, and my card is clocked at 415/1.10. Hmmmmm

PoopyTheJ · Oct 4, 2004, 08:58 AM

Wow! What an overclock, what brand is it? Anyways I got my crad to clock to 415/1.15 and ran some more tests with the 66.70's, I think I might try to reinstall the 6681's and run the same tests as well the difference here is I ran them using 4XAA and 8XAF enabled in the CP.
3DMark05 - 4738
3DMark03 - 8034
Aquamark - [COLOR=DarkOrange]55439[/COLOR] [COLOR=DarkOrange]See below[/COLOR]
UTMark same map as before 1280x1024 39Avg Fps / 1600*1280 40Avg FPS, obviously the game is CPU limited as I'm seeing no drop in frames or performance with AA and AF enabled, the test is run with 12 bots btw. I think it's interesting that 3d05 shows a fairly small drop in performance 8%, whereas 3dmark03 shows a 35% decrease! Is this optimization for 05 or a an optimization to AA and AF as far as PS intensive apps are concerned, or does AA not work? Aquamark only shows a 12% decrease in score, nothing like 35% in 03.......

Danhill · Oct 4, 2004, 11:23 AM

The card I have is a Gainward 6800 GT Golden Sample.

Wow thats a impressive score with 4AA & 8AF

Yallrun · Oct 4, 2004, 12:51 PM

Hum I haven't benched my 6800Gt yet. But I had my old TI4600 crap out on me in my daughters PC and ended up buying a 6800/128 for her PC. I'm new to benching and not sure what's good and what sucks. But I ran 3dmark03 on her PC and got a score of 10480. Not sure if that's good or bad?

Yallrun

Wiredzero · Oct 4, 2004, 12:53 PM

Default install without overclocking and running one of the better driver sets with DX9.0c? Yeah, that's a decent score. I score around that, but that's cause I don't O/C.

Yallrun · Oct 4, 2004, 01:21 PM

Yeah I don't OC either, I installed the 66.70 and DX9c and that was the score. So that's a ok score for a 6800/128? Yeah I figured since she dosen't really game much but likes playing sims, she didn't need a great card but I got her a good card.

Yallrun

Wiredzero · Oct 4, 2004, 04:19 PM

Something I found @ 3dChipset.com that might help shed a little light on the driver performances.

Yallrun · Oct 4, 2004, 05:05 PM

Cool nice chart! Guess I'll stick with the 66.70's!

Yallrun

PoopyTheJ · Oct 4, 2004, 06:23 PM

Hey thanks wired! I'm still unsure of 3DMark05, it seems a better overall gauge then it's predecessor but still too early to tell I think, wish I had CS:Source to bench with.... BTW anybody know any good benchmarking tools, that I can like record a gaming session then play it back again as a benchmark?

PoopyTheJ · Oct 23, 2004, 10:17 PM

Just benched using the Omega 16177's I know 3dmark suite is crappy, but Aquamark is nice, UT2k4 is slower than the 66.70's for me though Here you go
3d03 - 7507
3d05 - 3771
Aquamark - 50750
UT DX9 - 1600x1200 29 fps
DX8 - 1600x1200 36fps
OGL - 33FPS
All test run at 4xaa 8xaf with Azureus, Teamspeak, MSN, AIM running for some more realistic gameplay.

PoopyTheJ · Oct 27, 2004, 06:08 AM

Benchmarked using the 66.72's here, and they perform very similiarly to the 66.70's but I've got to say I think I prefer the IQ on the 66.72's the gamma is definitely arkeer but I think overall it just looks nicer. Here's the scores though
3D05 - 4682
3D03 - 8012
UT2004 DX 8 Mode 1600x1200 - 38.5FPS 1280x1024 39FPS Average
Aquamark - 51965
All test run at 415/1150 4xAA and 8xAF forced in control panel with Azureus, Teamspeak and MSN, AIM,AVG running in the background. I like this driver set but for performance it appears as though there's nothing out there to touch the 66.70's. Until we see a new set that is, I feel much better now, got to get some benchmarks from multiple drivers so I can see for myself how things operate and give people an idea of what drivers do what with what. I know my tests, UT/Aquamark/3d03/3d05 aren't the most sophisticated grouping but they give you a good solid idea of whats going on.

PoopyTheJ · Oct 27, 2004, 08:11 PM

I kept looking at that Aquamark score on the 6670's thinking it was really high so I rebenched with Azureus, AIM, MSN, Teamspeak etc running with 4xAA and 8XAF, I think I screwed up the first time becasue the average of three runs now is 51938, which seems more in-line with the rest of the drivers. I'll be testing the 70.41's later today given the chance

PoopyTheJ · Oct 28, 2004, 12:27 AM

Ok installed the 70.41's from NGO, and have some running to do and I'll get back to you with scores tonight....

ColdPenguin · Oct 28, 2004, 01:42 AM

ah im still running 65.62 bah. oh btw new far cry patch is out. anyone know how 66.70s compare to omega 1.6177?

PoopyTheJ · Oct 28, 2004, 04:27 AM

see above

PoopyTheJ · Oct 28, 2004, 04:32 AM

Ok the 70.41's perform pretty well actually, and the IQ looks very nice indeed but it defaults pretty dark like the 66.72's do.

3D05 - 3928
3D03 - 7909
Aquamark - 50568
UMark
DX8 - 1600x1200 - 34.4
1280x1024 - 3804
DX9 - 1600x1200 - 34.5
1280x1024 - 38.5
OGL - 1600x1200 - 32.7
1280x1024 - 32.7

Not a bad driver set overall and if still in Alpha stages as I'm hearing they hold some promise. As of right now for IQ and performance I give the 66.72 set the gold star. Stable, pretty and fast. Those are my drivers of choice so far.....

[COLOR=Green]Edit: More testing revealed not darker gamma but simply not rendering certain object! Stick with the 66.70's for now![/COLOR]

PoopyTheJ · Oct 28, 2004, 07:39 AM

Installed the 6672's and noticed an odd glitch

Danhill · Oct 28, 2004, 07:45 AM

Just don't like that the 70,41 is alpha.

PoopyTheJ · Oct 28, 2004, 06:36 PM

Mora anomalies with the 66.72's
Those are supposed to be steps not a black wall.... grrrr

PoopyTheJ · Oct 29, 2004, 08:32 PM

Just grabbed the 6677's from Nvidia's FTP, and they're pretty decent drivers overall. Scores follow, however one annoyance is that like the rest of the 66xx series that I've read about these exhibit hitching in FarCry, seems to be when firing a weapon, very odd, but I did notice that enabling AA and AF iin the control panel and Farcry itself does nasty things to framerate and the AA doesn't seem to work... I just installed farcry so I'll see about getting benches up for it as well.
3D03 - 7970
3D05 - 4671
Aquamark - 51937 !!!
UMark - OGL 1600x1200 - 32.3 Avg fps
1280x1024 - 32.2 Avg fps
DX8 - 1600x1200 - 37.9 Avg fps
1280x1024 - 39.7 Avg fps
DX9 - 1600x1200 - 34.9 Avg fps
1280x1024 - 39.8 Avg fps

PoopyTheJ · Nov 2, 2004, 05:43 PM

Grabbed the 6182's which seem to have a date of Sept 29th on them and ran some benchmarks and played some games with them, UT2k4 runs Very nice in D3D, OGL is behind the 6670's but IQ is good across the board on this set, Tests...
3D05 - 3802 Blegh
3D03 - 7639
Aquamark - 50401
Umark - DX8 - 1280 x1024 - 37.5 Avg FPS
1600x1200 - 36.1 Avg FPS
DX9 - 1280x1024 - 38.0 Avg FPS
1600x1200 - 32.00 Avg FPS
OGL - 1280x1024 - 31.9 Avg FPS
1600x1200 - 32.0 Avg FPS
Hardware OC FarCry Benchmark River Level - 20.79 Avg FPS
I'll try and get some results in on the Evolution drivers as well when I can.... These 6182's though are quite nice, gamewise and the IQ looks pretty good. I should rank all these drivers...

[COLOR=DarkOrange]EDIT: Farcry still "Hiccups" when the first shot is fired after loading a level, doesn't appear to continue doing it afterwards but the first one is a nasty one, like half a second....[/COLOR]

Danhill · Nov 2, 2004, 05:58 PM

Great job keping us informed Poopy, it's great that you take the time to do this.

Danhill · Nov 2, 2004, 07:14 PM

Just did some benching on FarCry with the 66,81 (I posted the results in another thread as well)

Did some bencmarks now;

1024 x 768 No aa & af GF 6800 GT @ Ultra 400/1100 with 66.81 WHQL (PC Games Hardware Demo) not sure what the map is called but it's the one with the hang glider.

Max Quality - 50,32
Ultra Quality - 49,21
Ultra Quality & Geometry Ins - 46,21
Ultra Quality & Normal Maps - 54,24
Ultra Quality & HDR 7 - 44,21

1024 x 768 4AA & 8AF

Ultra Quality & Normal Maps - 52,21 (I had a hard time beliving I only lost about 2 fps when enabling 4 aa & 8 af, does this mean that my cpu is holding me back??)

An finally I tried the Hardware OC Volcano map - 78,32

Oct 3, 2004, 04:28 AM	#1
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Lets Benchmark some of these damn Nvidia Drivers.... Ok, so I'm a little peeved about all theses bloody Nvidia drivers available, none of them official it seems except the 61.77's aeons ago, and gobs and gobs of other Beta drivers available all over the place. So I was running the 66.70's and getting the best performance so far out of them, Thanks to WiredZero and then he told me about these new 6681's available on the ftp, well my son has been sick all day and I've just been on and off running benchmarks and installing the drivers, run benchmarks go play with/take care of my son etc and so I have some benchmark comparisons for you all with both the 66.70's and the 66.81's. I think I'm going back to the 66.70's personally as you'll see, but I'm wondering if we can perhaps get a thread going here where we can benchmark our drivers as we test them and we can all see how everything compares across a wide a range as possible. This way we all know what's the best drivers that we've found and hopefully can be a one stop shop especially for all the new Nvidia guys who might be a bit confused by the mess of drivers available. I first ran the tests using the 66.70's at 415/1100, then the 66.81's at the same clock speeds. My rig is a P4 2.8 @ 3.11GHz, 222FSB, 1GB RAM. and here's the scores I'm getting 66.70 3DMark05 - 5142 3DMark03 - 12475 Aquamark - 62323 UT2004 1280x1024 - 38fps average / 1600x1200 - 40fps average 66.81 3DMark05 - 5104 3DMark03 - 12086 Aquamark - 59098 UT2004 - 1280x1024 - 36fps Average / 1600x1200 - 37fps average the UT2004 Benches were run using UMark and run on the new map Island Hop with the ECE Bonus pack recently released. All detail settings in game were set at their highest. To make this a bit more realistic these tests were run with AIM, MSN, Azureus, and AVG running in the background. All tests were run 3 times and the average used as the final score. Also all tests were run on High Detail as far as the NVIDIA control panel goes with AA and AF turned OFF. So lets get some benchmarks in here, perhaps a mod could sticky this, and we'll get some sort of realistic comparison going between these drivers so we know where we stand. __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 3, 2004, 06:54 AM	#2
Wiredzero HardwareHeaven Lover Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: The other side of the screen. Posts: 156 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	I pretty much had similar results. The 66.81's seem to be just a "hair" less capable than the 66.70's. However, for those that would be wanting "official drivers" from nVidia...the 66.81's are a decent set. (note: Unwinder has added support for the 66.70's in his upcoming rivatuner release...yet made no consideration to add support for the 66.81's. ) __________________

Oct 3, 2004, 01:35 PM	#3
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	PoopyTheJ, I think this is a great thread, I agree with you regarding the drivers, coming from Ati it's totaly cofusing wich drivers to have. __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Oct 3, 2004, 02:07 PM	#6
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	I only tried to bench with 66.70 (5228-3DM05) but never got to play with them, 66.81 (5200 - 3DM05) the 66.81 I played a little with, FS Flight sim seems to have a boost since 61.77, never had so hig FPS when playing with 4AA and 8AF, Farcry, Doom3, Star Trek Elite Force II, Tiger Woods 2005 works flawlessly with 66.81 and 4AA & 8AF - (or maybe it could be my card??) :-) __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Oct 3, 2004, 08:12 PM	Thread Starter #7
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	I also threw the 6651's in for a VERY short while and decided they were not for me at all, 3DMark03 - 11149 UT 1280x1024 - 39fps Avg / 1600x1200 - 40fps Avg on Island Hop See, the interesting thing about these drivers is the performance in UT compared to 3dmark03, huge drop in 3dmark03 but UT ran about the same, I may throw these back in and do some more performance analysis, I'd like to run some tests with AA and AF as well with the sets and see how they go... Danhill - whats your card clocked at and what's your FSB? Cause I don't think I've seen 5200 in 3dmark 05 yet, and my P4 is at 3.1, and my card is clocked at 415/1.10. Hmmmmm __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 3, 2004, 01:43 PM	#4
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	66.70s have worked well for me.

Oct 4, 2004, 08:58 AM	Thread Starter #9
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Wow! What an overclock, what brand is it? Anyways I got my crad to clock to 415/1.15 and ran some more tests with the 66.70's, I think I might try to reinstall the 6681's and run the same tests as well the difference here is I ran them using 4XAA and 8XAF enabled in the CP. 3DMark05 - 4738 3DMark03 - 8034 Aquamark - [COLOR=DarkOrange]55439[/COLOR] [COLOR=DarkOrange]See below[/COLOR] UTMark same map as before 1280x1024 39Avg Fps / 16001280 40Avg FPS, obviously the game is CPU limited as I'm seeing no drop in frames or performance with AA and AF enabled, the test is run with 12 bots btw. I think it's interesting that 3d05 shows a fairly small drop in performance 8%, whereas 3dmark03 shows a 35% decrease! Is this optimization for 05 or a an optimization to AA and AF as far as PS intensive apps are concerned, or does AA not work? Aquamark only shows a 12% decrease in score, nothing like 35% in 03....... __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR] Last edited by PoopyTheJ; Oct 27, 2004 at 08:12 PM.*

Oct 4, 2004, 11:23 AM	#10
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	The card I have is a Gainward 6800 GT Golden Sample. Wow thats a impressive score with 4AA & 8AF __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Oct 4, 2004, 12:51 PM	#11
Yallrun DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 71 Rep Power: 0	Hum I haven't benched my 6800Gt yet. But I had my old TI4600 crap out on me in my daughters PC and ended up buying a 6800/128 for her PC. I'm new to benching and not sure what's good and what sucks. But I ran 3dmark03 on her PC and got a score of 10480. Not sure if that's good or bad? Yallrun __________________ DFI LP UT 250 AMD 64 3200 Newcastle [color=#dddddd]160 SATA WD[/color] [color=#dddddd]2X1 Gig G.Skills Extreme[/color] [color=#dddddd]ATI X800XT PE[/color] [color=#dddddd]500W X Connect[/color] [color=#dddddd]Antec DVD/CDRW SP1 [/color]

Oct 4, 2004, 12:53 PM	#12
Wiredzero HardwareHeaven Lover Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: The other side of the screen. Posts: 156 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Default install without overclocking and running one of the better driver sets with DX9.0c? Yeah, that's a decent score. I score around that, but that's cause I don't O/C. __________________

Oct 4, 2004, 01:21 PM	#13
Yallrun DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 71 Rep Power: 0	Yeah I don't OC either, I installed the 66.70 and DX9c and that was the score. So that's a ok score for a 6800/128? Yeah I figured since she dosen't really game much but likes playing sims, she didn't need a great card but I got her a good card. Yallrun __________________ DFI LP UT 250 AMD 64 3200 Newcastle [color=#dddddd]160 SATA WD[/color] [color=#dddddd]2X1 Gig G.Skills Extreme[/color] [color=#dddddd]ATI X800XT PE[/color] [color=#dddddd]500W X Connect[/color] [color=#dddddd]Antec DVD/CDRW SP1 [/color]

Oct 4, 2004, 04:19 PM	#14
Wiredzero HardwareHeaven Lover Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: The other side of the screen. Posts: 156 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Something I found @ 3dChipset.com that might help shed a little light on the driver performances. __________________

Oct 4, 2004, 05:05 PM	#15
Yallrun DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 71 Rep Power: 0	Cool nice chart! Guess I'll stick with the 66.70's! Yallrun __________________ DFI LP UT 250 AMD 64 3200 Newcastle [color=#dddddd]160 SATA WD[/color] [color=#dddddd]2X1 Gig G.Skills Extreme[/color] [color=#dddddd]ATI X800XT PE[/color] [color=#dddddd]500W X Connect[/color] [color=#dddddd]Antec DVD/CDRW SP1 [/color]

Oct 4, 2004, 06:23 PM	Thread Starter #16
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Hey thanks wired! I'm still unsure of 3DMark05, it seems a better overall gauge then it's predecessor but still too early to tell I think, wish I had CS:Source to bench with.... BTW anybody know any good benchmarking tools, that I can like record a gaming session then play it back again as a benchmark? __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 23, 2004, 10:17 PM	Thread Starter #17
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Just benched using the Omega 16177's I know 3dmark suite is crappy, but Aquamark is nice, UT2k4 is slower than the 66.70's for me though Here you go 3d03 - 7507 3d05 - 3771 Aquamark - 50750 UT DX9 - 1600x1200 29 fps DX8 - 1600x1200 36fps OGL - 33FPS All test run at 4xaa 8xaf with Azureus, Teamspeak, MSN, AIM running for some more realistic gameplay. __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 27, 2004, 06:08 AM	Thread Starter #18
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Benchmarked using the 66.72's here, and they perform very similiarly to the 66.70's but I've got to say I think I prefer the IQ on the 66.72's the gamma is definitely arkeer but I think overall it just looks nicer. Here's the scores though 3D05 - 4682 3D03 - 8012 UT2004 DX 8 Mode 1600x1200 - 38.5FPS 1280x1024 39FPS Average Aquamark - 51965 All test run at 415/1150 4xAA and 8xAF forced in control panel with Azureus, Teamspeak and MSN, AIM,AVG running in the background. I like this driver set but for performance it appears as though there's nothing out there to touch the 66.70's. Until we see a new set that is, I feel much better now, got to get some benchmarks from multiple drivers so I can see for myself how things operate and give people an idea of what drivers do what with what. I know my tests, UT/Aquamark/3d03/3d05 aren't the most sophisticated grouping but they give you a good solid idea of whats going on. __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 27, 2004, 08:11 PM	Thread Starter #19
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	I kept looking at that Aquamark score on the 6670's thinking it was really high so I rebenched with Azureus, AIM, MSN, Teamspeak etc running with 4xAA and 8XAF, I think I screwed up the first time becasue the average of three runs now is 51938, which seems more in-line with the rest of the drivers. I'll be testing the 70.41's later today given the chance __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 28, 2004, 12:27 AM	Thread Starter #20
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Ok installed the 70.41's from NGO, and have some running to do and I'll get back to you with scores tonight.... __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 28, 2004, 01:42 AM	#21
ColdPenguin ***** goon Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 110 Rep Power: 0	ah im still running 65.62 bah. oh btw new far cry patch is out. anyone know how 66.70s compare to omega 1.6177?

Oct 28, 2004, 04:27 AM	Thread Starter #22
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	see above __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 28, 2004, 04:32 AM	Thread Starter #23
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Ok the 70.41's perform pretty well actually, and the IQ looks very nice indeed but it defaults pretty dark like the 66.72's do. 3D05 - 3928 3D03 - 7909 Aquamark - 50568 UMark DX8 - 1600x1200 - 34.4 1280x1024 - 3804 DX9 - 1600x1200 - 34.5 1280x1024 - 38.5 OGL - 1600x1200 - 32.7 1280x1024 - 32.7 Not a bad driver set overall and if still in Alpha stages as I'm hearing they hold some promise. As of right now for IQ and performance I give the 66.72 set the gold star. Stable, pretty and fast. Those are my drivers of choice so far..... [COLOR=Green]Edit: More testing revealed not darker gamma but simply not rendering certain object! Stick with the 66.70's for now![/COLOR] __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR] Last edited by PoopyTheJ; Oct 28, 2004 at 06:38 PM.

Oct 28, 2004, 07:39 AM	Thread Starter #24
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Installed the 6672's and noticed an odd glitch __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 28, 2004, 07:45 AM	#25
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	Just don't like that the 70,41 is alpha. __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Oct 28, 2004, 06:36 PM	Thread Starter #26
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Mora anomalies with the 66.72's Those are supposed to be steps not a black wall.... grrrr __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Oct 29, 2004, 08:32 PM	Thread Starter #27
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Just grabbed the 6677's from Nvidia's FTP, and they're pretty decent drivers overall. Scores follow, however one annoyance is that like the rest of the 66xx series that I've read about these exhibit hitching in FarCry, seems to be when firing a weapon, very odd, but I did notice that enabling AA and AF iin the control panel and Farcry itself does nasty things to framerate and the AA doesn't seem to work... I just installed farcry so I'll see about getting benches up for it as well. 3D03 - 7970 3D05 - 4671 Aquamark - 51937 !!! UMark - OGL 1600x1200 - 32.3 Avg fps 1280x1024 - 32.2 Avg fps DX8 - 1600x1200 - 37.9 Avg fps 1280x1024 - 39.7 Avg fps DX9 - 1600x1200 - 34.9 Avg fps 1280x1024 - 39.8 Avg fps __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR]

Nov 2, 2004, 05:43 PM	Thread Starter #28
PoopyTheJ DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,588 Rep Power: 66	Grabbed the 6182's which seem to have a date of Sept 29th on them and ran some benchmarks and played some games with them, UT2k4 runs Very nice in D3D, OGL is behind the 6670's but IQ is good across the board on this set, Tests... 3D05 - 3802 Blegh 3D03 - 7639 Aquamark - 50401 Umark - DX8 - 1280 x1024 - 37.5 Avg FPS 1600x1200 - 36.1 Avg FPS DX9 - 1280x1024 - 38.0 Avg FPS 1600x1200 - 32.00 Avg FPS OGL - 1280x1024 - 31.9 Avg FPS 1600x1200 - 32.0 Avg FPS Hardware OC FarCry Benchmark River Level - 20.79 Avg FPS I'll try and get some results in on the Evolution drivers as well when I can.... These 6182's though are quite nice, gamewise and the IQ looks pretty good. I should rank all these drivers... [COLOR=DarkOrange]EDIT: Farcry still "Hiccups" when the first shot is fired after loading a level, doesn't appear to continue doing it afterwards but the first one is a nasty one, like half a second....[/COLOR] __________________ [COLOR=Blue]“Alright boys, let’s start her up and see why she doesn’t work.” - John Fritz "I aim to misbehave" Malcolm Reynolds ATI Catalyst Beta Tester[/COLOR] Last edited by PoopyTheJ; Nov 2, 2004 at 06:14 PM.

Nov 2, 2004, 05:58 PM	#29
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	Great job keping us informed Poopy, it's great that you take the time to do this. __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Nov 2, 2004, 07:14 PM	#30
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	Just did some benching on FarCry with the 66,81 (I posted the results in another thread as well) Did some bencmarks now; 1024 x 768 No aa & af GF 6800 GT @ Ultra 400/1100 with 66.81 WHQL (PC Games Hardware Demo) not sure what the map is called but it's the one with the hang glider. Max Quality - 50,32 Ultra Quality - 49,21 Ultra Quality & Geometry Ins - 46,21 Ultra Quality & Normal Maps - 54,24 Ultra Quality & HDR 7 - 44,21 1024 x 768 4AA & 8AF Ultra Quality & Normal Maps - 52,21 (I had a hard time beliving I only lost about 2 fps when enabling 4 aa & 8 af, does this mean that my cpu is holding me back??) An finally I tried the Hardware OC Volcano map - 78,32 __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ