177.89

vento · *Last edited by Hilbert Hagedoorn; 08-16-2008 at 00:58.*

At Siggraph NVIDIA launched yet another driver, this one with OpenGL 3.0 support, the 177.89 is dated August 12 (the 177.83 is dated August 2nd) and works with GeForce 6, 7, 8, 9 and GTX 200 series cards.
This release doesn't come bundled with PhysX software but you can download the 8.08.01 version from this page. Overall this seems to be a widely supported driver which ahs been showing some good results.

Download:

information

excerpt:

Quote:

The Windows 177.89 Drivers available via the links below, released during Siggraph 2008, enable the latest features including OpenGL 3.0 support.

This special page allows direct access to the new drivers for Siggraph attendees -- the drivers will become part of the standard release NVIDIA Graphics drivers in the days immediately following.

[indent]This driver is aimed at developers to start coding to the new OpenGL 3.0 and GLSL 1.30 features. These features are not enabled by default. They can be enabled using the nvemulate utility, as described here: http://developer.nvidia.com/object/nvemulate.html

You need one of the following graphics cards to enable the OpenGL 3.0 and GLSL 1.30 functionality.

Desktop: GeForce 8000 series or higher; GeForce GTX 260, 280; Quadro FX 370, 570, 1700, 3700, 4600, 4700x2, 5600
Notebook: GeForce 8000 series or higher; Quadro FX 360M, 370M, 570M, 770M, 1600M, 1700M, 2700M, 3600M, 3700M

This driver implements all of GLSL 1.30 and all of OpenGL 3.0, except for the following functionality:

One-channel (RED) and two-channel (RG) textures
Mixed size FBO attachments (mixed-format attachments are supported)
The Clearbuffer API
Windowless rendering support (We suggest you use GPU affinity instead)
Forward-compatible context
Debug Context
This driver exposes the following new extensions:

OpenGL 2.1 extensions:
ARB_vertex_array_object
ARB_framebuffer_object
ARB_half_float_vertex
OpenGL 3.0 extensions:
WGL_create_context
ARB_draw_instanced
ARB_geometry_shader4
ARB_texture_buffer_object
WGL_create_context
The OpenGL 3.0 and GLSL 1.30 specifications can be downloaded here: http://www.opengl.org/registry/

For any bugs or issues, please file a bug through the developer website: https://nvdeveloper.nvidia.com/

scratch42069 · *Last edited by scratch42069; 08-14-2008 at 08:44.*

The developer site has them dated August 13th. I'm downloading them anyway and will give some benches.

vento · 08-14-2008, 08:43 | posts: 18 | User is Offline

Dunno, these passed my way five hours ago.

Peerless · 08-14-2008, 08:44 | posts: 947 | Location: Seattle, WA | User is Offline

I just went back to the 177.73's last night due to sever performance hits in games like Grid. the .83's just didn't do it for me. I hope these will be better.

scratch42069 · *Last edited by scratch42069; 08-14-2008 at 08:56.*

Yeah I just looked over the developer site and these appear to be like any other beta, but these must be the Big Bang II Forceware 180 drivers we read about.

pinguim · 08-14-2008, 08:50 | posts: 34 | Location: Portugal | User is Online

Quote:

Originally Posted by vento

OpenGL3.0 included. Doubles physX score.

Really? Post some screens.

vento · *Last edited by vento; 08-14-2008 at 09:03.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by pinguim

Really? Post some screens.

http://www.forumdeluxx.de/forum/show...&postcount=150

Though, these drivers gave me only 3900pts, 150 more than with 177.83.
Maybe I made some mistake with installing the new ones.
Do I have to activate the OpenGL thing to get it running smoother?

scratch42069 · *Last edited by scratch42069; 08-14-2008 at 10:25.*

3DMark Vantage w/ 177.89

3DMark Vantage w/ 177.83

Nurien Alpha 0.7 w/ 177.89

Nurien Alpha 0.7 w/ 177.83

Metal Knight Zero Pre-Alpha 0.6 w/ 177.89
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
HAL (hw vp) NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT
1280x1024x32bit
Physx Mode: Hardware

Avg FPS:14
Min FPS: 10
Max FPS: 17

Metal Knight Zero Pre-Alpha 0.6 w/ 177.83
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+
HAL (hw vp) NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT
1280x1024x32bit
Physx Mode: Hardware

Avg FPS:14
Min FPS: 9
Max FPS: 17

vento · *Last edited by vento; 08-14-2008 at 09:08.*

@scratch42069: Looks quite good.

scratch42069 · 08-14-2008, 09:06 | posts: 165 | Location: Canada | User is Offline

Yes, it is actually improved a bit so far. Still got to do more tests and run vantage.

boOzy · 08-14-2008, 09:12 | posts: 30 | User is Offline

Benches plz

chispy · 08-14-2008, 09:20 | posts: 4,644 | Location: Puerto Rico | User is Offline

Downloading now

NDgamer · 08-14-2008, 09:23 | posts: 111 | Location: Ohio | User is Offline

umm lol installed ran fluidmark on 177.83 got this went to run on 177.89 got this =(

177.83

177.89

anyone got a fix what i did wrong ill post back up a new ss...

mandex · 08-14-2008, 09:24 | posts: 567 | Location: Brazil | User is Offline

What the? already? ;D

I hope it will stop the problem with overclocking that i had with .83

NightCrawler™ · 08-14-2008, 09:25 | posts: 112 | Location: Netherlands | User is Offline

Damn...... updating these drivers is getting as much of a routine as going to sleep.. LOL

pinguim · 08-14-2008, 09:27 | posts: 34 | Location: Portugal | User is Online

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDgamer

umm lol installed ran fluidmark on 177.83 got this went to run on 177.89 got this =(

177.83

177.89

anyone got a fix what i did wrong ill post back up a new ss...

I'm guessing it has something to do with opengl 3, I read somewhere it's disabled by default. There was something about enabling it manually...

EDIT: Check here

Outrance · *Last edited by Outrance; 08-14-2008 at 09:43.*

177.83 vs .89

177.83 are first......

(Custom Settings)

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 47.59s, Average FPS: 42.03
Min FPS: 32.78 at frame 1970, Max FPS: 56.74 at frame 1014
Average Tri/Sec: -38516800, Tri/Frame: -916511
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 45.45s, Average FPS: 44.01
Min FPS: 32.78 at frame 1970, Max FPS: 57.93 at frame 1014
Average Tri/Sec: -39790124, Tri/Frame: -904203
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 45.43s, Average FPS: 44.02
Min FPS: 32.78 at frame 1970, Max FPS: 57.93 at frame 1014
Average Tri/Sec: -39792500, Tri/Frame: -903936
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 45.42s, Average FPS: 44.03
Min FPS: 32.73 at frame 1969, Max FPS: 58.20 at frame 1011
Average Tri/Sec: -39805952, Tri/Frame: -904057
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 47.90s, Average FPS: 41.75
Min FPS: 33.68 at frame 1977, Max FPS: 57.08 at frame 1015
Average Tri/Sec: -38286916, Tri/Frame: -917011
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 44.99s, Average FPS: 44.45
Min FPS: 33.56 at frame 1954, Max FPS: 59.30 at frame 68
Average Tri/Sec: -40191768, Tri/Frame: -904134
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 45.00s, Average FPS: 44.45
Min FPS: 33.27 at frame 1968, Max FPS: 60.24 at frame 91
Average Tri/Sec: -40192840, Tri/Frame: -904252
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 44.98s, Average FPS: 44.47
Min FPS: 33.27 at frame 1968, Max FPS: 60.24 at frame 91
Average Tri/Sec: -40219444, Tri/Frame: -904446
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Edit:

COD4 60 second benchmark (Fraps) Min and max stayed the same but the average went down by about 5fps .....

chirop · *Last edited by chirop; 08-14-2008 at 10:05.*

Nurien
177.83
Avarage FPS:37,079
Max FPS:67,304
Min FPS:24,072

177.89
Avarage FPS:37,247
Max FPS:65.258
Min FPS:24,810

MKZ benchmark
177.83
Avarage FPS:45
Max FPS:65
Min FPS:18

177.89
Avarage FPS:43
Max FPS:62
Min FPS:18

3Dmark06
177.83
11568 3DMarks

177.89
11538 3DMarks

No increase in UT3 either could even beter say a performance decrease.

NightCrawler™ · 08-14-2008, 10:05 | posts: 112 | Location: Netherlands | User is Offline

I'm liking these... for the first time a long time ago the image on my 7" secondary monitor looks a lot better..

Installed games are not recognized...

Overall they seem to run smoother..

Outrance · 08-14-2008, 10:16 | posts: 198 | Location: Germany | User is Offline

Just wondering..... Ok I'm an old (27) gamer, been gaming since the C64.....

Why is everyone so interested in numbers? i.e Vantage etc etc etc....?

If a game performs or looks better then the drivers are better right? Or am I missing something. Because I also went through a "benching" stage with 3D Mark 06 and I found that higher scores in those programs didn't equate to better gameplay.....

When new drivers come out I want my games to run faster and/or look better.

vento · 08-14-2008, 10:21 | posts: 18 | User is Offline

No freezes with clock at 786MHz, with 177.83 I had some freezes at 783MHz and with 177.79 I had much more freezes even at lower clocks.

Cybermancer · *Last edited by Cybermancer; 08-14-2008 at 10:28. Reason: added p.s.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outrance

Just wondering..... Ok I'm an old (27) gamer, been gaming since the C64.....

Why is everyone so interested in numbers? i.e Vantage etc etc etc....?

If a game performs or looks better then the drivers are better right? Or am I missing something. Because I also went through a "benching" stage with 3D Mark 06 and I found that higher scores in those programs didn't equate to better gameplay.....

When new drivers come out I want my games to run faster and/or look better.

Of course, those benchmark results don't necessarily have to reflect "real world" results like increased or decreased FPS in games. They are used for bragging rights most of the time.

Still, those benchmark scores can give you an indication of how well a driver might perform or not.

p.s.: Most people know that a difference of 100 points (or so) isn't really indicating much, except for the fact that the driver might perform the same as a previous/different one, but might still include some game fixes, etc. ...

WhiteLightning · 08-14-2008, 10:24 | posts: 6,549 | Location: Netherlands | User is Offline

the physx fluidmark demo gives me a black screen now. lol
havent found anything else taht wont work though

vento · 08-14-2008, 10:36 | posts: 18 | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteLightning

the physx fluidmark demo gives me a black screen now. lol
havent found anything else taht wont work though

fluidmark doesn't work with fraps or RT statistics server or similar.

it gives a black screen then.

WhiteLightning · 08-14-2008, 11:04 | posts: 6,549 | Location: Netherlands | User is Offline

thanks man , it was fraps running in the background lol