177.89

177.89 beta/dev

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:

• GeForce ForceWare 177.89 Vista 32-bit
• GeForce ForceWare 177.89 Vista 64-bit
• GeForce ForceWare 177.89 XP 64-bit
• GeForce ForceWare 177.89 XP 32-bit

information

excerpt:

​

 

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

 

Dunno, these passed my way five hours ago.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Really? Post some screens.

 

http://www.forumdeluxx.de/forum/showpost.php?p=9833551&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?

 

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

 

@scratch42069: Looks quite good.

 

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

 

Benches plz :boozer:

 

Downloading now

 

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...

 

What the? already? ;D

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 ..... :3eyes:

 

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.

 

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..

 

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.