GeForce 466.47 WHQL driver download & discussion

457.51 is a great driver, not black listed either with using Sharpen in the Nvidia Control Panel for Warzone

 

I get the same latency issues with the 457.51 driver as well unfortunately.

 

I’m on Ryzen with a 2080ti. It’s not an Intel exclusive problem.

 

What a brilliant program it does not refresh to normal but keeps the same status after a spike. First screeny is after opening firefox while the program is running and the second one is with doing nothing go figure

 

We need a list of these "iffy" cpu's then if so.(If its only certain cpu's)

 

So hotfix driver fixes the 8bit issue?Try the test for a bit longer.I sometimes get the 1.1k spike 3-5 mins in.

 

Oh right.
Yea I also have that disabled ever since I discovered it tends to mess with gpu clocks if you have games playing at the same time chrome is up.Same with discord Harware acceleration.(also disabled)

 

HAGS off should make a difference

 

Already off.The 1.1k spikes still happen.

tty8k also mentioned trying this on an earlier comment with same results.

 

Insider on 470.14


Here's a repro step: Leave whatever you have open...
Open GTA V, move your mouse as much as you can, FPS will tank and stutter heavily.

 

You're not supposed to test LatencyMon with any loaded application, should be run with just OS running. This is per Dev.

"Should I run my audio software while LatencyMon is testing my system ?
In general, no. In particular, the interrupt to process latency that the software measures already simulates the workings of an entire audio process. You should run most tests without running any other software in the background. Running your audio software together with LatencyMon only makes sense if you wish to measure hard pagefaults of the audio process. "

https://www.resplendence.com/latencymon_faq

 

Yet its still detecting dpc latency spikes where previous drivers didn't.It may not be meant for a certain use but it can still be usefull to point you to a possible issue.

 

Your still running the tool out of spec of what it was intended for, the text results will be invalid IMO.

That said you can use it to test various things running which add latency as long as you change one thing at a time and the exact value will still be inflated because of the internal load of latencyMon uses.
It would be nice if you had control of this internal load but then it may be needed for reading results (I have no idea what is possible here).

 

Does it matter if its not exactly used as intended if its still picking something up on 1 nvidia driver but not the other?Alot of ppl suggest latencymon to pick up issues like stutters and such so it has it uses either way intended or not.

"That said you can use it to test various things running which add latency as long as you change one thing at a time and the exact value will still be inflated because of the internal load of latencyMon uses."

I mean.1 driver doesn't trigger latencymon and the other does (both using the same testing scenario (unless you use 10bit mode on the monitor on the driver that triggers latencymon) For some reason switching to 10bit mode on the monitor gives you MUCH lower dpc latency spikes in general,that's all I need to know.Something has changed between drivers.

 

Man you are becoming the Don Quichot of Latency I agree with what @EdKiefer said about the proper use of LatencyMon

 

What I am getting at is that while you might show certain drivers produce more latency than other (if properly tested), the magnitude of the value probably is not representative if your running other apps at the time of the test.
There are a lot of people who use tools the wrong way so that by itself is not a justification of its the right way.

Have you tried this one, maybe the results might be the same? I am not trying to argue just stating a point of view from the DEV tool.
https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/simple-way-to-trace-dpcs-and-isrs.423884/

 

while you can't use it to prove an issue exists while the system is busy, you can prove that the numbers are different or higher than they were before.

its just preferred that an actual ETL is made for such cases because it includes graphable sampling in the performance analyzer that can be pin pointed down to what thread and what core it was done on.

 

I think that you are just giving useless imput altogether, though.

This "latency" discussion is very informative and interesting and I for one appreciates the effort/feedback that tty8k, kman, Astyanax are sharing.

Sometimes, it is best to be silent if you don't have nothing of value to say, you know?!

 

Thanks to freedom of speech I appreciate your input I have been silent on the object TBH but this babling aound hunting ghosts every day was getting on my nerves but it's all out now because I ventilated my thoughts in my post I even hesitaded to make it less harsh but no I stick with it! once again thx for your input

ps Kman is not using latencymon as intended per DEV! (look a few posts up if you want)

 

I allready did some posts back tbh I posted 2 out comes of latencymon so it's not that I don't want to contribute but in my perception the program is not designed to run with open different programs with it. If you guys think different allright with me but I stand behind my argument tbh and that is that in the disclosure of latencymon is clearly mentioned that the program is designed to run idle state of the OS as the developer clearly mentions (Should I run my audio software while LatencyMon is testing my system ?
In general, no. In particular, the interrupt to process latency that the software measures already simulates the workings of an entire audio process. You should run most tests without running any other software in the background. Running your audio software together with LatencyMon only makes sense if you wish to measure hard pagefaults of the audio process.) and second the program is used to find a pin point problem where the latency is coming from. Further I think it is the end user responsebility to find the exact cause on his system and not a compagny as NVidia because it should be their driver related thing. As stated before by different members it is caused on the user's system and should be examined on the end user end IMO