GeForce Forceware 260.52 Win 7/Vista 64-bit

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section' started by phk, Sep 8, 2010.

  1. ShadowDuke

    ShadowDuke Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    638
    GPU:
    XFX Radeon RX 6600
    CP is only responding 1 time, 2nd time it's not gonna open - restart and you've again 1 time ;)

    Maybe thats one reason why they removed it..
     
  2. Alex_Smile

    Alex_Smile Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX260OC 896Mb
    I'm use GPU-Z
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Wagnard

    Wagnard Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,669
    Likes Received:
    348
    GPU:
    MSI Geforce GTX 1080
    You guys do know that you cant get always 90+% gpu usage right?
    There is numerous factor in-game that can bottleneck the CPU and so will reduce the GPU usage because de CPU cant keep up.
     
  4. Sneakers

    Sneakers Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 980Ti Windforce
    Yup I got the same feel. Card simply refuse to work as hard as it can on a "simple" scene with no eyecandy and when you crank it is like your whiping it to work harder.

    I just came from a 24 ppl arica harbour and my fps was going jojoing from 35-45 fps nonestop, only occasionally I got a fps spike up to 90 fps, this also goes hand in hand with the gpu utilization. Slumbers at 35-55% then bang shoots up to 85-90% then back down to 35-55% again. CPU still at like 65-70% where it was like 70-85% with the 4870x2.

    It is interesting that you could also turn off numerous cores and all the way down to 3 cores you saw no performance loss..that doesn't sit well with DICE's claim of game using 6 threads etc. An even more interesting question is how can a game that is so dependant on the CPU ( as it seems to be ) stop scaling after 3 cores?

    Would be nice if other people with 460s whether it is 465 or 460s to try the Dirt 2 benchmark and see how your cpu scaling is there, and if you find the same results as I did ( as in poor scaling ).
     

  5. Alex_Smile

    Alex_Smile Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX260OC 896Mb
    Very strange. CP from me always worked without a reboot. But i'm use 32-bit driver...
     
  6. TheHunter

    TheHunter Banned

    Messages:
    13,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    MSi N570GTX TFIII [OC|PE]

    so its fine in single player (bfbc2), gpu's to the max?
     
  7. alex133

    alex133 Active Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 460
    So definitely the stuttering is not fixed for many of us.

    While the game can now be played in DX11 mode, there are times when the stuttering becomes VERY noticeable, and very annoying to be quite honest.

    And it's not like I'm running it at a insane high resolution with insane high settings, just @ 1600 x 900, details all on HIGH, AA @ 2x, AF @ 16x, HBAO OFF.

    I've tried everything: Installing CPU Control, editing Registry keys, etc.

    The GPU usage ranges from 30% to 60%.
     
  8. Sneakers

    Sneakers Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 980Ti Windforce
    You will always have bottlenecks with hardware that is a fact. But the most important thing is to not have them in the software wich is the drivers and the application that your running. All the performance increases you see from new drivers comes from removing software "bottlenecks".

    I'm pritty sure there is a direct relation between gpu usage and fps in all games. You could call it scaling aswell since the direct relationship between gpu usage and fps exist.

    If you have scene x and have 80% gpu utilization on a single card then on a two card setup with same cards on same scene you would need a minimum of 40% utilization on each gpu to get the same fps / performance on x scene.

    To get a 2.0 scaling ( wich would be a 100% increase in potential performance ) you would need 160% gpu utilization on the two cards together, wich would obviously be equal to two cards running at 80% each on that perticular scene called x.

    Most often in reviews when they talk about scaling they talk about fps and not gpu utilization, I could be completly wrong but from my own observations with BC2 the utlization and the fps have a direct relationship that is predictable when compared to the same scene or sets of repeating scenes ( wich a wall would be or a stationary building ).

    Now we can either discuss scaling in fps and say 1 gpu have 35 fps at scene x and two gpus have 70 fps on scene x and state that it scales with a ratio of 2.0 wich is perfect scaling. Or we can talk about gpu utilization wich seem to be a more direct way of predicting scalability, as I found it by obeservation. Looking at BC2 and finding that you have lesser then 50% gpu utilization across the gpus on average tells me that SLI does not scale with the engine very well.
    Now naturally I'm no expert at this at all and others with more knowlage in this area might have something more to add or say in this matter but I'm just drawing conclusions from what I have observed to be true.

    I have ran multiple gpu configs since 2006, and been able to monitor gpu utilization with rivatuner ever since and in all games that have had no SLI/xfire support the utilization of the gpus spreads in a way that they do not exceed the workload of a single gpu at any given time. My point is that you will only benefit in terms of fps from an sli rig ( other then the ability to put on more AA AO without loosing performance but still not gaining any ) if you have more then 50% utilization on each gpu. Now feel free to prove me wrong on this and correct me where I'm just wrong..all I want is this issue taken care off :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  9. m4rcus

    m4rcus Active Member

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 460
    so that is why i can deactivate up to 3 cores without getting a performance loss. And why settings dont bother with framerates too, makes sense. Read the whole story or shut it, srsly. Cpu usage isnt even near 100%, no matter what.


    No as said, the really strange part is, it DOES use the other cores as well, but the framerate doesnt drop if i shut down the cores. Something is really fracked up there.

    While i love that im now able to play with dx10/11 and stay over 60 FPS all the time, at least with a fov not higher as 65, i still like to get the performance i could get. DX9 still is running doulble as fast. I can even record fullscreen in dx9 after upgrading to that hexacore of mine..
     
  10. Alex_Smile

    Alex_Smile Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX260OC 896Mb
    You try to choose "safe" in tilling option CP?
     

  11. Sneakers

    Sneakers Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 980Ti Windforce
    Yah thats what I meant, sounded wierd what I wrote. But my point was indeed that the wierd part is that even if the OS game balances loads on 4-6 cores/threads you suffer no performance loss when you disable them, as if the game was not using it to begin with.

    I have tested this via the BIOS litterally turning cores off for the WHOLE OS.. everything, and via taskmanager setting affinity, same result.

    Sure is odd.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  12. Carfax

    Carfax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,913
    Likes Received:
    465
    GPU:
    NVidia Titan Xp
    Precisely. I'm not sure these people understand that if the GPU(s) isn't stressed, then the usage will not always be in the 90%+ range.

    For instance, on my system, Mass Effect 2 typically hovers around 45 > 55% usage (with occassional spikes) and is buttery smooth, and this is at 2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF with max detail. Even at those settings, the game simply doesn't stress my 480 SLi enough to cause them to use all of their resources to run the game.

    Crysis on the other hand, is practically always pegged at 99%..

    And BFBC2 which is uses a LOT of CPU will further, will reduce GPU activity even more unless you have a CPU powerful enough to run both the game mechanics and feed the GPU(s) without it being bottlenecked.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2010
  13. m4rcus

    m4rcus Active Member

    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 460
    Are you guys even reading? Or are you just trolling? Seriously.............
     
  14. Sneakers

    Sneakers Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 980Ti Windforce
    Actually, no, not with the 260 driver, I had it with the WHQL ( 258.96 was it? ).

    I'm not even gonna begin to analyze the results I will just state them.

    Single gpu on Upriver 1920x1200 dx11 0x aa 0x af (Single player):

    - Gpu usage varied alot depending on where I was looking was all from breif dips to 53% up to 99%. On average by looking at the graph I was around 75-80% wich is decent I guess.
    * If I applied anything above 4x AA gpu usage would go to 99% perma everywhere I looked/moved. FPS remained the same with or without aa up to 32xcsaa.

    I measured the exact gpu utilization and fps from the starting point without moving mouse or char at all. Nummbers as follows:

    78-80% gpu utilization
    61-63 FPS

    SLI gpus on Upriver 1920x1200 dx11 0x aa 0x af ( single player ):

    - Went the same route as with single gpu, stopped at same places and looked at same object, the combined gpu utilization was the same as with a single card ( roughly ) from what I could tell. The FPS was exactly the same at all places.

    I measured at the start point aswell without moving mouse or char and the nummbers where as follows:

    39-41% gpu utilization on both gpus
    61-63 FPS

    Both tests done at 850-1025.

    I did a quick test with SLI on and turned one core off from BC2 via taskmanager and ran it as 3 cores and there was no change in fps or utilization on either gpu.

    I'm not entirely sure what to make of this to be honest. *scratches head* :)

    /edit

    Might add that the singleplayer campaign ran just as good with my E8500 @ 4.4 ghz on my 4870x2 as it did with my Q9450 @ 3.8 ghz. Not a very cpu demanding game when playing SP with other words ( atleast that was what I found it to be ). MP a whole other story.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  15. Alex_Smile

    Alex_Smile Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX260OC 896Mb
    So my opinion about driver 260.52 mixed.
    GPU Load is fine, microlags in BFBC2 (DX10) is gone, but fps is same as 258.96.
    In DX9 microlags not fixed.
    Tried as Phenom II X2 555 @ 3.91 GHz and with Phenom II X4 B55 (unlock 555) 3.2 GHz - no difference.
    It's very strange... I hope that the release it's fixed.
    But maybe is not the system and driver fault, a fault in BFBC2...
     

  16. alex133

    alex133 Active Member

    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 460
    Nope.

    Changing it as I type this, done.

    Although I doubt it helps.
     
  17. Alex_Smile

    Alex_Smile Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX260OC 896Mb
    To me it helped...
     
  18. Sneakers

    Sneakers Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 980Ti Windforce
    Yes you are right but your conclusion is wrong.

    Try to explain this with your "cut in stone theory", why is it that during BC2 multiplayer the SLI'd gpus dip down to 20-35% with fps in the range of 35-45 and cpu still not very stressed ( in my case ) at around 60-75% up and down. And while turning off one of the cores from the game you suffer NO performance loss. If the gpus where completly and utterly choked by the "slow" Q9450 @ 3.8 then why doesn't the fps drop further when 1/4th of the cpu is taken away from the game application?

    Another whole in your theory is why does systems with quite powerful I7s @ 4 ghz and beyond suffer from low gpu utilization and low frames as result? Isn't an i7 930 @ ghz with HT on enough to run a 460?

    We all know BC2 req a decent cpu to run well, before I got this Q9450 I played the BC2 beta with an E8500 @ 4.4 ghz and a 4870x2 and after I moved to quad I gained like 20 fps, and could play with same settings as now ( only I had dx10 then now dx11 ) at 55-90 fps. Now I have 35-45 fps and it is not smooth at all.

    /edit

    I think most of us know the classic signs of a cpu bottleneck and that is that you get no performance gains from upgraded gpu and that you get no perfomance loss from added eyecandy, all wich we see here. But in the case of BC2 you get no performance LOSS when removing cores from the application, that really doesn't point to a clear "cpu bottleneck" since you would expect the performance to drop since you starve the gpus further, right?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2010
  19. Strykerr

    Strykerr Master Guru

    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GIGABYTE 1070
    Is there any reason these drivers are the only ones that show my monitor being able to run 1080p 1920x1080 HD as native @ 60hz, where all the other drivers I use it's native is PC 1920x1080 @ 60hz, and the 1080p is stuck @ 50hz?
     
  20. Alex_Smile

    Alex_Smile Member

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX260OC 896Mb

Share This Page