New Forceware 160.04 WHQL for Vista (x86 and x64) ... GeForce Fx/6/7/8/Quadro

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section' started by HamidFULL, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. ntfx

    ntfx Guest

    Works fine for me since i got the openal installer from creative's site and copied the openal32.dll into the 3dmark folder, whats the problem on your os?

    You best wait till you get at least 2gb of ram, Vista on 1GB of ram is absolutely pointless.
     
  2. elecg2

    elecg2 Master Guru

    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800.640MB(VOLT,Memory Ti
    Im run 3dMark 2006, i get 1834 Points on Vista Ultimate x32, Forceware 158.18 WHQL, and on Xp x32 with forceware NGOHW 2.158.22 i get 1914 Points, this dont have mutch difference...yeah!
    I Play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and on Vista this more smoth, i dont see much diference, expecet on Carbon, but EA release a new patch to repair the problem forcing run game on 98 state...

    WIth 2GB...hun, uou, i don´t have much money...you belice on my city peples seel Vista with 512 MB !!! on computer Semprom 2.8 + !!!! crazy...:puke3:
     
  3. jabloomf

    jabloomf Master Guru

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 580
    3DMark06 works perfectly fine under both Vista Ultimate x64 and Win XP x64 (I have both in a double boot configuration and 3DMark06 has worked fine for over a year with XP x64 and worked fine since the RC1 of Vista x64, although no SLI, until the nVidia drivers were improved).

    3DMark06's use is not officially supported by Futuremark for x64 OSes, because they don't want to be bothered to respond to technical inquiries from people with 64 bit OSes. Personally, I don't blame Futuremark. The bulk of their users have 32 bit OSes.
     
  4. Hunted

    Hunted Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS GTX 1080
    Vista X64 3DMark06 scores (last 4 drivers used) Standard; no OCing

    158.18 = 4882
    158.24 = 4863
    160.03 = 4816
    160.04 = 4912

    Used 158.24 since 160.03 caused issues with BSOD in COD2. This driver gives me 96 points more then 160.03 and 49 more points then 158.24.

    Seems like my scores are low compared to some of you lot tho.
     

  5. bodean

    bodean Master Guru

    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire 7970
    Not able to find/select 75 for my refresh rate. Only 60 is available with these drivers. Monitor is NEC Multisync 90gx2
     
  6. fr33k

    fr33k Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    84
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX3080TI FTW3
    these drivers caused all the fire effects (guns, rockets, explosions, flame throwers) in CoH DX10 to disappear. I installed the card today so i haven't really done much driver testing but the 158.45's seem to be great.
     
  7. Gaizokubanou

    Gaizokubanou Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire HD 7970
    Yup same here, I'm going back to 158.45 because of this (and that this new driver doesn't seem to do anything special).
     
  8. RealTelstar

    RealTelstar Member

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI gtx570 TwinFrozr III
    They used to sell computers with too few memory in the past as well.
    Anyway, less than 2GB = XP. Period.
     
  9. elecg2

    elecg2 Master Guru

    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800.640MB(VOLT,Memory Ti

    Im try install Vista, i Have on Xp 1914 Points 3D2006, and on Vista 1864,,, nyce ,not mutch diference, with 1 GB DDR2...
    Now i try later install 160.04, because i use now XG158.45 , nyce drivers... works so goos with 6600@6600GT
     
  10. Markiss614

    Markiss614 Active Member

    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    2x EVGA GTX470 SLi
    World of Warcraft crashes when I use any beta drivers newer than 158.24.
    All other games seem to work fine. Anyone else have this going on?
     

  11. Squbii

    Squbii Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    XFX RX 6900 XT MERC
    I don't like this driver...

    In 3D Mark 2006 my score is the same when comparing it to 158.45 but in the CoJ DX10 Benchmark situation is difference:

    158.45: (min/avg/max) 13/38.9/71.9
    160.04: (min/avg/max) 11.9/25/41.9

    Back to 158.45... :D
     
  12. homerpez

    homerpez Member Guru

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ATI 3650 / 4890
    Question: Have they implemented any overscan compensation under an HDMI-connected TV yet?

    How about "flat panel scaling" options for an HDMI-connected TV?

    If they haven't fixed that, then for my purposes, 158.45 seems to be zipping like a rocket on my system. I'll upgrade when I have a good reason to.

    I do have a work-around for watching some anime w/subtitles, using FFDShow (since the words are pushed off screen, I need it squeezed back in). Nvidia is taking so long with this basic adjustment feature, that I found my own solution anyway. :smoke:

    Did they fix the slowdown bug for FEAR with these? I still have noticeable slowdowns after I play 5-10 minutes, sometimes less. This is on an 8800 GTS and Vista.
     
  13. MrBozack

    MrBozack Master Guru

    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 7850OC Windforce
    Sorry but the drivers took months to mature on the 8800 series. By delaying the launch of the HD2900XT, they managed to make better drivers from launch.

    I'm not interested on benchmark performance, only in plugging the card in and all features working.

    HD2900XT displayed perfectly on plasma and monitor first time, no effort, correct resolution, correct aspect ratio -even 5.1 DTS audio. Amazing what you can do with an HDMI to HDMI lead. Windows booted about three minutes quicker too. The driver didn't stop responding either.

    If 8800 wins on benchmark, sorry but for me the 2900 wins on better and better working features out of the box. Pretty good drivers were available from launch. I tried both 2900 and 8800. I know my preference for the purpose intended. :)

    I feel that you're missing the real issue though. The HD2900XT came into the conversation when Mr "drivers are only for 8800" tried to stretch his e-penis. I don't want a 8800 ;)

    All I posted originally were that 160.04 performed badly on 6xxx cards and 7xxx cards, compared to say the brilliant XP81.98.... and it's a helpful note for older card owners still awaiting better Vista drivers... but no... drivers are for 8800 because they benchmark the best.

    Joy is me, instead of sharing my experiences, I get to reply to the feuding factions of the "8800ftw Posse". Thus filling up a potentially useful thread with yet another selfrighteous and opinionated post.

    GG
     
  14. Dragonsbane

    Dragonsbane Member

    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 2080 Black
    Thats what I call a reply. I think you are 100% correct.


    About the drivers, im going back to 158.45 too. Tested COH and CoJ (both DX10) and my numbers were a bit worse. As i didnt had any problems with 158.45, im going back to it.

    PS.: As i only use Vista for DX10 games, i didnt tested any DX9 one.
     
  15. darrenj

    darrenj Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    99
    GPU:
    EVGA 3080
    These drivers run STALKER much smoother in Vista than the 158.27 in XP.

    This is a first for me that the same runs game better/smoother in Vista than XP!:smoke:

    Though I have not tried over clocking my graphic card in vista yet.
     

  16. rosco1011

    rosco1011 New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    i had read here postings suggesting that one driver or another increased their temps. i tended to think were seeing the effects of just a re-calibration in software, and that "real" temperatures were actually unchanged.

    having come from the 165 version (whatever that was!) to the 160.04 (about a month newer on driver version - device manager) my idle and gaming temps are up by about 10 degrees (41C to 53C - idle, 60C to 70C - gaming), ambient temperature equivalent. this is a measurement of the exit exhaust air via multi-function panel probe, so is real world.

    some cause for concern, i think. i wonder if it is related to a change in fan speed, but that is difficult for me to determine.

    anyone else with similar situation?

    rosco
     
  17. darrenj

    darrenj Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    99
    GPU:
    EVGA 3080
    I think Vista on the whole has issues with 3rd party temperature and performance software. Rivatuner does give higher temp. readings with the same clocks as in XP. Regarding my system anyway.
    As well as artifacting in Vista with gcard overclocks that work perfectly in XP. This is a point of worry.

    For example- My 8800gts 640 runs load performance at 650/2000 perfectly stable in XP. In vista I get artifacting in Halo 2. I have to run the game at default clocks.
    I am not 100% sure, it could be a driver, software or game issue. :spam2:
     
  18. Tarkan2467

    Tarkan2467 Master Guru

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 FTW
    This is true for XP (mostly), but for Vista it's flat-out wrong. NVIDIA's spending all their time on stability and performance improvements that mostly apply to the GF8 cards. In the case of the GF6 cards, I see 20% performance deficits compared to the 81.98 XP drivers in some games. This is not because the drivers have hit a wall for the GF6. Hell, they're not even completely optimized for the GF8 yet!

    In the case of XP, I did see performance improvements by moving to the 150.xx series of drivers, in both FEAR and the Source engine. Small ones (5fps in benchmarks), but it was there nonetheless and it was consistently there.
     
  19. hawkeyefan

    hawkeyefan Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    8800GT @ 787/1944/2244
    How much warmer is it in your home as we approach summer? That alone and humidity levels could account for the higher temps. Drivers themselves should not produce different levels of heat output.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  20. biglonglenthman

    biglonglenthman Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    ASUS Extreme 8800GTX 621/2160
    Well FPS is certainly better over the 158.45, But thats it really Ive sacrificed stability and now i get frequent CTD since installing these 160's.

    So back to 158.45 for me. . . . have to say nV are on right track with performance on the 160's just needs some stability fixes :)
     

Share This Page