Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section' started by DeathAngel74, Sep 20, 2014.
These drivers are really good with Skyrim ... buttery smooth and no noticeable stutters.
So far so good....
Just reporting after the first driver not responding issue I had in BF4, It never happened again since up to this point in time.
I really like the crispness and IQ of these drivers now that I have them installed properly.
2560x1440 downsampling on 1920x1080 Samsung 42 in. HDTV
I've never installed GFE but is it really needed? Especially since I run SLI? I remember reading somewhere that some features require GFE but I don't remember in which thread I read it.
I had that with 344.11 so I upgraded to this one and never head the issue again, knock on wood (no I´m not supersticious knock on wood).
No, it's not required.
I can tell you for me it was. I couldn't enable DSR in the NCP global settings until I fiddled with GFE. There was no where to enable it in GFE however, when I let it search for games and checked the suggested optimizations, it did show 4K resolutions in the optimized settings. Once I said yes to a couple suddenly DSR showed up as enabled with 4.0 being the scaling factor.
Maybe it was just a bug in the driver for me but I spent a solid 2 hours trying to figure out how to get mine enabled. Even installed both beta and WHQL drivers.
installed 344.16 WHQL yesterday, is it the same driver to this BETA ?
get almost the same score in Valley compare to 344.11 with stock speed 1020~1163 / 1750
344.11 = 3185
344.16 = 3219
but with 344.11 sometime I got huge frame time spike when playing some games (Last Remnants, Grid Autosports, Tomb Raider).
haven't encounter the same thing with 344.16, yet ...
recommended to install 344.11 on my 750 ti?
I finally found some information that some SLI profiles must be downloaded through GFE so I suppose I need it after all.
Also the DSR thing, I'll try it someday.
After testing .11 and these this statement is hard to believe. I have been running these for awhile and will keep running them for a bit more to test. They are different for me compared to the .11's and I do not have a 9 series.
Don't know man, I only tried this driver for a day, not to mention we have different cards. I'll post later if I find something with this driver.
I'm pretty sure that Nvidia could release two drivers exactly the same and users would report gains and losses between them.
What did you notice differently?
I have a gtx 750 and these are fine for me so far
different version of PhysX.
This one crashes my benches the 11 did not.
This one does not suffer from micro stutter, the 11 did.
This one I am smoke in wtno like butter the 11 did not.
Difference files, sizes and crc's.
From some users' help i've placed 2 folders in the Windows folder to supposedly enable CUDA again.
Using latest 344.16 drivers WHQL on a GIGABYTE GTX 970 G1 Gaming card.
However,using a GPU Monitor gadget,i see that it won't go beyond the 8%/200MB VRAM usage on Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2014 when exporting a 720p@29,7FPS H.264 MP4 vid
Same goes with Pinnacle Studio 12,although this last one (PS12) seems to render much more faster,using around 350-450MB of the 970.
What's going on?...Sure i do game hard but...Editing's also a thing for me
And sorry if i posted in a wrong thread,but the CUDA thing has been discussed here since Post N.1.
by different physx you mean the latest 9.14.0702?
Crashes your benches, more sensitive to oc or at same freq.?
Where did you experience micro stutter?
I dont get this "I am smoke in wtno", you mean Wolfenstein nwo, so they're smoother there vs 344.11? :nerd:
yes I do believe its different size etc, its different sub branch after all
Gaming: very susceptible to it
So it is a different branch, sry don't keep up on all that, just test them and if they work for me I keep them, have not watched a lot of video on the big screen yet but for gaming they are the fastest driver I have tried for a while. No 40's I have kept until these.
Just last minute fixes for my 980 sli setup, I wish :nerd: Maybe a 970 down the road as they appear to be cheap but will need to read more benches to see if it is worth it, I could of bought a 680 for the price of a 670 and 970 and that is what I will base the 970 on, the 680. I would love to see a 8g memory model for my 2560 screen, think that may happen?