Detonator (2K-XP) 52.16 Beta

Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2: ftp://:/
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html

Lee Marsh wrote:

> Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
> Mirror 2: ftp://:/
> Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html
>
>
I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16

Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.

I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
for me for now.


Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
3DMark03-03: 5978
Aquamark3: 42452

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
3DMark03-03: 6044
Aquamark3: 42571

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
3DMark03-03: 5982
Aquamark3: 41995

"Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
news:bn0duv$2k1f$...
> Lee Marsh wrote:
>
> > Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
> > Mirror 2: ftp://:/
> > Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html
> >
> >
> I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16
>
> Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
> looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
> Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
> watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.
>
> I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
> for me for now.
>
>
> Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
> 3DMark03-03: 5978
> Aquamark3: 42452
>
> Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
> 3DMark03-03: 6044
> Aquamark3: 42571
>
> Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
> 3DMark03-03: 5982
> Aquamark3: 41995


You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can see a
half a frame per second?

not me wrote:

> "Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
> news:bn0duv$2k1f$...
>
>>Lee Marsh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
>>>Mirror 2: ftp://:/
>>>Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16
>>
>>Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
>>looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
>>Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
>>watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.
>>
>>I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
>>for me for now.
>>
>>
>>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
>>3DMark03-03: 5978
>>Aquamark3: 42452
>>
>>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
>>3DMark03-03: 6044
>>Aquamark3: 42571
>>
>>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
>>3DMark03-03: 5982
>>Aquamark3: 41995
>
>
>
> You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can see a
> half a frame per second?
>
>
Apparantly

Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
drivers.

But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
overall surprised me.

I don't really care about those benchmarks, are real games playable and how
do they look?
I've never paid to much attention to synthetic benchmarks.

"Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
news:bn0lsr$2mc4$...
> not me wrote:
>
> > "Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
> > news:bn0duv$2k1f$...
> >
> >>Lee Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
> >>>Mirror 2: ftp://:/
> >>>Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16
> >>
> >>Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
> >>looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
> >>Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
> >>watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.
> >>
> >>I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
> >>for me for now.
> >>
> >>
> >>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
> >>3DMark03-03: 5978
> >>Aquamark3: 42452
> >>
> >>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
> >>3DMark03-03: 6044
> >>Aquamark3: 42571
> >>
> >>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
> >>3DMark03-03: 5982
> >>Aquamark3: 41995
> >
> >
> >
> > You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can
see a
> > half a frame per second?
> >
> >
> Apparantly
>
> Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
> averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
> drivers.
>
> But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
> thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
> overall surprised me.
>

I don't really care about those benchmarks, are real games playable and how
do they look?
I've never paid to much attention to synthetic benchmarks.

"Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
news:bn0lsr$2mc4$...
> not me wrote:
>
> > "Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
> > news:bn0duv$2k1f$...
> >
> >>Lee Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
> >>>Mirror 2: ftp://:/
> >>>Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16
> >>
> >>Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
> >>looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
> >>Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
> >>watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.
> >>
> >>I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
> >>for me for now.
> >>
> >>
> >>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
> >>3DMark03-03: 5978
> >>Aquamark3: 42452
> >>
> >>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
> >>3DMark03-03: 6044
> >>Aquamark3: 42571
> >>
> >>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
> >>3DMark03-03: 5982
> >>Aquamark3: 41995
> >
> >
> >
> > You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can
see a
> > half a frame per second?
> >
> >
> Apparantly
>
> Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
> averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
> drivers.
>
> But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
> thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
> overall surprised me.
>

I use a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 and for now just using 3D Mark 2001 SE build
330 and all of my benchmarks have been in the ball park with each new
version. I did however notice quite a decline with the 52.16 beta
drivers. I have not tried any earlier 52 series drivers yet -
unfortunatley I still subscribe to the idea that newer really should
be better, right?

ver # = score
28.32 = 8178
29.41 = 8096
29.42 = 8251
30.82 = 8064
40.41 = 8494
40.72 = 8406
41.09 = 8483
42.86 = 8467
43.00 = 8455
43.45 = 8304

52.16 = 7781

I should mention that I have a P4 1.5 gig (Wilamette) with 256MB
PC-800 RDRAM...
Well, now I guess I'll see how some games play and whether or not the
dual monitor works well - I find often with the beta's that some
functions of dual monitor usage are a little wonky.

Tom wrote:
> I don't really care about those benchmarks, are real games playable and how
> do they look?
> I've never paid to much attention to synthetic benchmarks.
>
> "Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
> news:bn0lsr$2mc4$...
>
>>not me wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nick (no dashes)" <nick-> wrote in message
>>>news:bn0duv$2k1f$...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lee Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
>>>>>Mirror 2: ftp://:/
>>>>>Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16
>>>>
>>>>Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
>>>>looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
>>>>Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
>>>>watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.
>>>>
>>>>I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
>>>>for me for now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
>>>>3DMark03-03: 5978
>>>>Aquamark3: 42452
>>>>
>>>>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
>>>>3DMark03-03: 6044
>>>>Aquamark3: 42571
>>>>
>>>>Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
>>>>3DMark03-03: 5982
>>>>Aquamark3: 41995
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can
>
> see a
>
>>>half a frame per second?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Apparantly
>>
>>Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
>>averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
>>drivers.
>>
>>But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
>>thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
>>overall surprised me.
>>
>
>
>
I agree - which was really what I was saying - the .16 *looked* worse to
me so while the benchmarks said it was a trivial difference, I went with
what I liked the look of.

The big jump was from 45.23 to 52.13 for me. It let me run Battlefield
with AA and AF and yet still feeling great. I got Command and Conquer
yesterday, but didn't try it before going with the .14 driver. I did
play it for about 3 hours and it is just silky smooth.

I run the benchmarks when I change driver just to see what it
does....it's a sport in itself to see those numbers going up and then
overclocking to see what else comes out But I always end up with no
overclocking because my motherboard eventually looses it's onboard audio
and I have to reset default speeds to get it back. (yeah...I don't get
it either, but it's true...Asus P4P800 Deluxe).