1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Ti-4200 drivers test AND test of overlay / games color bugs

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by Lars-Erik Østerud, Jan 30, 2005.

  1. OK, I spent half the weekend testing drivers for my Ti-4200 card to
    find the fastest driver AND to try to find a driver that loaded
    overlay color settings and games profiles color setting after reboot
    (without having to apply again).

    Not a success as you can see. None of the drivers in the 6x.xx and
    7x.xx series work well on a 4200 card (some feedback I got is that it
    works on 6x.xx cards though).

    The other settings for games profiles work (quality etc) but not
    colors profiles after boot (they work just after jo apply them in the
    control panel as long as you don't boot, that's tru for the overlay
    color setting as well). Only thing that works is that the desktop
    color settings are restored at boottime (I guess they couldn't have
    missed if this disn't work :)

    So it would seem that no one cares about us that bought 42xx series
    cards anymore :-(
    I have not managed to get any comment or feedback from Nvidia either
    :-(

    Well the test results might be interesting for all 4xxx cards owners
    anyway, right :)
    Any if anyone else can confirm the problem OR have a solution then
    please tell me!

    (this table might look best with Courier or other fixed width font)

    Driver Overlay Games 3dMark 3dMark 3dMark
    version color profile 2000 2001 03
    restored colors
    after work
    boot after
    boot

    44.03 Yes n/a 12182 11082 1473
    45.23 Yes n/a 12056 10472 1460
    56.64 Yes n/a 11702 10078 1434
    56.72 Yes n/a 11723 10012 1430
    61.77 No No 11467 10013 1596
    66.93 No No 11309 9856 1603
    67.03 No No 11277 9824 1602
    67.66 No No 11301 9816 1599
    71.21 No No 11326 9781 1606
     
    Lars-Erik Østerud, Jan 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Lars-Erik Østerud

    Robert Gault Guest

    You have not said which motherboard, BIOS, chipset drivers, and OS is in
    use. Without that information, your results don't mean much to others.

    However, it looks like there is little significant difference in speed
    and slower results with newer drivers is probably offset by better
    graphics quality.
     
    Robert Gault, Jan 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lars-Erik Østerud

    JonMaC Guest

    FWIW - I used to use 45.23 drivers on my Ti4800 - no problem. Needed to
    rebuild PC, so new XP Pro & SP2, then added lastest whql drivers at the time
    6177 -again no problems - plays most gamed medium detail @ 1024 x 768.
    Then bought HL2 & noticed it was a bit jerky so had to crank resolution down
    to 800 x 600.
    Recently got NeedforSpeed Underground 2 - ran terrible jerky & isolated
    grphic glitches on the car details.

    So, tried downgrding to 45.23 - speeding up NFSU2 & HL (CS:Source actually
    tested) noticeably even to the eye.
    HTH JonMaC
     
    JonMaC, Jan 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Robert Gault skrev:
    Read the signature: Asus P4PE, XP, P4 2.54, 512MB (done have the
    rest). The test was mainly to compare between the drivers versions
    And the new drivers ARE faster with 3dMark 03 (which reflects new
    games better). The old games (2000 and 2001) is fast enough anyway.

    So I'd use 66.93 if it hadn't been for the "overlay settings bug" :-(
     
    Lars-Erik Østerud, Jan 31, 2005
    #4
  5. JonMaC skrev:
    Have always used 800x600 (to get 85hz, only gets 75 at 1024x768)
    One thing I noticed was the "carousel test" in one of the 3dMarks's.
    The 2nd one with "8 light sources". It's quite smooth with the 4x.xx
    drivers, but with the new 6x.xx and 7x.xx it's terribly jerkey :-(

    To bad 45.23 is much slower that 44.03 and poor on new games.
    But 44.03 crashes in Half-Life 2, so. It's 45.23 or 66.93
     
    Lars-Erik Østerud, Jan 31, 2005
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.