260.52 forceware Vista/Win7-64bit....

Downloaded them, putting them on my USB to install at home... The new UI installer looks awesome AND you get to choose what you want to install.. WIN/WIN
 
defaultluser said:
Installed these new drivers, and saw no performance increase with BFBC2. GPU usage still averages 45%.

GTX 460
Core 2 Duo at 3.2 GHz.
Click to expand...


your complaining about performance gain? you bloody cpu limited dude.. a C2D can not feed a gtx 460.. go spend 100-150 bucks and get a second hand C2Q 9450..
 
defaultluser said:
Installed these new drivers, and saw no performance increase with BFBC2. GPU usage still averages 45%.

GTX 460
Core 2 Duo at 3.2 GHz.
Click to expand...

All three of my cards are pulling a 75% average with a high off 88% across all three cards on BFBC2. (32 player server with everything DX11 everything on high plus HBAO on AF @ 16 and AA @ 4x msaa with a resolution of 5760 x 1200).
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
your complaining about performance gain? you bloody cpu limited dude.. a C2D can not feed a gtx 460.. go spend 100-150 bucks and get a second hand C2Q 9450..
Click to expand...

No.

My old HD 4850 was delivering PLAYABLE frame rates when the CPU was stock at 2.67 GHz (been playing BFBC2 that way for months, so don't act like you know my system better than I do). I overclocked to 3.2 when I got my GTX 460 just to make sure it wasn't an issue.

The GTX 460 is also playable, but I've been disappointed by the settings I can run:

HD 4850: 1280x960 DX10 all high HBAO on 2xMSAA, playable smooth

GTX 460: 1280x960 DX11 all high HBAO on 4xMSAA plus TRMSAA, borderline playable

GTX 460: 1280x960 DX11 all high HBAO on 4xMSAA playable smooth

Can you see why I'd be a little disappointed? This card which benches 50% faster can only comfortably bump the AA level by one (I've gotten MUCH bigger improvements in other games). It doesn't cost any more CPU power to crank up the AA settings, so it can't be that. I was hoping these new drivers would allow me to crank the eyecandy way up, but the framerates still drop to unplayable levels when I try that.
 
defaultluser said:
No.

My old HD 4850 was delivering PLAYABLE frame rates when the CPU was stock at 2.67 GHz (been playing BFBC2 that way for months, so don't act like you know my system better than I do). I overclocked to 3.2 when I got my GTX 460 just to make sure it wasn't an issue.

The GTX 460 is also playable, but I've been disappointed by the settings I can run:

HD 4850: 1280x960 DX10 all high HBAO on 2xMSAA, playable smooth

GTX 460: 1280x960 DX11 all high HBAO on 4xMSAA plus TRMSAA, borderline.

GTX 460: 1280x960 DX11 all high HBAO on 4xMSAA playable smooth

Can you see why I'd be a little disappointed? This card which benches 50% faster can only comfortably bump the AA level by one (I've gotten MUCH bigger improvements in other games). It doesn't cost any more CPU power to crank up the AA settings, so it can't be that.
Click to expand...

from my personal testing, ATI does AA better in general, it does not drop FPS as much as nVidia card using MSAA. That could be the issue you are having.

Also, GTX 460 is only slightly faster than 4850.. not 50%... its suppose to be in 4890 category for ATI... which is only faster by probably 30%.
 
shansoft said:
from my personal testing, ATI does AA better in general, it does not drop FPS as much as nVidia card using MSAA. That could be the issue you are having.
Click to expand...

That could be, especially if the MSAA requires more CPU power.

Also, GTX 460 is only slightly faster than 4850.. not 50%... its suppose to be in 4890 category for ATI... which is only faster by probably 30%.
Click to expand...

This I don't agree with you on.

1. I own a GTX 460 1GB (sorry for not making that clear). The 768 MB model is matched with the HD 4890.

2. Most reviews put the performance difference between 4850 and GTX 460 at 50% or higher:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_460_1_GB/31.html - about 60%

This Anandtech review shows the GTX 460 1GB to be 50% faster than the 5750 (rough equiv to 4850) in BFBC2:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king/11
 
I'm running tri 470's and I am cpu limited even when I overclock my 940 to 3.9ghz.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
your complaining about performance gain? you bloody cpu limited dude.. a C2D can not feed a gtx 460.. go spend 100-150 bucks and get a second hand C2Q 9450..
Click to expand...

my C2Q Q8200 can only push my gtx460 1gb to 30-35% usage in BFBC2, this is literally the ONLY game i play that i have this issue. metro 2033 gives me 100% GPU usage, same with mass effect 2, bioshock 2, L4D2, MW2, borderlands. playing at 1680x1050 4xAA high settings. average around 35fps.
 
newbs said:
I'm running tri 470's and I am cpu limited even when I overclock my 940 to 3.9ghz.
Click to expand...


id bet its a mix of cpu and sli limits.. while sli is great compared to crossfire.. it doesnt scale nearly as good as it should across 3 cards..

herfalerf said:
my C2Q Q8200 can only push my gtx460 1gb to 30-35% usage in BFBC2, this is literally the ONLY game i play that i have this issue. metro 2033 gives me 100% GPU usage, same with mass effect 2, bioshock 2, L4D2, MW2, borderlands. playing at 1680x1050 4xAA high settings. average around 35fps.
Click to expand...

thats because BFBC2 uses Havok powered physic's which is cpu accelerated and why your q8200 is choking.. where as all the other games you listed either use no physics or use physX gpu accelerated physics..
 
My initial thoughts using these drivers are that I have reverted back to 258.96 and the reasons are:

  1. I could not get my older hanns-g to go into sleep mode
  2. In programs that could not utilize surround, but standard 1920 x 1200 and below, could not get anything to view in center monitor

IMO, unlike the eyefinity, surround seems very finicky when trying to setup. The first time I set up surround I had to try multiple cable configurations and even had to rearrange monitors so that any 1920 x 1200 or lower displayed programs would display in the center monitor. Not an easy task when monitors are attached to the wall. Then I had to make certain my older hanns g was in the right card and right port so that the sleep mode function would work properly.

Using the 260 drivers I thought it would be a piece of cake because everything had already been set up. No such luck as my monitor would not go to sleep and I could not get anything to display in the center monitor below 1920 x 1200.

On the plus side, the 260 seemed much quicker within the control panel but it definitely took longer in try to configure surround where at times I thought my computer froze.

The limited gaming I did after installing the 260s seemed fine and much more responsive but ultimately the little annoyances is what caused me to go back to the 258s.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
your complaining about performance gain? you bloody cpu limited dude.. a C2D can not feed a gtx 460.. go spend 100-150 bucks and get a second hand C2Q 9450..
Click to expand...
don't be silly because the low gpu usage is a bug with some gtx4xxx cards. the game is perfectly fine for me on my e8500 and gtx260 with gpu usage around 90%.
 
defaultluser said:
That could be, especially if the MSAA requires more CPU power.



This I don't agree with you on.

1. I own a GTX 460 1GB (sorry for not making that clear). The 768 MB model is matched with the HD 4890.

2. Most reviews put the performance difference between 4850 and GTX 460 at 50% or higher:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_460_1_GB/31.html - about 60%

This Anandtech review shows the GTX 460 1GB to be 50% faster than the 5750 (rough equiv to 4850) in BFBC2:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king/11
Click to expand...

dont really trust those review much..

but based on your first one, 4850 are around 60-70% of GTX 460, which there is a 30-40% gap between it. it still fall into 4890/GTX 275/GTX 285 category.. which if you add it up, its about that number...

PS: was testing the new driver, BC2 seems to still run about the same for me...
 
I have a I750 with SLI 460 and i play it at 1080p (1920x1080p) with all on and 32xCSAA and no complain whatsoever in Multiplayer...
 
defaultluser said:
Installed these new drivers, and saw no performance increase with BFBC2. GPU usage still averages 45%.

GTX 460
Core 2 Duo at 3.2 GHz.
Click to expand...

Core2 duo is your bottleneck. Drivers aren't going to make your CPU less of a bottleneck.
 
dnottis said:
Core2 duo is your bottleneck. Drivers aren't going to make your CPU less of a bottleneck.
Click to expand...
his cpu is NOT the reason he is only getting 45% gpu usage. I wish you people would get that through your heads. and see below for what I already said to someone else.
cannondale06 said:
don't be silly because the low gpu usage is a bug with some gtx4xxx cards. the game is perfectly fine for me on my e8500 and gtx260 with gpu usage around 90%.
Click to expand...
 
bc2gpuusageMPproblem.jpg

bc2gpuusageMPproblemquadcore.jpg
 
Strangely enough, after I installed these drivers, I've had my first freeze/soundloop crash in two weeks. I wasn't monitor my temps on my GTX 460 but it happened on MW2. Which usually never goes above 75c.

Any thoughts? I did completely remove the drivers and used drive sweeper to reinstall.
 
Are you guys wiping your old drivers and running driver sweeper before upgrading, or just running the installer?
 
Actually I dont think this is a bug in the drivers myself. I think it actually boils down to people not pushing there cards enough to the max myself. I can go from metro 2033 @ a solid 73 fps a sec @ 98% usage on 2x285 and to bad com 2 to 96% usage on 2x285 and down to quake 2 which will only use 3% gpu on the first card only even in sli. Dirt2 runs the same as bad com 2 ,metro so I think its is more of people not pushing these cards hard enough on certain features in the games and resolutions mostly my 2 cents.



cannondale06 said:
his cpu is NOT the reason he is only getting 45% gpu usage. I wish you people would get that through your heads. and see below for what I already said to someone else.
Click to expand...
 
Plumber4life said:
Actually I dont think this is a bug in the drivers myself. I think it actually boils down to people not pushing there cards enough to the max myself. I can go from metro 2033 @ a solid 73 fps a sec @ 98% usage on 2x285 and to bad com 2 to 96% usage on 2x285 and down to quake 2 which will only use 3% gpu on the first card only even in sli. Dirt2 runs the same as bad com 2 ,metro so I think its is more of people not pushing these cards hard enough on certain features in the games and resolutions mostly my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
it IS some type of bug between the 400 series and BC 2. he is only getting less than 50% gpu usage yet I have a just slightly slower gtx260 that is at nearly 100% gpu usage. I also had a gtx470 and I had sluggish BC 2 performance and had to force DX10 just to make it almost as playable as it was on my gtx260.
 
I must be nuts! Today was the first chance since Wednesday that I had to play BFBC2, and it was like night and day. I cranked the settings to 16xCSAA and 8xTRSSAA, and the gameplay was fluid. On maps that really made use of the TRSSAA, the GPU usage topped 75%!

I really don't know why my initial tests on Wedbnesday were so bad. I didn't change a thing. Guess I'm just crazy in the head.

I give these drivers a big thumbs-up, they let me run with the eyecandy I know the GTX 460 is capable of :D
 
I gotta a small bump in performance on GTX275. Anyone try the new dynamic tiling setting? I think "Safe" is the setting that should be used.
 
artika23 said:
My initial thoughts using these drivers are that I have reverted back to 258.96 and the reasons are:

  1. I could not get my older hanns-g to go into sleep mode
  2. In programs that could not utilize surround, but standard 1920 x 1200 and below, could not get anything to view in center monitor
Click to expand...

I had the second issue even in 258.96. All 1920x1200 games would only show up on the right monitor. I had to move my monitors connections to where I believe the center monitor is on card 1 port 1. Yeah in general though surround is wonky. Im sure its blasphemy but there are some things I still prefer in Eyefinity.
 
cannondale06 said:
it IS some type of bug between the 400 series and BC 2. he is only getting less than 50% gpu usage yet I have a just slightly slower gtx260 that is at nearly 100% gpu usage. I also had a gtx470 and I had sluggish BC 2 performance and had to force DX10 just to make it almost as playable as it was on my gtx260.
Click to expand...
Same...exact...situation. Watching my 470 get shit framerate after replacing the 260 makes me cry.
 
Two 480's in SLI run fine here in BC2 multiplayer. Haven't had stutters so far. Haven't tried these new drivers either, will install them thou after they go WHQL.
 
Second update on the new drivers: although I was able to play with 16xCSAA plus 8xTRSSAA on my GTX 460 1GB, there was occasional hitching on foliage-heavy maps due to the settings overloading the GPU. Here are the final settings I've found to be perfectly smooth using the latest drivers:

260.52 drivers: 1280x960 DX11 all max including HBAO, 4xMSAA plus 4xTRSSAA, perfectly fluid.

previous drivers: 1280x960 DX11 all max including HBAO, 4xMSAA fluid.

HD 4850 (cat 9.4b): 1280x960 DX10 all max including HBAO, 2xMSAA fluid

This new driverset makes BFBC2 more fluid than even my experience on my old 4850, and I finally have the eyecandy performance improvement I knew this new card was capable of. I'm very satisfied with my settings now :)
 
Jodiuh said:
Good to hear. What CPU are you using defaultuser?
Click to expand...

Core 2 Duo 6MB @ 3.2 GHz. Contrary to some posts in this thread, it's perfectly capable of running BFBC2 smoothly :D

I will eventially upgrade to quad core, but now after seeing how well my Core 2 handled BFBC2 with a little overclock, I'm going to hold-out for Sandy Bridge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top