Best TI4600 drivers?

I

ImMersIon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
346
what are the best (fps, and quality) drivers to go with rite now. Ive got the 44.03 drivers as of now, but prince of persian has horrible flicker issues. Im also runnin DX9.
 
In your opinion. In my opinion the 45.23's are :cool: Any of the 50.xx are crappy for the GF4 line, in my expierence.
 
Originally posted by fallguy
In your opinion. In my opinion the 45.23's are :cool: Any of the 50.xx are crappy for the GF4 line, in my expierence.
Click to expand...

I agree with that BUT compare the 2 driver sets against each other and the 40.72's will opt for better performance. Especially in UT2K3.
 
I was thinking in terms of quality, not speed. I had less bugs with the 45.23's.
 
I stayed away from the 40.72's myself. Many of my games came out with IQ so horrible (with lots of large artifacts, and very large areas that were all-white or all-black) that they rendered those games unplayable.
 
Ive been using the 40.72's since they came out, no problems, cept halo wouldnt change the screen resoultion but i didnt like the game anyway, ran too choppy on my 4200, no IQ problems here.
 
Originally posted by E4g1e
I stayed away from the 40.72's myself. Many of my games came out with IQ so horrible (with lots of large artifacts, and very large areas that were all-white or all-black) that they rendered those games unplayable.
Click to expand...


I believe the IQ problems you are talking about are associated with the 40.71's.
 
Another problem that I had with the 40.72's:

It suffered from the same problem that was carried over from the 30.82's: a broken 85Hz Windows refresh-rate setting at 1024x768 (I had to use an eye-straining 60Hz refresh rate with my 17-inch monitor at all resolutions with those drivers, since I couldn't get it to sync at 75Hz) that apparently wasn't fixed until the 44.03's came out.
 
Originally posted by E4g1e
Another problem that I had with the 40.72's:

It suffered from the same problem that was carried over from the 30.82's: a broken 85Hz Windows refresh-rate setting at 1024x768 (I had to use a eye-straining 60Hz refresh rate with my 17-inch monitor at all resolutions with those drivers, since I couldn't get it to sync at 75Hz) that apparently wasn't fixed until the 44.03's came out.
Click to expand...

All these you problems you had, I never experienced. I still have the 40.72s installed on my other PC.:D
 
Originally posted by merlin704
All these you problems you had, I never experienced. I still have the 40.72s installed on my other PC.:D
Click to expand...

And not everyone will have the same problems. It's just that the 30.82 through the 40.72 drivers would set the wrong horizontal sync frequency on my monitor at any refresh rate other than 60Hz - and NVIDIA wouldn't tell anyone about that. And not all monitors suffer the same incompatibility; it's just that my particular monitor reacted so adversely to such problems.
 
Originally posted by E4g1e
And not everyone will have the same problems. It's just that the 30.82 through the 40.72 drivers would set the wrong horizontal sync frequency on my monitor at any refresh rate other than 60Hz - and NVIDIA wouldn't tell anyone about that. And not all monitors suffer the same incompatibility; it's just that my particular monitor reacted so adversely to such problems.
Click to expand...

Computers are strange. Sometimes they will work and then sometimes you need a hammer to fix them.:D
 
Originally posted by merlin704
Computers are strange. Sometimes they will work and then sometimes you need a hammer to fix them.:D
Click to expand...
big effin hammer...

44.03 ran great on my Ti4200, but Need for Speed High Stakes didn't work... it was hacked to run on XP anyway, but...
I'm running 29.60s right now anyways, so I can run some old games...
 
This is an interesting thread. I can't tell much difference in any of the driver sets, so I just update to the latest version with my (old) card. I've never had problems with any driver sets running anything, and image quality isn't something I worry about too much with FPS's.

Still, is there really more than a 3-5 fps difference between say, the 40.xx and the latest drivers to warrant switching? It used to be I worried about every fps (think quake/2/3); but those days are past.

I'm a tweaker, but I guess a few fps doesn't concern me much as I wait for the next gen card to come out. More info on some of these driver differences would be interesting. :)
 
Originally posted by oozish
This is an interesting thread. I can't tell much difference in any of the driver sets, so I just update to the latest version with my (old) card. I've never had problems with any driver sets running anything, and image quality isn't something I worry about too much with FPS's.

Still, is there really more than a 3-5 fps difference between say, the 40.xx and the latest drivers to warrant switching? It used to be I worried about every fps (think quake/2/3); but those days are past.

I'm a tweaker, but I guess a few fps doesn't concern me much as I wait for the next gen card to come out. More info on some of these driver differences would be interesting. :)
Click to expand...


I would say yes. Evil_m@lum was able to hit almost 17K with the 40.72s on a Ti4600.
 
Some of the newer 5x.xx drivers cause some really horrible performance in UT as well as a few other games for me.... switched back to the 4x.xx series as a result.
 
Originally posted by merlin704
I would say yes. Evil_m@lum was able to hit almost 17K with the 40.72s on a Ti4600.
Click to expand...

cool, I've reverted! Thanks for the tip. :)
 
I'm using Omega's 45.23. I'm very pleased with these drivers on my 4200. More so than any of the stock drivers. Problem is, they are a PITA to find a good fast link for.

e_t
 
44.67 here

I tested from 43.03 to 53.03, yah that took like 6 hours, but I found the 44.67 give the best overall performace. I still have the excel file I organized all the data in, private msg me if you want a copy with my system specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top