ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
TP
> > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra?
Chris G.
> TP
> > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
> What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra?
> Chris G.
> > That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the
> fastest
> > ops for *** using a GF3 or GF2ULTRA video card). And, by the
> > way....these drivers are not available (as of three minutes ago) on
> Nvidia's
> > website....so be careful what you download and install.
> > TP
> > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
MadDAWG
You can't just look at the video card/driver package alone anymore....you
have to include the system ops and the cpu platform...into the equation.
I recently read a "benchmark" testing series comparing all combinations of
the following:
Ops Sys: Win98SE, WinXP
Video Cards: GF2MX, GF2Ultra, GF3 (not the Ti's)
CPU Platform: AMD 1.4 and P4 1.8
They did not change the NV drivers, I believe all tests were run on the
21.85's (but it could have been the 21.81's....don't recall exactly). They
used pretty much all the standard "benches" (3dmark2000, 3dmark2001,
Quake...etc.). The article was very long....so I didn't save it or bookmark
it....there are several of these around and I only looked over for the
"bottom line" results. Which, were in line with others I'd seen previously.
Results Summary: In all cases, the combo of Win98SE/GF3/AMD was the clear
winner.....substantially ahead of any other combination in several
benchmarks...but never even second in one of them. In one case (an OpenGL
test I believe), the Win98SE/GF2Ultra/AMD was a very close second...almost
identical to the Win98SE/GF3/AMD. The consistent "loser," coming in last
place nearly on every test and substantially behind "first place"....was
WinXP/GF2MX/P4.....and all WinXP tests results were lower than any Win98SE
result.
As far as which NV driver is faster, I think you have to look at the other
elements.....to answer that question. On my systems....primarily
Win98SE/AMD/GF3 bases....I've noticed only a slight drop from the 21.81 up
to the current 23.11 in speed.....not significant in my opinion. However, I
have felt the "graphic quality" has improved in the area of 20% from the
21.81 to the 23.11's. But...that's on my systems, with my technique for
settings....maintenance of the systems and monitors. Other's may not have
this same results or opinion.
I run all sims at 1600x1200x16 in D3D (on a 21" flat-screen Sony), except
for N4 is run in OpenGL (same res).....primary sims are GPL, N4 and Rally
Trophy (demo) and F1-2001. N4 in OpenGL still has a slight edge in graphics
quality over any of the others....but the D3D sims are catching up quickly.
FPS in all sims with these settings is far over "adequate".....ranging from
40's-50's all the way to 110's....depending on AI load and how much "hi-res"
graphics I'm using of my own creation (by the way, I'm still experimenting
but it looks like all the "hi-res" graphics techniques that have resulted in
nearly "Kodak-perfect" tracks in GPL work the same way in F1-2001....I'm
working on a Silverstone track in F1-2001 right now.....and its amazing how
many of the GPL track techniques work exactly the same for F1-2001).
Sorry for the long answer to the short question....but I hope this helps
other who are looking for short answers....there aren't any right now.
One last thing.....
The clear loser in all this (IMHO) is the V5 cards. Those systems (and I
still have a P3800 with a V5 card....and I check it regularly with anything
new that comes out) are substantially behind the times in terms of graphic
quality in the popular sims....considering frame rates...and general "eye
candy"......etc. At one time (18 months ago or so), there wasn't a huge
difference.....but it was distinctive. Now....the two are not even in the
same universe of comparison! This is too bad.....because if I could
theoretically go back to the time when the V5 and NV cards were similar in
performance and graphic quality.....then extrapolate the V5 cards up in time
to where we are today.....I think the V5/voodoo cards would have given us
much better graphics than we have with the NV cards in D3D right at the
moment. But, that is a pipe dream....and only my "guess" based on the
comparison of the two cards back when they were fairly equal in technology.
Regards,
Tom
> What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra?
> Chris G.
> > That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the
> fastest
> > ops for *** using a GF3 or GF2ULTRA video card). And, by the
> > way....these drivers are not available (as of three minutes ago) on
> Nvidia's
> > website....so be careful what you download and install.
> > TP
> > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
--
--
B.T.
Pity the test didn't include the final iteration of Win9x, ME (SE never
worked for me--even the mouse rolled over & died) and/or the current
generation of "Ti" boards. Yes, the GF3s always benchmark well, but aren't
worth the 300% price jump, at least not for older games (and that includes
Q3 games like RtCW & GR). Purely for GPL, I even prefer the stability &
predictability of the ancient 7.52 Detonators with my GF2.
And for online racing, I still use a bewhiskered Voodoo 5, a PDPI in a hoary
ISA slot, and an original ECCI steering wheel & pedals.
If newer always equalled better, we probably wouldn't all be so hung up on
racing 35-year-old Grand Prix cars!
--Steve
> You can't just look at the video card/driver package alone anymore....you
> have to include the system ops and the cpu platform...into the equation.
> I recently read a "benchmark" testing series comparing all combinations of
> the following:
> Ops Sys: Win98SE, WinXP
> Video Cards: GF2MX, GF2Ultra, GF3 (not the Ti's)
> CPU Platform: AMD 1.4 and P4 1.8
> They did not change the NV drivers, I believe all tests were run on the
> 21.85's (but it could have been the 21.81's....don't recall exactly).
They
> used pretty much all the standard "benches" (3dmark2000, 3dmark2001,
> Quake...etc.). The article was very long....so I didn't save it or
bookmark
> it....there are several of these around and I only looked over for the
> "bottom line" results. Which, were in line with others I'd seen
previously.
> Results Summary: In all cases, the combo of Win98SE/GF3/AMD was the clear
> winner.....substantially ahead of any other combination in several
> benchmarks...but never even second in one of them. In one case (an OpenGL
> test I believe), the Win98SE/GF2Ultra/AMD was a very close second...almost
> identical to the Win98SE/GF3/AMD. The consistent "loser," coming in last
> place nearly on every test and substantially behind "first place"....was
> WinXP/GF2MX/P4.....and all WinXP tests results were lower than any Win98SE
> result.
> As far as which NV driver is faster, I think you have to look at the other
> elements.....to answer that question. On my systems....primarily
> Win98SE/AMD/GF3 bases....I've noticed only a slight drop from the 21.81 up
> to the current 23.11 in speed.....not significant in my opinion. However,
I
> have felt the "graphic quality" has improved in the area of 20% from the
> 21.81 to the 23.11's. But...that's on my systems, with my technique for
> settings....maintenance of the systems and monitors. Other's may not have
> this same results or opinion.
> I run all sims at 1600x1200x16 in D3D (on a 21" flat-screen Sony), except
> for N4 is run in OpenGL (same res).....primary sims are GPL, N4 and Rally
> Trophy (demo) and F1-2001. N4 in OpenGL still has a slight edge in
graphics
> quality over any of the others....but the D3D sims are catching up
quickly.
> FPS in all sims with these settings is far over "adequate".....ranging
from
> 40's-50's all the way to 110's....depending on AI load and how much
"hi-res"
> graphics I'm using of my own creation (by the way, I'm still experimenting
> but it looks like all the "hi-res" graphics techniques that have resulted
in
> nearly "Kodak-perfect" tracks in GPL work the same way in F1-2001....I'm
> working on a Silverstone track in F1-2001 right now.....and its amazing
how
> many of the GPL track techniques work exactly the same for F1-2001).
> Sorry for the long answer to the short question....but I hope this helps
> other who are looking for short answers....there aren't any right now.
> One last thing.....
> The clear loser in all this (IMHO) is the V5 cards. Those systems (and I
> still have a P3800 with a V5 card....and I check it regularly with
anything
> new that comes out) are substantially behind the times in terms of graphic
> quality in the popular sims....considering frame rates...and general "eye
> candy"......etc. At one time (18 months ago or so), there wasn't a huge
> difference.....but it was distinctive. Now....the two are not even in the
> same universe of comparison! This is too bad.....because if I could
> theoretically go back to the time when the V5 and NV cards were similar in
> performance and graphic quality.....then extrapolate the V5 cards up in
time
> to where we are today.....I think the V5/voodoo cards would have given us
> much better graphics than we have with the NV cards in D3D right at the
> moment. But, that is a pipe dream....and only my "guess" based on the
> comparison of the two cards back when they were fairly equal in
technology.
> Regards,
> Tom
> > Tom,
> > What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra?
> > Chris G.
> > > That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the
> > fastest
> > > ops for *** using a GF3 or GF2ULTRA video card). And, by the
> > > way....these drivers are not available (as of three minutes ago) on
> > Nvidia's
> > > website....so be careful what you download and install.
> > > TP
> > > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
I was only trying to pass on information about the video card/ops system
combo I ran across.....not "editorialize" about what is better or worse for
everyone. I have the luxury of being able to afford to by the
"latest"...since I have a fleet of rental simulators that can absorb the
older equipment. Because of that, I think that puts me in a unique
circumstance to pass along information and comparisons as I see them in the
equipment I own. To each his own....if you are happy with your sim
rig....that's all that really counts. However, many people are still making
"buying decisions" about video cards, motherboards, cpu's etc. I hope the
information I can provide is helpful in allowing them to make a more
informed decision.
I have no clue why SE "never worked" for you.....that would put you in a
rather unique "odd man out" situation since it works for everyone else and
its still considered the ops system of choice for ***. The bench testing
series I mentioned only confirms that....but there are many others that do
the same. However, its all relative....and ME certainly isn't
terrible....its just not as good as SE. As far as the GF2-ULTRA vs. GF3
comparison you make, I would agree completely. In fact, I have stated that
several times on this newsgroup......."don't buy a GF3 if you own a
GF2-ULTRA....the difference is not worth the money." That "statement" would
not be true of any other GF2...other than the ULTRA, however. I also think
that the monitor you are using plays a big role in deciding on video card
upgrades. If you are running a 17"....probably moving up to the new video
cards is not worth the price. If you are running 21" monitors....its
definitely worth the price.
There are many variables....they all need to be considered.
Tom
> Pity the test didn't include the final iteration of Win9x, ME (SE never
> worked for me--even the mouse rolled over & died) and/or the current
> generation of "Ti" boards. Yes, the GF3s always benchmark well, but
aren't
> worth the 300% price jump, at least not for older games (and that includes
> Q3 games like RtCW & GR). Purely for GPL, I even prefer the stability &
> predictability of the ancient 7.52 Detonators with my GF2.
> And for online racing, I still use a bewhiskered Voodoo 5, a PDPI in a
hoary
> ISA slot, and an original ECCI steering wheel & pedals.
> If newer always equalled better, we probably wouldn't all be so hung up on
> racing 35-year-old Grand Prix cars!
> --Steve
> > Well, a better question is "What is the fastest/best combo" for ***
or
> > sim racing?"
> > You can't just look at the video card/driver package alone
anymore....you
> > have to include the system ops and the cpu platform...into the equation.
> > I recently read a "benchmark" testing series comparing all combinations
of
> > the following:
> > Ops Sys: Win98SE, WinXP
> > Video Cards: GF2MX, GF2Ultra, GF3 (not the Ti's)
> > CPU Platform: AMD 1.4 and P4 1.8
> > They did not change the NV drivers, I believe all tests were run on the
> > 21.85's (but it could have been the 21.81's....don't recall exactly).
> They
> > used pretty much all the standard "benches" (3dmark2000, 3dmark2001,
> > Quake...etc.). The article was very long....so I didn't save it or
> bookmark
> > it....there are several of these around and I only looked over for the
> > "bottom line" results. Which, were in line with others I'd seen
> previously.
> > Results Summary: In all cases, the combo of Win98SE/GF3/AMD was the
clear
> > winner.....substantially ahead of any other combination in several
> > benchmarks...but never even second in one of them. In one case (an
OpenGL
> > test I believe), the Win98SE/GF2Ultra/AMD was a very close
second...almost
> > identical to the Win98SE/GF3/AMD. The consistent "loser," coming in
last
> > place nearly on every test and substantially behind "first place"....was
> > WinXP/GF2MX/P4.....and all WinXP tests results were lower than any
Win98SE
> > result.
> > As far as which NV driver is faster, I think you have to look at the
other
> > elements.....to answer that question. On my systems....primarily
> > Win98SE/AMD/GF3 bases....I've noticed only a slight drop from the 21.81
up
> > to the current 23.11 in speed.....not significant in my opinion.
However,
> I
> > have felt the "graphic quality" has improved in the area of 20% from the
> > 21.81 to the 23.11's. But...that's on my systems, with my technique for
> > settings....maintenance of the systems and monitors. Other's may not
have
> > this same results or opinion.
> > I run all sims at 1600x1200x16 in D3D (on a 21" flat-screen Sony),
except
> > for N4 is run in OpenGL (same res).....primary sims are GPL, N4 and
Rally
> > Trophy (demo) and F1-2001. N4 in OpenGL still has a slight edge in
> graphics
> > quality over any of the others....but the D3D sims are catching up
> quickly.
> > FPS in all sims with these settings is far over "adequate".....ranging
> from
> > 40's-50's all the way to 110's....depending on AI load and how much
> "hi-res"
> > graphics I'm using of my own creation (by the way, I'm still
experimenting
> > but it looks like all the "hi-res" graphics techniques that have
resulted
> in
> > nearly "Kodak-perfect" tracks in GPL work the same way in F1-2001....I'm
> > working on a Silverstone track in F1-2001 right now.....and its amazing
> how
> > many of the GPL track techniques work exactly the same for F1-2001).
> > Sorry for the long answer to the short question....but I hope this helps
> > other who are looking for short answers....there aren't any right now.
> > One last thing.....
> > The clear loser in all this (IMHO) is the V5 cards. Those systems (and
I
> > still have a P3800 with a V5 card....and I check it regularly with
> anything
> > new that comes out) are substantially behind the times in terms of
graphic
> > quality in the popular sims....considering frame rates...and general
"eye
> > candy"......etc. At one time (18 months ago or so), there wasn't a huge
> > difference.....but it was distinctive. Now....the two are not even in
the
> > same universe of comparison! This is too bad.....because if I could
> > theoretically go back to the time when the V5 and NV cards were similar
in
> > performance and graphic quality.....then extrapolate the V5 cards up in
> time
> > to where we are today.....I think the V5/voodoo cards would have given
us
> > much better graphics than we have with the NV cards in D3D right at the
> > moment. But, that is a pipe dream....and only my "guess" based on the
> > comparison of the two cards back when they were fairly equal in
> technology.
> > Regards,
> > Tom
> > > Tom,
> > > What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra?
> > > Chris G.
> > > > That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the
> > > fastest
> > > > ops for *** using a GF3 or GF2ULTRA video card). And, by the
> > > > way....these drivers are not available (as of three minutes ago) on
> > > Nvidia's
> > > > website....so be careful what you download and install.
> > > > TP
> > > > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip