ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
Thx, Txl - how do you like them new Detonators?
"Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3c44bb5a$0$3184$[email hidden]...
> ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
>
>
>
>
That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the fastest
ops for gaming 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
"Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:3c44bb5a$0$3184$[email hidden]...
> ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip
>
>
>
>
Installed them, no visible difference, they are WHQL so they come with all
the bells and whistles and the advanced settings but besides that they seems
quite similar to 23.11 which is normal after all, i suspect that they are
23.11 certified and that's all the changes...
"Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message de news:
g_618.21367$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Thx, Txl - how do you like them new Detonators? > > "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c44bb5a$0$3184$[email hidden]... > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip > > > > > > > > > >Tom,
What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra?
Chris G.
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Cw818.29686$[email hidden]...
> That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still thefastest
> ops for gaming using a GF3 or GF2ULTRA video card). And, by the
> way....these drivers are not available (as of three minutes ago) onNvidia's
Quoted text (14 lines)
> website....so be careful what you download and install. > > TP > > > "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3c44bb5a$0$3184$[email hidden]... > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip > > > > > > > > > >I think the 21.83's are still the fastest for GF2 based cards.
cgenn27 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cAe18.48765$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (28 lines)
> Tom, > > What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra? > > Chris G. > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Cw818.29686$[email hidden]... > > That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the > fastest > > ops for gaming 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 > > > > > > "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c44bb5a$0$3184$[email hidden]... > > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I like the 21.88s myself. They seam the same in D3D as the 21.81, but I got
some improvments in OpenGL.
MadDAWG
Well, a better question is "What is the fastest/best combo" for gaming 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
"cgenn27" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:cAe18.48765$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (28 lines)
> Tom, > > What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra? > > Chris G. > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Cw818.29686$[email hidden]... > > That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the > fastest > > ops for gaming 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 > > > > > > "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:3c44bb5a$0$3184$[email hidden]... > > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Hi Tom
Thank you for a very interesting answer.
I'm running WinXP and a Geforce 3 (not Ti), and this driver 23.12 is running
just fine here. It is good for both sim-racing and FPS. I run them in
1600x1200x32, so my Gf3 has more work to do than yours :o)
--
--
B.T.
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
"Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5ok18.32524$[email hidden]...
They
> used pretty much all the standard "benches" (3dmark2000, 3dmark2001,
> Quake...etc.). The article was very long....so I didn't save it orbookmark
> 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 seenpreviously.
I
graphics
> quality over any of the others....but the D3D sims are catching upquickly.
> FPS in all sims with these settings is far over "adequate".....rangingfrom
> 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 resultedin
> 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 amazinghow
anything
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 intechnology.
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Well, a better question is "What is the fastest/best combo" for gaming 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).Quoted text (14 lines)
> > 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,Quoted text (8 lines)
> 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 inQuoted text (9 lines)
> 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 withQuoted text (7 lines)
> 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 inQuoted text (40 lines)
> > Regards, > > Tom > > > > > "cgenn27" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:cAe18.48765$[email hidden]... > > Tom, > > > > What are the fastest drivers for GF2 Ultra? > > > > Chris G. > > "Tom Pabst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Cw818.29686$[email hidden]... > > > That's not the correct driver if you are running Win98SE (still the > > fastest > > > ops for gaming 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 > > > > > > > > > "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:3c44bb5a$0$3184$[email hidden]... > > > > ftp://ftp2.clubic.com/nvchipsf/pub/detonators/2312_w2kxp.zip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Stephen....
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 gaming. 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
"Stephen Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:H_m18.85825$[email hidden]...
> 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, butaren'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 ahoary
or
> > sim racing?"
> >
> > You can't just look at the video card/driver package aloneanymore....you
> > have to include the system ops and the cpu platform...into the equation.
> >
> > I recently read a "benchmark" testing series comparing all combinationsof
clear
> > winner.....substantially ahead of any other combination in several
> > benchmarks...but never even second in one of them. In one case (anOpenGL
> > test I believe), the Win98SE/GF2Ultra/AMD was a very closesecond...almost
> > identical to the Win98SE/GF3/AMD. The consistent "loser," coming inlast
> > place nearly on every test and substantially behind "first place"....was
> > WinXP/GF2MX/P4.....and all WinXP tests results were lower than anyWin98SE
> > result.
> >
> > As far as which NV driver is faster, I think you have to look at theother
> > elements.....to answer that question. On my systems....primarily
> > Win98SE/AMD/GF3 bases....I've noticed only a slight drop from the 21.81up
> > 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 nothave
> > 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 andRally
experimenting
> > but it looks like all the "hi-res" graphics techniques that haveresulted
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 ofgraphic
> > 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 inthe
> > 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 similarin
> > 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 givenus
