Nvidia giving something for nothing That'll counter those daft prices for sure

Will it benefit Pascal 10-series?

Looks like its barely outside margin of error.

Thanks for the graphs

https://i.ibb.co/XSJPmN6/a.jpg https://i.ibb.co/Jx4CV8x/s.jpg

TLD LARS:

Looks like its barely outside margin of error.

Complains about free performance. I love the internet.

jwb1:

Complains about free performance. I love the internet.

As a Linux user, seeing results like are always seen as a welcome improvement. Doesn't matter if it's a 1% improvement - it shows there's progress. Add to the fact there's some minor visual improvements too, and I'd say this is a better driver release than most (especially for Windows). I do think it's a little odd Nvidia is making such a fuss about this (application-specific profile optimizations can yield better results than this) but it's certainly nothing worthy of complaint.

Caesar:

https://i.ibb.co/XSJPmN6/a.jpg https://i.ibb.co/Jx4CV8x/s.jpg

That original against sharpen: That's not result of sharpenning, that's result of not gimping shader code and texture resolution. And 24 vs 30 bit... where does those images came from? Can we sue them for misleading us?

jwb1:

Complains about free performance. I love the internet.

----------------------------------------- Yes i am complaining because they claim up to 23% and list a lot of games. It is very misleading to find one combination that gives you 23% boost and then list improved performance in 6 games. The graphs are less misleading this time around though. But i hope they fixed the Forza, dirt and world war Z performance, because a vega and 7 was competing with higher priced nvidia cards.

TLD LARS:

----------------------------------------- Yes i am complaining because they claim up to 23% and list a lot of games. It is very misleading to find one combination that gives you 23% boost and then list improved performance in 6 games. The graphs are less misleading this time around though. But i hope they fixed the Forza, dirt and world war Z performance, because a vega and 7 was competing with higher priced nvidia cards.

Hilbert tested with a 2080 Ti. nVidias higher % claims were when they tested with the Super cards. There is no conspiracy. The 2080 Ti is already pretty maxed out.

Well I can confirm these drivers suck dog ass and hate my system for some reason. After a clean installation I launched The Witcher 3 and it crashes on launch. Ran the DIRT Rally benchmark and it struggled to maintain 60-70fps. Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmark, crashed. Justice RTX demo ran like total crap. Re-installed 431.60, tested all the same applications listed above and everything ran great. I'm thinking these might be great drivers for RTX cards, but not for GTX.

Caesar:

https://i.ibb.co/Jx4CV8x/s.jpg

LOL! to this is more 16bit vs 24bit 😀

asturur:

LOL! to this is more 16bit vs 24bit 😀

Yeah I also thought that was a bit ridiculous. Nearly everyone's displays are 24-bit (when Windows claims it's using 32-bit, it usually isn't).

Anyone wondering, nvidia are repacking the files with the problematic file replaced with a good one.

schmidtbag:

Yeah I also thought that was a bit ridiculous. Nearly everyone's displays are 24-bit (when Windows claims it's using 32-bit, it usually isn't).

Actually it always is now because GPUs don't like 24-bit frame buffers. There is an alpha channel that is usually set to fully opaque. You could see its effects when compositing was enabled in Windows 7.

Tried out that new NVidia driver. The same or slightly lower 3DMark & Timespy results. Tried in BF1 with Ultra Low Latency selected in NVidia driver - didn't actively notice any reduction in latency, but think I saw some slightly lower framerates in some places and perhaps a bit more stutter, I didn't play any better with it selected (but hard to tell because each lobby is different with different players). I think I'm gonna put the Latency settings back to default in the NVidia driver and wait for some official sites to do a latency and framerate analysis of this new driver/feature, because it seems that we might lose smoothness and framerate by activating the Ultra Low Latency option. (I'm already at 180 fps in BF1, so perhaps at that framerate there's not much reduction in latency to be had anyway by this new Ultra Low Latency option in the NVidia Control Panel.) EDIT: some further testing comparing Ultra Low Latency vs "Normal". In BF1 I ran around the same empty server comparing frame rate drops and there was no difference between the two, it was also just as smooth. I chose a map where it would occasionally drop below my 177fps limit that I've set so I could see if the dips happened more often when Ultra Low Latency was set. So that's a positive, looks like my earlier impressions might have been a bit too subjective. Also maybe slightly more crisp response from mouse movement with Ultra Low Latency selected. Also tested in Far Cry 5 in the benchmark, Ultra Low Latency setting didn't reduce framerate on that benchmark either. Looks like Ultra Low Latency is a keeper for now, will see how it goes with any further gaming I do.

Drivers back up. 🙂

Rich_Guy:

Drivers back up. 🙂

I'm getting a 404 now 🙁 Can someone tell nvidia to turn RTX back on.

TLD LARS:

Looks like its barely outside margin of error.

It's actually within the margin of error outside of BFV. 1 or 2 frames is within the margin of error and you can see it by lower result in F1 at 2k which doesn't make any sense if you ignore the margin of error.

jwb1:

Complains about free performance. I love the internet.

Hum he doesn't complain. He's just saying it is within the margin of error which is it for most of those results. 1 frame is definietly without any doubt within the margin of error. 2 frames at a fps over 120 kind of is too.