bunch of new drivers 180.60/70

There's alot of drivers out at laptopvideo2go.com one that I wanna try is the 180.70 since it's leaked by Xfastest. Has anyone tried these?

 

I'm very interested in performance differences. Would these drivers incorporate the improvements made in 180.48?

 

Ennea mostly yes, atleast thats what lost Planet says


EDIT: ooh yeah i forgot. try the .70 thats whats good

 

So, you've tried 180.70 and have noticed performance increases? If so, in which cases (ex: FPS) ?

 

yeah I had performance lost using 180.48, but I just had a new bios ver. update that update the nvidia video bios also. So I'm hoping whatever it did it'll be more compatible with newer drivers. But I'm weary off changing drivers again. maybe till I get more feedback on these.

 

sorry, what i meant was that the increases stated with the 180.48 works for me now, Lost Planet is mostly over 60 FPS all the time for me now (thats a dream for me, since before the driver it was always in 30's)

Devil may cry 4 is also better now, the lowest Scene i had was 65FPS, before i had a 50FPS scene.

Farcry 2 now is like heaven, never blow 50FPS, now its my favourite FPS for that

Grid is also never below 60 FPS for me.

wish i could do a screenshot comparison, but too bad i have a chemistry exam tomorrow

 

if i have time i will do some bencs in Assasins creed, grid , crysis.

I hope that i will have some time to spear and test these.

 

Wow. Impressive. I'll have to try 180.48 myself then.

 

just tried 180.70 and same with 180.48. Not very good with my x305 q701 with single 9700m gts. Lower fps and downclocking on battery. Back to Dox's 178.24.

 

FPS may vary from a setup to another, you have a newer Gen card than mine, so maybe the next driver will be good

 

When i used the 180.48 my fps tanked in all of my games. 178.13 has been the best for me

 

On XP x64 and 8700M GT the 180.60 beta cuda 2.1 driver is working very well, more stable and better performance than 180.48 WHQL. Huge diference on Need for Speed Undercover, very smooth, no FPS spikes like on previous versions.

You can get the 180.60 version here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_get.html

 

Ennea, try 180.70,

every game has about 4-8 fps increase and the driver is really stable, and hasnt given me any trouble.

 

omfg are u serious? 4-7fps increase? ME WANTS !!!


DOWNLOADING RIGHT NOW

 

Any fallout 3 results?

 

I was unable to load the control panel using .70.

 

Amadeus, dont use the method on these forums for the newer drivers, just install them like any regular driver, withouth the whole cleaning and rebooting, just drag the inf. and install it using setup.exe. And it should work just fine.

 

would 180.70 be better for my 9500GS than the 180.40 driver?

 

It's been giving me good results so far. I say go for it. You will never know if yo dont try.

 

No cleaning sounds way unsafe... I'll still try them but what games are "every game" exactly?

 

Ennea i used the driver with no cleaning then i opened Rivatuner to check my driver files and they are all at 180.70. SO it installed perfectly. It wont hurt to try it.

 

Using 180.70 with Dox's inf and seems to be better than 18.3x/4x in terms of temps and games.

 

Temp is way lower than any driver outthere

 

There we go. Now more people are tring out the driver, I dont even overclock my card anymore. I get better performance now then when i overclocked my card b4.

How has overclocking come along for you guys with 180.70. I havent tried it yet. Want to see how its been for you guys.

I am thinking of overclocking to 650 950 1400, but im not sure yet.

Som1 please try OCing and report back.

THANKS!!!

 

Potential deadly problems with XPS m1530, other Dell laptops?

http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=21883&view=findpost&p=96769

 

Yeah those laptops always gave me problems, To hell with DELL

Now how have had OCing been with 180.70.

 

I got poor results with my 8400M GT


50 3Dmark's 06 decrease


reverting back to old drivers

 

Some drivers give 3DMark06 decreases but still increase in game performance as 3DMark06 is not completely correlated with performance.

 

anybody have results for 9500m GS?

 

I had random bsod´s with 180.xx drivers....so i reverted to 178.46.

My laptop is a Clevo M570RU with a 8700m GT.

 

3DMark06 results, averaged over 2 runs with each driver, with 180.70 drivers compared to 179.13 drivers on 256mb DDR2 8600m GT.

Ovaral Score: 3659 to 3681 (+22 points / +0.6%)

But if we look at the extra optional tests...

Fill Rate w/ Multi-texturing: 4433 to 5000 MTexel/s (+567 / +12.8%)

Batch Size Test 8 triangles: 6 to 16 MTriangles/s (+10 / +166%)
Batch Size Test 32 triangles: 24 to 63 MTriangles/s (+39 / +163%)
Batch Size Test 128 triangles: 92 to 116 MTriangles/s (+24 / +26%)

Everything else was virtually no significant change.

 

installed 180.70 and got a 500 decrease in 3dmark. can't really say anything bad about in-game performance tho. will run mark again, just to be sure.

 

Me too, got a 400-500 deacrease in 3dmark, but for the first time I got "S" on the DMC4 performance test.

 

LOL. 50 marks is no change at all.

The 180s don't score well, but they do perform better in real games.

 

3DMark06 isn't a game?! What've I been playing this year then? Its really hard to win though.

Back on topic: I noticed a significant performance increase with 180.xx but they give me random BSOD's, so I reinstalled Dox's 178.24. I'll try Dox's 180.48 (WSQL) when it comes out because they seem to be more stable on my system.

 

When testing new drivers if 3dmark isnt a good way to measure in game performance then what is? Is crysis benchmark tool a good one to check the drivers?

Because I have tested a lot of drivers with fluctuating 3dmark scores and inconsistent in-game performances.

What do you suggest?

How accurate is DMC4 benchmark as compared to the crysis benchmark

 

The way I tested was, I used fraps on a particular level in Cod w@w took note of the average consistent fps that was shown in a particular scene which seemed to be locked at 30 fps without going lower or higher, then I unplugged and observed said framerate and it held steady at 30 fps, no change. I did this using Dox's 178.24 driver for a reference point. Previously I also did a benchmark in 3dmark 06 with same 178.24 drivers which score 7495.
I then updated to 180.70, and first thing I did was run fraps and go to same level in Cod w@w to compare fps with 178.24. Framerate was down by 10 and showed consistent 20 fps but would dropped more in heavy firefights especially using flamethrower. I then unplugged my notebook and the framerate would take a huge plunge to 6-8 fps.

I knew a wasn't gonna stay with the driver but I performed a last test on 3dmark 06 and bench score was 7180. So about 300 pts lower, give or take. Very similar results to tests I ran on 180.44.

Again my system is a Toshiba X305 q701 with a single 9700m gts.

 

Can anyone report back with some results with 8400M GT ?

and i tought that 50 marks could be atleast 1% fluxuation lol

 

I've been using 180.43, would 180.70 even be worth the time?

 

Lol, people use 3D mark to determine in game results, wow...
I noticed a great diffrence in games, so i think you should load a game up not run a bench test to see how a driver works out.

Sounds to me like this program is becoming less and less accurate as i read about it.

 

yeah, my score fell 500 points, but now i can play undercover on highest settings w/o a glitch... go figure

 

180.60 does not work wit the 9500GS

 

any m50sv owners have problems resuming from sleep with drivers 180.xx?

 

Any in game benchmark should do; DMC4, Company Of Heroes, Crysis, World In Conflict, etc...

 

DMC4 could be a great benchmark in this situation, since the performance in supposed to be increased by a good percentage

 

3dmark06 is ONE benchmark... it is entirely possible that one group of drivers will make most games fall and one or two others rise... it is also quite possible 3dmark06 scores fall and every other application rises...

Just like testing in DMC4 doesn't really tell you how the drivers perform in other games... but may give you an idea how some other games might perform.

Trusting any ONE benchmark as a universal solution to everything is folly.


3dmark06 is a generic benchmark which runs DX9 though its paces and is useful as a warm-up, a nice generic DX9 trial, and when its weaknesses are accounted for a generic comparison between systems.

Note that just trusting 3dmark06 is just as inconclusive as just testing DMC4 and expecting every other game will improve because DMC4 did.
Sometimes it will... sometimes it wont.

The best policy is to use a few benchmarks.
Assume any ONE benchmark is not really proof of anything.
If 3dmark06, DMC4, and another benchmark all point in the same direction, odds are the driver (or tweak) is a success.

 

I installed the 180.70 driver, but then lost my nvidia control panel. so I went to the nvidia website and downloaded it, but now I get an error when I try to add a game profile (Warhammer Online)

any help here please? thanks.

 

180.70 gave me better performance on Crysis Warhead and FarCry2 even though 3D Mark scores dropped a little as others had reported. GPU temps a little lower.

 

When I installed them, the control panel disappeared from the desktop right click menu, but I could still access it just fine through the start menu by searching for "control panel" and clicking the one with the nvidia icon (for some reason it was just named control panel, not nvidia control panel).

So I'm guessing when you manually downloaded the control panel it had some conflict with the forceware drivers, you'll probably want to do a driver cleaner and then reinstall them.

 

thanks i'll try that. are you still able to add a game profile though?