[munaim1]

Review of Nvidia Driver's *inc Modded drivers (Updated Regularly)

I figured why not create a thread to test how Nvidia drivers are performing. Since coming from ATI (lets not go there regarding driver issues

)I have not had the chance to really see what Nvidia is capable of. I remember back in the day's when I use to go through several drivers before actually being satisfied and even then I used to go round asking, 'what are the best drivers'

Anyways I will try my very best to update this regularly and present my findings as clearly as possible. I have tried my very best to maintain the conditions and the settings when running benchmarks, however, anomalies may appear here and there. I have also tried keeping 'things' consistent when comparing these drivers.

Comments and suggestions on how to make this thread better is always nice.

Just a note these drivers have been tested using my sig rig, cpu at all times at 5.1ghz, however core clock varies between some benchmarks.

Hope you enjoy and find my results helpful. Now lets get started

SINGLE CARD TESTING

1. Xtreme-G 266.58

2. Xtreme-G 267.24

3. Xtreme-G 270.51 (Must be BETA aswell)

4. Nvidia 266.58 (WHQL)

5. Nvidia 270.51 (BETA) - COMPARISON 1-5 HERE

6. Nvidia 267.60 (WHQL) - COMPARISON HERE

7. Nvidia 268.03 (WHQL with modded inf) - COMPARISON HERE

8. Nvidia 270.61 (WHQL) - COMPARISON HERE

9. Nvidia 270.71 (WHQL with modded inf) - COMPARISON HERE

10. Nvidia 270.73 (WHQL with modded inf) - COMPARISON HERE

17/05/2011

Since I got my second card I decided to introduce the SLI testing in this thread. I will be combining both Single and SLI testing in one, however, i will be using the above data for future testing. From this point forward I will not be doing single card testing separately so please refer to 'SLI & Single Testing'

I will continue making recommendation's for both single and SLI user's

SINGLE & SLI TESTING

1. Nvidia 266.58 (WHQL)

2. Nvidia 270.51 (BETA) - COMPARISON BETWEEN 1 AND 2 HERE

3. Nvidia 275.27 (BETA) - COMPARISON HERE

4. Nvidia 275.33 (WHQL) COMPARISON HERE

5. ~~***NEW***~~ Nvidia 280.19 (BETA) COMPARISON HERE

Some drivers are causing folders a few problems, please refer to the folding section for more info

Quote:

Originally Posted by juano;15358901
FYI Munaim1 the problem CSM mentioned with the drivers getting stuck at 405Mhz is problem that all of the 270, 275, and 280 drivers have had during folding. When you pause and then resume the client they will get stuck at 405Mhz almost every time requiring a reboot and will occasionally do it randomly without even pausing too. They really suck for folding, luckily the 285s don't have that problem but they aren't the most reliable as of yet.

**~**NEWS about upcoming driver's**~**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anth0789;15373263
Quote:

FYI. New drivers will be released the day before Battlefield 3 launches. Make sure to grab them especially if you will be purchasing Battlefield 3 as there are numerous bug fixes and better performance as well. For those who have modded the latest Quadro driver (http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-tesla-win7-winvista-64bit-285.58-whql-driver.html) it is very close to the final driver but is missing a few Battlefield 3 fixes so if you do download and mod them, make sure to update to the newest Geforce drivers next week. The Quadro driver does contain the fix we've added to address the TDR issue.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=211130&view=findpost&p=1310428

**~**Driver Sweeper**~**
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anth0789;15306742
Driver Sweeper gets updated look here:
http://phyxion.net/Downloads/

**~**How To Unlock Femi Voltage**~**


Firstly you want to download a couple of things and make sure you have a usb stick at hand:

Nibitor 6.02- this one worked for me HERE
Nvflash - HERE
GPU-Z - google it lol
Hp utility with win98 - HERE (you need this in order to make the usb bootable)

Now you have everything we can begin.

First and foremost we want to save the original bios of the card, people make the mistake of using gpu-z which can cause issues, something to do with the checksum size (thanks brad) so what we have to do is use nvflash to save it.

You can go ahead and download the HP utility, it will have the win98 files in it to make it bootable, for instructions on how to do that click HERE

After you have done that, go ahead and copy the nvflash files (around 5 files I think) on to the USB.

Restart the pc and change the boot priority to the usb, once it's loaded you will be presented with a commant prompt.

Type this in to save the original bios of your card to the usb - nvflash -b backup.rom

This should save your original bios. Exit and restart windows and in the usb you should find the backup.rom file.

Now this is where you need to pay attention, open up Nibitor and open the .rom from it

You should get something like this:

To get the voltage editor click tools then Femi voltage. The only thing to change is tab right at the top, scroll down and select the maximum voltage you require.

Hit apply and then save the bios as modded.rom or something to your desktop. Then what you want to do is copy the modded one on to the usb, at that point you can make a backup of your backup.rom somewhere on your pc.

Now we want to do the same as before, restart pc and boot with usb. this time round there is a few commands that you must key in to flash the bios with your modded one.

nvflash -r

nvflash --eraseeeprom

nvflash -4 -5 -6 *.ROM (* denotes the filename for the BIOS, in this case will be modded.rom)

that's it

If you have any problems refer to this thread Here (I always recommend saving and flashing in dos, however, I encounted errors when trying to flash in dos, so it left me no choice but to flash within windows. People will say it is risky flashing in windows, however, I just want to say that I have done it coutless times and had no problems. This should only be done as a last resort. As said beofre please refer to the thread I linked if you are having similar problems.

This was a quick write up, so if I have made any mistakes anywhere please let me know asap but I will go throught it again.

Hope you guys enjoy the 'reviews' and if you have any questions fire away.

 

[XxRZxX]

Thanks for the information!

 

[TickleMeElmo]

I don't think any of the differences between the drivers are statistically relevant. Please resize the graphs you have so that the differences don't appear larger than they are.

 

[Shredicus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TickleMeElmo;13056082
I don't think any of the differences between the drivers are statistically relevant. Please resize the graphs you have so that the differences don't appear larger than they are.

Why? It's clearly meant to make the minute differences more distinguishable. Nvidia/AMD do this all the time

 

[munaim1]

Here are my findings for Single card drivers 1-5:

Metro Benchmark tool - DX11 - 1920x1080 - Tesselation (enabled) - Very High - AAA - AF16x - No Physx or DOF

GPU at 960c/1920s/ 2050m

Xtreme-G 266.58

Xtreme-G 267.24

Xtreme-G 270.51 (must be beta aswell)

Nvidia 266.58 (whql)

Nvidia 270.51 (beta)

Seems as though the nvidia 266.58 and xtreme-g 270.51 perform the same.

Now lets see how these drivers compare to the epic games of crytek, crysis and crysis warhead

. GPU @ 870/1740/2050

Xtreme-G 266.58

Xtreme-G 267.24

Xtreme-G 270.51 (must be beta aswell)

Nvidia 266.58 (whql)

Nvidia 270.51 (beta)

All the data into one. Still confusing I know

There is only a marginal difference between the drivers in those two games.

Taking ss while gaming proved to be a little difficult, as you can see. I'm only going to show a few ss out of the 20 I took but all the data well be presented in a graph. While in gaming the GPU clock speed are 870/1740/2050 on all the rest.

I used crysis 2, metro (dx10) and Homefront. These are the in game settings for all three.

Again here are a few in game ss.

All the data in the graph. For some reason crysis 2 just stayed at 47 on all 5 drivers, maybe I did something wrong

but it does seem like the nvidia 270.51 is doing better than all rest on average which is closely followed by xtreme-g 270.51.

Lets take a look at how they performed in Vantage, again GPU at 870/1740/2050.

Xtreme-G 266.58

Xtreme-G 267.24

Xtreme-G 270.51 (must be beta aswell)

Nvidia 266.58 (whql)

Nvidia 270.51 (beta)

Looks like Nvidia's 270.51 just marginally won, however the difference between these driver are minimal when it comes benching, however the same could be said about gaming. I'm sure that each of these driver shine differently in different games but I still have yet to discover that. This doesn't really help pick a driver, it's just what I found. Maybe it'll help maybe it wont, but I can see that there has been improvements going from both the Nvidia's 266.58 and XtremeG 266.58 to eventually the 270.51 (from both Nvidia and Xtreme-G)

Thanks for reading

 

[TickleMeElmo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shredicus;13056156
Why? It's clearly meant to make the minute differences more distinguishable. Nvidia/AMD do this all the time

Their marketing departments do this because it helps to bring attention to small differences that may or may not be statistically relevant. In the pursuit of truth (and the relevance of any differences), one should not take the same approach as the marketing departments which have a vested interest in highlighting minute differences.

@OP: I'm saying that if you only ran each benchmark once even a 5-10% difference cannot be said to relevant with any kind of statistical certainty. Because of the nature of the benchmarks and how background processes can influence the results, you need a larger sample size for your results to be indicative of any pattern.

 

[munaim1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TickleMeElmo;13057157
Their marketing departments do this because it helps to bring attention to small differences that may or may not be statistically relevant. In the pursuit of truth (and the relevance of any differences), one should not take the same approach as the marketing departments which have a vested interest in highlighting minute differences.

@OP: I'm saying that if you only ran each benchmark once even a 5-10% difference cannot be said to relevant with any kind of statistical certainty. Because of the nature of the benchmarks and how background processes can influence the results, you need a larger sample size for your results to be indicative of any pattern.

Cool thanks for the info, i'll bear that in mind next time.

 

[Shredicus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TickleMeElmo;13057157
Their marketing departments do this because it helps to bring attention to small differences that may or may not be statistically relevant. In the pursuit of truth (and the relevance of any differences), one should not take the same approach as the marketing departments which have a vested interest in highlighting minute differences.

@OP: I'm saying that if you only ran each benchmark once even a 5-10% difference cannot be said to relevant with any kind of statistical certainty. Because of the nature of the benchmarks and how background processes can influence the results, you need a larger sample size for your results to be indicative of any pattern.

Yes, I am well aware of why their marketing departments do this. In fact the preceding sentence explains their motivations. On the same token you seem to have forgotten the credo of the forum you are currently posting on. the Pursuit of Performance. Why do you think overclockers talk about adjusting their clock speeds by 5mhz? Because it will net them a 20% FPS increase, or 400 points in a benchmark? No, they do it because they constantly pursue performance, tangible or not. Overclockers are people obsessed with minutia for the most part, so denigrating his test results due to them being insignificant is essentially a moot point on this type of forum.

 

[TickleMeElmo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shredicus;13057557
Yes, I am well aware of why their marketing departments do this. In fact the preceding sentence explains their motivations. On the same token you seem to have forgotten the credo of the forum you are currently posting on. the Pursuit of Performance. Why do you think overclockers talk about adjusting their clock speeds by 5mhz? Because it will net them a 20% FPS increase, or 400 points in a benchmark? No, they do it because they constantly pursue performance, tangible or not. Overclockers are people obsessed with minutia for the most part, so denigrating his test results due to them being insignificant is essentially a moot point on this type of forum.

No the point I am contending is quite different from what you mention.

Increasing an overclock by even 1 MHz (assuming you have a clock generator that does 1 MHz increments) is a definitive increase in a performance metric. Unless your card is faulty, there is not going to be any change in the clock that you set it at.

However, in a normal operating system, there are a lot of background processes vying for the different system resources/eating up bandwidth. This introduces an element of variability that is impossible to control even if you have a clean OS with no additional programs running. This is why a 200 point difference on a 10 000 score may or may not be significant, as you sure as hell can't tell with a single run unless you know the variance beforehand.

 

[munaim1]

Wow when I said discuss i didnt mean the way i conducted my tests but about the results 'if you want', you have a problem or opinion about it pm me, dont broadcast it because it sounds like *****ing, quite literally handbags coming it out and everything. This seems to be happening in ocn very frequently nowadays and its getting a little annoying. I didnt have to share what i found but i thought why not maybe it'll help maybe it wont.

If You have a problem pm me.

 

[Shredicus]

Thank you for your contribution. I've actually been looing forward to seeing this very comparison for some time now. While TickleMeElmo has a valid point in terms of a broader sample size, I highly doubt his claims of a 5-10% difference due to background processes unless you are installing a new antivirus and playing youtube videos in a web browser in the background. At any given time with no processes open in the foreground benchmarks net me the same results within .5 to 1 fps each other. Nice work on a very well-represented review.

 

[munaim1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shredicus;13065295
Thank you for your contribution. I've actually been looing forward to seeing this very comparison for some time now. While TickleMeElmo has a valid point in terms of a broader sample size, I highly doubt his claims of a 5-10% difference due to background processes unless you are installing a new antivirus and playing youtube videos in a web browser in the background. At any given time with no processes open in the foreground benchmarks net me the same results within .5 to 1 fps each other. Nice work on a very well-represented review.

Thanks and glad you liked it, I have explained that I have tried to keep the all conditions the same prior to running these benchmarks, so most of the time all where the same, minus the stuff running in the background that im not aware of.

 

[mariano]

nice review, thanks for it. I have been wondering what were the best drivers for the gtx 460 for a while.
is it possible to you to add the 258.96 drivers to the review?

 

[munaim1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariano;13072518
nice review, thanks for it. I have been wondering what were the best drivers for the gtx 460 for a while.
is it possible to you to add the 258.96 drivers to the review?

When I get some time, i'll try

EDIT: is that driver the first one that came out for the 460?

 

[mariano]

yes, sorry for the late answer.

 

[BWG]

Any visually noticible advantage between the drivers?

 

[munaim1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWG;13098117
Any visually noticible advantage between the drivers?

According to benchmarks, not really. If there was any other way to determine that I would most definitely try it. I might go ahead and upload a few videos, actual gaming as aposed to just bench's, with crysis 2 or something to compare a couple drivers.

 

[Bradford1040]

Quote:

Originally Posted by munaim1;13059500
Wow when I said discuss i didnt mean the way i conducted my tests but about the results 'if you want', you have a problem or opinion about it pm me, dont broadcast it because it sounds like *****ing, quite literally handbags coming it out and everything. This seems to be happening in ocn very frequently nowadays and its getting a little annoying. I didnt have to share what i found but i thought why not maybe it'll help maybe it wont.

If You have a problem pm me.

I agree with what you just said here and hope that you don't get discouraged and still post findings in/about future results, I myself had different results but still found what you posted very good and informative. Every one has a opinion and every system is different and for the most part I think the ridicule that you are receiving is just plain stupidity! I would suggest that you cover your but with these fanboy people on this site by never taking sides, I know that defeats what you were attempting but just my opinion to help you which you probably already know but just wanted to remind you that most people are not open minded! I mite even catch hell for this but Please keep up your info as it was the best private review I had seen

 

[Chris Ihao]

Good work. Must have taken some time. If this doesnt deserve a +rep, nothing does.

 

[munaim1]

thanks chris and bradford1040, for your kind words. its much appreciated

Anyways, as I found the 270.51 from nvidia to be slightly more superior than the others (in different ways) I thought I'll go ahead and do a comparison between the 270.51 and 268.03 WHQl that was kindly shared by d-block+HERE

Obviously you can still compare with the others from the op.

I'll post some thing up in the evening