NVidia 44.03, or NVidia Detonator 43.51? GeForce4 Ti4600
Well, 44. 03 is WHQL certified, at least for the FX line, not sure about the ti4x00 line. I'll install sometime in the next few days (I have a Geforce4 ti4400) and let you know if the entire driver package is WHQL or just the FX line.
Well, 44.03 is WHQL certified, at least for the FX line, not sure about the ti4x00 line. I'll install sometime in the next few days (I have a Geforce4 ti4400) and let you know if the entire driver package is WHQL or just the FX line.
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
i dont think either really matters as i doubt any changes in new drivers will affect your ti4600 - they are mainly for the FX cards i would think.
i will likely stay with the 41.09's as they are the best for me so far that allow me to get the most overclock out of my ti4600 - that is until my water cooling comes in this week BUAHAHAHAHAHAH!
i will likely stay with the 41.09's as they are the best for me so far that allow me to get the most overclock out of my ti4600 - that is until my water cooling comes in this week BUAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I'm interested to see how nVidia respond to this:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp
I don't know what to make of it personally. On the one hand, it isn't the first time nVidia have "doctored" 3DMark results to exaggerate the performance increases of several of its driver updates but on the other hand, it might just be an honest mistake.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp
I don't know what to make of it personally. On the one hand, it isn't the first time nVidia have "doctored" 3DMark results to exaggerate the performance increases of several of its driver updates but on the other hand, it might just be an honest mistake.
The 44.03's are not WHQL-Certified on the ti4x00 line.... But they seem stable so far.
I just caught wind of nVidia's response to these cheating allegations:
Quote:Since NVIDIA is not part in the FutureMark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in) we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer. We don't know what they did but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad. This is obvious since our relative performance on games like Unreal Tournament 2003 and Doom3 shows that The GeForce FX 5900 is by far the fastest graphics on the market today.
Two words: Cop Out.
I was really hoping they'd come forward and say it was an honest mistake in their drivers or something but now it really sounds like they were trying to cheat and are now trying to deflect responsibility. I can see at least one honest use for the kinds of optimisations present in these drivers (the "cutscenes" in Doom 3) but the response doesn't mention that (or any other honest reason for them being there), instead it points the finger at Futuremark because nVidia aren't a memeber of their beta program. Given that I'd imaging nVidia would be able to come up with the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to participate out of petty cash, the whole response doesn't hold water with me.
Quote:Since NVIDIA is not part in the FutureMark beta program (a program which costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in) we do not get a chance to work with Futuremark on writing the shaders like we would with a real applications developer. We don't know what they did but it looks like they have intentionally tried to create a scenario that makes our products look bad. This is obvious since our relative performance on games like Unreal Tournament 2003 and Doom3 shows that The GeForce FX 5900 is by far the fastest graphics on the market today.
Two words: Cop Out.
I was really hoping they'd come forward and say it was an honest mistake in their drivers or something but now it really sounds like they were trying to cheat and are now trying to deflect responsibility. I can see at least one honest use for the kinds of optimisations present in these drivers (the "cutscenes" in Doom 3) but the response doesn't mention that (or any other honest reason for them being there), instead it points the finger at Futuremark because nVidia aren't a memeber of their beta program. Given that I'd imaging nVidia would be able to come up with the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to participate out of petty cash, the whole response doesn't hold water with me.
