Forceware 162.22 & 163.11 Vista x86/x64

[squall_leonhart69r]

have no idea...

[REVHEAD]

These drivers still give the Crash Recover loop errors in Vista 64 as have the previos verions ,158.45 has been the best driver because it doesnt crash,but the new 163.11 has great performance ,its a shame I had to roll back.

Nvidia need to pull there fingers out and actually fix something for a change.

[onepairofpant]

These drivers still give the Crash Recover loop errors in Vista 64 as have the previos verions ,158.45 has been the best driver because it doesnt crash,but the new 163.11 has great performance ,its a shame I had to roll back.

Nvidia need to pull there fingers out and actually fix something for a change.

Crash Recover loop errors?

[REVHEAD]

it is were the driver crashes and vista recovers ,over and over again in a continual loop ,go to Nzone and read the 80 page thread on all the others having this same problem with these beta drivers http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=25381

[Seawolf]

i think i could guess that form the text...

why is it there ? nvidia has windows vista wddm drivers, right ?

All it really means is they haven't changed the descriptive properties on the executable.

[TwL]

Well, don't know about you guys.. but I used 160.15 pulled down drivers before this from day one they were out.. and wasn't it 160.14 which were pulled out.. Anyhow that driver worked much better than neither of these new ones 163.11 or 162.22 or at least my system states so.. Running some Futuremark and passmark tests and didn't go so well on either of these... Anyhow thing it's something to do with this "optimized for World in Conflict"? damn it was slow tested the benchmark of it with 163.11 with Open Public Beta... hehe..

anyhow, doesn't look good for DX 10 on my future since that World in Conflict game was damn well optimized as far it goes to benchmark and yet it lagger even while whole graphics were inside high speed GDDR4 memory from graphic card more than 14 FPS... (lowest)

[Seawolf]

Only 163 is optimized for WiC. And of course it's slow. That's rather implied with the word 'beta'.

[-zero-]

since when beta = slow ? many times beta stuff is fast but with errors/bugs/problems, and since its optimized for wic, I for instance, would expect it to be.. well, fasteR if not faster, i would expect the game to malfunction with other drivers, and this one made it more compatible.

[REVHEAD]

A little off topic but the WIC beta isnt slow for me with Forceware 158.45s but there is small lighting problems and I cant use HDR because these drivers dont support it,I wish to god i could use the 163.11s

[TwL]

Only 163 is optimized for WiC. And of course it's slow. That's rather implied with the word 'beta'.

bah, 163 optimized for WiC in what way? I just can't see it.. It works slower with WiC with full settings than earlier 160.15 drivers.. ?? and about beeing Beta that is just not true what you are referring.. Betas are incredible much faster usually than any final. hell you go and dl 158.24 and WHQL and compare that with WiC and come tell me the results. That is just wrong what said there..