New nVidia WHQL Graphics Drivers ver. 163.75 6 Nov. 2007

[Richard Urban]

The strange thing is that with each, and every update, I drop another point
from my gaming graphics. With the Vista supplied drivers I get 3.7.

After upgrading to version 163.69 I dropped down to 3.6.

After upgrading to version 163.75 I dropped down to 3.5.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[Cal Bear '66]

Same here -- from 4.6 to 4.4 !

Desktop stayed the same -- 4.6.

7600GS

I Bleed Blue and Gold
GO BEARS!

 

[Steve Thackery]

Causes horrible flickering and horizontal tearing on my monitors when
logging on and occasionally during normal use.

Did a system restore to get back to the original Vista driver, which works
fine.

SteveT

 

[Charlie Tame]

The strange thing is that with each, and every update, I drop another
point from my gaming graphics. With the Vista supplied drivers I get 3.7.

After upgrading to version 163.69 I dropped down to 3.6.

After upgrading to version 163.75 I dropped down to 3.5.

Hmm,

CPU 4.1
Mem 5.8
Gfx Aero 5.9
Gaming GFX 5.4
Disks 5.3

But now it says new hardware detected... so run it again...

All the same except for Gaming GFX which is now 5.2

So apparently you are not alone with those results...

OTOH we may not notice it but perhaps some of the more subtle GFX
effects like smoke are enhanced so the GFX are actually "Better", which
takes us back to Mr Jones' and my discussion of yesterday wherein we
agreed that there are several kinds of "Better", or at least I think we
sort of agreed to that.

 

[Richard Urban]

The only thing I will agree to, at this point, is that Nvidia is confusing
the hell out of me.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[Riffrafter]

Same here -- from 4.6 to 4.4 !

Desktop stayed the same -- 4.6.

7600GS

I Bleed Blue and Gold
GO BEARS!

8600 GT here. Installed 163.75 from 163.69 which was rock-solid. Saw a
bunch of little things I didn't like, colors seemed a little washed out, 3D
performance seemed a little less than 163.69 etc. Nothing major, but felt
like I downgraded instead of upgraded. Decided to try 169.04 beta before
rolling back to 163.69 WHQL.

169.04 runs very well for me. Colors and graphics are very crisp,
performance seems very good, maybe a shade less than 163.69 - (tested using
Call of Duty 4 Demo, and Bioshock) but almost unnoticeable, but overall far
better than 163.75 so I've decided to stay with the beta drivers for now.

On a final note Windows Experience Index stayed the same with 169.04 drivers
vs 163.69: 5.9 Aero, 5.5 3D performance under both.

Your mileage may vary as I heard some people didn't like 169.04 beta- but it
works very well for me. Hope this helps.

-Riff

 

[MICHAEL]

* Richard Urban:

The only thing I will agree to, at this point, is that Nvidia is confusing
the hell out of me.

It seems to me, that at least since Vista Beta 2, ATI has done a much
better job with their driver support.



-Michael

 

[Bill Richards]

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one.

I"m pretty sure that NVIDIA's graphics driver is pretty buggy, since my
machine hasn't worked correctly since I installed it about 6 months ago when
I was running XP. Things haven't worked any better since I upgraded to Vista
Ultimate.

 

[Charlie Tame]

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one.

I"m pretty sure that NVIDIA's graphics driver is pretty buggy, since my
machine hasn't worked correctly since I installed it about 6 months ago
when I was running XP. Things haven't worked any better since I upgraded
to Vista Ultimate.

Whenever I try new drivers I file a copy somewhere so I've probably got
copies of the last 4 driver packages, it takes care of those things that
you don't notice at first. Always a way back without system restore etc...