Forceware 160.02 + 8800 + ARMA nice combo

[mac_4ps 0]

Hi everybody. This is my first post.

The new just published forceware 160.02 for Quadro boards are perfectly compatible with 8800 cards and they perform very good in ARMA and other games (better than 158.22) in my rig, running windows xp pro sp2.

http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1640

My rig is:

- ARMA beta 1.07.5157

- win xp pro sp2

- amd 4800 x2

- 2 gb ram

- 8800 gts 640mb

- eizo s2410w (running ARMA at 1920x1200)

Arma Mark with forceware 158.22 at "Normal" and 1024x768 = 2.030,38

Arma Mark with forceware 158.22 at "Custom" and 1920x1200 = 1.617,46

Arma Mark with forceware 160.02 at "Normal" and 1024x768 = 2.405,25

Arma Mark with forceware 160.02 at "Custom" and 1920x1200= 2.012,23

Best.

[Dark_vityaz 0]

Don't you have problems with textures?

[mac_4ps 0]

Don't you have problems with textures?

Not at all. The 8800 seems to handle them better/quickier than with 158.22's

[JimLad 0]

I too am using these drivers and they do seem to run Arma quite nicely. However I found 1.07 to have too many texture problems, so I went back to 1.05+.

[mac_4ps 0]

I too am using these drivers and they do seem to run Arma quite nicely. However I found 1.07 to have too many texture problems, so I went back to 1.05+.

I do not have texture problems since I did the update from 1.07.5154 to 1.07.5157.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=62481

Best.

[guerilla -MCY- 0]

i did'nt had any better fps with 160.02, actually it went really worse, i reinstalled the official 158.xx drivers, downloaded ntune and started to overclock my whole system.

i made an 3.2Mhz Duo Core of my 6700 (2.66Mhz) and the GPU i overclocked from 576/900 to 630/1030 without additional coolers or modification.

Now ArmA runs like a dream, i can push everythink up and play with 40-60fps with postprocessing on 1280x resolution.

it seems like the Duo Core on 2.66Mhz was really the bottleneck...

[zootia 0]

No increase or decrease in framerates with 160 on my 8800. I recommend that 8800 users just stay with the official drivers

[4 IN 1 0]

i am using the 165.0X beta version with built 5157, no big problems, sometime there will be a flash of GFX problems and it gone right away, could run fairly stable for an hour, then use flush when start to see broken GFX,

running smoothly, no lag feeling, no spin lag, so far so good

[frostybits 0]

I will add there is a gamma problem with 107 beta and 8800gtx cards....darks are too dark and the colors are bled out.

They solved the fog issue and openned up the gamma bug.....yey

[4 IN 1 0]

I will add there is a gamma problem with 107 beta and 8800gtx cards....darks are too dark and the colors are bled out.

They solved the fog issue and openned up the gamma bug.....yey  

set HDR to 16 bit and the problem will gone, 32 looks better but your sun flare gone

most of the problem posted here are know issus through, if there is a fix, you cand find it

[shataan 1]

I have tried all the latest drivers for my 8800 GTX, but still.... the 97.92s seem to give me the best visuals and performance.

[Dannyllnl69 0]

so is the 8800 GTS good or Should I get The 8800 Ultra ?

[4 IN 1 0]

i would spend less for a 7900 or 7950 b4 the secound wave of dx10 card comes

the only reason for me to get 8800GTS is that its cheaper and good enought as a card which i would use for 2 to 3 years, very good in value, ArmA problem is more a driver VRAM handling then the game itself(in 1.07 beta without hot fix it run as smooth as i can be, well b4 GFX problem and CTD came to the way atless)

[xnodunitx 0]

No need to worry about DX10 cards unless you have vista, thanks to microsoft.

[4 IN 1 0]

No need to worry about DX10 cards unless you have vista, thanks to microsoft.

well basicly the drivers sucks, i have to reinstall the driver each months inorder to get rip of GFX, crash, and numbers of other problems , sometime with complete clean up

[LoFFeN 0]

so is the 8800 GTS good or Should I get The 8800 Ultra ?

The 8800 Ultra is way too expensive, when the 8800GTX is almost as fast as it. 8800 Ultra = Waste of money, imo.

Buy a GTX instead or wait to the 8900 Series.

The 8800GTS is a great "bang for the buck" card. You get a lot of performance in it's relative cheap price. So a GTS could also be a good choice.

I chose the GTS (640MB) myself, btw.

[bob1787 0]

tbh im happy with my performance atm with 1.07b and 158.18 drivers

gettin pretty good frame rates and not many LOD bugs, ive started to phase out LOD bugs and ignore my frame rate when its being alright and just playing the game

[Dannyllnl69 0]

okay nice il get the 8800 GTX, umm one more question what should i get the windows xp or the vista ?can some body tell me if this is good for Arma  

-------------ChOICE 1 ------------------

-Windows® Vista™ Home Premium

-Low-Latency DDR2 memory

-AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 6000+ Processor w/ HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology  

-768MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8800 GTX  

-2GB - 2 x 1024MB  

-Ageia PhysX Processing Unit w/ 128MB GDDR3

-Creative Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeGamer High Definition 7.1 Audio  

-Logitech® Z-5300e 5.1 280-Watt Speaker

-AlienAdrenaline v1.0: Video Performance Optimizer  

--------------Choice2---------------------

-Intel® Core™ 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 8MB Cache 1066MHz FSB - Overclocked to 3.2GHz!

Includes Liquid Cooling

-Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005

-2GB - 2 x 1024MB

-768MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8800 GTX  

-Ageia PhysX Processing Unit w/ 128MB GDDR3

-AlienAdrenaline v1.0: Video Performance Optimizer  

-Creative Sound Blaster® X-Fi™ XtremeGamer High Definition 7.1 Audio  

-Logitech® Z-5300e 5.1 280-Watt Speakers

[bob1787 0]

basically the dual core will run better on vista compared to XP and always athlon over intel ( IMO! ) but you'll find a lot of people disagreeing about which is better (processors and operating systems)

[Dannyllnl69 0]

but i have never heard of athlon being good on games ?

[bobby budnick 0]

Not so long ago, Athlon 64's used to be the best CPU around. They are still good in games, even Arma. I am a big fan. With that said, you might want to pick the Core2 this time around because:

1. AM2 Athlon 64s use DDR2 and with the extra latency IMO they are not as good as their 939 counterparts with DDR.

2. There is not as much of an aftermarket for the AM2s, in terms of motherboard selection and performance parts.

2. The core duo can probably overclock farther than the Athlon 64.

[MATRA 0]

Quote[/b] ]The core duo can probably overclock farther than the Athlon 64.

Alot farther!

[SlurrpyChillyFries 0]

i wouldnt worry about ddr2, core 2 duo is using ddr2 but athlon's built in memory controller gives you 20% performance increase as it runs at full clock speed.

[Lepardi 0]

At the moment, forget AMD. Wipe it out of your mind. ASAP.

Intel C2D and upcoming penryn kicks amd in butt, and 22.7 is coming an another pricecut where you get new models E6750 for $170 and E6850 for $266. E6850 is better than X6800 with its 1333mhz fsb and 3,0 ghz clock speeds. Oh yeah, and E6700 is equal to AMD X2 6000+ just to let you know. But you will get it's better version E6750 for sub $200 price.

[bonko the sane 2]

be very careful with logitech products, if your going to use Vista 64-bit, one day (very soon) you will want 4GB RAM, and Logitech drivers are famous for crashing 4GB RAM 64-bit systems.

ontopic: im using the 160.02 on my 8800gtx , i tried them in hope they would accept 4GB RAM (as they are Quadro drivers)but its still impossible to use 4GB RAM on XP64 with Nvidia drivers and the 8800, i get the same performance and image quality as 158.22, so i couldnt be bothered to uninstall them