163.44 drivers caused a 20% performance decrease in Counter-Strike: Source(benchmark)

[3DBrad]

So this is why I was getting bad performance in CS:S as of late. ;)
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p234/Spoudazo/158_45vs.jpg

[Gregor976]

So... You call 100fps "bad performance"?

What percentage difference was there in the minimum frame rate? That's the only number I see a relevance in when the average is so much above 85 "my own minimum refresh rate preference".

EDIT: Just curious, do you use rivatuner or any another utility to enable triple buffering in D3D?

[badboy64]

I get 156fps in that benchmark at 1900x1200 with AA 16XQ and AF at 16X. The previous drivers where bad but theses driver brought up the performance in that benchmark in both Vista and XP.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/3906/hl22007082614544848we1.th.jpg (http://img362.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hl22007082614544848we1.jpg)

[3DBrad]

I always have Vsync on, so a 20% a lot of times it wouldn't stay pegged at 60fps, but would drop to 45fps, which is annoying. ;)

That is just the test I ran, so I ran it w/o vsync, and in those tests, I only used rivatuner to overclock.

[Gregor976]

Since you use vsync, you should try triple buffering. See if that changes your minimums. In the rivatuner links it's the one that is labeled "D3DOverrider".

[3DBrad]

Ok, I tried it. It's been a while since I used Rivatuner for that. Thanks for the info. :)

[centurie]

the poster is a nutt case.............................................. .....no way can you see a diffrence of 20% when you still run 100 frames per second..........you are talking out of your arse

[grey_1]

the poster is a nutt case.............................................. .....no way can you see a diffrence of 20% when you still run 100 frames per second..........you are talking out of your arse
Did you even bother looking at the actual numbers he posted? Or were you to busy talking out of your arse?

Whether the naked eye can see it or not 20% is a pretty severe hit, nothing wrong with questioning it.

[3DBrad]

Don't be silly Centurie.

I play with Vsync on, so the numbers mean nothing, it's the PERCENTAGE.

AGAIN I say, with Vsync on, on max settings, etc. the 163.44 were unable to provide a constant 60fps, but would bounce around between 45-60fps, now with the older ones, it's a constant 60fps 99.9899% of the time.

Also, I can distinguish between 75fps and 100fps, so I wouldn't doubt I could distinguish between 100 and 120fps (if I had a 120hz monitor).

[DarkOneX]

It's probably because your card isn't overclocked anymore due to the driver signing thing with one of those new Vista performance updates, it kills Rivatuner. Is this possibly what's causing it?

[3DBrad]

No, I disable driver signing on boot (F8). ;)

I'm 150% sure it's the drivers.

[Sazar]

The counter-strike benchmark is not representative of all the maps.

In many maps, classic and custom, a 20% frame-rate difference is that between smooth play and choppy sections.

He has good reason to gripe because of that. I am getting 120 with a 1950xt under Vista @ 1920x1200, 4x/8x filtering.

[K007]

the poster is a nutt case.............................................. .....no way can you see a diffrence of 20% when you still run 100 frames per second..........you are talking out of your arse

Its not about FPS..its about performance. If a driver upgrade causes fps to drop by this much of a number..but still give 40fps+min then..that dosen't mean everything is fine..there is a fault in the driver or the installation...Not saying there is something wrong with the way OP installed or the driver..but just pointing out that a performance loss is a failed driver.

[TierMann]

What are your settings at anyway?

I just tried 163.44 Vista32, 8800gts(320) @1280x1024, 4xAA, everything else on max...

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/1295/csstr2.png