View Single Post
Old 01-12-12, 08:15 PM   #24
i SPY
007
 
i SPY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: You were sayin'
Posts: 290
Default Re: Nvidia GeForce 290.53 beta drivers

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcrox View Post
Just tried a fresh install of this driver. The negative effect didn't take 2 days this time, it was immediate.

Uninstalled driver via safe mode, installed 285.62 everything works perfect.

Uninstalled 285.62 and installed this driver instant windows hard lock again. This time uninstall in safe mode didn't work and I had to do a rollback.

Just for sh!ts and giggles I thought I'd try using this 2nd 60GB Vertex 3 with a complete fresh Win7 x64 professional install and then try installing applications one at a time and see if I could find a compatibility culprit. Turns out that all 3 times that I installed JDK with this driver also installed the OS instantly hard locked.

This driver apparently has a SERIOUS compatibility issue with at the very least some versions of Java. Without the JDK installed the driver appeared to work perfect... that's not to say that I wouldn't end up with serious issues after 2 days again but I'm not willing to wait that long to find out.

Back to 285.62 for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrasalmus View Post




Ok im sorry i take that back, it looks like this 290.53 driver puts higher pressure on system components, mostly pcix, north bridge and ram.

I don't use Java, so i cant confirm that but i believe you.


I had to raise memory voltage for +0.05v (was 2.15v) and north bridge for +0.025v (was +0.275v), also tRFC from 86 to 90 compared to 290.37 or i would bsod in memory intense games after ~30-40min lol-_- Im already at max 8gb ram capacity so its even more sensitive.

I saw a few users with similar problems, most of them were using intel lga775 and all had some kind of memory issue causing bsod (0x124) or freezing. One had to remove 2 extra sticks (p35 chipset), one raised std latency to 5-6-6-15 (nforce 780i), one raise ram voltage from 1.52 to 1.58v(lga 1366, x58).. All of them said they were fine with older 285.62 or 285.79.

----

Its ok here since i raised those 3 values, but imo kinda risky from nvidia to search for extra perf. in your system hardware instead of optimizing cuda cores more.. Heh or is this that extra optimization? i can't really tell..
Well I tested cpu/ram intense benchmarks like RE5 (fixed scene, no aa), LP2 DX11(fixed scene, no aa) and i didnt see any difference, lowest max and avg fps stayed the same..
__________________
intel Q9450 @ 3.656Ghz [1.3875v, LLC off]| GA-X48-DS5 [Memory Enhance: Turbo]|MSi N570GTX TwinFrozrIII OC/PowerEdition|Kingston HyperX 4x2GB PC 8500 @ 1097Mhz [5-5-5-18, 2.25v]| Creative X-FI Pro [SB046A]| Tagan PipeRock 600w [48A]

i SPY is offline   Reply With Quote