eVGA Nvidia ForceWare Driver 53.03
Posted by: Newsfactory on: 11/19/2003 10:07 AM [ Print | 40 comment(s) ] · 16153 views
eVGA has released a new set of Nvidia ForceWare drivers 53.03 for Windows 2K/XP!
Read More.
Driver Version: 53.03 - eVGA.com Suggested Download
Auto Installer: Yes
WHQL: No
Driver File: 5303XP.exe
ftp://evga.com/5303XP.exe
Notes: These drivers correct a number of problems found in the 52.16 release of the display drivers for Windows XP and Windows 2000. These drivers are not WHQL certified and you may see a warning message from Windows to that effect. Despite this, these drivers are safe to install and use.
Updates to this driver:
Improved support for HDTV Modes
Corrected the following issues from 52.16:
Clone mode may be set for the GeForce FX 5600 although only one display is connected.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: When 4x FSAA is enabled, half of the screen is black in Tiger Woods 2004 introductory video.
GeForce4 MX 440 and GeForce4 Ti 4400, Windows XP: Blue-screen crash during Battlefield 1942 Desert Combat.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: Homeworld2 antialiased performance is slow.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and GeForce4 Ti 4400, Windows XP: Rendering corruption in Battlefield 1942 Desert Combat.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, Windows XP: ?X2: The Threat? benchmark is choppy or jerky in some places.
All GeForce FX: Intermittently, Warcraft III videos are not displayed properly on some systems.
Mirror at Station-Drivers.com Mirror at BFGTech
Read More.
Driver Version: 53.03 - eVGA.com Suggested Download
Auto Installer: Yes
WHQL: No
Driver File: 5303XP.exe
ftp://evga.com/5303XP.exe
Notes: These drivers correct a number of problems found in the 52.16 release of the display drivers for Windows XP and Windows 2000. These drivers are not WHQL certified and you may see a warning message from Windows to that effect. Despite this, these drivers are safe to install and use.
Updates to this driver:
Improved support for HDTV Modes
Corrected the following issues from 52.16:
Clone mode may be set for the GeForce FX 5600 although only one display is connected.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: When 4x FSAA is enabled, half of the screen is black in Tiger Woods 2004 introductory video.
GeForce4 MX 440 and GeForce4 Ti 4400, Windows XP: Blue-screen crash during Battlefield 1942 Desert Combat.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: Homeworld2 antialiased performance is slow.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and GeForce4 Ti 4400, Windows XP: Rendering corruption in Battlefield 1942 Desert Combat.
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, Windows XP: ?X2: The Threat? benchmark is choppy or jerky in some places.
All GeForce FX: Intermittently, Warcraft III videos are not displayed properly on some systems.
Mirror at Station-Drivers.com Mirror at BFGTech
« Nation Moves From DVD To EVD · eVGA Nvidia ForceWare Driver 53.03
· Athlon 64 Motherboard Showdown »
2 pages 1 2
Comment
|
sjh4 Posts: 4 Joined: 2003-05-12 |
#49545 Posted on: 11/19/2003 10:24 AM
fixes problem with compiler on 3dmark 2003 version 340 my 3d mark jumped from5898 to 6674! |
Comment
|
chavv Unregistered |
#49546 Posted on: 11/19/2003 11:55 AM
So, Nvidia won't stop cheating ...... I wonder when there'll be a lawsuit for fraud ... |
Comment
|
neo-n Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-10-28 |
#49547 Posted on: 11/19/2003 12:27 PM
No they wont but if the compiler works in all games and doesnt affect IQ i dont think its a problem. Its ok to use it in 3dmark if it represents what happens in games. It the moment its doesnt quite and the IQ is still a little off. However even if it was perfect i still wouldnt get an FX. I paid for DX9 and a game not a compiler that does what it likes. |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#49548 Posted on: 11/19/2003 12:28 PM
Never going to happen because there is no industry standard on what the "level" of performance should be. People are trying a class action suit against Intel for the "Mhz Myth" thing as well, and that's not going to go anywhere because we don't have industry standards. The hardware advertises top notch gaming performance and DX9 playability, and that's what it gives you. It doesn't matter *how* it delivers it, as long as it delivers the specifications to DX9, which it does. Just remember, nobody sued Nvidia when they offered DirectX 7 on their Geforce 2 class hardware even though it did not totally support the DX7 specification and therefore wasn't DX7 compliant. Environment bump mapping comes to mind. |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#49549 Posted on: 11/19/2003 12:34 PM
Not to mention, if I were the judge, I'd laugh at you. The only thing I'd watch out for is someone in the UK bringing up the issue about the "highest quality anti-aliasing with no jagged edges" remark on their page. Everything else in their marketing program seems to be inline as they do not make claims that they have the fastest hardware in the gaming market, only that the 5950 Ultra is the fastest in the Nvidia family of GPUs. |
Comment
|
chavv Unregistered |
#49550 Posted on: 11/19/2003 12:57 PM
1. The problem with 3dmark is not in the compiler - what we get from 52.16 + b340 is just what the compiler can give (boost over 44.03+b330). Replacing shaders with hand-written code, based on application detection is the problem. I can't see a way changing which register the shader uses, can change the compiler output ... 2. Gf2 IS DX7 hardware. EBM was never required. it was recommended. In same way NV3x is DX9 hardware although lacks some functionality (MRT for example) - these are not required. 3. IMHO intentional distortion of widely accepted as industry-standart benchmark results, pursuing higher sales, could lead to a suit. /IMHO i just wish soem guys at NV will wake up and concentrate on REAL world problems, instead of "optimizing" a synthetic benchmark. |
Comment
|
neo-n Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-10-28 |
#49551 Posted on: 11/19/2003 01:40 PM
I agree that no lawsuit will be possible. The FX is DX9 compliant. The fact that its half as fast as anyone else is not relevent. Even if it does DX9 at 1FPS it still does it. However if M$ stated that to be compliant it would have to do it at 30FPS at say 1024x768 32bit depth then you might have a case. If it was proved that the FX never uses DX9 but recompiles everthing to DX8 but still claims DX9 then you could have a case, not against the GPU but against its drivers. None of that changes the fact that the FX and its drivers are a poor package. |
Comment
|
MagamiAKO Unregistered |
#49552 Posted on: 11/19/2003 02:22 PM
Interesting, the changelog to me states "real issues with games" that were fixed. I don't know where you're getting your information, but please enlighten me, honestly Second of all, there really are no *real* DX9 games aside from what? Halo? There's really not that much out there in terms of games that utilize the technology, and HL2/Doom 3 are both pushed far back so it's not like it matters now anyway. The next hardware refresh by both companies will be in May 2004 or so, so that should set the stage to DX9 hardware, very similar in the way that the GF3 paved the way for the GF4. So really, all it is right now? Is about benchmarks. That's right. Hardly anybody is playing a DX9 game right now, so really that's all they have to 'optimize' for. With that said, well, we can just wait and see what the future will bring. |
Comment
|
hinkle Unregistered |
#49553 Posted on: 11/19/2003 03:15 PM
Forceware poor package? WTF nvidia in fact really fixes real issues with games and they don't need 4 weeks to release a new version. Issues with WC3 videos and white flashing with BF1942 have been fixed after 1 beta driver release. Compare this with ATI's Call Of Duty crashes which hasn't been fixed after 2 new official drivers releases! The only thing I call really "poor" is that developper claim that their latest engine is using advanced DX9 features like PS2.0 where infact they could have it don't more easily and above all more fast with PS <2.0 shaders. The best example is the HL2 sky shader which is a full PS2.0 shader but the only thing the shader really does is make a call for a 2D texture... PS2.0 my a$$. Real DX9 games are still a long way off. |
Comment
|
MagamiEiko Unregistered Posts: 0 Joined: 2001-12-29 |
#49554 Posted on: 11/19/2003 03:53 PM
I agree, and I think that's where Nvidia agrees. It's in the sense that things are going to mix between the two for now, until *real* software packages come out to accomodate the hardware. By that time, the hardware should be capable of performing well with the software. I think this was Nvidia's way of trying to bridge the gap that exists between hardware and software rollout. We've had DX9 parts for well over a year now and I think we have maybe 2-3 actual DX9 games that use only few DX9 components. I think that there's going to be a big upturn in this in the latter half of 2004 and maybe early 2005, when games based on the HL2 and Doom 3 engines are released, even in small trickles. Of course, with < 1 year development time, these games might not be the best representations, but they'll work to help speed adoption. By that time? What? We ought to be somewhere close to R500/NV50 devices. Right now it's really just a matter of a PR war, quite honestly. The few voices that scream that they want the highest performance PS2.0 really are just that, a minority. I've got a friend who says that most people are playing FFXI with a GF4MX, which means they're quite comfortable even using DX7 hardware. Oh well, what can ya do, technology will get better  |
Comment
|
karlotta Unregistered Posts: 5 Joined: 2002-05-17 |
#49555 Posted on: 11/19/2003 06:51 PM
hey stop the fud! 340 did nothing to the compiler. Nvidias partners just decided to cheat again, it was only going to take 3mins to change what the 340 did... these drivers will be not alowed for real scores. |
Comment
|
karlotta Unregistered Posts: 5 Joined: 2002-05-17 |
#49556 Posted on: 11/19/2003 06:52 PM
stop the fud! the compiler was not afected by the 340. |
Comment
|
BigBerthaEA Unregistered |
#49557 Posted on: 11/19/2003 09:14 PM
"Real DX9 games are still a long way off." Hmm, I know of at least one that has been out for 2 months come Saturday...Tiger Woods 2004. It is straight DX9 for cards that are capable and the differences in performance between a 9800 Pro and 5900 Ultra/52.16-53.03 are staggering in many scenes. TW2004 is a very good indicator of the performance delta between ATI and nVidia in DX9. |
Comment
|
FailedCRC Unregistered |
#49558 Posted on: 11/19/2003 09:46 PM
too many people posting biased comments on this board are too arrogant and closed minded for their own good |
Comment
|
hinkle Unregistered |
#49559 Posted on: 11/19/2003 10:10 PM
I was talking about real DX9 games, not games requiring DX9 and using some of its features... Like with real DX8 games which came out 2-3 years AFTER DX8 was released. |
Comment
|
hinkle Unregistered |
#49560 Posted on: 11/19/2003 10:16 PM
ok, to specifiy: with real DX9 games I mean games that could not in any way have been made with DX8 and prior... The problem with current PS2.0 enabled games is that those games could have been more easily made with PS1.4 and prior. The HL1 port using the HL2 engine is the best example for this. Running it with DX8 level hardware still enables all of those cool looking water reflection and refraction effects we have all seen in the HL2 videos... no need for PS2.0. The only real DX9 effect I have seen till now is the HDR lighting model of HL2 which cannot be rendered with non DX9 hardware. But, HDR will initially not be part of HL2 but added later on when DX9 hardware is widely available in all PCs... |
Comment
|
The_Invisible Unregistered |
#49561 Posted on: 11/19/2003 10:21 PM
yeah, from 5400 to 63003dmarks with patch 340 
thats driver optimations  |
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Unregistered Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#49562 Posted on: 11/19/2003 10:43 PM
Could you post a compare URL to your most recent 3dm2k3 score with the 53.03 set please? |
Comment
|
Juomaru Unregistered Posts: 112 Joined: 2002-03-29 |
#49563 Posted on: 11/19/2003 11:24 PM
You are that NVIDIA hater (a.k.a. ATI fanboy/infiltrator) from the e-bastard site, right? If you are not helping in any industrial espionage thingy, we might reply to you. |
Comment
|
neo-n Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-10-28 |
#49564 Posted on: 11/19/2003 11:52 PM
I dont care.. i paid for DX9 i want DX9 .. is that so wrong ??? I still maintain that the R3x0 is superior to the FX. In fact i have just ordered 12 9600s to replace some of my GF4 ti4200s. Quite simply i dont trust nvidias drivers will give me the best experience in the next year or so. |
Comment
|
neo-n Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-10-28 |
#49565 Posted on: 11/20/2003 12:22 AM
Not sure what the COD problem is, i havent seen it yet despite having 'finished' it a few days ago on my 9800XT. No BF1942 problems either, but dont know about WC3. You are missing the point, If i pay for X i expect X not Y. If i bought a car that said it was a 5litre, but was actually a 2litre turbo i would complain, even if they had the same power. To me this is exactly the same. That is why many people who care about the choices they make are choosing ATI. If ATI had a low end DX9 part i believe nvidia would be in trouble. |
Comment
|
neo-n Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-10-28 |
#49566 Posted on: 11/20/2003 12:26 AM
You know what, your dead right. |
Comment
|
Devourer Unregistered |
#49567 Posted on: 11/20/2003 12:29 AM
I see the new forceware post has brought out the usual fanboys defending there inferior penis size as if it was large. Grow up boys. nVidia choked hard on this1. No matter how much you want the FX turd to smell all rosy its still gonna stink like sh*t! Admittance is the first step to recovery. |
Comment
|
digitalwanderer Unregistered Posts: 3 Joined: 2004-02-22 |
#49568 Posted on: 11/20/2003 12:37 AM
I'm just Dig pointing out that those scores that people are so happy about with these new drivers are inadmissable to the ORB. |
Comment
|
neo-n Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2003-10-28 |
#49569 Posted on: 11/20/2003 12:38 AM
I know i didnt say it was. |
2 pages 1 2
