Do you always install Chipset Device Software after a clean install?

[slicksilver]

I've never seen any real benefit from it personally. Do you? If yes why?

 

[G73S]

that's the first thing I install

while people say they are just INF files and not actual drivers, answer me this:

why does every computer/laptop manufacturer include them?

example: when running the ASUS Driver installer package which comes on the driver disc that I got with my laptop,

first to be installed is Intel Chipset Drivers, followed by VGA drivers, followed by IRST, followed by MEI, followed by Audio, etc....

there must be a reason

and if they don't do any good, they don't do any harm

 

[slicksilver]

I feel when a motherboard or a feature(like USB 3.0) is old( a year or more) they are unnecessary because if I'm not wrong they are baked into the OS and the updates.

 

[Kroze]

I only install things that have the yellow exlaimation point on them. Everything else i let windows update manage it.

 

[G73S]

I only install things that have the yellow exlaimation point on them. Everything else i let windows update manage it.

and that my friend is the key to bad performance

 

[code65536]

while people say they are just INF files and not actual drivers

They are not drivers.

answer me this:

why does every computer/laptop manufacturer include them?

In case the user is using a version of Windows that does not recognize the device. The scenario these INFs are designed for is one in which Windows has a generic driver for the device, but the device is new enough that Windows does not recognize it. The INF therefore tells Windows, "This is what this device is, and it's compatible with your generic device driver."

If your version of Windows is sufficiently new, the INF installer basically does nothing.

Oh, and in some cases it can prettify a the name of the device shown in Device Manager. So instead of "USB Controller", it will say something like "Intel(R) XYZ Series Chipset Family USB blah blah blah". But that's purely cosmetic.

Basically, these are useful only if you see a yellow exclamation mark next to a device that's labeled as unrecognized (and, of course, also assuming that the device in question is an Intel mobo chipset component and not, say, your network controller).

and if they don't do any good, they don't do any harm

Fair enough.

 

[JackMDS]

I only install things that have the yellow exlaimation point on them. Everything else i let windows update manage it.

This!

-----------
Also you can try running this free portable util and see what it syas.

http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2572



😎

 

[DrGreen2007]

OS install
-Network driver
--Chipset Driver
---USB driver
----Audio Driver
-----WSUSOffline
------Windows update
(built a Z400 with W7 x64 last night and it was done/patched in 2 hrs)

 

[G73S]

They are not drivers.



In case the user is using a version of Windows that does not recognize the device. The scenario these INFs are designed for is one in which Windows has a generic driver for the device, but the device is new enough that Windows does not recognize it. The INF therefore tells Windows, "This is what this device is, and it's compatible this your generic device driver."

If your version of Windows is sufficiently new, the INF installer basically does nothing.

Oh, and in some cases it can prettify a the name of the device shown in Device Manager. So instead of "USB Controller", it will say something like "Intel(R) XYZ Series Chipset Family USB blah blah blah". But that's purely cosmetic.

Basically, these are useful only if you see a yellow exclamation mark next to a device that's labeled as unrecognized (and, of course, also assuming that the device in question is an Intel mobo chipset component and not, say, your network controller).



Fair enough.

when I mentioned about key to bad performance, I meant installing the generic drivers from WU.

Take for example, it will list the nVIDIA Driver for you. Fair enough, someone is lazy and just installs it from WU, but the actual nVIDIA Forceware will offer way way better performance. The WU drivers are only generic drivers and do not include the optimizations that the manufacturer has made in their version of the drivers

 

[Lorne]

It depends on the generation of the OS and the age of the hardware its being installed on.
I normaly let windows install all that is normally recognized and then (After GFX driver and AV) chase after any yellow marked hardware.
I rarely pull drivers from the MFG website (except GFX) unless there is a big issue to deal with.

I have to dissagree with this "and that my friend is the key to bad performance " as I have seen both sides of the fence with always forcing updates or searching for updates just to have a higher version number only to have the hardware run bad or not at all.

I personally wont let windows update a NIC and or some WIFI driver once it had a working version during install, It always seems to stop the network adapter and I always end up going through the list of NIC driver list (Realtek RTL first) to get it working again.

There is always a hit or miss of some sort with drivers from MS, Hardware MFG or chipset MFG, And even over laying another driver on top of another driver.

 

[postmortemIA]

The drivers from MS are manufacturers drivers, just often older version, but tested that is compatible.

 

[BrightCandle]

Usually you get the least problems with the manufacturers drivers, mainly because they tend to be the latest they have tested and it takes Microsoft a while to include any updates. But its not always true, more often than I would like the manufacturers release bad drivers with problems and sometimes its best to skip them.

So typically what I do when I get a new board is use the latest the manufacturer gave me and use them and see if I have any problems, if I do I go back to the Microsoft generic ones. Then every quarter or so I check the manufacturers site for bios and drivers and have a look at the changelogs and do updates if I think its unlikely to break anything.

Its often the case they are just inf files referring to generic drivers, but its certainly not the case with all the drivers.

 

[code65536]

There are different things going on in this thread.

1) Intel's chipset INFs cover situations where the drivers are generic/default OS drivers. We're talking about drivers for USB controllers and other standard mobo components for which the only drivers available are those that come with the OS.

2) Drivers from Windows Update are not generic. They are drivers that the manufacturer submits to Microsoft and that Microsoft tests and publishes. Microsoft doesn't pick and choose what appears on WU--the manufacturer does.

Sometimes the WU drivers are older, either because the manufacturer simply didn't submit newer drivers to WU or they submitted them late. (And even if they submit a driver to WU at the same time they post it to their own website, there would still be a modest natural delay.)

And then there are cases where the version on WU is substantially newer than the ones found on the manufacturer's website. Or, in some cases, the WU version is the only one available. Again, this is up to the manufacturer. They may decide to publish only to WU and not to anywhere else.

I've had devices where the ones from the manufacturer's driver page is much older (and problematic) than what's offered via WU. It's absurd to make blanket statements about drivers on WU--sometimes they're identical, sometimes they're newer (and better), sometimes they're newer (and worse), sometimes they're older (and better), and sometimes they're older (and worse). It's something that needs to be evaluated case-by-case (and often version-by-version), and if a version on WU is indeed problematic, the problem isn't with WU, but with the manufacturer who made that driver and submitted it to WU.

3) Finally, I remain skeptical that any system assembler would have enough technical know-how to modify a GPU in such a way that it would require and benefit from custom GPU drivers, and I reject the notion that OEM-specific GPU drivers have any "special sauce" compared to what you get direct from AMD or nVidia. This is really more of a case of the OEMs being control freaks.

 

[Fardringle]

If the manufacturer supplies specific chipset drivers, there's usually a reason for it. So if they are available, yes, I always install them.

 

[G73S]

3) Finally, I remain skeptical that any system assembler would have enough technical know-how to modify a GPU in such a way that it would require and benefit from custom GPU drivers, and I reject the notion that OEM-specific GPU drivers have any "special sauce" compared to what you get direct from AMD or nVidia. This is really more of a case of the OEMs being control freaks.

Well my laptop is an ASUS laptop and it has the 3D screen + nVIDIA 3D Vision controller, if I install any driver be it from WU or nVIDIA themselves, the laptop will go into an endless boot cycle, I must install the ASUS provided nVIDIA Drivers because it seems those have a modified INF file in a way that makes them work. just as an example

and I am against modified or tweaked drivers, I am simply saying downloading from the computer manufacturer is best, at least in my case

Another example, one time I downloaded the latest and greated Intel Extensible Host USB 3.0 Driver from Intel directly.

Now when I copy a movie from my HDD to my USB External HDD, my whole computer becomes sluggish and the mouse movement is very jerky.

Uninstall the latest Intel ones, install the ones from ASUS (which are also Intel drivers BTW just tested by ASUS to work on my laptop) and tada.... no more issues

just my 2 cents worth

 

[G73S]

If the manufacturer supplies specific chipset drivers, there's usually a reason for it. So if they are available, yes, I always install them.

QFT! If they are ont really drivers, don't tell me all Manufacturers are smoking weed and blindly put them on the top of the list just for the heck of it!

I install them whether they bring in any benefit or not

 

[code65536]

QFT! If they are ont really drivers, don't tell me all Manufacturers are smoking weed and blindly put them on the top of the list just for the heck of it!

I install them whether they bring in any benefit or not

I find your blind faith in the competence of OEMs most disturbing. 😛

 

[G73S]

I find your blind faith in the competence of OEMs most disturbing. 😛

and I on the contrary, I find your blind faith in anything that comes from Microsoft frightening.

but to each his own, lets agree to disagree

you enjoy your computer with Microsoft drivers and Ill enjoy it @ full speed with OEM drivers FTW

 

[code65536]

and I on the contrary, I find your blind faith in anything that comes from Microsoft frightening.

Please reread my earlier posts.

What Microsoft drivers? The ones on WU are from straight the component manufacturers (as I already pointed out). The ones that come bundled with the OS are either generic chipset drivers (which the Intel INF utility never replaces because, um, they're just INF files and for which OEM drivers do not even exist) or are they are drivers straight from the component manufacturer that they asked Microsoft to bundle with the OS (e.g., the driver that Windows automatically installs for your Realtek NIC didn't come from Microsoft, but from Realtek and is by no means "generic").

This isn't about Microsoft. It never was. It's about whether OEMs like Acer, Asus, et al. have a better handle of the driver situation than the actual manufacturers of the components (who then distribute their drivers either through WU or other means). And believe me, they don't.

 

[PliotronX]

Answer: because I don't like seeing SMBus driver missing in Device Manager 😀

 

[Cerb]

Take for example, it will list the nVIDIA Driver for you. Fair enough, someone is lazy and just installs it from WU, but the actual nVIDIA Forceware will offer way way better performance. The WU drivers are only generic drivers and do not include the optimizations that the manufacturer has made in their version of the drivers

Any evidence of that? They use the same version numbers, add the same control panel, and introduce the same bugs per version...

 

[Cerb]

Answer: because I don't like seeing SMBus driver missing in Device Manager 😀

Same. The chipset drivers give a nice clean Device Manager, once everything else is installed, regardless of whether SM Bus is needed for anything or not.

 

[DeathReborn]

I do always install the latest version of the chipset drivers after a clean install but NOT the software tools they provide as I find them often to be obtuse.

 

[G73S]

Any evidence of that? They use the same version numbers, add the same control panel, and introduce the same bugs per version...

well the first evidence as the version on WU is usually older than the most recent nVIDIA ones. and we all know how much of a performance increase each nVIDIA update brings as they do mention the performance increase everytime for which games in the change log.

 

[Morbus]

On SSDs, installation order is irrelevant. On HDD, it's mostly irrelevant.

That said, I did run into some problems when last I tried installing the chipset drivers for my Z87-A on Windows 7 64 Pro. I don't really remember what I did, but the next format I did I didn't install the chipset drivers, and it's all running perfectly.