My Detonator Driver Experiment

[Jeff7181]

I decided to see what Detonator Driver set gave the best performance.
These tests were done on my A7N8X Deluxe motherboard, with an XP2500 processor @ 2.08 Ghz (12.5x166) and 1 GB of PC2700 RAM and my Gainward GF4 Ti4200 128 MB video card. Everything except the drivers was kept constant... and I set 3DMark2001 to run each test 3 times to get a more accurate picture.
Take a look.
41.09's take the win

 

[CurtCold]

Are the 41's the driver's that "cheat" aka sacrafice quality for a few more fps?

Nice test btw. I think the 30's are more targeted towards the Gf2-3 line, and the 30+ series are more geared toward the Gf4 line and beyond. Maybe that's the explanation?

 

[Jeff7181]

I think those are the ones that supposedly did that... but I actually found them to have better quality in certain things... for example... Counter-Strike, de_dust... in the tunnel with the 40.72's there was some weird lighting... like, light shining through the roof onto walls... when I had the 43.45's installed, I noticed they did the same thing... but these 41.09's don't do that.
<shrug> I dunno... they work well for me =)

 

[Rand]

Did you do a fresh install of the OS/Software between testing each different driver revision?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Rand
Did you do a fresh install of the OS/Software between testing each different driver revision?

LOL... get real

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Rand
Did you do a fresh install of the OS/Software between testing each different driver revision?

LOL... get real

What.... it's a genuine question?
Providing you have a fresh image of the OS and installed applications it's not a terribly time consuming venture.

 

[Jeff7181]

That's just silly... it's not going to make a significant difference.
Each test was done on the same computer with all the same settings.

 

[zsouthboy]

No 30.82's???

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: zsouthboy
No 30.82's???

Weren't the 30.82's created even before the GF4 existed? I know a lot of people use them, but I don't have them so I didn't bother to test them... and to test them now I'd have to run all the others again to get a fair comparison, and I don't feel like doing that =)

 

[Jeff7181]

Update... just upgraded to the 44.03's and found another 1% increase in performance, lol.

 

[nippyjun]

How come you don't run at 400fsb? You should be able to with your mobo.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: nippyjun
How come you don't run at 400fsb? You should be able to with your mobo.

I do. 400 Mhz is DDR (double data rate) the actual speed is 200 Mhz. I just ran that first test with closer to stock speeds to more accurately depict the differences in the drivers.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

41.09's are junk for the NF2 IGP, they limit the core to 250mhz and won't even let it run@225mhz. Install the 44.03's and up to 400mhz is available and runs@265mhz so far. On my G3 ti200 44.03'S improved the IQ somewhat I'd say and performance improvement was nominal as you've found.

 

[tkdkid]

You should've just posted the numbers. The graph is useless since you didn't scale it at 0. It makes 10965 look about 10% less than 11072 when it's really less than 1%.

If you're trying to exaggerate the difference, you could've just started the graph at 10900, then it would be really dramatic.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: tkdkid
You should've just posted the numbers. The graph is useless since you didn't scale it at 0. It makes 10965 look about 10% less than 11072 when it's really less than 1%.

If you're trying to exaggerate the difference, you could've just started the graph at 10900, then it would be really dramatic.

I posted the graph so you wouldn't have to read each number to see which performed the best... and I posted the actual numbers so all the anal retentive people wouldn't get their shorts in a knot about the scale I made the graph on. I guess it didn't work.

 

[tkdkid]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: tkdkid
You should've just posted the numbers. The graph is useless since you didn't scale it at 0. It makes 10965 look about 10% less than 11072 when it's really less than 1%.

If you're trying to exaggerate the difference, you could've just started the graph at 10900, then it would be really dramatic.

I posted the graph so you wouldn't have to read each number to see which performed the best... and I posted the actual numbers so all the anal retentive people wouldn't get their shorts in a knot about the scale I made the graph on. I guess it didn't work.

I took a vote, 17 people said I am anal retentive, 20 said I'm not. Here's a graph in smilies (scaled to start at 16, naturally).

<--- anal retentive
<---not anal retentive

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: tkdkid

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: tkdkid
You should've just posted the numbers. The graph is useless since you didn't scale it at 0. It makes 10965 look about 10% less than 11072 when it's really less than 1%.

If you're trying to exaggerate the difference, you could've just started the graph at 10900, then it would be really dramatic.

I posted the graph so you wouldn't have to read each number to see which performed the best... and I posted the actual numbers so all the anal retentive people wouldn't get their shorts in a knot about the scale I made the graph on. I guess it didn't work.

I took a vote, 17 people said I am anal retentive, 20 said I'm not. Here's a graph in smilies (scaled to start at 16, naturally).

<--- anal retentive
<---not anal retentive

LOL. thats the funniest thing i've read today. well, actually 2nd funniest. i'm in austin (where the democrats took off from and went to oklahoma) and someone wrote that it was too bad the democrats came back because, for a short while, both states' IQs went up.

 

[sep]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel

Originally posted by: tkdkid

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: tkdkid
You should've just posted the numbers. The graph is useless since you didn't scale it at 0. It makes 10965 look about 10% less than 11072 when it's really less than 1%.

If you're trying to exaggerate the difference, you could've just started the graph at 10900, then it would be really dramatic.

I posted the graph so you wouldn't have to read each number to see which performed the best... and I posted the actual numbers so all the anal retentive people wouldn't get their shorts in a knot about the scale I made the graph on. I guess it didn't work.

I took a vote, 17 people said I am anal retentive, 20 said I'm not. Here's a graph in smilies (scaled to start at 16, naturally).

<--- anal retentive
<---not anal retentive

LOL. thats the funniest thing i've read today. well, actually 2nd funniest. i'm in austin (where the democrats took off from and went to oklahoma) and someone wrote that it was too bad the democrats came back because, for a short while, both states' IQs went up.

That's right folks, the more democrats made the IQs higher.

 

[Jeff7181]

I think my IQ just dropped a few points by reading your posts...