New 3dfx WHQL V4/5 drivers

[Wingznut]

Are you sure the latest WickedGL is limited? I was under the impression that the latest version offered everything the 3dfx driver does.

Either way, judging soley by a couple timedemos, it didn't look any better in my eyes.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

i'm guessing the q3 timedemo's were in 16bit color, since WickedGL drivers only work in 16bit....



Mike

 

[Wingznut]

Not any longer. The old ones were 16bit. The "V5 supported" ones are able to do 32bit.

 

[Dug]

The new Wicked GL drivers do support V5. The latest version that just came out a couple a days ago said they now support 32bit color and large texture support.

I noticed running 3dmark that my scores increased about 300.

If you look under your Display and CPU settings, and then the CPU optimization box, there is now 3 settings. D3D Hardware T&L, Intel Pentium III, and D3D Software T&L. I used to only have the Pentium, and software T&L options.

I did also notice that the 64M rendering test slowed down compared to the old drivers.

My Quake scores did go up 10fps @ 1152x864

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Definitely a nice increase.

Anybody notice any stability issues?

 

[Wingznut]

Stable as can be. I played UT a lot last night. And more than enough Q3 timedemos. Not a hitch!

 

[RagingGuardian]

IBMer, the visual quality seems better but that's my opinion so you don't have to agree. Maybe you should go try the drivers first.

 

[BFG10K]

Hey brainiac (BFG10K), they are V4/V5 drivers. Not intended for the V3.

Wingnut, ever heard of the term "unified driver release"?

 

[Deeko]

Ok, I ran some benchmarks with the 1.03's. Here's the setup:
TBird 800@952(119MHz bus)
K7M
224MB PC100 RAM
Voodoo5 5500(normally at 177, but I left it at 166 for this)
SBLive!

I ran UTbench with all details up, min desired framerate at 0. I also did a few Quake III tests, and as much as I hate 3DMark, I tossed it into the mix. I have some comments at the end.

1.01 drivers
UT(D3D) - 640x480 - 41.25
UT(D3D) - 1024x768 - 36.47
UT(Glide) - 640x480 - 39.37
UT(Glide) - 1024x768 - 37.37
Q3 - 640x480(fastest) - 108.4
Q3 - 640x480(all maxed) - 89.7
Q3 - 1024x768(all maxed) - 64.9
3DMark - 3330

1.03 drivers(first number defaults, second number AGP 2x, geometry
assist, LOD @ -.75)
UT(D3D) - 640x480 - 37.28 - 38.17
UT(D3D) - 1024x768 - 36.11 - 36.81
UT(Glide) - 640x480 - 40.52 - 41.05
UT(Glide) - 1024x768 - 37.84 - 38.05
Q3 - 640x480(fastest) - 108.8 - 112.3
Q3 - 640x480(all maxed) - 95.3 - 94.6
Q3 - 1024x768(all maxed) - 71.5 - 71.1
3DMark - 3850 - 4330

Ok...when I ran 3DMark, it said Hardware T&L.....are these drivers tricking programs into thinking it's using hardware T&L? Also, the geometry assist is only available in D3D, why wouldn't they implement it in OpenGL too? Is MDK2 D3D or OGL? If it's D3D, I'd like to see some benchmarks with these new drivers, cause that's where the V5 gets smashed due to lack of T&L. Also, I am now able to enable AGP 2x with these drivers, it's an option under advanced features...I thought the V5 wasn't true AGP? Then how does it do that? Hmmm....Anyway...nice performance increase, especially Q3. I don't count 3DMark, it is trash. If I test any other games, maybe I'll add them.

 

[Weyoun]

hah!! i was right!! woohoo

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

BFG10K: 3dfx is not nVidia. They don't have a unified driver set. The drivers do work with the V3, but they are intended entirely for the V4/5 series.

Stick to using drivers for the V3.

These drivers are apparently quite good and offer a performance increase for the cards they were intended to be used for...

WTG, 3dfx.

 

[Wingznut]

Mmm-kay BFG10K, I see nowhere where it says they are "unified", or should be used with a V3. To the contrary, when you look up drivers for the V3, it gives you a different set.

You are really going to have to try harder, to bash 3dfx.

 

[rahvin]

<<Wingnut, ever heard of the term &quot;unified driver release&quot;?>>

Brainiac, do you actually read what the website says? Unified as in Unified V4,V5 drivers, they are not intended or even meant to be used with the V3 or they would be listed under the V3 driver list. You are lucky they don't hose anything up.

 

[BFG10K]

You are lucky they don't hose anything up.

Apparently some people are a bit slow on the uptake. The drivers work just fine. They are just a little slower (1-3 fps less) than the Beta drivers, that's all.

You are really going to have to try harder, to bash 3dfx.

Nodody is bashing anybody braniac. I was simply passing my results on to other V3 owners who know they can use the V4/V5 drivers with their V3s. Of course if you had tried a V3 with the drivers you would have known you are talking crap. Having a V5 doesn't make you an expert on the V3.

 

[rahvin]

<<Apparently some people are a bit slow on the uptake. The drivers work just fine. They are just a little slower (1-3 fps less) than the Beta drivers, that's all.>>

Yes you are quite slow, in fact you are trying to use drivers for the V4/V5 on the V3, its no wonder they are slower. Duh.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

not to support BFG10K, but the latest beta win2k drivers for voodoo3s are the same drivers that are for v4/v5 in win2k. I had to work on friends computer last night, and it was a 8mb download and was titled the &quot;voodoo series drivers&quot;. When I went back to 3dfxgamers and tried to download v4/v5 beta win2k drivers, it downloaded the exact same drivers....



Mike

 

[Wingznut]

While that's true for Win2K drivers, those aren't the ones that I (or BFG) are using.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Like i said, i'm not supporting BFG10k. I'm just saying that for certain cases, 3dfx is using a unified driver.


Mike

 

[Soccerman]

well, lets see.. the only reason why you are able to run V5 drivers on the V3 (or vise versa?) is becuase it is all the same architecture. it's STILL VOODOO! however, each video card has minor (and major) differences, therefor, it's no wonder why using the wrong drivers will give you hits in performance, or just plain old problems overall.

 

[BFG10K]

it's no wonder why using the wrong drivers will give you hits in performance, or just plain old problems overall.

It sounds like you don't know what the heck you are talking about. All of the V4/V5 drivers run on the V3 with no problems. The performance hits were exactly the same as what I got when running the lastest beta V3 drivers. Coincidence? I think not.

The new drivers are simply the WHQL version of the previous three beta drivers.