Nvidia GeForce Driver 182.06 Officially Released

[chizow]

I guess we'll see

I expect an update or two maybe for Cryostasis next month....then after that it'll probably get pretty quiet like it did last year and the year before that due to lack of major game releases. I remember we didn't see anything for about 2 months before Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed were released in May.

And I thought you were getting i7 and a GTX 285 to test in SLI?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

Yep it is, I was just showing a point you've continually made---that AMD/ATI hot fixes/betas are better than Nvidia's because they're officially supported---

Of course you do, you have to in order to defend idiotic comments you've made regarding AMD's monthly WHQL driver schedule being better than Nvidia's erratic, non-standard releases.

Chizow, if you don?t stop the baiting and the off-topic commentary about ATi?s drivers, I?m going to get a senior mod in here to check the thread. Don?t think you can derail any thread you please like you have in the past.

and a point you once again attempted to make here by quoting a standard disclaimer, is patently false.

Ahahaha. So when nVidia says Beta drivers are under qualification testing, and may include significant issues, according to Chizow it?s not actually true, and nVidia is lying. All because Chizow said so. :roll:

Ahahaha.

Trying to reason with you is truly hopeless because I don?t think you even have an idea how ridiculous your comments are.

Anyway, it?s not so standard given it doesn?t appear anywhere on the WHQL drivers. Yet according to you it should because it?s ?a standard disclaimer? and because ?WHQL means nothing? and because ?both drivers are tested the same way?. :roll:

Do you actually comprehend the idiocy of your arguments, or are you going to continue to insist you?re right because you said so?

And there's nothing inaccurate about my initial response to appoppin who claimed "Have you NOTICED that we are getting MONTHLY driver releases from Nvidia". My reply was that there wasn't any major difference in frequency, and there isn't, just a slight increase in actual WHQL releases. Try again.

But there is a major difference and it?s plainly obvious based on the driver archive. Anyone can see this with simple counting, except for those that don?t want to see, and instead try to fabricate their own reality.

Rofl, you can believe that if you like, just shows how naive you are to put any stock into WHQL testing or a standard legal disclaimer.

No, you can believe anything you like, and you do when you try to pass off your fantasies as gospel. And again, the disclaimer isn?t standard on the WHQL drivers. Why do you think that is, given you claim the two drivers are the same? Hmmm?

The reality of it is WHQL means very little with regard to driver quality, as there's nothing comprehensive about it, nor does it offer any significant quality assurance. If anything it shows the Windows installer works properly, and that's not even guaranteed.

Please provide evidence of your claims, or retract them.

Specifically, demonstrate the components of WHQL testing and demonstrate how none of them are able to catch any problems that the vendor has already caught. Preferably, step through each test and cite driver code examples in both cases.

Again, they?re not flawed because you said so. Your opinion is not fact, no matter how much you think it is.

Also, you do realize that WHQL drivers for Nvidia are often nothing more than the Beta release of the same number designation right?

Then explain nVidia?s disclaimer present only on beta drivers:

Beta drivers are under qualification testing, and may include significant issues.

If they?re the same, where?s the disclaimer on the WHQLs?

They aren?t same because they haven?t been tested as well as the WHQL drivers, so they aren?t supported and they have the disclaimer. Again, stop trying to pass of your unfounded opinion as fact.

As someone who has no problems using Betas from Nvidia's site the only difference I notice is that the Betas bring up an additional confirmation message in Vista.

Ah, here it is:

?The betas and the WHQL are the same because I haven?t had any problems with the betas, because WHQL is meaningless, and because I said so?.
-Chizow

Does that about sum up your stance?

I?ve had plenty of problems with beta drivers. One version for example hot-fixed a game but caused numerous OpenGL games to fail at launch. But then again given you only play the current three games, you wouldn?t know anything about driver robustness and compatibility.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Chizow, if you don?t stop the baiting and the off-topic commentary about ATi?s drivers, I?m going to get a senior mod in here to check the thread. Don?t think you can derail any thread you please like you have in the past.

Feel free to call a senior mod in, they'll clearly see you derailed the thread by pasting a Beta disclaimer in attempt to assert a point you've continuously made in the past, that AMD Beta drivers are supported and Nvidia's are not, when that claim is clearly false.

Ahahaha. So when nVidia says Beta drivers are under qualification testing, and may include significant issues, according to Chizow it?s not actually true, and nVidia is lying. All because Chizow said so. :roll:

Ahahaha.

Trying to reason with you is truly hopeless because I don?t think you even have an idea how ridiculous your comments are.

What's ridiculous is your pedantic fixation on irrelevant details. Qualification testing is obviously the WHQL testing itself, standard language to cover them from support and liability issues with general OS compatibility.

Anyway, it?s not so standard given it doesn?t appear anywhere on the WHQL drivers. Yet according to you it should because it?s ?a standard disclaimer? and because ?WHQL means nothing? and because ?both drivers are tested the same way?. :roll:

Do you actually comprehend the idiocy of your arguments, or are you going to continue to insist you?re right because you said so?

Yep, it is standard on Betas because people like you think WHQL actually means something more than installing the drivers successfully. But given you've been so fixated on such meaningless certifications, logos and stickers in the past (see Vista Ready, TWIMTBP, etc) it comes as no surprise you'd take a simple disclaimer so literally.

But there is a major difference and it?s plainly obvious based on the driver archive. Anyone can see this with simple counting, except for those that don?t want to see, and instead try to fabricate their own reality.

Really? I count 18 in the the last 12 months from 3/8/2008 to present and 18 from 6/7/2007 to 3/23/2008. All downloaded directly from Nvidia, if anything we got releases more frequently in the past. So again, you need to retract your claim that Nvidia is releasing drivers more frequently when they clearly are not.

No, you can believe anything you like, and you do when you try to pass off your fantasies as gospel. And again, the disclaimer isn?t standard on the WHQL drivers. Why do you think that is, given you claim the two drivers are the same? Hmmm?

Of course there's no disclaimer on the WHQL driver, that was the only reason the disclaimer existed to begin with. The only fantasies here are your expectations for what WHQL testing involves.

Please provide evidence of your claims, or retract them.

Specifically, demonstrate the components of WHQL testing and demonstrate how none of them are able to catch any problems that the vendor has already caught. Preferably, step through each test and cite driver code examples in both cases.

Again, they?re not flawed because you said so. Your opinion is not fact, no matter how much you think it is.

WHQL Testing Procedures
Its nothing more than a high-level Windows compatibility test that is clearly not designed or intended to test application-specific functionality of the driver.

So tell me, exactly which step in there involves people in Redmond testing video games?

Then explain nVidia?s disclaimer present only on beta drivers:

Beta drivers are under qualification testing, and may include significant issues.

If they?re the same, where?s the disclaimer on the WHQLs?

Rofl again, the WHQL is the qualification testing, after its satisfied there's no longer a need for the disclaimer. But once again, WHQL has nothing at all to do with driver functionality or compatibility in actual applications, there's no way Microsoft would shoulder that level of support in their certification. Who do you think is responsible for actually testing the drivers for game compatibility? You've clearly been drinking the monthly WHQL placebo kool-aid for far too long.

They aren?t same because they haven?t been tested as well as the WHQL drivers, so they aren?t supported and they have the disclaimer. Again, stop trying to pass of your unfounded opinion as fact.

LMAO. Look at the driver release cadences of the past. You'll see nothing for a few weeks or even a month, then a Beta, then a WHQL a few days later. Do you think the bulk of testing and application QA is being done in those 2-3 weeks? Or the 3-5 days turn around between Beta and WHQL when you can no longer make changes to the driver? Its really just common sense more than anything.

Ah, here it is:

?The betas and the WHQL are the same because I haven?t had any problems with the betas, because WHQL is meaningless, and because I said so?.
-Chizow

Does that about sum up your stance?

I?ve had plenty of problems with beta drivers. One version for example hot-fixed a game but caused numerous OpenGL games to fail at launch. But then again given you only play the current three games, you wouldn?t know anything about driver robustness and compatibility.

Really? What games and what drivers? If there isn't a 10 page thread on nZone it didn't happen.

As you conveniently edited out, its well documented Nvidia actually carries their driver updates from version to version, unlike ATI, which is why their Betas are every bit as good as their WHQL.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow
I guess we'll see

I expect an update or two maybe for Cryostasis next month....then after that it'll probably get pretty quiet like it did last year and the year before that due to lack of major game releases. I remember we didn't see anything for about 2 months before Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed were released in May.

And I thought you were getting i7 and a GTX 285 to test in SLI?

That is what i am saying
{weird, "agreement"}

it is VERY unusual for Nvidia to release 6 consecutive monthly WHQL driver sets; IF it is a new pattern, i applaud them
because i really look forward to their new drivers and i HATE betas from any company unless it fixes a particular game or two
- but that may just be me but from what i see, not likely

Yes, my plans have remained the same. There were no delays, except for my MB meltdown over the weekend. But i prefer things in a progression that one can look back on in a logical sequence.

There is a LOT left to explore with CPU/GPU scaling in new games - just by comparing quad- vs. dual-core across ONE platform, Penryn's e8600 vs. q9550s - without complicating it much further by throwing in different platforms like i7 and diluting the results with information overload. i have also really expanded my testing both with game benchmarks and in-between CPU scaling with both single and multi-GPU .. we are talking a couple *more* weeks of just testing and reporting and i have some really interesting conclusions that i am developing now about the "advantages of Quad core gaming" over dual.

In the future, i eventually expect to even get ahold of Phenom II; it is getting interesting for enthusiast gaming. One of my friends just replaced his ancient Athlon x2 6000+ with the new fastest PII [and has GTX280 SLi to boot] .. and has doubled his framerates in many instances!

So yeah .. after i sell my e8600 and my P5e deluxe, i expect to run i7 against Penryn's Q9550s - at 16x10 and 19x12 with maxed out details - and i want to OC both to the MAX .. something lacking in SO many reviews

That should be the next set of drivers; or even the one after. i did not realize that i was competing in a "race" to get the very latest. DDR3 is only now starting to get some decent sales and reasonable pricing.
. . . at ANY rate .. 182.06 is getting some really exhaustive testing from me with GTX280 and and 2 CPUs .. at stock to 4.33Ghz!

 

[josh6079]

wtf chizow

BFG didn't say **** about ATi drivers before you started harping on him like a wife at the wrong time of the month. All he said was he preferred WHQL from nVidia and had been noticing an increase in their frequency lately.

Chill out dude.

 

[s44]

This seems to fix Mass Effect issues, if you're having them.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

Feel free to call a senior mod in, they'll clearly see you derailed the thread by pasting a Beta disclaimer in attempt to assert a point you've continuously made in the past, that AMD Beta drivers are supported and Nvidia's are not, when that claim is clearly false.

Stop lying Chizow. I never made such a claim. Post up a direct quote or retract your lie immediately Chizow.

What's ridiculous is your pedantic fixation on irrelevant details. Qualification testing is obviously the WHQL testing itself, standard language to cover them from support and liability issues with general OS compatibility.

Irrelevant? How is it irrelevant given you claimed betas and WHQL drivers have the same testing, when they clearly don?t? Anyone can see that, except you apparently.

Yep, it is standard on Betas because people like you think WHQL actually means something more than installing the drivers successfully.

It does mean something other than installing drivers successfully. That you don?t understand the WHQL testing process is your problem, not mine. And continually squawking loudly about it doesn?t make you right.

I count 18 in the the last 12 months from 3/8/2008 to present and 18 from 6/7/2007 to 3/23/2008. All downloaded directly from Nvidia, if anything we got releases more frequently in the past.

LOL, you ?count? 18 of what exactly?

The last six WHQL drivers have been released on average once per month. The seventh WHQL driver prior to that had a three month gap. Even a toddler understands 3 is bigger than 1.

So again, you need to retract your claim that Nvidia is releasing drivers more frequently when they clearly are not.

I didn?t say nVidia are releasing drivers more frequently, I said I've noticed a big change in WHQL frequency.

Retract your lie immediately Chizow.

I notice you frequently lie but never retract your lies.

The only fantasies here are your expectations for what WHQL testing involves.

Yes, yes, you?ve make it quite clear that you don?t understand what WHQL does.

WHQL Testing Procedures
Its nothing more than a high-level Windows compatibility test that is clearly not designed or intended to test application-specific functionality of the driver.

Again I?ll ask you to provide evidence of your claims by listing the actual tests. Specifically, demonstrate to us that no low-level tests are being done and that WHQL cannot detect anything the IHV hasn?t already detected, therefore providing no additional benefit over nVidia?s testing like you claimed: they both go through the same extensive testing before release for public consumption.

I mean it even says right there on that page: Tip: Some tests are quite long and can be run overnight. Allow approximately four days to test systems and servers.

In your little world, what high-level tests do you think take four days to run? In your little world, what device driver takes four days to install? LMAO.

So tell me, exactly which step in there involves people in Redmond testing video games?

I didn?t say they tested video games, I said that beta drivers do not have the same level of testing that WHQL drivers do, unlike your claims to the contrary. Stop trying to set up strawman arguments.

Rofl again, the WHQL is the qualification testing, after its satisfied there's no longer a need for the disclaimer.

Uh, let me repeat the relevant part for you again since you apparently have issues with reading as well as counting.

?may include significant issues.
?may include significant issues.
?may include significant issues.
?may include significant issues.

Wait, how can WHQL find significant issues given you claim WHQL is a meaningless logo (according to your claims)?

If WHQL is meaningless, all WHQL drivers should have the same disclaimer ?may include significant issues?, because the act of performing WHQL cannot possibly find any significant issues the IHV hasn?t already. Right?

Do you think the bulk of testing and application QA is being done in those 2-3 weeks? Or the 3-5 days turn around between Beta and WHQL when you can no longer make changes to the driver? Its really just common sense more than anything.

Again, this is all irrelevant rhetoric on your part. As for common sense, there?s nothing common about your comments because they?re moronic.

Nobody said nVidia didn?t do the bulk of the testing, just that your claims of WHQL being nothing more than a logo were wrong, along with your claims that beta drivers have equal testing to WHQL drivers.

If there isn't a 10 page thread on nZone it didn't happen.

Yep, that?s exactly your arrogant attitude.

As you conveniently edited out, its well documented Nvidia actually carries their driver updates from version to version,

What did I edit?

which is why their Betas are every bit as good as their WHQL.

Except they aren?t, which is why they state they can have significant issues and are not supported or recommended, while WHQL have no such disclaimers. To claim otherwise is to claim nVidia is putting up false disclaimers, in which case you?d need to provide evidence of your claims or retract them.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: josh6079

All he said was he preferred WHQL from nVidia and had been noticing an increase in their frequency lately.

Yep, exactly. And then Chizow had the gall to lie and claim I brought up the issue when he?s the one that started it, and the only one that kept brining it up repeatedly after that.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

Yep, it is standard on Betas because people like you think WHQL actually means something more than installing the drivers successfully.

Here's a perfect example of how Chizow likes to mouth off about things he knows absolutely nothing about.

Here are a few examples of WHQL graphics subtests showing how wrong he is:

http://downloadmirror.intel.co...00/eng/IEGD_6_1_SU.pdf

WHQL Blt- Stretch- Color Key -Vid to Primary fails on Intel 915GM chipsets.
WHQL test Blt- Exotic fails on some systems.
WHQL: Failed Video Memory Management Tests of WHQL DCT II DirectDraw.
WHQL 5.3 fails to execute some Direct Draw and D3D tests.
WHQL DCT "Miscellaneous DirectDraw Tests" cause system reboot.
WHQL DCT "PC99TA" causes system reboot on Intel 915GV chipsets.
WHQL DCT2 GetRenderTargetData-Mip Texture and CubeTexture causes ringbuffer lockup.
WHQL Blt- Basic- VMem to Primary fails on some chipsets.
WHQL Failure - Blt Unused Pixel Bits on Intel 855GME or Intel 915GV chipsets.
WHQL DCT2 test memory leakage causes hang/crash on certain test.
WHQL DCT "GetRenderTargetData-BackBuffer and Render Target" causes ringbuffer lockup.
WHQL DCT2 Auto Generation of Mip Maps causes ringbuffer lockup.
WHQL: Direct3D tests fail only on Windows 2000.
WHQL: Direct3D tests DolphinVS* of DirectX* 9 SDK failed in Windows XP* and Windows 2000.
WHQL: Fails DCT9 General INF check.
WHQL: DirectDraw - Flip lock delay.
WHQL DCT2 CubeMap causes blank screen on Intel 855GME chipsets.
WHQL DCT2 Resource Management - D3D Manage test causes system crash.
WHQL DCT2 CubeMap causes blank screen on Intel
WHQL DCT2 Resource Management - D3D Manage test
WHQL DCT2 MipFilter causing ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Present Validation DX9 (DirtyRegion,Gamma) causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 VBIB - Vertex and Index Buffer Validation causing ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Texture Stage causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Texture Load causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Present Validation DX9 (ColorConverting,DoNotWait, LockDoNotWait) causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Multiple Render Targets causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 stretch rect test causes hang or reboot
WHQL Stability "Display stress" reboots
WHQL: Failure on DCT9 GDI Win GDI (gmvideo3/b),GUIMAN GDI w/poly and rect clip (gmvideo 6, 6b, 9, 9b)
WHQL DCT2 Buffered Blts causing ringbuffer lockup
WHQL D3D point sprites test causes system reboot
WHQL D3D non power 2 cond. render target test causessystem reboot
WHQL: Access Violation when running D3D Cubemap
WHQL Direct3D test 'Get DC' shows corruption in nonshell area
WHQL D3D test causes system reboot
WHQL Fast User Switching Tests - D3D, DDRAW, DVD,Video fails
WHQL DCTDX9: DirectDraw ->Blt- Stretch - Vmem to Primary failed in Microsoft Windows XP on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL DCT2: PC99TA 6.8.1-6 under General causing reboot on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL: DCT300 BLT Stretch(width only) x 1.5, to Pri(TC3.6.51-52) tests terminate abnormally
WHQL: Fails DCT9 DirectDraw Blt-Exotic tests with pixel mismatch
WHQL: Direct3D stability tests causes Direct3D Invalid
WHQL: Windows NT DCT300 fails PC97_(19)TransparentBlter test
WHQL: DCT9 General Ratetest failure
WHQL: DCT300 BLT Stretch (width only) x 1.5, VMem to Pri(TC 3.6.51-52) generates Exception: access violation
WHQL: Certain DCT 450a tests fail after running after other tests, but pass when running standalone
WHQL DCT2 stretch rect test runs very slowly
WHQL: Some Direct3D failures in Windows XP and Windows 2000
WHQL DCTDX9: DirectDraw ->Blt- Stretch - Vmem to Primary failed in Microsoft Windows XP on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL DCT2: PC99TA 6.8.1-6 under General causing reboot on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL: DCT300 BLT Stretch(width only) x 1.5, to Pri(TC3.6.51-52) tests terminate abnormally

Yep, it?s sure it just checking for the driver installing successfully and nothing else. :roll:

The lack of understanding repeatedly demonstrated by your arguments in the topics you choose to engage in is simply amazing.

 

[zerocool84]

This thread went from good to bad in no time flat.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Stop lying Chizow. I never made such a claim. Post up a direct quote or retract your lie immediately Chizow.

Not even 2 months ago.....

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Except nVidia doesn't support their beta drives, so it doesn't really matter if they're on their page in or not. In fact in their disclaimer it basically states the drivers haven?t been tested properly and that they can have serious issues.

Originally posted by: chizow

No, I never said I had a problem with ATI's betas or hot fixes, it just emphasizes the double standards and hypocrisy voiced by many on this forum with regards to Nvidia's driver releases and beta drivers.

Hot-fixes are supported; nVidia's beta drivers are not. .....

....The fact is ATi support their hot-fixes while nVidia do not support their betas.

You need to retract both your lies IMMEDIATELY. If you continue to post in this thread without IMMEDIATE retraction of your lies you are clearly trolling. BWAHAHHA. I don't really expect you to retract anything, you never do, even when you're clearly proven to be wrong.

Irrelevant? How is it irrelevant given you claimed betas and WHQL drivers have the same testing, when they clearly don?t? Anyone can see that, except you apparently.

Nope, I claimed they went through the same testing that actually mattered and linked to quotes from Derek, who interviewed Nvidia's driver team, as evidence. You seem to think the disclaimer entails testing beyond the WHQL certification itself which is not only false, but does not speak to the quality of the driver beyond general OS compatibility.

It does mean something other than installing drivers successfully. That you don?t understand the WHQL testing process is your problem, not mine. And continually squawking loudly about it doesn?t make you right.

Rofl squawking loudly, ready to eat some crow?

LOL, you ?count? 18 of what exactly?

The last six WHQL drivers have been released on average once per month. The seventh WHQL driver prior to that had a three month gap. Even a toddler understands 3 is bigger than 1.

18 drivers downloaded directly from Nvidia, your fixation on WHQL is irrelevant as my original reply had nothing to do with the frequency of WHQL drivers, only the frequency of drivers released directly from Nvidia.

I didn?t say nVidia are releasing drivers more frequently, I said I've noticed a big change in WHQL frequency.

Retract your lie immediately Chizow.

I notice you frequently lie but never retract your lies.

Again, show me where WHQL was mentioned with regard to frequency in my reply to Apoppin? You need to retract your lie immediately BFG10K /straightface. :laugh:

Yes, yes, you?ve make it quite clear that you don?t understand what WHQL does.

Again I?ll ask you to provide evidence of your claims by listing the actual tests. Specifically, demonstrate to us that no low-level tests are being done and that WHQL cannot detect anything the IHV hasn?t already detected, therefore providing no additional benefit over nVidia?s testing like you claimed: they both go through the same extensive testing before release for public consumption.

I mean it even says right there on that page: Tip: Some tests are quite long and can be run overnight. Allow approximately four days to test systems and servers.

In your little world, what high-level tests do you think take four days to run? In your little world, what device driver takes four days to install? LMAO.

Rofl, honestly if you keep going on about WHQL after this I'll be shocked, but this is a clear example of you spewing garbage about things you clearly have no clue about. But here we go:

Using DTM for Windows System Logo Testing: Attached Download "DTMhowto.doc"

Page 22, 24 and 25 list exactly what "testing" goes on:

Job name Type Approximate duration
Signed Driver Check (Manual) Needs some manual intervention. Keep your PCI vendor ID nearby because it will be requested early in the test. 10 minutes
SMBIOS HCT Automated 10 minutes
Resstomp Automated 20 minutes
Logo - S3 Resume Time Verification Automated 8 minutes
PCI Hardware Compliance Test for Systems running Windows Vista® (PCIHCT) Automated 10 minutes
System ? Common Scenario Stress With I/O Automated 3 hours. This test can be run simultaneously with other system tests.
System ? Sleep Stress with I/O Automated 40 minutes. This test can be run simultaneously with other system tests.
System ? Disable Enable with I/O Automated 10 minutes. This test can be run simultaneously with other system tests.
Graphics Bus Transfer Automated 15 minutes
GUIMAN GDI w-poly clip (gmvideo6b) (32-bit) Automated 5 minutes
DirectDraw Tests (32-Bit) Automated 3 minutes
Driver Scenario (32-Bit) Automated 10 minutes
UAA Test ? Windows Vista (System) Automated 15 minutes
Lullaby Test (System) Automated 45 minutes
KS Position Test Automated 5 minutes
KS Topology Test (System) Automated 5 minutes
HDAudio Class Driver Test ? Premium (System) Automated 4 minutes
HDAudio Class Driver Test ? Standard (System) Automated 3 minutes
HDAudio Class Driver Fidelity Test ? Premium (System) Automated. You must follow the To add a second machine as an AP host procedure described after this table. 5 minutes
HDAudio Class Driver Fidelity Test ? Standard (System) Automated. You must follow the To add a second machine as an AP host procedure described after this table. 5 minutes
HDAudio Class Driver Test (System, Manual) Needs manual intervention. 4 minutes
Fidelity Test Automated. You must follow the To add a second machine as an AP host procedure described after this table. 5 minutes

and

Job name Type Approximate duration
Fidelity Test This is an automated test; however, you must follow the preceding steps to add the second machine as an AP Host. 15 minutes
HAL Timer Tests (HCT) Automated 8 minutes
Aero Acceptance Test Automated 4 minutes
WLP RGB Rasterization (32-Bit) Automated 15 minutes
Storage (Automated) Automated You must add a blank disc into your optical drive. (This test takes approxi¬mately 12 hours.)
USB Host Controller Compliance (Automated) Automated 2 minutes
USB Self-Powered Hub (Automated) Automated 2 minutes
System ? USB Test (Manual) Manual. You need at least two open USB ports at the beginning of the test, and then the system will ask you to insert two USB devices (UFDs are recommended). 2 minutes
Cardbus Bridge Register Assertions (System Logo) Automated 2 minutes
System-Tuner-Performance Test (Manual) Automated 2 minutes
System-Tuner-DMA Test Automated 2 minutes
BitLocker? Drive Encryption BIOS Interface Logo Test Automated 5 minutes
BitLocker Drive Encryption USB BIOS Logo Test Automated 5 minutes
WDDM System Check Automated 2 minutes
WDDM Coherency Automated 2 minutes
Full Duplex Test (System and Manual) Automated 1 hour, 35 minutes
Core Stress Test (Automated) Automated 6 hours

Just as I said, WHQL is nothing more than high-level OS compatibility testing, of which there's a whole 40 minutes or so of basic display-specific diagnostics. LMAO. WHQL tests a driver's ability to co-exist in a Windows ecosystem and nothing more, as it is clearly not designed or intended to test or guarantee application-specific compatibility.

Oh, and you need to retract your lies immediately with regard to WHQL, disclaimers, assurance, and driver quality. I bet it feels like you just got punched in the gut, your visage of what WHQL completely shattered and exposed for what it is, monthly marketing placebo. Should've done your homework on this one, now enjoy your crow.

I didn?t say they tested video games, I said that beta drivers do not have the same level of testing that WHQL drivers do, unlike your claims to the contrary. Stop trying to set up strawman arguments.

And I clearly stated Nvidia's Betas underwent the same extensive game compatibility tests from Nvidia, and backed such claims with direct quotes from Derek, references to driver revisions and specific bug fixes carried from one Beta to the next Beta or WHQL.

Uh, let me repeat the relevant part for you again since you apparently have issues with reading as well as counting.

?may include significant issues.
?may include significant issues.
?may include significant issues.
?may include significant issues.

Wait, how can WHQL find significant issues given you claim WHQL is a meaningless logo (according to your claims)?

Because once again, the significant issues are a simple disclaimer with regard to installation and OS stability, it has nothing to do with actual application testing, nor did I ever claim it did.

If WHQL is meaningless, all WHQL drivers should have the same disclaimer ?may include significant issues?, because the act of performing WHQL cannot possibly find any significant issues the IHV hasn?t already. Right?

Of course not, because once again, the qualification testing referenced in the disclaimer is the WHQL qualification process itself. Once that is satisfied there is no longer a need for such a meaningless disclaimer.

Again, this is all irrelevant rhetoric on your part. As for common sense, there?s nothing common about your comments because they?re moronic.

Nobody said nVidia didn?t do the bulk of the testing, just that your claims of WHQL being nothing more than a logo were wrong, along with your claims that beta drivers have equal testing to WHQL drivers.

Its not irrelevant rhetoric, its common sense backed by *gasp* more facts and documentation from MS:
Windows Logo Program Policies: Attached Download "DTM Global WHQL Policy.doc"

Submission type (HCT and DTM) Typical time Considered late after
First-time hardware and driver test submissions 2 business days 7 days
Media Center Edition submissions 2 business days 7 days
Update hardware and driver test submissions 2 business days 7 days
Software application test submissions 2 business days 7 days
Server application test submissions 2 business days 7 days
Reseller program test submissions 2 business days 7 days
.NET Connected Logo Program 2 business days 7 days
Test signature test submissions 30 minutes 2 days
Unclassified hardware devices 2 business days 7 days
Audit submissions Up to 30 days 30 days

So again, I'll ask you, given it takes 1-2 days to run the DTM tests for WHQL + another 2-7 business days with no changes to the driver before certification with a difference in release between Beta and WHQL often within 10 days, do you think extensive testing is being done on the Beta driver or on the actual WHQL release? This really is common sense.

Yep, that?s exactly your arrogant attitude.

Arrogant attitude? Nah, I just knew you wouldn't provide specifics, because there'd be a 10 page thread on nZone about it with you bumping it every other post.

What did I edit?

Direct quotes from Derek, who interviewed both ATI and NV about their driver programs, directly corroborating my claims that there was very little difference in quality between Nvidia's Beta and WHQL drivers.

Except they aren?t, which is why they state they can have significant issues and are not supported or recommended, while WHQL have no such disclaimers. To claim otherwise is to claim nVidia is putting up false disclaimers, in which case you?d need to provide evidence of your claims or retract them.

Rofl, watching you cling to these meaningless disclaimers is truly comical, even moreso after I've clearly shown how insignificant WHQL certification really is. Anyways, I've clearly made my point, WHQL certification is a joke and clearly isn't indicative of driver quality as you've claimed repeatedly.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: josh6079
wtf chizow

BFG didn't say **** about ATi drivers before you started harping on him like a wife at the wrong time of the month. All he said was he preferred WHQL from nVidia and had been noticing an increase in their frequency lately.

Chill out dude.

You clearly have no idea about the history of his ignorant claims, feel free to read up about it here

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: chizow

Yep, it is standard on Betas because people like you think WHQL actually means something more than installing the drivers successfully.

Here's a perfect example of how Chizow likes to mouth off about things he knows absolutely nothing about.

Here are a few examples of WHQL graphics subtests showing how wrong he is:

http://downloadmirror.intel.co...00/eng/IEGD_6_1_SU.pdf

WHQL Blt- Stretch- Color Key -Vid to Primary fails on Intel 915GM chipsets.
WHQL test Blt- Exotic fails on some systems.
WHQL: Failed Video Memory Management Tests of WHQL DCT II DirectDraw.
WHQL 5.3 fails to execute some Direct Draw and D3D tests.
WHQL DCT "Miscellaneous DirectDraw Tests" cause system reboot.
WHQL DCT "PC99TA" causes system reboot on Intel 915GV chipsets.
WHQL DCT2 GetRenderTargetData-Mip Texture and CubeTexture causes ringbuffer lockup.
WHQL Blt- Basic- VMem to Primary fails on some chipsets.
WHQL Failure - Blt Unused Pixel Bits on Intel 855GME or Intel 915GV chipsets.
WHQL DCT2 test memory leakage causes hang/crash on certain test.
WHQL DCT "GetRenderTargetData-BackBuffer and Render Target" causes ringbuffer lockup.
WHQL DCT2 Auto Generation of Mip Maps causes ringbuffer lockup.
WHQL: Direct3D tests fail only on Windows 2000.
WHQL: Direct3D tests DolphinVS* of DirectX* 9 SDK failed in Windows XP* and Windows 2000.
WHQL: Fails DCT9 General INF check.
WHQL: DirectDraw - Flip lock delay.
WHQL DCT2 CubeMap causes blank screen on Intel 855GME chipsets.
WHQL DCT2 Resource Management - D3D Manage test causes system crash.
WHQL DCT2 CubeMap causes blank screen on Intel
WHQL DCT2 Resource Management - D3D Manage test
WHQL DCT2 MipFilter causing ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Present Validation DX9 (DirtyRegion,Gamma) causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 VBIB - Vertex and Index Buffer Validation causing ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Texture Stage causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Texture Load causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Present Validation DX9 (ColorConverting,DoNotWait, LockDoNotWait) causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 Multiple Render Targets causes ringbuffer lockup
WHQL DCT2 stretch rect test causes hang or reboot
WHQL Stability "Display stress" reboots
WHQL: Failure on DCT9 GDI Win GDI (gmvideo3/b),GUIMAN GDI w/poly and rect clip (gmvideo 6, 6b, 9, 9b)
WHQL DCT2 Buffered Blts causing ringbuffer lockup
WHQL D3D point sprites test causes system reboot
WHQL D3D non power 2 cond. render target test causessystem reboot
WHQL: Access Violation when running D3D Cubemap
WHQL Direct3D test 'Get DC' shows corruption in nonshell area
WHQL D3D test causes system reboot
WHQL Fast User Switching Tests - D3D, DDRAW, DVD,Video fails
WHQL DCTDX9: DirectDraw ->Blt- Stretch - Vmem to Primary failed in Microsoft Windows XP on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL DCT2: PC99TA 6.8.1-6 under General causing reboot on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL: DCT300 BLT Stretch(width only) x 1.5, to Pri(TC3.6.51-52) tests terminate abnormally
WHQL: Fails DCT9 DirectDraw Blt-Exotic tests with pixel mismatch
WHQL: Direct3D stability tests causes Direct3D Invalid
WHQL: Windows NT DCT300 fails PC97_(19)TransparentBlter test
WHQL: DCT9 General Ratetest failure
WHQL: DCT300 BLT Stretch (width only) x 1.5, VMem to Pri(TC 3.6.51-52) generates Exception: access violation
WHQL: Certain DCT 450a tests fail after running after other tests, but pass when running standalone
WHQL DCT2 stretch rect test runs very slowly
WHQL: Some Direct3D failures in Windows XP and Windows 2000
WHQL DCTDX9: DirectDraw ->Blt- Stretch - Vmem to Primary failed in Microsoft Windows XP on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL DCT2: PC99TA 6.8.1-6 under General causing reboot on Intel 915GV chipsets
WHQL: DCT300 BLT Stretch(width only) x 1.5, to Pri(TC3.6.51-52) tests terminate abnormally

Yep, it?s sure it just checking for the driver installing successfully and nothing else. :roll:

The lack of understanding repeatedly demonstrated by your arguments in the topics you choose to engage in is simply amazing.

Rofl yep, its like 3DMark Windows Edition, you can run similar tests in about 5 mins through the Windows Experience Index

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: chizow

You need to retract both your lies IMMEDIATELY. If you continue to post in this thread without IMMEDIATE retraction of your lies you are clearly trolling. BWAHAHHA.

You stated Feel free to call a senior mod in, they'll clearly see you derailed the thread by pasting a Beta disclaimer in attempt to assert a point you've continuously made in the past, that AMD Beta drivers are supported and Nvidia's are not, when that claim is clearly false.

Again link to such an assertion in this thread, or retract your lie. I never mentioned ATi in this thread until you did, and have never compared the drivers of the two in this thead, unlike you.

Nope, I claimed they went through the same testing that actually mattered

No you didn?t. Don?t lie. A direct quote was as they both go through the same extensive testing before release for public consumption.

You said that in this very thread. The ?actually mattered? is a back-pedal you?ve just put in there, and furthermore you don?t actually understand what matters anyway, so your point is irrelevant.

You also said Yep, it is standard on Betas because people like you think WHQL actually means something more than installing the drivers successfully., which was clearly a lie. Even your own links demonstrate it?s testing more than just installation.

18 drivers downloaded directly from Nvidia, your fixation on WHQL is irrelevant as my original reply had nothing to do with the frequency of WHQL drivers, only the frequency of drivers released directly from Nvidia.

Who gives a shit about how many drivers you downloaded from nVidia? Apoppin and everyone else was clearly talking about WHQL.

Again, show me where WHQL was mentioned with regard to frequency in my reply to Apoppin? You need to retract your lie immediately BFG10K /straightface. :laugh:

I haven't really noticed a difference in frequency, maybe a slight increase in WHQL

Done. Are you ready to retract your lies?

Rofl, honestly if you keep going on about WHQL after this I'll be shocked, but this is a clear example of you spewing garbage about things you clearly have no clue about. But here we go:

Heh, so by your own evidence when you stated Yep, it is standard on Betas because people like you think WHQL actually means something more than installing the drivers successfully, it was clearly a lie. You going to retract that lie?

WHQL tests a driver's ability to co-exist in a Windows ecosystem and nothing more, as it is clearly not designed or intended to test or guarantee application-specific compatibility.

Again nobody said it tested application specific compatibility. What was said was that it was more than just a logo and installation test (unlike your claims), and that it tested (and found) things the IHV didn?t. Ergo, beta drivers don?t have the same testing as WHQL drivers do as you claimed.

I bet it feels like you just got punched in the gut, your visage of what WHQL completely shattered and exposed for what it is, monthly marketing placebo. Should've done your homework on this one, now enjoy your crow.

Ahahahaha. Whatever you say. :roll:

And I clearly stated Nvidia's Betas underwent the same extensive game compatibility tests from Nvidia, and backed such claims with direct quotes from Derek, references to driver revisions and specific bug fixes carried from one Beta to the next Beta or WHQL.

No you didn?t, you said as they both go through the same extensive testing before release for public consumption.. Again, ?game compatibility? is a back-pedal you?ve just put in which no-one was even disputing.

Not only that, you are now admitting that game compatibility testing is different to WHQL testing which debunks your own claims that the drivers have the same testing applied to them.

Because once again, the significant issues are a simple disclaimer with regard to installation and OS stability, it has nothing to do with actual application testing, nor did I ever claim it did.

I never claimed it fucking did either, so why do you keep repeating this? I simply claimed the tests were different to the IHVs, so therefore you can?t infer betas have the same level of testing as WHQLs like you claimed.

So again, I'll ask you, given it takes 1-2 days to run the DTM tests for WHQL + another 2-7 business days with no changes to the driver before certification with a difference in release between Beta and WHQL often within 10 days, do you think extensive testing is being done on the Beta driver or on the actual WHQL release?

Again the fact that WHQL is run means it?s testing what the IHV didn?t test in the betas, thereby proving you wrong.

Direct quotes from Derek, who interviewed both ATI and NV about their driver programs, directly corroborating my claims that there was very little difference in quality between Nvidia's Beta and WHQL drivers.

Please show me where it was stated that WHQL is not providing additional tests over nVidia?s, thereby making the drivers equal from a testing point of view. Put up or retract.

Rofl, watching you cling to these meaningless disclaimers is truly comical, even moreso after I've clearly shown how insignificant WHQL certification really is.

You haven?t shown anything except how to back-pedal when trapped in a corner.

Again, your original comment Yep, it is standard on Betas because people like you think WHQL actually means something more than installing the drivers successfully was clearly a lie, and needs to be retracted.

Rofl yep, its like 3DMark Windows Edition, you can run similar tests in about 5 mins through the Windows Experience Index

You mean tests that are more than just an installation test like you claimed?

 

[chizow]

LOOOOOOL this thread. Good one. :laugh:

Anyways, I've made my points, WHQL is meaningless and you've once again been caught in a lie and contradiction. Thanks for the laughs though.