I guess this would apply to any FX series card. The newest driver available for Windows XP is 175.19, which seems far too new. I gather that the performance of the FX cards improved over time, though, especially in PS 2.0 games. So older drivers might not necessarily be better.
It really can't handle PS 2.0 games regardless of driver version. Newer drivers do fix problems in newer games though. I tried Guild Wars on my 5900U once and needed newer drivers to get rid of visual problems even at the main login screen. That game evolved over the years from a DirectX 8 title to DirectX 9 with some PS 2.0 effects (in the expansion areas incl new login screens).
For old games if you run into problems you will have to experiment. 440BX doesn't like NV drivers newer than 56.62, IIRC.
Newer drivers do have a more sophisticated PS 2.0 shader compiler. Early on the compiler was rudimentary and they were instead often hand-tuning games for their chips and replacing shaders via the driver (controversial when they reduced image quality). Of course in 2003 there weren't many PS 2.0 games anyway. The compiler development took a long time though. So with later PS 2.0 games this is a benefit, but the problem is the NV3x series is too slow for it to matter in a practical way. You still can't really play PS 2.0 games simply because the chips are too slow no matter how optimized the shader programs are.
wrote:It really can't handle PS 2.0 games regardless of driver version. Newer drivers do fix problems in newer games though. I tried Guild Wars on my 5900U once and needed newer drivers to get rid of visual problems even at the main login screen. That game evolved over the years from a DirectX 8 title to DirectX 9 with some PS 2.0 effects (in the expansion areas incl new login screens).
For old games if you run into problems you will have to experiment. 440BX doesn't like NV drivers newer than 56.62, IIRC.
Newer drivers do have a more sophisticated PS 2.0 shader compiler. Early on the compiler was rudimentary and they were instead often hand-tuning games for their chips and replacing shaders via the driver (controversial when they reduced image quality). Of course in 2003 there weren't many PS 2.0 games anyway. The compiler development took a long time though. So with later PS 2.0 games this is a benefit, but the problem is the NV3x series is too slow for it to matter in a practical way. You still can't really play PS 2.0 games simply because the chips are too slow no matter how optimized the shader programs are.
I noticed you used 93.71 in your YouTube videos of the 5950U (Far Cry, Doom 3, etc.). Any particular reason?
wrote:I noticed you used 93.71 in your YouTube videos of the 5950U (Far Cry, Doom 3, etc.). Any particular reason?
I have a feeling that version still has the old control panel available? I think it also has working custom resolutions whereas later drivers may not with the old cards. It has been awhile....
wrote:I guess this would apply to any FX series card. The newest driver available for Windows XP is 175.19, which seems far too new. I gather that the performance of the FX cards improved over time, though, especially in PS 2.0 games. So older drivers might not necessarily be better.
I use 3 versions for my 5900U, Though I'm running Windows '98 with it so I'm not sure they all apply.
45.23 - The last Detonator drivers - Some games break with anything newer than this like No One Lives Forever for example. This is the default driver I use unless it's a more modern game.
61.76 - These provide a nice boost in speed with newer games, for example the Last test in 3dMark2001 doubles it's framerate with this driver. However again, some games will work and some games won't.
81.98 - The last official Win '98 drivers. These are even for later games, some of which don't work with the 61.76s.
Between these 3 drivers I can usually get whatever I want working, but generally since I have an XP machine for newer games I stick mostly with 45.23s for compatibility. Trying to write this down for you it's been a while since I shuffled through all these and I wish I could recall more concrete reasons to give you. Like I also said I'm using Win98 so maybe this doesnt apply to your situation.
Well, I hope this helps at all.
Does 45.23 not work with 5950U? (I get driver not detected). Is 45.33 best for that card?
kolderman wrote on 2020-02-14, 10:39:Does 45.23 not work with 5950U? (I get driver not detected). Is 45.33 best for that card?
45.23 does work with FX5950 ultra. It just doesn't have the card in the ini file, so I added it there. You can also force installation of the driver without editing the ini file, but then it shows wrong card name in windows.
Re: FX5500 drivers win 98
As a follow up question - do any Geforce FX drivers allows VSYNC to be forced? I am playing a game (Star Trek Elite Force) that is tearing a bit, but neither the game, nor the drivers (61.76) appear to have it as an option.
Sorry I found it - it is not in the NView settings, but in Display Properties \ Advanced \ Geforce Panel.
I had vsync forced to be on by default and got fps capped when testing with 3dmark99. Only way I found I was able to disable it was to use rivatuner, but the change does not seem to be permanent.
