Detonator (2K-XP) 52.16 Beta

Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2:
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html

Lee Marsh wrote:

Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2:
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html


I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16

Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.

I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
for me for now.


Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
3DMark03-03: 5978
Aquamark3: 42452

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
3DMark03-03: 6044
Aquamark3: 42571

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
3DMark03-03: 5982
Aquamark3: 41995

"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...
Lee Marsh wrote:

Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2:
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html


I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16

Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.

I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
for me for now.


Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
3DMark03-03: 5978
Aquamark3: 42452

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
3DMark03-03: 6044
Aquamark3: 42571

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
3DMark03-03: 5982
Aquamark3: 41995


You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can see a
half a frame per second?

not me wrote:

"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...

Lee Marsh wrote:


Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2:
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html



I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16

Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.

I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
for me for now.


Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
3DMark03-03: 5978
Aquamark3: 42452

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
3DMark03-03: 6044
Aquamark3: 42571

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
3DMark03-03: 5982
Aquamark3: 41995



You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can see a
half a frame per second?


Apparantly

Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
drivers.

But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
overall surprised me.

Aight coo man..thx for the info.

I don't really care about those benchmarks, are real games playable and how
do they look?
I've never paid to much attention to synthetic benchmarks.

"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...
not me wrote:

"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...

Lee Marsh wrote:


Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2:
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html



I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16

Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.

I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
for me for now.


Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
3DMark03-03: 5978
Aquamark3: 42452

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
3DMark03-03: 6044
Aquamark3: 42571

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
3DMark03-03: 5982
Aquamark3: 41995



You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can
see a
half a frame per second?


Apparantly

Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
drivers.

But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
overall surprised me.

I don't really care about those benchmarks, are real games playable and how
do they look?
I've never paid to much attention to synthetic benchmarks.

"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...
not me wrote:

"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...

Lee Marsh wrote:


Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2:
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html



I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16

Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.

I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
for me for now.


Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
3DMark03-03: 5978
Aquamark3: 42452

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
3DMark03-03: 6044
Aquamark3: 42571

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
3DMark03-03: 5982
Aquamark3: 41995



You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can
see a
half a frame per second?


Apparantly

Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
drivers.

But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
overall surprised me.

I use a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 and for now just using 3D Mark 2001 SE build
330 and all of my benchmarks have been in the ball park with each new
version. I did however notice quite a decline with the 52.16 beta
drivers. I have not tried any earlier 52 series drivers yet -
unfortunatley I still subscribe to the idea that newer really should
be better, right?

ver # = score
28.32 = 8178
29.41 = 8096
29.42 = 8251
30.82 = 8064
40.41 = 8494
40.72 = 8406
41.09 = 8483
42.86 = 8467
43.00 = 8455
43.45 = 8304

52.16 = 7781

I should mention that I have a P4 1.5 gig (Wilamette) with 256MB
PC-800 RDRAM...
Well, now I guess I'll see how some games play and whether or not the
dual monitor works well - I find often with the beta's that some
functions of dual monitor usage are a little wonky.

Tom wrote:
I don't really care about those benchmarks, are real games playable and how
do they look?
I've never paid to much attention to synthetic benchmarks.

"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...

not me wrote:


"Nick (no dashes)" wrote in message
...


Lee Marsh wrote:



Mirror 1: http://www.hanners.nildram.co.uk/detonator52.16xp.zip
Mirror 2:
Mirror 3: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3294.html



I've just tested 52.13, 52.14 and 52.16

Compared to 52.13 which I have been using for the past week or 2, .14
looked a bit faster and indeed got slightly better results in both
Aquamark and 3DMark03, while .16 was slightly down in AM3 and just
watching it I could tell it was going to score badly.

I ran all tests a few times and it came out consistently, so it's 52.14
for me for now.


Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.13:
3DMark03-03: 5978
Aquamark3: 42452

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.14:
3DMark03-03: 6044
Aquamark3: 42571

Using all driver defauls, Quality settings with 52.16:
3DMark03-03: 5982
Aquamark3: 41995



You could tell by watching it that it would be .5 fps slower? You can

see a

half a frame per second?



Apparantly

Yeah - I agree that sounds dumb, but bear in mind those totals come from
averages. I saw places where it was choppier than I'd seen it on the .13
drivers.

But yes, I stand by that statement - I was watching it run, and I
thought 'this is going to come out low'. That it was only slightly lower
overall surprised me.




I agree - which was really what I was saying - the .16 *looked* worse to
me so while the benchmarks said it was a trivial difference, I went with
what I liked the look of.

The big jump was from 45.23 to 52.13 for me. It let me run Battlefield
with AA and AF and yet still feeling great. I got Command and Conquer
yesterday, but didn't try it before going with the .14 driver. I did
play it for about 3 hours and it is just silky smooth.

I run the benchmarks when I change driver just to see what it
does....it's a sport in itself to see those numbers going up and then
overclocking to see what else comes out But I always end up with no
overclocking because my motherboard eventually looses it's onboard audio
and I have to reset default speeds to get it back. (yeah...I don't get
it either, but it's true...Asus P4P800 Deluxe).