Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gaming, why people use 3rd party drivers?

  1. May 31, 2003 #1
    I've got Geforce 4 128MB graphics card and i was astonished on what it can do. I played Star Trek Elite force yesterday and the graphics on that is amazing. I had a old voodoo 4 before, very old card, only with 32MB and its ****. I was going to get a voodoo 5 but decided to get a top end good stable card, which will run alot of games, without any problems hopefully. What i dont understand is why people use 3rd party drivers? some people say to be able to tweak their card, very true. if your a hardcore gamer then yeah. I update my drivers not very often due to that i only play games that appeal to me like everyone else has their own preference of gaming.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2003 #2
    Good buy...I have an nVidia GeForce4 Ti4600 card, 128 meg. It's awesome, plays everything fast and smooth. For now, at least

    I have never met and/or heard of anyone using 3rd party drivers. I would think you would be risking the integrity of your system doing so. As many people have pointed out, Windows is not super-stable to begin with. Adding 3rd party drivers to the mix would be like playing Russian roulette. You may do okay for a while...but eventually, you're gonna have problems
  4. Jun 5, 2003 #3
    I've mostly seen 3rd party drivers for the Voodoo cards. The reason is that nVidia bought Voodoo and terminated the support. Therefore when problems were found, nobody was around (from Voodoo/nVidia) to fix it. Luckily there are some very smart programmers around that can do it, and often better than the manufacturers.
    I think I'm currently using a 3rd party driver and patch for my Voodoo. One is a font fix for some video games (i.e. Max Payne), I don't recall what the other fix is.

    Possibly, but if you get to the point of trying a 3rd party driver, you already have problems. It is definitly worth a try, and you can always reinstall your old driver.

    The rule of thumb is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But, if it's broke keep trying to fix it until it works.
  5. Jun 5, 2003 #4
    Can someone tell me...

    Is the Fx model higher rated than the Ti?
    What is considered the current top video card/s?
  6. Jun 5, 2003 #5
    Heh, makes good sense. I can see now how they would be useful for cards with no mfc. support.

    Still, this is the first time I've heard of it...I'll remember tho, maybe let some of my Voodoo using friends know.
  7. Jun 5, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Can someone tell me...

    The TI is a Geforce 4, the FX is newer and is basically a Geforce 5 though they just call it the Geforce FX. Its pretty good, but the fastest right now is the Radeon 9000 series cards - the 9800 is the fastest of those.
  8. Jun 5, 2003 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    and oh is it a sweet card. Makes Quake3 seem like a new game.

    I need to get some new games, haven't played on the old pc in a while.

    Radeon all the way though.
  9. Jun 5, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I have an AIW 9700. But yeah, it flies. UT2003 is a little cpu limited though and the performance is disappointing.
  10. Jun 7, 2003 #9
    I looked at somebenchmarks, and this is my synopsis of the results:

    Without FSAA or Anisoptropic filtering, the Nvidia FX 5800 Ultra (I will just call it the FX) is faster than the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (I will just call it the Radeon) in pretty much all situations. The FX can handle higher resolutions much better, sometimes giving the Radeon a whooping in 1600x1200.

    However, the Radeon handles FSAA and Anisotropic filtering much better than the FX, meaning that the Radeon takes less of a performance hit. In just about all test I saw, the Radeon takes the lead at soemwhere btween 2 and 4 samples for each, and often devastating the FX at max (although the FX's FSAA max is 8x, whereas the Radeon's is 6x). In Quake 3, however, The FX is basically neck-and-neck with the Radeon with max Anisotropic Filtering, and performs much better than the Radeon in high resolutions at 2x FSAA, but then falls way behind at higher FSAA settings.

    In a Doom III comparison between the FX 5800 Ultra and the Radeon 9700, the FX just blows the 9700 away.

    The Radeon 9800 Pro outscores the thee FX 5800 Ultra in benchmarking programs such as 3dMark.

    If you're looking for the best performance with FSAA and/or AF, then the 9800 is probably what you're looking for. In openGL games such as Quake 3, and not too much FSAA, the the FX is faster.

    The Radeon seems to have better image quality than the FX.

    ATI has had driver bugs problems in the past. I have had this problem myself with my current Radeon 8500. However, I haven't had any crashes with the newest drivers. ATI is supposed to be doing a good job at steadily increasing their driver quality.
  11. Jun 8, 2003 #10
    Re: Re: Can someone tell me...

    Thank you for clearing that up for me Russ. Say, my new computer parts arived a couple days ago. I believe what I have now is a fairly fast AMD powered machine, though I'm still learning how to get the onboard RAID to work for me (I want to just use them for a zip drive and maybe a CD Rom). This motherboard allows for overclocking and has many features that I will need to study up on.
  12. Jun 8, 2003 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Its important to note that Doom3 will have 3 separate rendering pipelines for different cards to utilize - and the game is still being written. So its a little early to be benchmarking Doom3. But Nvidia does tend to have better OpenGL than ATI - so it will still probably be faster on the 5800 than the 9700.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?