Jump to content
LaptopVideo2Go Forums

Benchmark results for NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M


zipper

Recommended Posts

Can't blaim just this driver but I've had random issues lately when trying to hibernate and laptop just going to sleep when using hotkeys. Today I noticed hibernate was missing from startup and had to powercfg on to get it back. Must keep eye on this oddity which never happened earlier, just for some weeks lately.

Odd behavior indeed. 306.97 performs nicely but introduces a screen flash glitch with an horizontal bar out of sync. I went from 306.02 (stable but not that great performance) to 306.97 (with the aforementioned issues) and now I'm back at 304.79, nice performance and no issues whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • zipper

    129

  • Takezo

    8

  • tribaljet

    9

Random issues with hibernate on 306.97 did continue - at random times the hibernate option disappeared from start/stop bar and instead of hibernating just sleep happened. Let's see if a new driver cures this - now 310.33 beta; a top performer especially on older benchmarks, all time high with 3DMark03. No issues so far found. Original inf used.

...hibernate seems to work so far...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

310.54 beta tried with the original inf. Pretty like 310.33, nothing to complain. The PhysX uninstaller didn't work - probably did not find the msi so I had to install PhysX manually. So, a good one but not the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

310.61 beta tried. Nothing special, surprisingly clearly slower than .54 with older software!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been multiple reports of 310.61 having slightly to immensely lower frame rates on Skyrim and World of Warcraft, as well increased chances of crashes occuring in Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty Black Ops 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd expect the difference being a bit more noticeable with older s/w, in DX9 and older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now 310.64 beta - about the same as expected - so not a too good performer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

310.70 WHQL candidate tried, no problems. Not better than the betas, 3DMark 05 result is quite bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Now tried as WHQL - still worse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your best driver so far? 301.42 still gives me the best numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many good and performance wise similar drivers: 301.10, 301.34, 302.71,305.53, 305.68, 306.97.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

310.90 WHQL tried with the original inf. Better than the former 310.xx drivers - should it be called a good slow driver? Usually the Vantage results are under 5000 or clearly over 5100; this opens a new class (after 186.81) :dude:

No problems found so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

313.95 beta tried. No problems but lame benchmarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I missed your previous post, zipper. Are you saying you find 310.90 to be better than 310.33? I don't even consider 310.70 due to the very large bug reports from that driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no big difference with my h/w - 310.90 might be a bit better with the latest software and 310.33 with old stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Added 3DMark Basic test to the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

314.07 WHQL tried. The worst driver in 3 years for DX8/9; DX10 is about OK, mediocre. No problems yet found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

314.14 beta tried. A  tiny bit better but still depressing. What have they done to 3DMark 05 performance? Odd...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

314.21 beta tried with the original inf - no better but slightly worse than the predecessors. Yet no problems found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

314.22 WHQL added; nothing to complain. The trend for miserable performance for older benchmarks just continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

320.00 beta tried with the original inf. No problems, a little better than the predecessors but still quite depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not good news.

 

Would you by any chance mind giving 311.12 a try? I'm curious as to how it would perform when compared to 310.33, 310.90 and 320.00.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's have a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, a big surprise as it made 2 ATH benchmarks and the others were top-class, too. Really worth trying! Just added my card to the Clevo inf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great news then :) I just might take these for a spin and hope similar results will happen on Windows 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...