I've had my FTW version of the card for almost two months now and I'd really like to know when EVGA is going to release some WHQL drivers for the card that 3Dmark is going to recognize?
All I ever see are posts about speculation that new drivers are coming soon or in a few days, that's not good enough!
Come on EVGA, I spent good money for this well worth the money card, but WHQL drivers that are recognized by programs would be a real plus.

dont be upset with Evga, Nvidia is who releases new WHQL drivers...
 
However we fortunate to have Nvidia on our side.  Our drivers are much more stable than the alternative, the Red team (AMD)...
 
I do however feel your frustration about 3dmark not officially recognizing your beta drivers, but you should simply just enjoy that awesome card that Evga produced!

It's not up to EVGA as they dont make the drivers. Nvidia is the one that makes drivers for all the Geforce (and other Nvidia cards). I know they recently released a beta 290 driver, but not sure when the new WHQL one will show up.

The drivers are coming.... my guess would be Tuesday of next week
And dont forget, just because they are not official does not mean the scores your getting in 3DMark are not valid.

EVGA sells a lot of cards for Nvidia, I'm sure they could apply some pressure and get drivers if they wanted to.
And yes, my scores may be valid, but they won't post on the leader boards because of the drivers.
At the same time it would be nice to know what kind of scores I could get if I had some WHQL drivers.
Don't get me wrong, the card is awsome, and was well worth the money I spent on it. 

cyclone-charlie


EVGA sells a lot of cards for Nvidia, I'm sure they could apply some pressure and get drivers if they wanted to.
And yes, my scores may be valid, but they won't post on the leader boards because of the drivers.
At the same time it would be nice to know what kind of scores I could get if I had some WHQL drivers.
Don't get me wrong, the card is awsome, and was well worth the money I spent on it. 

It's also Futuremark who approves the drivers and not all WHQL drivers get approved either. Hopefully that won't be the case here. Nvidia on Twitter said they will have drivers out 'soon'. As a caveat, they have not stated they will be WHQL drivers. If they are not, then likely your wait will continue.  Lastly, other that being on the leaderboard, WHQL drivers should have little or no effect on your score unless Nvidia made some specific optimizations for it.

HeavyHemi

cyclone-charlie


EVGA sells a lot of cards for Nvidia, I'm sure they could apply some pressure and get drivers if they wanted to.
And yes, my scores may be valid, but they won't post on the leader boards because of the drivers.
At the same time it would be nice to know what kind of scores I could get if I had some WHQL drivers.
Don't get me wrong, the card is awsome, and was well worth the money I spent on it. 

It's also Futuremark who approves the drivers and not all WHQL drivers get approved either. Hopefully that won't be the case here. Nvidia on Twitter said they will have drivers out 'soon'. As a caveat, they have not stated they will be WHQL drivers. If they are not, then likely your wait will continue.  Lastly, other that being on the leaderboard, WHQL drivers should have little or no effect on your score unless Nvidia made some specific optimizations for it.

+1/\
The driver on the disc that came with the card 285.66 is WHQL, and Futuremark says it's not an approved driver. BTW this driver has worked flawless so far.
See the answer from RyanP in this thread
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1421666&mpage=1#1421720

derrick333

HeavyHemi

cyclone-charlie


EVGA sells a lot of cards for Nvidia, I'm sure they could apply some pressure and get drivers if they wanted to.
And yes, my scores may be valid, but they won't post on the leader boards because of the drivers.
At the same time it would be nice to know what kind of scores I could get if I had some WHQL drivers.
Don't get me wrong, the card is awsome, and was well worth the money I spent on it. 

It's also Futuremark who approves the drivers and not all WHQL drivers get approved either. Hopefully that won't be the case here. Nvidia on Twitter said they will have drivers out 'soon'. As a caveat, they have not stated they will be WHQL drivers. If they are not, then likely your wait will continue.  Lastly, other that being on the leaderboard, WHQL drivers should have little or no effect on your score unless Nvidia made some specific optimizations for it.

+1/\
The driver on the disc that came with the card 285.66 is WHQL, and Futuremark says it's not an approved driver. BTW this driver has worked flawless so far.
See the answer from RyanP in this thread
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1421666&mpage=1#1421720

Yep. I actually pointed this out for the 448 classified quite awhile ago. Clear back in early December:
http://www.evga.com/forum...448+Driver&mpage=2
There was a whole rash of users not knowing only the CD driver would work until a driver was released with the hardware ID in the INF.

HeavyHemi

derrick333

HeavyHemi

cyclone-charlie


EVGA sells a lot of cards for Nvidia, I'm sure they could apply some pressure and get drivers if they wanted to.
And yes, my scores may be valid, but they won't post on the leader boards because of the drivers.
At the same time it would be nice to know what kind of scores I could get if I had some WHQL drivers.
Don't get me wrong, the card is awsome, and was well worth the money I spent on it. 

It's also Futuremark who approves the drivers and not all WHQL drivers get approved either. Hopefully that won't be the case here. Nvidia on Twitter said they will have drivers out 'soon'. As a caveat, they have not stated they will be WHQL drivers. If they are not, then likely your wait will continue.  Lastly, other that being on the leaderboard, WHQL drivers should have little or no effect on your score unless Nvidia made some specific optimizations for it.

+1/\
The driver on the disc that came with the card 285.66 is WHQL, and Futuremark says it's not an approved driver. BTW this driver has worked flawless so far.
See the answer from RyanP in this thread
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1421666&mpage=1#1421720

Yep. I actually pointed this out for the 448 classified quite awhile ago. Clear back in early December:
http://www.evga.com/forum...448+Driver&mpage=2
There was a whole rash of users not knowing only the CD driver would work until a driver was released with the hardware ID in the INF.

Yup I was one of them

The driver that came with the card works just fine.
It's just that it's a driver that isn't used on any other cards. Futuremark recognizes it as the latest driver, just not an approved driver.
When I first popped the card in, I was using the latest beta driver and the card worked without a problem. Then I decided to try the latest WHQL driver on the download page, I found the card wasn't recognized using them. I wondered to myself and looked at the disc that came with the card and discovered a totally different driver version. I installed the drivers from the disc and was up and running again.
I just installed a faster AMD 1100T 6 core CPU and my PhysX score is below par for what it suggests it should be for PhysX. Futuremark shows it running at 3716GHz for speed, so the CPU is switching to turbo mode for 3 cores.
Any ideas for increasing my PhysX score.
Computer specs:
Asus M4A785-M board
AMD 1100T Black Edition
4 gig 1066 DDR-2
GTX 560 Ti 448 core
Windows 7 32 bit
No overclocking, 3DMark06 score: 19685, 3DMark 11: P5366

3DMark11 doesn't utilize PhysX, so the graphics/PhysX driver should have no effect on the physics score of the test. Try disabling Turbo mode in your BIOS. If I'm not mistaken the physics test is heavily multi-threaded and will probably benefit more from having all 6 cores enabled during the test.

3DMark06 doesn't have a PhysX score, but 3DMark11 does. The last two of the tests in 3DMark11 states that it will test the CPU for PhysX performance.
 
I went into the BIOS and enabled ACC function to unlock all 6 cores and the score came up some, but not enough to meet 3DMarks expectations. I don't see any choice of "Turbo Mode" in my BIOS anywhere.
 
I even tried setting the PhysX settings in Nvidia control panel to use the CPU for PhysX and it made no difference. I've run the test with the GPU set to use PhysX also and it also made no difference. Right now I have set Nvidia control panel to use the "auto(recommended)" setting for PhysX which seems to provide the best performance.
 
Maybe I'll reinstall the latest beta drivers for the card and see what happens. I know they'll work with the card, but I haven't tried them since installing the new CPU.

3DMark11 gives you a physics score, not a PhysX score. PhysX is an API designed by Nvidia to offload physics processing from the CPU to the GPU. 3DMark11 does not utilize PhysX, so the settings in the Nvidia Control Panel will not affect your score. Can you post a link to your 3DMark11 results? I'm interested in seeing the individual scores for each test.

cyclone-charlie


3DMark06 doesn't have a PhysX score, but 3DMark11 does. The last two of the tests in 3DMark11 states that it will test the CPU for PhysX performance.

I went into the BIOS and enabled ACC function to unlock all 6 cores and the score came up some, but not enough to meet 3DMarks expectations. I don't see any choice of "Turbo Mode" in my BIOS anywhere.

I even tried setting the PhysX settings in Nvidia control panel to use the CPU for PhysX and it made no difference. I've run the test with the GPU set to use PhysX also and it also made no difference. Right now I have set Nvidia control panel to use the "auto(recommended)" setting for PhysX which seems to provide the best performance.

Maybe I'll reinstall the latest beta drivers for the card and see what happens. I know they'll work with the card, but I haven't tried them since installing the new CPU.

 
3Dmark11 doesn't use PhysX at all. It uses an implementation of Bullet Physics which runs on both the CPU and GPU.
http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=269

EVGATech_RyanP


3DMark11 gives you a physics score, not a PhysX score. PhysX is an API designed by Nvidia to offload physics processing from the CPU to the GPU. 3DMark11 does not utilize PhysX, so the settings in the Nvidia Control Panel will not affect your score. Can you post a link to your 3DMark11 results? I'm interested in seeing the individual scores for each test.

I'd only add that if you're running in SLI and dedicate a GPU to PhysX then in that case it would affect your score as it removes the dedicated GPU from the SLI array. In other words, number of GPU's in SLI minus one.

EVGATech_RyanP


3DMark11 gives you a physics score, not a PhysX score. PhysX is an API designed by Nvidia to offload physics processing from the CPU to the GPU. 3DMark11 does not utilize PhysX, so the settings in the Nvidia Control Panel will not affect your score. Can you post a link to your 3DMark11 results? I'm interested in seeing the individual scores for each test.

Now that you mentioned "physics" score, you're right, my bad!
I'll rerun the test in a little while and post a link to the page that shows the overall score and the page that gives the breakdown.
Right this moment, I'm running a full virus scan that could take a while.
Edit:
I had a chance to rerun the test and here are the links to the results:
http://3dmark.com/healthcheck/3dm11/2644957
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2644957
I hope they can be accessed this way. 

Mate, get the 290.53 beta drivers. I've used these drivers on my previous setup before my new build which consists of two GTX560Ti 448s and they run great with the beta drivers.
 
I was a little saddened to see that the latest WHQL drivers don't recognise the 448 Core but then they did come out shortly before release of the card, if i remember correctly.
 
EDIT: Dear EVGA, is there anychance of contacting Nvidia and getting them to change the name of the EVGA GeForce GTX560 Ti 448 Core Classified to just simply the EVGA GeForce GTX565?

EVGATech_RyanP
 

I added the links to my previous reply to you.

Gota say in the past few years ATI's really gotten their act a lot better then they used to be.
 
Honestly both of them (nVidia/ATI) could use a little QC in the driver department IMO.