Wednesday, October 7th 2015

NVIDIA Releases GeForce 358.50 WHQL Game Ready Driver

by
btarunr
 Discuss (52 Comments)
NVIDIA released the GeForce 358.50 WHQL drivers, which are "Game Ready" for Star Wars: Battlefront Open Beta. Open for pre-loading now on Origin for free, the game goes life in a day. In addition to this, it includes an updated driver support for GameWorks VR SDK; and OpenGL ARB 2015 extensions. This includes support for OpenGL ES 3.2 on the desktop. Grab the driver from the links below.
DOWNLOAD: GeForce 358.50 WHQL for Windows 10 64-bit | Windows 10 32-bit | Windows 7/8 64-bit | Windows 7/8 32-bit

Related News

Add your own comment

52 Comments on NVIDIA Releases GeForce 358.50 WHQL Game Ready Driver

#26
RejZoR
GTX 980 has higher clocks, more shaders, more ROP's and more TMU's. Not exactly the same chip...
Posted on Reply
#27
R-T-B
RejZoRGTX 980 has higher clocks, more shaders, more ROP's and more TMU's. Not exactly the same chip...
Nope. It's the exact same chip with a nice laser cut in it to disable parts. So you could really argue it both ways to a degree...
Posted on Reply
#28
RejZoR
You can talk about the "same chip" when it has everything the same except clocks. What difference does it make to the end user if they are laser cut or missing by chip design (from scratch) if they aren't functional in either case?
Posted on Reply
#29
Uplink10
RejZoRYou can talk about the "same chip" when it has everything the same except clocks. What difference does it make to the end user if they are laser cut or missing by chip design (from scratch) if they aren't functional in either case?
It means that they first made a full fledged chip and then disabled some parts of it which is certainly not ECO and it is a waste of resources. I would make a law that would prohibit such a thing and make them do another chip for 970.
Posted on Reply
#30
R-T-B
RejZoRYou can talk about the "same chip" when it has everything the same except clocks. What difference does it make to the end user if they are laser cut or missing by chip design (from scratch) if they aren't functional in either case?
Nothing of course. Just playing devils advocate.
It means that they first made a full fledged chip and then disabled some parts of it which is certainly not ECO and it is a waste of resources. I would make a law that would prohibit such a thing and make them do another chip for 970.
I think this would result in the 960 becoming the 970 in the worst possible ways: 970 price, 960 features.

I doubt it would help the consumer, tbh. The additional costs would have to be recouped.
Posted on Reply
#31
xorbe
Uplink10It means that they first made a full fledged chip and then disabled some parts of it which is certainly not ECO and it is a waste of resources. I would make a law that would prohibit such a thing and make them do another chip for 970.
Dafuq. This allows them to salvage chips that would otherwise be discarded as useless. Titan X -> 980Ti. 980 -> 970. 960 -> 950.
Posted on Reply
#32
RejZoR
Exactly. Downgrading chips for lower ends is in fact more ECO than throwing them away and creating new ones with lower specs from scratch. It's not exactly new, they've been doing this for ages.
Posted on Reply
#33
MxPhenom 216
ASIC Engineer
Uplink10It means that they first made a full fledged chip and then disabled some parts of it which is certainly not ECO and it is a waste of resources. I would make a law that would prohibit such a thing and make them do another chip for 970.
What!?! You sir have no clue do you? The chips used for 970 are ones that did not make the cut to be a 980. Sounds to be like they are salvaging chips to be used for lower end part rather then tossing them in a waste containers. Idk about you but repurposing has always been more ECO friendly.
Posted on Reply
#34
MxPhenom 216
ASIC Engineer
64KI think I recall reading that Iron Galaxy did the shitty PC port of Arkham Knight.
They did, and now Rock Steady has to pick up the pieces.
Posted on Reply
#35
Uplink10
xorbeDafuq. This allows them to salvage chips that would otherwise be discarded as useless. Titan X -> 980Ti. 980 -> 970. 960 -> 950.
RejZoRExactly. Downgrading chips for lower ends is in fact more ECO than throwing them away and creating new ones with lower specs from scratch. It's not exactly new, they've been doing this for ages.
MxPhenom 216What!?! You sir have no clue do you? The chips used for 970 are ones that did not make the cut to be a 980. Sounds to be like they are salvaging chips to be used for lower end part rather then tossing them in a waste containers. Idk about you but repurposing has always been more ECO friendly.
Some of the CPU and GPU chips are probably being salvaged that way but sure as hell not all of them.
I feel cheated when my chips could be doing more in terms of performance but cannot because Intel locked the frequency, some technologies like Vt-d...CPUs should have frequency as high as the thermal throttling allowed.

I guess the built in limitations are more apparent in CPU world than GPU world.
Posted on Reply
#36
RejZoR
If Core i3 was clocked to infinity, what would be the point of selling Core i7's then? Or why doesn't Nissan Micra come with the same engine as the Nissan GT-R? Would only be fair wouldn't it? For the price of Micra?
Posted on Reply
#37
Uplink10
RejZoRIf Core i3 was clocked to infinity, what would be the point of selling Core i7's then? Or why doesn't Nissan Micra come with the same engine as the Nissan GT-R? Would only be fair wouldn't it? For the price of Micra?
Slice for Core i7 could have more cores and better properties (better performance at lower power consumption).
Posted on Reply
#38
MxPhenom 216
ASIC Engineer
Uplink10Slice for Core i7 could have more cores and better properties (better performance at lower power consumption).
Do you honestly think about what you are saying before you post?
Posted on Reply
#39
RejZoR
Well, isn't that exactly what companies are doing already lol? Performance always comes at a cost and it's up to you to decide how far you want to go and justify perofmrance for the sake of higher price. Most of us eventualyl find a point where we aren't willing to spend more. That's why I only have GTX 980 even though GTX 980Ti was already available. It works the same for every single piece of computer hardware...
Posted on Reply
#40
Uplink10
MxPhenom 216Do you honestly think about what you are saying before you post?
Server CPUs have better power consumption and it is without point that not all i5 CPUs are 4 core.
Posted on Reply
#41
xorbe
And this related to the 358.50 driver how?
Posted on Reply
#42
Dieinafire
Another great set of drivers. Keep up the amazing work!
Posted on Reply
#43
R-T-B
Uplink10Server CPUs have better power consumption and it is without point that not all i5 CPUs are 4 core.
No. Server CPUs are highly power hungry.

Anyways, this is way off topic.
Posted on Reply
#44
Uplink10
R-T-BNo. Server CPUs are highly power hungry.
Based on a number of cores and power consumption they are more efficient than desktop CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#45
Bjørgersson
64KI think I recall reading that Iron Galaxy did the shitty PC port of Arkham Knight.
That's right, and Warner even knew about its quality, yet they released it anyways.
Posted on Reply
#46
R-T-B
Uplink10Based on a number of cores and power consumption they are more efficient than desktop CPUs.
Really it's the node and efficiency of the design that determines power consumption. And server cpus aren't much different from desktop in a wattage to power perspective.
Posted on Reply
#47
Prima.Vera
How good is this driver for a GTX 780 Ti? Does it lower the performance again?
Posted on Reply
#48
Ikaruga
Prima.VeraHow good is this driver for a GTX 780 Ti? Does it lower the performance again?
Lots of people reported massive performance drops, but others didn't notice such problems... you have to test it yourself I guess.
Posted on Reply
#49
Baum
Prima.VeraHow good is this driver for a GTX 780 Ti? Does it lower the performance again?
Test it and report it here pls :-)

me want it for my gtx 770 !
Posted on Reply
#50
DeadSkull
the54thvoidSo, a stock 980ti is 2 fps slower than a Fury X at 4K on an engine from a company that worked with AMD? How is this slow? This is what you'd expect is it not? A £550-£600 gfx card made from Unobtainium is a fraction faster than a £530 (stock version) card*. As for the rest of the stack - go figure, it's DICE. No surprises above. FTR mind you, most 980ti's run way faster than the stock tested benchmarks.

*offers not included.
Why are you surprised....FuryX rocks at resolutions higher then 1080p when the game isn't loaded with Nvidia hairworks junk.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Oct 19th, 2024 06:43 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts