Thursday, April 11th 2019

NVIDIA Releases GeForce Drivers that Add DXR to Select GeForce GTX GPUs

NVIDIA today released the year's most important GeForce driver update, version 425.31 WHQL. The drivers enable DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API support for GeForce GTX 1660 Ti, GTX 1660, GTX 1080 Ti, GTX 1080, GTX 1070 Ti, GTX 1070, and GTX 1060 6 GB, in addition to TITAN graphics cards based on the "Pascal" and "Volta" architectures. The DXR workload is executed by the CUDA cores entirely, which makes these GPUs significantly slower than NVIDIA's RTX 20-series chips that have dedicated hardware such as RT cores and tensor cores. We've detailed this in our special article. In addition these drivers add Game Ready optimization for "Anno 1800," and fix a number of issues listed below.

DOWNLOAD: NVIDIA GeForce 425.31 WHQL
Fixed Issues in this Release
  • With SLI enabled, artifacts may appear in Adobe applications.
  • Fixed random crashes on GeForce RTX 20 series GPUs.
  • The game crashes when accessing the inventory menu.
  • Blue-screen crash occurs randomly with Bad Pool error during gameplay.
  • Artifacts appear when Texture Filtering is set to High Quality in the NVIDIA Control Panel.
  • Applications crash when using the Fabfilter plugin.
  • Fixed corrupted graphics in games on ASUS ROG Strix GL702VS notebooks.
  • With Stereo enabled, OUT of Memory message appears when launching the application.
Add your own comment

28 Comments on NVIDIA Releases GeForce Drivers that Add DXR to Select GeForce GTX GPUs

#1
TheLostSwede
Weren't they supposed to remove 3DVision? As it's still there in the driver...
Posted on Reply
#2
Slizzo
TheLostSwede, post: 4028727, member: 3382"
Weren't they supposed to remove 3DVision? As it's still there in the driver...
I don't think it's supposed to be removed; just that it won't be developed or supported in any way anymore.
Posted on Reply
#3
cucker tarlson
Why bother,it needs rtx hardware to run decently.just had a look on the slides,at 1440p best case scenario for my 1080ti is 30 fps in bf5.It totally gives up at doing global illumination in metro.You need 2070 for 1080p and 2080 for 1440p,4k rtx is out of reach at this point
Posted on Reply
#4
pigulici
So, they fixed Witcher 3: Blue-screen crash occurs randomly with Bad Pool error during gameplay ?
Posted on Reply
#5
tigger
I'm the only one
It's for richies with dual 2080ti and a 1440p monitor
Posted on Reply
#6
cucker tarlson
I don't have a problem with spending 700 buck on a gpu.It's my max limit but it's not like I feel it in any way.I'd drop a $1K for something that is worth it, e.g. when 2080Ti is at $600-700 and for $1K you could get something that will run rtx on at 90 fps @1440p,not barely make it above 60.
Posted on Reply
#7
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
tigger, post: 4028748, member: 24505"
It's for richies with dual 2080ti and a 1440p monitor
They are just doing this to prove to people with Pascal that if they want RTX features to be actually playable, they need the Turing RTX cards.

Basically it feels like they are trying to get more Turing cards sold.
Posted on Reply
#8
Fx
cucker tarlson, post: 4028754, member: 173472"
I'd drop a $1K for something that is worth it, e.g. when 2080Ti is at $600-700 and for $1K you could get something that will run rtx on at 90 fps @1440p,not barely make it above 60.
I don't know where you are looking, but I don't see new 2080 Ti's anywhere for close to that price. The cheapest one on Amazon is $1,169. However, 2080s are in the $700-800 range.
Posted on Reply
#10
diatribe
Fx, post: 4028768, member: 61283"
I don't know where you are looking, but I don't see new 2080 Ti's anywhere for close to that price. The cheapest one on Amazon is $1,169. However, 2080s are in the $700-800 range.
He said it would be worth it when 2018 Ti's were $600 to $700. Not that they are that much.
Posted on Reply
#12
theoneandonlymrk
Has anyone tried it yet, Rt on Gtx , how's it going?

@purecain Can you use these drivers effectively? Wouldn't mind knowing what your Titan V can do now ?:)
Posted on Reply
#13
Legacy-ZA
rtwjunkie, post: 4028766, member: 56774"
They are just doing this to prove to people with Pascal that if they want RTX features to be actually playable, they need the Turing RTX cards.

Basically it feels like they are trying to get more Turing cards sold.
I would like nothing more than an RTX card but they are extremely overpriced and the RTX2060 only has 6GB VRAM, data shows, 8GB is used often, so I wouldn't buy it even if I could afford the RTX2060. nVidia has to realize; they are asking too much for their products.
Posted on Reply
#14
cucker tarlson


It's worse than I thought.I told you even a 2060 would run circles around 1080Ti.
Posted on Reply
#15
Vayra86
tigger, post: 4028996, member: 24505"
People still buy them though, unless there was a boycott of the overpriced cards, they will not drop the price. It's the rich dick heads buying rtx2080/i cards for super inflated prices that Nvidia are enjoying, and them type of rich dicks are not going to stop buying them.
The percentage buying top-end cards is 2-3% of the market at best. That is never going to carry game development on any meaningful scale. 'People' do anything and everything, what matters is the common denominator. Its not comparable to, for example, exotic cars. Games need to hit a large audience or they simply will never be profitable. Exotic cars simply cost as much as a house so a few hundred sales is enough. Expensive GPUs on their own are completely pointless to a gamer if there's no content. Its like an exotic car you can't find fuel for.

AMD said it right. If RT is accessible and playable at mid-range, it becomes worth doing anything with it. That time is still a few generations out, but both companies will try to make us believe its actually useful today. This will be adopted slowly and that has nothing to do with rich 'dicks'.
Posted on Reply
#16
cucker tarlson
Vayra86, post: 4029284, member: 152404"
The percentage buying top-end cards is 2-3% of the market at best. That is never going to carry game development on any meaningful scale. 'People' do anything and everything, what matters is the common denominator. Its not comparable to, for example, exotic cars. Games need to hit a large audience or they simply will never be profitable. Exotic cars simply cost as much as a house so a few hundred sales is enough.

AMD said it right. If RT is accessible and playable at mid-range, it becomes worth doing anything with it. That time is still a few generations out, but both companies will try to make us believe its actually useful today. This will be adopted slowly and that has nothing to do with rich 'dicks'.
and who buys the latest metro game ? people who run 2gb gpus ?
Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
cucker tarlson, post: 4029285, member: 173472"
and who buys the latest metro game ? people who run 2gb gpus ?
Your point? VRAM and overall GPU performance is unrelated to RTX performance and/or the number of games that have it, or even the fact that Nvidia dropped some bags of money at 4A to get it in the game.

And yes, people with 2GB GPUs buy Metro, they just play it on Low. I know, its hard to imagine, but the vast majority plays at settings Low-Medium if that means they can play a game normally. This is why that midrange matters so much, and even that is the bare minimum for a reasonable target audience. Right now all we've got is a 350 dollar RTX 2060 to cover that space, and it has pretty weak RT perf and is actually priced a tad above comfort.

Look at the biggest games in history. All of them ran on ancient hardware, and ran well: Starcraft, Half Life, Quake, Doom, Skyrim, the list of examples is very long. On the opposite side, look at how Crytek is doing with their state-of-the-art engine that nobody could really run proper on release. And they still struggle, today.
Posted on Reply
#18
cucker tarlson
Look,if you're on a personal crusade againt rtx then fine,but keep it to yourself.I don't like their offerings price-wise either,therefore I don't buy them.People who can afford to burn more money than I can afford do .RT,even in its current form,is cutting edge technology so it's not gonna wanna undercut rx570 as the best low-end entry level card for gamers.Crysis could barely run at 30 fps on 8800 ultra when it came out


why do you think amd plays down rtrt ? cause they're not able to compete. if they come up with rt-capable cards they'll turn on a dime.if those cards can outperform turing by 1 fps you'll see it on every slide and every tech channel.adoredtv will tell you to buy them instantly.
Posted on Reply
#19
Vayra86
cucker tarlson, post: 4029296, member: 173472"
Look,if you're on a personal crusade againt rtx then fine,but keep it to yourself.I don't like their offerings price-wise either,therefore I don't buy them.People who can afford to burn more money than I can afford do .RT,even in its current form,is cutting edge technology so it's not gonna wanna undercut rx570 as the best low-end entry level card for gamers.Crysis could barely run at 30 fps on 8800 ultra when it came out


why do you think amd plays down rtrt ? cause they're not able to compete. if they come up with rt-capable cards they'll turn on a dime.if those cards can outperform turing by 1 fps you'll see it on every slide and every tech channel.adoredtv will tell you to buy them instantly.
Do you not see the irony of what you've just pasted in there? Of course AMD plays it down because it has no real answer (yet - or on a roadmap), but at the same time you link Crysis which is a game that didn't sell as it should because the requirements were too heavy. I even named it specifically. Crytek nearly went under because of how they kept pushing 'the cutting edge'. Cutting edge is nice, but at some point you're going to have to make money. Nvidia is in a different position as a near monopolist on the market, and at the same time, that makes it easy to think there's only one direction this could go; which is that what Nvidia says, will happen. I'm not convinced of that. In the end, consumer demand determines the real direction this will go. So far, not seeing much movement and all over the interwebs you see that same sentiment: 'meh'.

My crusade is not personal, and I'm still ready to be convinced this will stick in the market, but so far, not seeing it, and its on topic here. Its a perspective you may or may not like, but that isn't up to me.
Posted on Reply
#20
cucker tarlson
well if you insist exodus sells well,and turing rtx sales aren't bad either,then where's the problem.
I don't have a horse in the race,except for the hope rtx adopts at the rate that allows me to use it comforatbly in 2 years on a $600 card.
Posted on Reply
#21
Vayra86
cucker tarlson, post: 4029316, member: 173472"
well if you insist exodus sells well,and turing rtx sales aren't bad either,then where's the problem.
I don't have a horse in the race,except for the hope rtx adopts at the rate that allows me to use it comforatbly in 2 years on a $600 card.
My horse in the race is the same as yours, but I also would like more than one company to carry this 'paradigm shift' with proper hardware. Until then, not going to buy in, because I refuse to be at the mercy of Nvidia's mood of the day. Gsync I think is a good example of why you shouldn't.

Last (and then I'm out, dead horses are being beaten), Exodus sales are completely unrelated to RTX sales, and Nvidia's quarterly numbers do NOT point at great RTX sales at all. The only sales cannon is the 2060 and its hardly the card to buy for RTX given its performance. Even Nvidia isn't fully convinced of Turing, which is why we get a 16xx gen.
Posted on Reply
#22
cucker tarlson
Vayra86, post: 4029318, member: 152404"
My horse in the race is the same as yours, but I also would like more than one company to carry this 'paradigm shift' with proper hardware. Until then, not going to buy in, because I refuse to be at the mercy of Nvidia's mood of the day. Gsync I think is a good example of why you shouldn't.
well isn't that statement more for amd than nvidia ? like I said,if they're the only ones selling cutting edge technology,they're not gonna go on a value war against amd.2080 sells at 700 and offers entry rtx performance for 1440p users,that's a lot to ask,but on the other hand at exact same price point amd sells a rvii whose selling strategy is hyping 16gb vram and downplaying rt.
Posted on Reply
#24
Vayra86
cucker tarlson, post: 4029323, member: 173472"
well isn't that statement more for amd than nvidia ? like I said,if they're the only ones selling cutting edge technology,they're not gonna on a value war against amd.2080 sells at 700 and offers entry rtx performance for 1440p users,that's a lot to ask,but on the other hand amd sells a rvii at exact same price point whose selling strategy is hyping 16gb vram and downplaying rt.
That statement is not for Nvidia or for AMD. Its for me and for the general consumer. I could give a rat's ass what either company releases, I just look at what they offer and whether that gets me in a position I want to be in. There is also Intel that might do something in the near future, and we've only seen one possible implementation of RTRT on hardware. But above all, I have not seen a single in-game RT example that made me want to jump on it. If our days' RT development consists of one global illumination pass or a few dynamic light sources, they can stick that where the sun doesn't shine (pun intended).

Lots of things can still take a radical turn. Patience is the key word, and saying RT is taking off is simply lying to yourself. Its not and the reception of it is lukewarm at best.

Another big factor is that my current GPU has lots of headroom performance wise and can go along for quite a few years still at very playable FPS, while the new GPUs barely offer a meaningful perf jump at high prices - in both camps. So the only real motivation to upgrade is early adopting a tech that kills performance and barely has anything to show for it? I'll pass.
Posted on Reply
#25
cucker tarlson
Vayra86, post: 4029327, member: 152404"
That statement is not for Nvidia or for AMD. Its for me and for the general consumer. I could give a rat's ass what either company releases, I just look at what they offer and whether that gets me in a position I want to be in. There is also Intel that might do something in the near future, and we've only seen one possible implementation of RTRT on hardware. But above all, I have not seen a single in-game RT example that made me want to jump on it. If our days' RT development consists of one global illumination pass or a few dynamic light sources, they can stick that where the sun doesn't shine (pun intended).

Lots of things can still take a radical turn.
there can be more implementations,but look at the video I linked.
1st gen turings offer several times the performance of pascal in rtrt.that's not a bad start.
I don't think rtx will implode,but it'll continue to be premium as long as one company only can make it playable.
nvidia absolutely wants to keep it that way,amd downplaying it has no effect on enthusiast/high-end sales apart from amd enthusiasts going to the green team.


I could pass on reflections,ssr are decent enough,and soft shadows can look fantastic without rtx,but that global illumination in some exodus scenes absolutely puts traditional rasterization back to middle ages.


Posted on Reply
Add your own comment