Geforce game ready driver 365.10

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

1) && state.current.name !== ‘site.type'”>Game-Ready Drivers.NVIDIA Releases the GeForce Game Ready Drivers | TechPowerUp

 

Apr 15,  · Following the posting of the final driver from Release on April 11, GeForce Game Ready Drivers will no longer support NVIDIA 3D Vision or systems utilizing mobile Kepler-series GPUs. Critical security updates will be available for these products through April A complete list of Kepler-series GeForce GPUs can be found here. GeForce Game Ready Driver. Version: WHQL: Release Date: Operating System: team is working up until the last minute to ensure every performance tweak and bug fix possible makes it into the Game Ready driver. As a result, you can be sure you’ll have the best day-1 gaming experience for your favorite new titles. May 02,  · Download the Nvidia GeForce GameReady WHQL driver as released by NVIDIA. Prior to a new title launching, our driver team is working up until the last minute to ensure every performance tweak.

 

Geforce game ready driver 365.10.Download NVIDIA GeForce Graphics Driver for Windows 10 64 bit

rows · May 02,  · GeForce Game Ready Driver This GeForce Game Ready driver ensures . GeForce Game Ready Driver. GeForce Game Ready Driver. Version: WHQL: Release Date: Operating System: Windows 7 bit, Windows bit, Windows 8 bit CUDA Toolkit. Apr 15,  · Following the posting of the final driver from Release on April 11, GeForce Game Ready Drivers will no longer support NVIDIA 3D Vision or systems utilizing mobile Kepler-series GPUs. Critical security updates will be available for these products through April A complete list of Kepler-series GeForce GPUs can be found here.
 
 
related:
GeForce Game Ready Driver
OTHER LINKS
GeForce WHQL driver download
Official 365.10 Game Ready WHQL Display Driver Feedback Thread (Released 5/2/16)

Download NVIDIA Notebook GeForce Graphics Driver for Windows 10
On the future of 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture

The key event of this week’s Intel Developer Forum is without exaggeration Intel’s officially announced support for 64-bit extensions in future versions of IA32 processors for desktop, server and mobile processors. Long before its official appearance, the technology appeared under the name Yamhill, then acquired the beautiful name Clackamas Technology, however, experts prefer to operate with a shorter and more capacious IA32E (Extended).

Despite the fact that Intel’s main goals in promoting the IA32E, in general, have already been identified and named, at least two important questions remain not fully understood and clear: when will we actually see the new IA32E Intel desktop processors in stores and our computers; how identical 64-bit IA32 extensions are in Intel and AMD versions. In fact, of course, there are much more questions, but since the two leaders of the processor industry with their IA32E and AMD64 technologies will henceforth pour water on at least one common mill – Windows XP 64-bit Edition, all other questions, in my opinion , are already secondary, and the answers to them are to some extent laid down in the answers to the two main questions.

In one of our very first reports from IDF Spring 2021, when Craig Barrett’s keynote speech was covered, we reported that 64-bit extensions for Prescott processors will be presented by Intel towards the end of the year (personally, I have such a suspicion that implementation issues Clackamas Technology will have a decent amount of time devoted to the September IDF Fall 2021). Which core will actually be the first to support IA32E – Prescott or Tejas, in fact, it does not matter at the moment, since in any case, it will already be in the era of the LGA775 socket. Another thing is that IA32E processors, which will appear on the market in 2021, are unlikely to be related to conventional desktop PCs; from the statements of the Intel management, the idea of ​​promoting Clackamas Technology is clearly traced, first of all, on the server solutions market, with the Nocona core, in contrast to and against the AMD Opteron line.

As for the presence of IA32E in desktop processors, in my opinion, Intel’s position on this issue was most clearly presented not even at the IDF presentation, but a day later, during an interview with William Siu, vice president of the company and the head of the Desktop Platforms Group, gave Reuters last Wednesday. His opinion is this: the new 64-bit technology will remain unclaimed in home PCs until about 2021. This does not mean at all that Intel will wait with the launch of IA32E support until 2021. Another thing is that Intel intends to wait until the totality of all the components of the “ecosystem”, including the operating system and software applications, will be ready to support these extensions.

This is the key message from Sue to Intel’s current attitude towards IA32E in desktop platforms:

“The question you have to ask yourself is will 64-bit be compelling and relevant three years from now? … You end up spending more money for a feature you don?t need to use.”(The question you should ask yourself is whether 64-bit support is mandatory and appropriate in the next three years? … It is hardly worth paying extra for features that you are not going to use).

In other words, the real need for 64-bit extensions, according to the Intel management, will not arise until software appears that fully supports these capabilities, for example, Microsoft Windows Longhorn, expected on the market in late 2021 or even early 2021.

To be honest, this position of Intel regarding the introduction of 64-bit extensions, although it seems balanced and solid, is still somewhat puzzling. Recently, new platform capabilities have been implemented regardless of whether they are really demanded by the end user, there are many examples, but for me, desktop systems could easily do without some intermediate form factors of processors or, for example, without the precious AGP 8X bus. – after waiting a little and immediately waving from AGP 4x to PCI Express. However, this is not at all the point. In the current situation, AMD exhibits its 64-bit instructions in the “desktop” Athlon 64 in a somewhat “frivolous” light – by implementing AMD64 in silicon, but not providing the technology with proper software support, the promotion of 64-bit can be called pure marketing. On the other hand, for the presence of AMD64 in current chips, by and large, no special money is taken – a kind of almost free application to a 32-bit chip, but the possibilities offered by 64-bit extensions can be “felt” right now by downloading the beta 64 -bit Windows or anything from the list of Linux clones with support for 64-bit extensions. When the beta of Windows XP 64-bit Edition is transformed into a final product, a certain amount of commercial software for this platform will obviously catch up on the market. By then, AMD64-enabled desktop machines will have a fleet of millions, if not tens of millions of PCs. Again, do not discount the fact that the ability of the next generations to work under Windows XP 64-bit Edition will play an important role in the activation of software companies, which are now clearly with great enthusiasm undertake to port their software to the new platform.

Summing up the above, I would like to recall the times when the family of Opteron / Athlon 64 processors was still called simply Hammer and existed only on paper. It was then that AMD proclaimed an evolutionary approach to the transition to 64-bit applications. Since then, he has remained as such, supported and promoted by the company to the best of his financial capabilities. The fact that the idea of ​​an evolutionary transition turned out to be successful is now clear to everyone, and that both Intel and AMD are now moving in the same direction, the fact that a user buying a future 64-bit version of Windows will still not bother with the question of which the same IA32 + processors are installed in his PC – in my opinion, a great success for the entire IT industry. [I don’t know how Bill Gates feels at the moment, but I think he’s sincerely glad that almost monopoly control over desktop systems was once again in his hands, and, moreover, while maintaining a single software platform ;-)].

Now – a few words about the second part of the question at the beginning of the news: how identical are 64-bit IA32 extensions in Intel and AMD versions?? Intel IA32E specifications published to date, in particular, the document “64-Bit Extension Technology Software Developer’s Guide”, allows you to give a more or less accurate answer to this question.

Consider all possible operating modes of a processor with IA32E support. When working with 64-bit applications under a 64-bit operating system, a full 64-bit mode is required, while the “compatible submode” ensures compatibility with 16- / 32-bit applications at the binary level, that is, full identity of IA-32E with the so-called Long Mode for AMD64.
64-bit mode
Mode
Default size
GPR Width
OS
Recompilation
annexes
Address
Operand
IA32E
IA-32e
64-bit
64
32
64
64
Required
Joint.
32/16
32/16
32
64
Not required
Legacy
32/16
32/16
32
32/16
Not required
AMD64
Long
64-bit
64
32
64
64
Required
Joint.
32/16
32/16
32
64
Not required
Legacy
32/16
32/16
32
32/16
Not required

Extended Feature Enable MSR (IA32_EFER) is responsible for enabling IA-32E support, similar to the AMD64 EFER control bit. When the LMA control bit is set to 0, the chip works like a regular x86 processor (Legacy Mode), in 64-bit IA-32e LMA mode it takes the value 1.

Now let’s look at the 64-bit mode of the processor:

When Clackamas Technology mode is enabled, the processor begins to support 64-bit addressing – albeit on a page-by-page basis, since the physical address space is limited to 52 bits. Current processors will address up to 48-bit virtual address space, physical address length is limited to 40 bits. In total, in this way, the processor can provide addressing up to a terabyte of memory. In addition, in 64-mode the processor adds eight new 64-bit GPR registers with the R prefix, as well as eight new registers XMM8 – XMM15 with support for SSE, SSE2 and SSE3, plus a 64-bit RIP pointer – in fact, a complete analogy with AMD64.

Of course, if you delve deeply in the documentation, you can find some subtleties of the implementation of the 64-bit IA32E mode, which, if desired, can be considered as an opportunity to limit the software compatibility of the two platforms in the future. There is a difference, also do not forget about the lack of SSE3 support in the current AMD64 platform chips, and Hyper-Threading is not available to them either. However, the main thing that everyone can be sure of is that compatibility is realizable without any special effort. There would be a desire from software manufacturers.

Finishing this somewhat protracted material, I would like to note that no matter how the fate of 64-bit extensions develops, we, end users, can already be congratulated on at least the fact that the software platform for the x86 architecture will remain the same. And this, you see, is already a lot…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *