GeForce driver 418.81 brings RTX to laptops

Have you gotten yourself a laptop with a GeForce RTX graphics card inside? If so, you'll probably want to make sure you update the graphics driver to the one Nvidia just released. GeForce driver version 418.81 is WHQL-certified and fully supports laptop RTX cards. It's also "Game Ready" for 3DMark Port Royal, which isn't really a game, but just roll with it, alright?

If you haven't heard of it, 3DMark Port Royal is the (in)famous benchmark app's brand-new ray-tracing test. It works only on Nvidia Volta- and Turing-based graphics cards. This driver update comes along at the same time as a patch for the benchmark that adds Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) support. DLSS would seem to be a perfect fit for the mostly canned benchmark, which lends some credence to Nvidia's claim that the technology "boosts performance by up to 50% whilst simultaneously improving image quality" over the default temporal AA solution.

Besides that, there's not too much to talk about in this driver. The release notes list a few fixed issues, as usual. HDR streaming over Nvidia Gamestream should work correctly now when the OS is set to HDR mode. The GeForce Experience FPS overlay should no longer appear in the Twitter UWP app. "G-Sync Compatible" displays shouldn't lose the right half of the image after hot-plugging a "real" G-Sync monitor. Finally, there's a vague note that some instances of flickering in games on G-Sync displays should be resolved.

The list of known issues is longer. All of the problems that we talked about in the last release got carried over. In addition, fiddling with the Digital Vibrance control could pop Event ID 14 errors in your event log if you have a Turing card. PhysX fog in Batman: Arkham Origins may not render correctly. Dynamic Super Resolution may not be available on monitors with "4k2k timings." Finally, multi-monitor machines may see random desktop flickering.

 You can read the release notes for yourself, if you're particularly bored. As usual, folks who use GeForce Experience are probably already getting the new driver, but you may have to go grab the driver yourself if you're using a notebook. In that case, you'll have to trek to Nvidia's download site to grab your graphics software like the rest of us.

Comments closed
    • WaltC
    • 9 months ago

    One of my rare (these days) rants:

    nVidia’s always been over the top with its PR (one reason I bought my last nVidia product in 2001), but this RTX crap is amazing. To sum up: there can be no such thing as “hybrid ray-tracing” or “hybrid rendering”–heh…;) That is a 100% marketing term and nothing else. You are either ray tracing or you are not–and if you are not then what you are doing when running a 3d game @ 60 fps+ is simply *rasterizing.* Period. I ray-traced with a fairly nice-sized farm for years commercially–I know of what I speak on this issue. So again, if you are “hybrid rendering” then you are only rasterizing and *nothing else.* Reject the nVidia PR for what it is. Even if you put lipstick on the pig, it is still rasterizing, trust me…;) (And I actually think rasterization is fantastic–it’s what makes our 3d games possible, etc. Indeed, it could be said that rasterization itself seeks to create ray-traced accuracy but in a tiny fraction of the time that real ray-tracing *demands*.)

    It’s very simple: nVidia does not include in any RTX product, regardless of price, an actual *demo* that will actually do this so-called faux ray-tracing on your machine at home–oh, no, gee–wonder why not? Well, of course, they don’t want people actually tearing it apart at home to expose what it is actually doing –rasterizing–*chuckle* That’s why what nVidia provides in its $1300 RTX products (and under) is a 2d videoclip compiled over a period of days on $6k worth of non-RTX Volta systems by professional parties nVidia has hired to create the Chrome-FX shiny-surfaces 2d videoclip–that nVidia describes as a “demo”–or “What you might get in the far future one day on something aside from RTX.” Jeez. Pathetic.

    What’s really pathetic is that if nVidia had just dropped off the real-time-ray-tracing-what-we-really-meant-to-say-is-hybrid-rendering PR babblespeak–the 2080 series would have been a decent product for them–and far more importantly–at a decent price, too! But…nVidia went for the gold and wound up with lead, instead, because, once again, nVidia underestimated the intelligence of people (or non-intelligence, as the case may be) in buying $1300 3d cards. But–bottom line is that nVidia thinks you are an *idiot* and insists on treating you that way. nVidia thinks if it shows you some shiny, reflective surfaces in a 2d videoclip that you will immediately cry “Ray tracing, yay!” It’s been going on over there since nVidia lied copiously about 3dfx or when they put the FutureMark camera on rails and denied the crap out of it until they no longer could. Gaaa–I’d sooner walk the plank than trust nVidia PR. Tip of the ‘berg–tip of the ‘berg.

    I understand if you like nVidia and are happy with your products–I have no quarrel with you–of course not! But nVidia makes me want to hurl–over and over again…;) I’m done now with one of my rare rants–hand me the mouthwash and let me gets this horrible green taste out of my mouth!…;)

    Yeah, yeah…I know that in a sick sort of way all of this RTX nonsense is funny–hilarious, even. But I hate seeing people taken advantage of like this–also one of the main reasons I dislike Apple–but that’s altogether another story…;)

    • Amien
    • 9 months ago

    RTX equipped laptops are poor value compared to the last gen., even more so than their desktop counterparts.

    • Laykun
    • 9 months ago

    3 users should benefit from this.

    • albundy
    • 9 months ago

    cant seem to spot any difference in the comparison.

      • Pwnstar
      • 9 months ago

      Me either but remember it’s supposed to be up to 50% faster.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 9 months ago

      Not being able to spot any difference is ultimately the end goal, since they appear to be using “DLSS” rather than “DLSS 2X”. That means that the way it achieves the performance uplift is by actually rendering at a much lower resolution, then super-sampling that image to achieve the final output resolution.

      Personally I’m much more interested in the theoretical DLSS 2X mode, where it continues to render in the chosen resolution but upscales using DLSS. However, that doesn’t appear to actually have been implemented anywhere at all yet.

        • stefem
        • 9 months ago

        It’s a bit more complicated, thanks to how it works DLSS it’s likely to introduce less blur than TXAA, it could also increase details by inferring missing information (extrapolation details “hidden” in texture or by filling hole in raytracing).
        I’m too really interested in DLSS 2X giving what it’s able to do with a lower res input.

      • stefem
      • 9 months ago

      Are you serious? I can clearly see the difference and in the case one find it difficult they even highlighted some of them (at 0:15 for example).
      They also uploaded some uncompressed screenshot comparison at [url<][/url<]

      • caconym
      • 9 months ago

      The DLSS version has quite a bit more high frequency detail, on my monitor.

      Which isn’t always a good thing, as far as antialiasing is concerned, but if it doesn’t add too much pixel chatter to thin objects I could see myself turning it on (if I had a Turing card).

      • Pzenarch
      • 9 months ago

      I think this is the catchphrase for the GPU family … though they missed the question mark off the end, so I helpfully added it.

      RTX. It’s on?

    • Neutronbeam
    • 9 months ago

    Does anyone here have a laptop with an RTX card yet? Anyone? Bueller?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This