ED_Sln

There are no separate files for DXVA in the driver, apparently it is embedded in the driver itself. AV1 and h266 require a much more powerful processor to playback, but usually, if Win XP is installed, the processor on such a computer is quite weak. And AV1, h266, VVC, they are all designed for streaming video, they have much less fine-tuning than h264 and h265, they blur the video more, there is more loss in dynamic scenes, and the main thing is that it takes many times longer to encode video. I meant hardware acceleration, h265 is of course played using the CPU, so are all the new video formats. Decoders and encoders work like this, they use the most supported instructions from the set of possible instructions, it's just that for newer codecs, the minimum may be SSE4.

No, h265 is not supported in Win XP in any form, probably they just didn't add support to the driver. Maybe he means that h265 requires DXVA2, which Win XP doesn't have either.

I doubt very much that NVDEC is in the drivers for Win XP. PureVideo, depending on what it works through in Windows, if it is DXVA, we already know the result.

It probably uses the I2C bus, so you can't see the touchpad. I don't remember if there is a driver for 6th generation processors. Write the IDs of unknown devices in Device Manager. Try SDIO, just don't install the I2C drivers from Windows 8 and 10, they drop Windows 7 into a BSOD.

But Firefox 128 is a normal browser, it's up-to-date, just softpedia protection is overdone, I get such sites that show captcha on any browser, maybe they react to my IP.

It probably depends on how much protection the site owner has set up. I also got captcha on Waterfox and Firefox 128 ESR.

I have it open, Supermium 126 R2, Win XP SP3, I have not changed the user agent.

If you mean hardware acceleration, nothing in Win XP supports it. Nvidia has no h265 support for DXVA in its 700 and 900 series card drivers for XP, Radeon has h265 support only in RX400 video cards, for which there are no drivers for XP at all.

It's weird, not supported in XP but supported in 2003, and I've seen the opposite, not supported in 2003 but supported in XP. Why didn't they synchronize it, in fact XP and 2003 are the same system, albeit on an updated kernel.

Thanks, sent the error report to the email. Oh indeed, works on XP x64, apparently they added that system call in it.

CPU-Z 2.10 does not run on Win XP. The last working version is 2.09. But the discontinuation of XP support has not been announced, so it's a bug, but I couldn't find how to inform the developer about the problem, there is no forum or feedback.

This is if you use universal dgVoodooCpl, but for many games there are separate patches and usually they work in XP, or there is universal uniws, it supports many games. And games that take the resolution from the driver can work at any resolution, for example I played CS 1.6 and UT 99 at 4k resolution on XP. But for some reason in Win 7 they support maximum 1920x1080. I use MPC-BE, I like it better for track control and chapter rewind. I've never used Vista, I always have either XP or 7, so I don't know such nuances.

I know it's already been answered there. But I didn't have time today to check if this parameter helps.

Oh, they updated the installer, it now has a digital signature for 2021. My installer is old and not digitally signed, I downloaded it back in 2013 and it works in XP. I can upload the old installer if you need it. But there are a lot of good games on DX9, you can even say most of them, I don't like the new games, with few exceptions.

@D.Draker Tested it on a powerful computer. Core i7 3770K overclocked to 4.4GHz, 16GB DDR3 RAM overclocked to 2133MHz.

No, the 960 and 950 came out later than all the other 900 series video cards. And specifically the GTX950 was released in August 2015, and driver 347.90 was made in March 2015, so it's not surprising that the 950 isn't in it. The brightness hasn't changed. Neither in the system nor in the video. Although I still switch the color settings to full range (0-255) out of habit.

By the way, I've noticed one problem on all drivers. DXVA Checker reports that there is DXVA2 support for h265-10bit codec, but hardware acceleration works only for h265-8bit. On Win 7 h265-10bit works.

Yeah, it's really weird, if it might not have been in the 347 driver, the 950 came out after the 960, why was it removed in 372.73. No, I didn't notice any difference in driver performance, but I haven't tested in games, I think in real games this CPU will be a weak point, so a more powerful CPU is needed.

Again why no GTX950, so installed as 960.

I didn't notice any system slowdown after the upgrade, Vista itself is slower than Win 7, especially with that processor. I only done defragmentation because the OS is installed on HDD. But although I only have the minimum set of programs installed, if I install everything I use, maybe it will get slower, but once again I don't want to reinstall and check without updates, the installation was long.

Tested the driver 372.60 on the Athlon. In terms of minimum FPS it has the highest of all.

Yeah, I've seen that too, but there's no way I've been able to replicate it. Maybe it's not as noticeable on lower end video cards, but I don't have a high end video card to find out.

You're welcome. Although I'm not an expert on Vista, more on XP and 7, I still follow it and collect drivers, updates and programs. Glad to be of help. By the way, I noticed that the icons and buttons on MSFN are not showing up, you need to install Fontawesome fonts, then the icons will show up. https://fontawesome.com/v4/assets/font-awesome-4.7.0.zip

Did a driver test, in the Unigine Valley benchmark. Driver 347 does not support GTX950, so I set it as GTX960. As a result, in DX9 and DX11 modes the difference in fps was within the margin of error. The processor is weak, dual-core Athlon, but so far I have no opportunity to test with a more powerful processor.