Half Life 2 GPU Roundup Part 1 - DirectX 9 Shootout
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 17, 2004 11:22 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Head to Head: ATI Radeon X700 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT
As far as PCI Express platforms go, the Radeon X700 XT and the GeForce 6600GT are about as evenly matched as you can get in terms of price and performance and thankfully they are both readily available today. Let's see how they perform head to head under Half Life 2:
In our first demo, the two basically tie - we aren't considering performance differences of ~3% or less to be anything significant.
| Half Life 2 AT_canals_08.dem | |||
ATI Radeon X700 XT |
NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT |
Performance Advantage |
|
| 1024 x 768 | 116.4 |
113.5 |
2.6% |
| 1280 x 1024 | 78.7 |
78.1 |
0.8% |
| 1600 x 1200 | 55.9 |
57.7 |
3.1% |
| 1024 x 768 - 4X AA | 75.3 |
72.7 |
3.6% |
| Winner | - |
- |
Tie |
Our second demo shows the X700 XT pulling ahead and definitely taking the lead when AA is enabled.
| Half Life 2 AT_coast_05.dem | |||
ATI Radeon X700 XT |
NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT |
Performance Advantage |
|
| 1024 x 768 | 133.5 |
129.6 |
3.0% |
| 1280 x 1024 | 112.3 |
107.9 |
4.1% |
| 1600 x 1200 | 81.9 |
78.5 |
4.3% |
| 1024 x 768 - 4X AA | 115.8 |
107.2 |
8.0% |
| Winner | - |
- |
X700 XT |
We have a tie once again in our third demo:
| Half Life 2 AT_coast_12.dem | |||
ATI Radeon X700 XT |
NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT |
Performance Advantage |
|
| 1024 x 768 | 115.7 |
113.6 |
1.8% |
| 1280 x 1024 | 88 |
88.2 |
0.2% |
| 1600 x 1200 | 63 |
64.4 |
2.2% |
| 1024 x 768 - 4X AA | 87.5 |
87.1 |
0.5% |
| Winner | - |
- |
Tie |
Our fourth demo shows the X700 XT pulling far ahead with AA enabled, but otherwise the two perform identically:
| Half Life 2 AT_prison_05.dem | |||
ATI Radeon X700 XT |
NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT |
Performance Advantage |
|
| 1024 x 768 | 119 |
116.1 |
2.5% |
| 1280 x 1024 | 79.4 |
77.2 |
2.8% |
| 1600 x 1200 | 55.5 |
55.7 |
0.4% |
| 1024 x 768 - 4X AA | 85.1 |
74.6 |
14.1% |
| Winner | - |
- |
X700 XT |
In our final demothe X700 XT manages to maintain the greatest performance advantage, even at 1600 x 1200 without AA the X700 XT is over 10% faster than the 6600GT.
| Half Life 2 AT_c17_12.dem | |||
ATI Radeon X700 XT |
NVIDIA GeForce 6600GT |
Performance Advantage |
|
| 1024 x 768 | 87.3 |
82.9 |
5.3% |
| 1280 x 1024 | 82.2 |
76.4 |
7.6% |
| 1600 x 1200 | 69.2 |
61.6 |
12.3% |
| 1024 x 768 - 4X AA | 77.4 |
70 |
10.6% |
| Winner | - |
- |
X700 XT |
We averaged all of the X700 XT's wins together to make up the table below. From the looks of it, the X700 XT is significantly faster when AA is enabled, but is otherwise a relative equal to the 6600GT. What is important to note here is that the sweet spot for image quality and performance on these two cards appears to be at 1280 x 1024, where they are both virtually equal in performance.
| Summary | |||
Average Performance Advantage (X700 XT over 6600GT) |
|||
| 1024 x 768 | 3.0% |
||
| 1280 x 1024 | 3.1% |
||
| 1600 x 1200 | 4.5% |
||
| 1024 x 768 - 4X AA | 7.3% |
||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
Nuke Waste - Thursday, December 16, 2004 - link
Would it be possible for AT to update the timedemos to Source Enigne 7? Steam "graciously" updated my HL2 platform, and now none of my timedemos work!The Internal - Friday, December 3, 2004 - link
Which x700 XT card was used? How much RAM did it have?VortigernRed - Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - link
"Remember that we used the highest detail settings with the exception of anisotropic filtering and antialiasing, "That is not what you are showing on the SS on page 2. You are showing there that you have the water details set to "reflect world" not "reflect all".
I would be interested to see how that affects the performance in your benchmarks with water in them, as some sites are showing larger wins for ATI and it seems possible that this setting may be the difference.
It certainly looks much better in game with "reflect all" but does affect the performance.
PS, sorry for the empty post above, trying to guess my username and password!
VortigernRed - Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - link
Warder45 - Sunday, November 21, 2004 - link
I'd like to know what you guys think about X0bit's and other reviews that have ATI way ahead in numbers do to turning on Reflect All and not just reflect world.http://www.chaoticdreams.org/ce/jb/ReflectAll.jpg
http://www.chaoticdreams.org/ce/jb/ReflectWorld.jp...
Some SS.
Counterspeller - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link
I forgot about my specs : P4 3.0 3HD 8, 16, 60Gb, MB P4P800-E Deluxe, Samtron 96BDF Screen.Counterspeller - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link
I don't understand... I have a GeForce 256 DDR, and the ONLY game that I have not been able to play is DOOM 3, only because it asks for 64Mb of VRAM, and I only have 32. I'd like to play HL2, but I don't have it. Perhaps it'll be like D3... not enough VRAM, and in that case, the 2nd game I can't play with that board. What I don't understand is this : how can anyone be complaining because x game or y game «only» gives us 200 fps... Can YOU see 200 fps ? we're happy with 24fps on TV, 25fps in the theaters, and we're bitchin' about some game that only gives us 56.7 fps instead of the «behold perfection» 67.5. I know there is a difference, and yes, we can see that difference, but is it useful, in terms of gameplay ? Will you be fragged because of a 1 or 2 or even 3 fps difference between you and your opponent ? Stupidity gets us fragged, not fps. I believe that anything below 30/40 fps is nice, but unplayable, when it comes to action games. I'm happy with 60. Anything above it is extra. I have played with this very board many demanding games, and I can say that yes, some parts are demanding on the board. But I never lost because of it. Resuming : I don't understand this war between ATI lovers and NVIDIA lovers. I've been using the same board for years, and I never needed to change it. Unless it crumbles, I'll stick with it.Counterspeller - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link
I don't understand... I have a GeForce 256 DDR, and the ONLY game that I have not been able to play is DOOM 3, only because it asks for 64Mb of VRAM, and I only have 32. I'd like to play HL2, but I don't have it. Perhaps it'll be like D3... not enough VRAM, and in that case, the 2nd game I can't play with that board. What I don't understand is this : how can anyone be complaining because x game or y game «only» gives us 200 fps... Can YOU see 200 fps ? we're happy with 24fps on TV, 25fps in the theaters, and we're bitchin' about some game that only gives us 56.7 fps instead of the «behold perfection» 67.5. I know there is a difference, and yes, we can see that difference, but is it useful, in terms of gameplay ? Will you be fragged because of a 1 or 2 or even 3 fps difference between you and your opponent ? Stupidity gets us fragged, not fps. I believe that anything below 30/40 fps is nice, but unplayable, when it comes to action games. I'm happy with 60. Anything above it is extra. I have played with this very board many demanding games, and I can say that yes, some parts are demanding on the board. But I never lost because of it. Resuming : I don't understand this war between ATI lovers and NVIDIA lovers. I've been using the same board for years, and I never needed to change it. Unless it crumbles, I'll stick with it.TheRealSkywolf - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link
I have a fx 5950, i have turned on the x9 path and things run great. 1st and all the graphics dont look much better, you see slight differences on the water and in some bumpmapping, but minor things.So i guess its time for Ati fans to shut up, both the fx and the 9800 cards run the game great.
Man, doom3 showed all the wistles and bells, why wouldnt hl2? I think is very unprofessional from Valve to do what they did.
SLI - Friday, November 19, 2004 - link
Umm, why was the Radeon P.E. not tested?