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
The Slowest Level in the Game
For our fifth and final demo we turn to one of the last levels in the game – d3_c17_12. This city level takes place mostly outdoors and gave us the lowest average frame rates out of any level we played in during our testing of Half Life 2. A combination of all of the fire shaders as well as the explosions and weapon fire and the outdoor lighting make for one very stressful test.
Our player fires upon one of the mammoth mechanical spiders using a handful of weapons, including the RPG which in itself ends up being decently stressful on the GPU.
Although this demo yielded the lowest average frame rates out of our entire suite of demos, the level itself does not appear to be overly GPU bound. Instead it would seem that even at 1280 x 1024, we’re mostly CPU bound here which is definitely not what we expected.
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?