Half-Life 2 Performance Benchmark Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 12, 2003 12:34 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test
Valve had very strict requirements about the test systems they let us use. The systems were only allowed to use publicly available drivers and thus, we used NVIDIA's Detonator 45.23s and ATI's Catalyst 3.7s, both publicly available from the respective websites.
The Dell PCs that we used were configured with Pentium 4 3.0C processors on 875P based motherboards with 1GB of memory. We were running Windows XP without any special modifications to the OS or other changes to the system.
We ran a total of three levels on each card - e3_techdemo_5, e3_bugbait and e3_c17_02, all of which were part of the E3 demos that were shown and are representative of actual game play under Half-Life 2.
We ran all cards at 1024x768, and the highest end cards at 1280x1024. We also used the best possible shader setting for the hardware, meaning that the R3x0 hardware used the DX9 code path, the 5900 Ultra used the NV3x code path and everything else used the DX8.x code path.
All tests were run without Anti-Aliasing or Anisotropic Filtering enabled. Anti-Aliasing was not properly supported in this demo and thus wouldn't be representative of final game play.
We only tested with a 128MB Radeon 9800 Pro as a 256MB card wasn't available at the time (all of our 256MB cards were tied up in Athlon 64 testing). The performance difference between 128MB and 256MB is negligable; although time permitting, we may see some higher detail textures offered for 256MB card owners. We'll see what happens once the game ships though.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
atlr - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
Quote from http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863...
"The Radeon 9600 Pro manages to come within 4% of NVIDIA's flagship, not bad for a ~$100 card."
Anyone know where a ~$100 9600 Pro is sold? I thought this was a ~$200 card.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
Time to load up on ATI stock :)Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
Quoted from Nvidia.com:"Microsoft® DirectX® 9.0 Optimizations and Support
Ensures the best performance and application compatibility for all DirectX 9 applications."
Oops, not this time around...
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
#74 - No, D3 isn't a DX9 game, its OGL. What it shows is that the FX series isn't bad - they just don't do so well under DX9. If you stick primarily to OpenGL games and run your DX games under the 8.1 spec, the FX should perform fine. It's the DX9 code that the FXes seem to really struggle with.Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
#74: I have commonly heard this blamed on a bug in an older release of the CATALYST drivers that were used in the Doom3 benchmark. It is my understanding that if the benchmark was repeated with the 3.7 (RELEASED) drivers, the ATI would perform much better.#75: I believe this goes back to prior instances where Nvidia has claimed that some new driver would increase performance dramatically to get it into a benchmark and then never release the driver for public use. If this happened, the benchmark would be unreliable as it could not be repeated by an end-user with similar results.
Also, the Det50 drivers from Nvidia do not have a working fog system. It has been hinted that this could be intentional to improve performance. Either way, I saw a benchmark today (forgot where) that compared the Det45's to the beta Det50's. The 50's did improve performance in 3DMark03 but no where near the 73% gap in performance seen in HL2.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
Because Gabe controls how representative the hl2 beta is of the final hl2 product but he cannot control how representative the nvidia det50 beta is if the final det50s.And besides that there have been rumours of "optimalisations" in the new det50s.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
How is it that Gabe can recommend not running benckmarks on an publicly unavailable driver or hardware, yet the game itself is unavailable? Seems a little hypocritical....Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
I didn't have time to look into this but can someone enlilghten me as to why the 5900 Ultra outperformed the 9800 PRO in the Doom 3 benchmarks we saw awhile back...is that not using DX9 as well? If I am way off the mark here or am even wrong on which outperformed which go easy on the flames!Thanks
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
"Not true, the 9500 is a true DX9 part. The 9600 does have faster shader units though."My bad, should have looked at ATI first. I guess I'm thinking about the 8500. Either way, I would still go 9600 Pro, especially given that it is cheaper than a 9500 non-pro.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
"The 9600 fully supports DX9 whereas the 9500 does not."Not true, the 9500 is a true DX9 part. The 9600 does have faster shader units though.