Half Life 2 GPU Roundup Part 2 - Mainstream DX8/DX9 Battle
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2004 6:35 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battle in the Canal
Our first benchmark is packed full of just about all of the stressful elements you will encounter throughout Half Life 2. The demo starts aboard a boat driving in a tunnel before making a splash into a wide open body of water. The boat is piloted over to the shore where the player dismounts and heads inside for some action.
While inside the flashlight is used to illuminate dark areas and the player encounters a few firefights before heading upstairs to the outside. While outside (and while being pursued by a helicopter) the player encounters a few enemies on his way into a warehouse. The demo concludes inside the warehouse.
We created this demo because it incorporates just about everything – water, the flashlight, a vehicle, engaging enemies indoors as well as outdoors and sunlight. Since we’re dealing with all very capable cards here, let’s first look at performance at 1280 x 1024. Remember that we used the highest detail settings with the exception of anisotropic filtering and antialiasing, which were both disabled for this test (we will look at their impact on image quality/performance later on in this review).
We’ve already looked at the performance of the Radeon 9700 Pro and the Radeon 9800 Pro, those cards are only included so you have a way of tying the performance of these GPUs to the ones we compared in Part 1 (the numbers are comparable).
The non-Pro Radeon 9700 does very well, as does the Radeon 9600XT. If you look at the performance difference between the 9550 and the 9600XT you should have a good idea about how intermediate cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro should perform.
The GeForce FX 5900XT performs absolutely horribly here as you can expect.
The resolution scaling graph is particularly important here because not all of these cards are best suited for 1024 x 768. ATI’s Radeon X300 is particularly interested because it actually performs relatively well at 800 x 600 (as does its competitor – the GeForce 6200). Remember, we’re looking at DirectX 9 performance here and even the $80 X300 SE is playable at 800 x 600. Not bad at all.
Next up we look at DirectX 8 performance, for these graphs we’ve taken out the 9700 Pro and 9800 Pro as you’d have no reason to run either of those cards in DX8 mode.
The Radeon 9700 and the 9600XT continue to do extremely well here but this time around, the GeForce FX 5900XT actually offers very solid performance. When Valve said that you should treat the FX series as DirectX 8 hardware, they weren’t kidding.
Owners of older GeForce4 cards should be pretty happy with DX8 performance as the Ti 4600 was quite playable in our at_canals_08 test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
meatless - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
I agree with #31, mostly; after playing both I don't think that HL2 is any better than Doom3, just different in how they look f'ing awesome.And saying that DX looks better than OpenGL "just because" is about the stupidest f'ing thing I've ever heard.
[sarcasm] Oh, and have fun running those DX games on other platforms without emulation. [/sarcasm]
TheRealSkywolf - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
Hl2 can be easier on the eyes due to art, and the animations are also very cool. But i think doom3 is more intense in technology, doom3 just uses more in very ways, and in the long run the doom3 engine will power the best games. hl2 looks amazing, but doom3 is a better estimate to how games in the future will run in your card.Filibuster - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
This article was a fun read.I particularly liked the part about the fallbacks that are in place for older cards and the screenshot comparisons.
Thanks.
Filibuster - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
>I can't believe how much better DirectX looks compared to OpenGL. Seems like Id made the wrong choice...What a rediculous generalization.
I do think that Halflife2 looks far better than Doom3 but the API has nothing to do with how things look. (I imagine HL2 will be much more fun too but I'm replaying HL1 w/source to get back into it)
Carmack will never use Direct3D. He said so years ago and I doubt he will change his mind (even if it is just to make a point). He is sort of the champion of Opengl for games. Besides, all of the features of the video cards can be exposed in Opengl just like Direct3D (perhaps moreso through the use of extentions). Carmack just targeted a different set of features with Doom3 (mostly it was designed around the Geforce3/4 featureset, and the 6 series was designed for Doom, not the other way around like so many people like to claim)
GonzoDaGr8 - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
Thanx kevin and ksherman..Jeff7181 - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
I agree with #1... I'm well into City 17 and I have all my stuff... because of the first review saying I didn't have a flashlight, I was expecting to be thumped on the head again and have all my stuff taken away and end up in a prison cell or something.MrGarrison - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
#3That's pathetic.
nForce4 is around the corner and there are lots of good alternatives like MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum.
I have "pals" at home who are the same way. Only Intel and only ABIT... I'm missing words to how pathetic that is.
unclesam - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
What is the difference between DX 8.0 and 8.1? I am playing the game on a 1.6 GHz Pentium M ThinkPad T41 with a DX 8.1 ATI Mobility Radeon 9000, 32 MB. I too have everything turned on to high, including 1400 x 1050 resolution, and I have experienced no serious hiccups. I had to reduce reflections to the minimum setting, but I just went back to that scene with reflect everything, and the water looks exactly like the DX 9.0 output. The only time the game stutters is just after loading a level. The performance limiter does not seem to be the CPU/GPU, but rather the limited throughput of my FSB. I assume that your CPU test will use "equivalent new patforms" and then compare the fastest "gaming" CPU. Since you have gone through the trouble of benchmarking older graphics cards, I think you should also benchmark the older paltforms and CPUs that go with them, or rather the other way around. Please compare platform performance rather than just CPUs.By the way, I am extremely envious of anyone with a halfway decent desktop setup (P4HT800fsb, >ATI 9600). For a small section I turned on reflect all and 6x AA and 16x AF. Got .25 fps, but damn, it's like you are there.
Happy computing.
Saist - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
same setup Revrnd.The benchs I want to see though are Geforce4 MX on a 1.2ghz P4 or Athlon XP 1500. Ya know. Something that AVERAGE people have.
GoodRevrnd - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
Am I blind or did Anand not post what system these benches was ran on? Or was it the same setup from the first article?