Half-Life performance benchmarks

jmke

might be interesting for the peeps here
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article...ormance&page=2

seems ATI and nVidia perform quite well, not that big of difference

jmke

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjkyLDI=

HardOCP's results are similar; nowhere near the difference between ATI <> nVidia as seen here http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/Half%20life%202/

jmke

my reply to that thread in the webnews forum was deleted and now that thread is closed, I just asked how he run those benchmark to obtain such different scores since he's saying that he did run those benchies

pr0digal jenius

Guys, Z simply ran the benchmarks on his test machine and posted the results...is it that hard for you to believe?

He used the Catalyst Beta 4.12 Drivers, whcih is probably why his marks are different the [H]'s, altho i haven't read the article yet.

obs

Well first off, HardOCP did use the 4.12 Beta Catalyst drivers. They also used the 67.02 Beta NVIDIA drivers. Second, this is not the only place reporting scores vastly different from your own. Anandtech has just put up their review which also doesn't coincide with your numbers at all. This isn't just fanboys not liking your numbers like many people here pass this off as. This is people seeing your numbers heavily geared towards ATI while other reputable sites don't.

jmke

please do, then come back

pr0digal jenius

OK...first off, they used the 'OC' line of geforce cards...which isn't really fair

Secondly, ATi does when once you crank up the resolution and the eye candy,

Thirdly, ATi handily stomps nvidia across the board on Timedemo Coast 03

But finally, and most importantly.....The game plays nicely for everyone, unlike Doom 3 did, and it appears to be a much better game too....so rather then gripe about numbers, why not go enjoy yerself?

Now then, let's either actually discuss benchmarks rather then fight over who's are 'right', or let's let this one die out.

Shike

The OC line of cards aren't fair? I think they are, I mean would you disqualify the Platinum Edition for being an OC of the XT? Would you have left a 9800XT out of benchmarks last generation? I really doubt that...

Anyway, most sites show a max of 10%...MAX

It doesn't matter even if ATI did win, as both cards play this fine unlike Doom 3.....

davidnsibs

"Here we see the X800XT-PE take the lead across the board, with a fairly sizeable lead at 4XAA/8XAF. Again we see the GeForce 6600GT take a nosedive at 4XAA due to the limitations of only having 128MB of Ram."

From the [H] article linked to above, with 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF (like the settings zardon used)

Veridian3

Both 6800U and the X800 XTPE play Doom3 fine on my rig... over 40fps avg on the slower of the two (16x12 4aa 16af)...never drops below 30fps at those settings - quite acceptable imo.

dsdsdk

#10.. "Here we see the X800XT-PE take the lead across the board, with a fairly sizeable lead at 4XAA/8XAF. Again we see the GeForce 6600GT take a nosedive at 4XAA due to the limitations of only having 128MB of Ram."

6600GT <-- 199 $ gfx
X800XT PE <--- 499 $ gfx

so you compare these two cards?!?! that's stupid!

Sandok

I agree with veridian3... If you can run the game fine, who cares? Pffffff these graphic card wars are becoming really really sad

pr0digal jenius

oh i know, i was just referring to how originally, without any tweaking and such, nvidia blew ati out fo the water, and also to the fact that unless you have a 6800 or x800, doom3 isnt gunna run at anything close to acceptable except at nasty lookign settings. (on the settings I normally use in games, I pull out 18FPS and it spikes down to as low as 3 at times on my 9800 pro 256)



anyways...can't we all just get along and play the game for what it is rather then tryign to sell our favorite cards with it?

davidnsibs

dsdsdk, sorry I may have not made it clear above, I was not comparing the x800xt and the 6600 gt, I was merely quoting part of the article from [H]ardocp which I felt was relevant to this discussion. jmke said at the start that the article says that basically ATI and nVidia cards of similar prices perform about the same, wheras Zardon's article favours ATIs x800xt over the 6800 ultra. I was quoting the paragraph after the [H] benchmark graphs for 1600x1200 with 4AA and 8AF, which state that the ATI cards can handle this situation better, which was the only situation that Zardon investigated in his article for the high end cards. So basically, when comparing the articles the same results are obtained, it just happens that Zardon's article didnt test the game without eye candy, so you cannot compare, although I'm sure he'd find similar things to the other articles around the web.

Sorry this is a bit long, thought I ought to clarify what I was trying to say. Plus I don't particularly like being told the things I said are stupid, so wanted to make sure you didn't misinterpret what I'm saying here

After all that, lets get back to some gaming!!

pr0digal jenius

well put david

The_Neon_Cowboy

PLEASE READ THE SITES, OPEN THOSE EYES A LITTLE LARGER AND PUT YOUR GLASSES BACK ON


DIFFERENT SITES ARE USEING DIFFRENT TIME DEMO'S TO BENCHMARK. THERE FOR THIER RESULTS WILL BE DIFFERENT BECOUSE THIER BECHMARKS are diffrent....

pr0digal jenius

True...but still.....


...why is it such an issue?

can someone PLEASE explain to me why marginal quantities of FPS boost is THIS important?

knuth

People are trying to put DH's results down to being biased. No-one cares as much about the actual performance difference.