HL2 GF FX benchmarks: it doesn't look good according to Valve
 

http://www.tech-report.com/etc/2003q...e/index.x?pg=1

If you have a FX card like I just got for HL2 it's not looking good for you. Imagine getting 8fps while playing HL2:mad:

Like to see more benchmarks but as it looks right now you'd be lucky to get a decent playable fps with all the DX9 features on.

That's like a bad joke.

A 9600 should never outperform a 5900.

Wow.

One word: Fuck.

However I doubt that it'll be that way forever, driver updates along with patches should do the trick. Valve can't afford to inadvertedly alienate 50% of it's target consumers, and the saem goes for nVidia.

NVIDIA has released a statement countering these benchmarks, so don't panic too much yet, theres still hope.

you can read more here...:

http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=17094

Gamespot had a blurb talking about how NVIDIA felt the benchmarks were unfair. They claim that the drivers for the GeForce cards are out of date and not optimized for DX9, while ATI's were.

Gamespot article here:

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/ha...s_6074973.html)http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/ha...s_6074973.html

I kicked myself for being stupid enough to pay 400 bucks for a new video card... Now I'm not so unhappy with my 9800 pro.

It gets worse.

Those benchmarks were ran without antialiasing or anisotropic filtering.

Here are some more:
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863&p=8

These are some stunningly low numbers for no AA and AF.

From this page of the article:

"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."

This game is going to chug.

Fucking hell. I just bought a freakin' FX 5900, you never know, maybe Valve has a huge under the table bank deposit mysteriously put into their accounts by someone calling themselves ATi.

Remember folks, a few months back the FX cards were a pile of shit in the benchmarks and now they're the cream of the crop (the high-end FX anyway) so we shouldn't take these claims to heart... yet.

nVidia claims the Detonator 50 drivers are going to produce some dramatic improvements, so I wouldn't get too bummed out just yet. Those benchmarks were run the the Det 45s, as far as I know.

I wasn't sure which graphics card to get when I get a new pc, but now im pretty sure it will be between 9800 and a 9600.

People were worrying about upgrading their systems for Doom 3, but I can't imagine that Doom 3 would be more of a hog than this.... right?

Doom 3 is actually worse of a hog, HL2 has surprisingly low end requirements, i think either Valve is just mad at nvidia or nvidia did something wrong. The fx5900 Ultra's are awesome but as of now i am glad i got a 9800

"Jesus, please let nVidia release the new drivers to fix this and make Half Life 2 run awesome on my PC."

I just hope when HL2 comes out (when ever that is...) nVidia will have the drivers out, and things will run fine...

As it stands now, the current builds of Doom3 run better on the FX cards. So it seems you can have one but not the other.

ok i cant see why nvidia slammed valve for using 45 drivers. Sure the 50 drivers are better (well they better as they are a newer version) but they were using the existing, already public drivers for both cards. So its fair, if and when nvidia release 50 then maybe take another look, but as it stands its not looking good and nvidia will play catchup for a little while

Um well yes after nvidia did some optimisations for the benchmarks. So now the benchmarks are useless. Cant base anything on them, only real game performance matters and ATI is winning in every game out i believe.

I even remember seeing an ATI card run an nvidia technology demo faster than the equvalent nvidia card

Benchmarks created out of the actual game engine don't allow for major gfx card tweaks in the driver. If the tweaks work in the game engine benchmark then they will provide the same performance boost in game. This holds true especially when typical game source art and environments are used in the demo.

Who really cares about what the article is saying? Does anyone actually believe that the most awaited videogame in the history of first person shooters is not going to work with NVIDIA video cards well? Give me a break. NVIDIA will MAKE it work, no matter what they have to do. There is no way in Hell that they'll sit by and lose customers due to a driver malfunction. Look at Doom 3, for instance: the FX cards are plowing through the ATI cards simply because of driver issues. Both games will run well on both industry leading chipsets, I guarantee it. It may take some time for the drivers to be released, but I do believe it's worth the wait.

-Lasereth

Couldn't have said it better myself (I tried though). nVidia nor Valve can afford to alienate 50% of their target market like that, it's just not economical. It's like saying "We've just invented a device that will allow you to become immortal! But only people over 112 years old are able to use, anyone younger will suffer from heart failure and die. Now give us da cas$$$$sssh!" Just won't work.

nVidia is slow in Half-Life 2 because of some shortcuts they made on the physical DX9 pixel shaders. It's not a problem with the drivers, actually. The issue ATI and Doom3 is about how well nVidia can execute DX7 and real-time shadows. Each generation of nVidia card has run very well with it's concurrent DX generation and earlier, but not with the enhancements added to DX shortly thereafter.

The NV30 and NV35 cards have a proven problem with DX9 pixel shaders (compared to ATI), as borne out in several other game tests that isolate this issue. The DX7 NV3x codepath allows for 12 and 16-bit operations, while DX9 does not. The generic ARB codepath used for ATI cards in Doom 3 always runs at least 24 bit floating point throughout the pipeline, which is why their performance suffers relative to the NV3x cards in Doom 3.

Those are some pretty hard deficets for a simple driver upgrade to make up. I expect some improvements, but not all the way up to the 9800. Bleh, I hope it runs fine and dandy on my 5900 ultra nonetheless.

It'll work. There was a thread about this before... It'll work, How many people are waiting for HL2? if My GFX 5900 doesn't work along with every one else's... I think HL2 won't be game of the year, and Valve won't get much GOOD recognition either, it aint logical.. It'll work, and I don't doubt it at all.

Yeah, HL2 is shaping up to be a money-driven pile o' poo.

ok so where did that come from, everything that is anything in your grand ol USA is money driven, but a pile o poo wont sell so it wont drive too much money, if its good it will make more money so im not sure why you said that

There just seems to be too many adverse things going for HL2 right now (I'll still be buying it despite me using an FX5900). There's the 3 different versions of HL2 where one is subscription based, the use of Steam and the game running very badly on nVidai chipsets. The subscription thing to me sounds like they're moving towards making ALL online games pay to play. FPS games should never be pay to play (maybe if they're co-op though). I'm guessing that now so many people are switching onto Broadband console games and having to pay that people will start expecting to be charged for playing PC games too.

Also, I heard a rumour that in order to play Half-Life 2 Single-Player you had to connect to the internet to authenticate your usuage of the game. Whether you had to keep that connection open while playing the game I'm not sure, but it outright sucks. Personally, if I'm not downloading anything and am playing a game on the PC, I'll turn off the cable modem, kill all unecessary background applications and play my game.

Sign on to verify? WTF? Thats gonna kill it.

As for the Pay To Play? If it isn't like PlanetSide, then I don't know who'd pay to play, the reason Planetside works is because you have a character who is on the same team always, with things that work as experience, as chips and DNA modifications. If it nots that its a normal FPS, and thus pay for THE GAME!!! Besides, that part where Mr. Deflok said "and having to pay that people will start exptected to be charged for playing PC games too." If I have to pay monthly to play a game online.. I'll switch to Console for online in a heartbeat. Why? No more Hardware Updates, and I'm paying monthly for the CONSOLE to be online, not each and every game. Even if PC companies use one payment for all of THEIR games, its still too expensive. I have a home built PC, so I'm not charged to use the system, consoles don't charge per game, but by the console itself. If HF2 goes Pay to Play and it doesn't have any XP benefits... It shall forthwith be boycotted by me, and probably several others. If its not, it will become a trend, something I'm not going to support.

I'm liking ATI more and more everyday!

The HL distrobution and authentication model is pretty confusing. Newell states that you will NOT need Steam in order to play single-player or multiplayer (unless you buy the Steam version), but you *will* need an Internet connection to verify your game purchase.

From the official FAQ

And no you will not have to pay to play if you got it from a store