Counter-Strike: Source Benchmark

[Chris D]

The guys over at Xbit Laboratories have posted a large 15 page benchmark of the recently released Counter-Strike: Source. The benchmark tests the game on 21 graphics cards, but unfortunately it won't help those of you that are torn between nVidia or ATi as each of their flagship cards seem to have its advantages in different situations and settings.[br]
[br]
It's a well written article, and you can find it here.[br]Special thanks goes to StooMonster for e-mailing me with this news.

 

[lePobz]

Great stuff, looks like my X800 XT Platinum was the best choice after all, since it's the best at pushing out high-resolution frames with AA and AF at maximum

Thanks for the link.

 

[zer0kewl]

the nvida cards offcourse have black boxes...

 

[BigWalnutZ]

dunno about you guys but that review helpe alot I think...basically showed you that the 6800U/GT are winning in nearly everything except for when you jack up you monitor resolution and eyecandy. for the price I would say the 6800GT is bestbuy.

I personally have 2 x800xtpe's ordered and I should be getting a bfg 6800gt oc in the next day or so. i'll try to compare them once I have em

 

[T_O87]

help me

i have x800 pro but my fps is 30-70 in all maps ;( why is that i have 2.8 celeron and 768 ram why is my fps bad i play on 4xaa, 8xaf , 1024x764, all high , reflect world . somebody help me , and yes i have the new beta ati driver ;(

 

[Chris D]

Considering your processor speed and the fact that you have AA and AF on - that's quite a good FPS.

 

[ferd]

no it's not

 

[hellraiser_ro]

well to be honest the problem could be for a number of reasons, and you shouldn't really be asking for help in this thread.

To start with you are using a budget processor, the celeron group is and always will be a poor mans pentium.

Also you don't state what mobo you have, as this and the ram could also be major bottle necks in holding back your fps.

 

[T_O87]

i know my cpu is not good , ty u guys ,and i like the The benchmark tests ,
ati rulez

 

[LeXo5]

mmmmmmm .... well its a clear decision for me, Nvidia 6800 non-ultra next round

 

[DuffBeer]

Hmmm... Should benchmark results of HL2 be similar to the CS:S results I'm afraid ATI will lose a big selling point for the game. The way the hype (about ATI products handling HL2) has built up over the past year might turn out to be damaging to the very company that spread that word, and wil re-fuel the riduculous fanboy discussions over which country kicks whose ass, GPU-wise.

Of course that is just a wild theory of mine!

 

[JPack]

6800 GT it is.

At first, it seemed the X800 Pro might have the kind of lead in Source that NV40 had in Doom 3, but now it's evident the 6800 GT is a better choice for me.

The Doom 3 engine is probably going to be used in more games than Source as well.

 

[Asus]

Great review.

I only wish they picked one of the graphs for each level and showed a timeline for FPS. Average framerate, and not even Lowest Framerate, does not give all the information.

I know in Battlefield games my FPS dip a lot during certain times while the X800 cards don't. Similar to my CSS gameplay experiences. Would be nice to see what happens durring CSS and HL2 gameplay, when it comes.

Also in the comments they say: "We believe there was an issue with ATI CATALYST drivers. We will find out whether any new drivers improve performance of ATI RADEON X800 hardware in our future reviews."

 

[Dux]

Benchmark the Ti 4800se for heavens sake ! Bwargh.

 

[2501]

With every Xbit lab benchmark I've seen, they have always seemed Bias against ATI. I have seen their Doom 3 bench, and many other sites, and none seem to give Nvidia the lead that xbit does. I do not believe the benchmarks from them at all.

 

[Asus]

Oh and they used ATI's original 4.9 drivers which still have the memory efficiency issue with 256MB cards. I can understand that they did not use beta drivers but using drivers with a known issue and a fix available doesn't make much sense.

It would have been better to wait until ATI releases their 4.10's offically which fix a few issues, like the memory issue on cards with 256MB.

 

[ALpha(N0va)]

dx 8

LOL these benches are funny, clearly nvidia cannot perform so they have to use dx8 to make up.
its Radion for me caz i can at least use dx9

Oh and they used ATI's original 4.9 drivers which still have the memory efficiency issue with 256MB cards. I can understand that they did not use beta drivers but using drivers with a known issue and a fix available doesn't make much sense.

It would have been better to wait until ATI releases their 4.10's officially which fix a few issues, like the memory issue on cards with 256MB.

Exactly they made the tests so that nvida would stand a chance, but clearly they don’t when u examine the testing procedure, this is a CRAPY TEST and should not be referred to because its full of holes and inconsistencies

 

[Kifpe]

It's nice to see how the 9500 PRO still kicks ass. It is better than 9600 PRO and 9600 XT in all the tests.

Well, my 9500 PRO isn't that bad after all

 

[Ecthe|ioN]

Good read. My GPU seems to be the right choice if I can only afford a new monitor that can display more than 1024 x 768 at a nice refreshrate. Playing 1280x960 @ 60hz just makes my head sad and dissy after a while.

 

[poofyfinger]

great. time to upgrade my 5600 :x

 

[Asus]

It's nice to see how the 9500 PRO still kicks ass. It is better than 9600 PRO and 9600 XT in all the tests.

Well, my 9500 PRO isn't that bad after all

I know!
That's awesome. I think the 9500 pro's core performs better than the 9600 series. Slick

And that's like a 2+ year old card, isn't it.

 

[Kifpe]

And that's like a 2+ year old card, isn't it.

Yes it is, and that's what I like about it

But we probably have to upgrade if we want to have super super eye candy in HL2 :/