HL2 with AA performance

MMhardKy · Sep 17, 2003

The article has performance tests with 4x AA

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/hl2_performance_preview_part2/default.asp

wormstrangler · Sep 17, 2003

The build they have is old now(I think), seeing that it doesn't include HDR and the fixed AA(?).

So performance will likely increase a fair bit from these benchmarks in 4*AA

Apos · Sep 17, 2003

Uh, I think that is the latest Valve benchmark, and they comment on how cool HDR looks. Adding HDR certainly wont make the game run faster!

I was a bit shocked that the 9800P drops so low under 4xAA in City17, but it's amazingly still more than acceptable (solidly above 30fps).

wormstrangler · Sep 17, 2003

Oh, maybe I was thinking of another benchmakr review. Someone said they didn't have HDR to test.

MMhardKy · Sep 17, 2003

Its the latest build thats aviable to these testers. Looks like with an 9800pro, 1024*768 4xAA would be the best choice. Pity I have a Geforce Ti4200:dork: But I'm going to buy a nice 9800pro soon!!!:bounce:

nw909 · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by Apos
Uh, I think that is the latest Valve benchmark, and they comment on how cool HDR looks. Adding HDR certainly wont make the game run faster!

I was a bit shocked that the 9800P drops so low under 4xAA in City17, but it's amazingly still more than acceptable (solidly above 30fps).

I don't notice anything under 35-40, so it sounds good to me.

Direwolf · Sep 17, 2003

It does mentiont that the final AA fix was not implemented yet, so FPS may be better at retail.

Mopo · Sep 17, 2003

Nvidia cards wont support HDR at all ever so I dont think its a big deal.

Apos · Sep 17, 2003

It does mentiont that the final AA fix was not implemented yet, so FPS may be better at retail.

Or worse, who knows what the fix requires!

I think that the AA fix is tied to a new driver release for both card makers, so that's why it's not available. I wonder if the new HDR video has the fixed AA or the broken AA: Gabe did say that they were going to show both.

Apos · Sep 17, 2003

Sure they will support HDR: why wouldn't they? What's been said is that their hardware implementation of Dx9 is substandard in performance: not that they can't do major Dx9 features.

Yatta · Sep 17, 2003

Wow... that was an awesome read+benchmark. Kept me busy for a full 20 minutes.

Ahnteis · Sep 17, 2003

1024X768 with AA+AF works just fine for me. Besides, new video cards coming out in a month or two.

qckbeam · Sep 17, 2003

hmm, interesting. The CPU was not fast enough for this game and it was a 2.8GHz chip. I was surprised to hear that they are turning off HDR for Nvidia cards because the performance is too low with it on. I was also surprisd at how well the city 17 demo ran at 1280x1024 with 4xAA, 40fps is really good for that level, it looks to be very intense.

MultiVaC · Sep 17, 2003

This is starting to worry me. Will my AMD Athlon 2500+ be good enough for 1024x768 w/ AA? Assuming I get my 9800 pro.

A2597 · Sep 17, 2003

should be fine.

Seikeden · Sep 17, 2003

but my 1700xp... ;(

p.s. doubtful aa performance will increase/decrease at all

dawdler · Sep 17, 2003

Why do reviewers INSIST on 4x always? If one get low speeds, around 40's, 2x is perfecly good on ATI. It might not be much speed gained, but it is speed gained. Geforce FX on the other hand needs at least 4x (I would say 6x) to produce a fairly good image that isnt a blur.

dscowboy · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by Apos
Sure they will support HDR: why wouldn't they? What's been said is that their hardware implementation of Dx9 is substandard in performance: not that they can't do major Dx9 features.

The beyond3d benchmarks stated specifically that NVIDIA couldn't do HDR effects with their current drivers.

http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/hl2/index.php?p=6

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
present NVIDIA drivers do not support any floating point rendering targets and hence HDR would not operate on NVIDIA's DirectX9 boards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which I thought was wierd too.
But the article linked to in this thread says "Also, the high dynamic range (HDR) lighting that was present in the DX9 video from Friday wasn’t implemented in Build 5. " So what's the deal? FiringSquad says HDR isn't in the benchmark build, but beyond3d says they disabled HDR when running tests because NVIDIA can't do HDR. Wierd.

As long as I'm posting, check this out:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7873

A developer commenting how how glad developers are that Valve came out and told the world about NVIDIA DX9 problems

Gordon'sFreeman · Sep 17, 2003

im going to push my PC to the absolute limmit 1600x1200 32-bit AAx8 AFx8
Everything on Ultra High W00T!!!!!!

*KA-BOOM!!!!!!!* :x

Mr Neutron · Sep 17, 2003

Somewhere Valve said they have a special app-directed AA scheme that is more efficient, so you won't use the settings under your driver panel.

dawdler · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by dscowboy
The beyond3d benchmarks stated specifically that NVIDIA couldn't do HDR effects with their current drivers.

http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/hl2/index.php?p=6

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
present NVIDIA drivers do not support any floating point rendering targets and hence HDR would not operate on NVIDIA's DirectX9 boards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which I thought was wierd too.
But the article linked to in this thread says "Also, the high dynamic range (HDR) lighting that was present in the DX9 video from Friday wasn’t implemented in Build 5. " So what's the deal? FiringSquad says HDR isn't in the benchmark build, but beyond3d says they disabled HDR when running tests because NVIDIA can't do HDR. Wierd.

As long as I'm posting, check this out:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7873

A developer commenting how how glad developers are that Valve came out and told the world about NVIDIA DX9 problems

It is kind of wierd, dont you think? But think on it a bit more! HDR doesnt matter for Nvidia. They cut precision and use low fp or even int precision. HDR? It wont work!

Originally posted by Mr Neutron
Somewhere Valve said they have a special app-directed AA scheme that is more efficient, so you won't use the settings under your driver panel.

Its just so you dont have to alter it every time, it wont increase speeds. Much better than override, you get what you set. Hopefully. If you dont happen to go by the name Detonator, then you set what you wish

Mopo · Sep 17, 2003

If you have a Radeon card you will be fine with 4xAA. Hell, on Firingsquad they showed in one test the 9800 Pro did BETTER with 4xFSAA

Apos · Sep 17, 2003

I wish someone would bench the 256 ATI against the 128 version with AA to see if it helps.

BadAss84 · Sep 17, 2003

Originally posted by Seikeden
but my 1700xp... ;(

p.s. doubtful aa performance will increase/decrease at all

Yeh i have a 1700+ too, and a GF4Ti4200, and 512DDR RAM, im wondering how mine will run :|

Thats without AA for me tho, i don't really see why everyone needs it on, im fine without it

P.S Hey all, first post ! :cheese:

Tropico · Sep 17, 2003

what about Gf4?

A2597 · Sep 17, 2003

HL2 will run FINE on a GF4, seriously, its a better card then the FX series!

Kenny · Sep 17, 2003

The 9600 Pro with 4X AA runs only 22,5 FPS. I am so happy i choose for the 9800 Pro. This sucks, that this game takes so much FPS with everything turned on. I thought the 9600 Pro was an perfect card.

Edit: wrong text, delete this post please. It only runs bad in the techdemo. Why is that? Is this some huge level or something?

HL2 with AA performance

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

nw909

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Tank

Tank

Newbie

qckbeam

Guest

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

BadAss84

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads