Only 60fps at 1024x768

[ek0st0ns]

Only 60fps at 1024x768 with a p4 2.8ghz and a radeon 9800 pro. And that is without any AA or AF. The sweet spot for me would have been 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF but i don't think that it will be possible to get a decent framerate with those settings. Its sad that even with the latest hardware we will barely be able to play at 1024x768. Anybody else dissapointed?

 

[Ahnteis]

No, I'm glad to hear that they're pushing the limits of new hardware and that the game will actually still look decent in a year - even better in that time since we'll be able to turn up the resolution / AA / AF then.

 

[Feath]

Originally posted by ek0st0ns
Only 60fps at 1024x768 with a p4 2.8ghz and a radeon 9800 pro. And that is without any AA or AF. The sweet spot for me would have been 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF but i don't think that it will be possible to get a decent framerate with those settings. Its sad that even with the latest hardware we will barely be able to play at 1024x768. Anybody else dissapointed?

I don't think 60 fps is a bad framerate at all. I'm not dissapointed.

 

[Yatta]

I'm still going to play it with 6X FSAA and 16X Anisotropic on my Radeon 9700 Pro. I'll still get atleast 40-50 frames, and that should keep me happy.

 

[dscowboy]

Originally posted by ek0st0ns
Only 60fps at 1024x768 with a p4 2.8ghz and a radeon 9800 pro. And that is without any AA or AF. The sweet spot for me would have been 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF but i don't think that it will be possible to get a decent framerate with those settings. Its sad that even with the latest hardware we will barely be able to play at 1024x768. Anybody else dissapointed?

Yes, that does seem low for the most expensive consumer hardware you can buy. But remember also that the main purpose of these benchmarks is to provide a comparison between the cards. Perhaps the benchmark is more stressful on hardware than the actual game is (or perhaps it's LESS stressfull, wouldn't that suck). So we don't really know if most of the game will be faster or slower than that.

 

[Apos]

There are a lot of features you can scale away for performance gains. Keep in mind that things like specular-bump mapped characters are a huge cost, and you could very easily live without them.

 

[Chazz]

Re: Re: Only 60fps at 1024x768

Originally posted by Feath
I don't think 60 fps is a bad framerate at all. I'm not dissapointed.

I know, really. The human brain stops seeing individual frames at ~24fps. Up till 35-40, there's gradual improvement. 40-60 is pretty much true-to-life, and past that is, essentially, overkill, unless you're rendering individual things moving exTREMEly fast, and using extremely small distances between draws.

 

[Xtasy0]

i think they probably had Vsync on as well....of course i could be wrong, but i'm just going to wait for the benchmarks from all the hardware sites tomorrow night and see what the deal is.

 

[nw909]

I'll probably tweak it for 5 hours trying to get a good game going

I never use af so i don't care, just aa.

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by nw909
I'll probably tweak it for 5 hours trying to get a good game going

I never use af so i don't care, just aa.

im the opposite, i always use 16xaf, it is less of a performance hit than AA, and it makes it look nice, i cant stand textures getting blurry a few feet in front of me, i dont mind jaggies though.

 

[nw909]

Well, I'll have to see, if the jaggies are so bad they make the faces on people look like somebody just used a speed hack and knifed their face then i'll be using AA.

 

[wormstrangler]

Originally posted by Ahnteis
No, I'm glad to hear that they're pushing the limits of new hardware and that the game will actually still look decent in a year - even better in that time since we'll be able to turn up the resolution / AA / AF then.

Ditto.

 

[Wesisapie]

I also look forward to playing a game IN A YEAR! WHEN I AM BUYING IT NOW!

ACTUALLY NO I'M NOT.

 

[wormstrangler]

The game is playable now, fool.

 

[KiNG]

just wait till the 3.8 drivers from ATi should give a good to moderate fps boost to everything.

 

[Guest]

i'm worrying about my pentium4 2.4GHz processor, since the one that they use is 2.8GHz.

 

[Guest]

should i get a ati 9800 128MB or a 256MB? I read stuff that says 256MB isn't worth the extra 100 dollar, but the place where i read that article promotes a lot the Nvidia products, i don't know whether i should trust them. I know 128MB will be fine with hl2, but i want to play more upcoming games.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by gamevoodoo
i'm worrying about my pentium4 2.4GHz processor, since the one that they use is 2.8GHz.

I wouldnt worry at all... My guess is that many of the CPU limitations are passed by about 1.5-2ghz. Above it you dont have that much use for the extra ghz, but of course, it IS faster... Its just not by much.

Edit: 128mb is fine. I had 32mb until february this year, and that was still working just fine

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by dawdler
I wouldnt worry at all... My guess is that many of the CPU limitations are passed by about 1.5-2ghz. Above it you dont have that much use for the extra ghz, but of course, it IS faster... Its just not by much.

i hope u're right.

 

[Jagermeister]

I'm hoping I can aleast average 40fps with max details, AA 4x, AF 8x @ 1280x1024.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Jagermeister
I'm hoping I can aleast average 40fps with max details, AA 4x, AF 8x @ 1280x1024.

I would say no even if you got a 9800 Pro. But it depends on Source itself, some engines come at a terrible fps loss with AA/AF, some is hardly affected. I would think 8xAF isnt a big problem, but 4xAA to go with that might be... Well, maybe. If you got ATI you can live with 2xAA. But question is if it can handle that too.

 

[Doobz]

my genereal experience is that cranking the resolution while lowering the AA generally yields better picture at higher FPS

i usually run most thingst at 1600x1200 w/2xAA and 16xAF

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Doobz
my genereal experience is that cranking the resolution while lowering the AA generally yields better picture at higher FPS

i usually run most thingst at 1600x1200 w/2xAA and 16xAF

I havent actually tested fps, but I still find 10x7 with 2xAA (plus of course 16xAF) to produce a very smooth image, more than enough to be considered high quality gaming. I tend to not see that much difference from 4xAA, though there is some of course.

 

[un0x]

hmm im also having fps probs..

intel 2.6 ghz
512 mb
radeon 9800pro

.. getting fps drops (40 fps and stuff)

will post when i find out how to fix

edit:

oh.. I play at 800x600 with AA settings off :/

im @ work now, tonight i will try the vsync settings etc

 

[Mountain Man]

60 FPS is Valve's target framerate. The game is optimized to run at a solid 60 FPS. It's only the visual detail that will change in order to keep the FPS up instead of wildly varying frame speeds. That's the whole point of an level-of-detail system.

 

[Sideshow]

Is the game really cpu/memory dependant, seeing that the 9600pro is only 10 fps from the 9800. Or is the game locked at 60fps for the cards that can go that high?

 

[el Chi]

About the benchmark

He [Newell] also announced that the standalone Half-Life 2 benchmark will be available to the press on September 30. - Gamespot

I have to ask: why would they be releasing it on Sept. 30th? And why only to the press?
Sounds VERY weird if you ask me...

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Sideshow
Is the game really cpu/memory dependant, seeing that the 9600pro is only 10 fps from the 9800. Or is the game locked at 60fps for the cards that can go that high?

That would be an incredibly stupid mistake, and negate the entire point with the showcase.
Its probably average fps. Meaning, the 9800 could have gone from 30-130 fps or whatever. In morrowind, I can get 100+ fps indoors, and usually get around 30-40 outdoors. Saying its 100 fps would be a lie. Saying its 20 fps would equally be a lie.

 

[Jerjerod]

AF is way more important than AA IMO. I play most games at 12x9 with 16 AF and no AA. Ill probarbly have to take the rezz down but since im on a 9700pro turning AA and AF on has very little effect on proformance.

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

Originally posted by ek0st0ns
Only 60fps at 1024x768 with a p4 2.8ghz and a radeon 9800 pro. And that is without any AA or AF. The sweet spot for me would have been 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF but i don't think that it will be possible to get a decent framerate with those settings. Its sad that even with the latest hardware we will barely be able to play at 1024x768. Anybody else dissapointed?

Movies run at 15 frames per second so wtf is the big deal?

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Jerjerod
AF is way more important than AA IMO. I play most games at 12x9 with 16 AF and no AA. Ill probarbly have to take the rezz down but since im on a 9700pro turning AA and AF on has very little effect on proformance.

If you check some of the benchie sites carefully, one see a picture where it says it got improved anti aliasing as one of the HL2 features... Wonder what that mean? Just the fix for screwed texture edges? Or that it is streamlined to take advantage of FSAA (ie with very little loss of speed). I wonder... Betting more on the first than the last though.

 

[Maskirovka]

the point of having high fps (besides bragging rights for some) is multiplayer for me.

when you average less than 60, it means that when you get in a big ass fight with lots of stuff happening, you're gonna start losing fps to a point where you really notice it and things are getting choppy.

some people just want the single player to look incredible...and i dont really blame them for wanting to get the most out of their first experience...but i'm also glad the game will still have the capacity to look nice a year from now when i'm still playing hl2/mods multiplayer.

 

[Maskirovka]

==========

to the guy worried about his p4 2.4 not being enough...i agree that it'll be fine...(i have one )

you should be worried about your video card being the bottleneck...
i only have a gf4 ti4200...which isn't a bad card at all...it's just not gonna run hl2 with max settings...i'll just have to wait and get a better card in a few months when i get the moneys.

like the other guy said...it's the 1ghz-1.blah ghz that are going to be having the problems...even with the best video card.

==========

i swear...games drive the computer hardware industry. i know i wouldn't have a 19" monitor, 3d card of any kind, 1gig of ram, or a processor faster than 1ghz.

think of the bazillion people who are buying new 3d cards just for this game...they wouldn't even own 3d cards (or maybe even computers at all) without games

 

[kelisis]

Hehe, I remember when Quake 3 came out and everyone was trying to squeze out just alittle more Quake 3 fps goodness...Now we get 300 fps with a Radeon 9800 Pro. :cheers: Seems like old times...LOL, we will be getting like 200 fps in HL2 in two years or so I imagine.

 

[ripkord]

:/ so much for the scalability, thats shocking for a computer of that spec.

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by Maskirovka
==========

.

like the other guy said...it's the 1ghz-1.blah ghz that are going to be having the problems...even with the best video card.

==========

Not really true........ Hl2 will just look more like the original for people with low-end systems.

 

[Gorgon]

Wait a sec.

60fps on 10*7.

I think you can get over 90fps when overclocking your CPU+RAM+ATI

AM I right?

 

[Gorgon]

Trust me guys, if you want a system that can hit over 150FPS then go for Vapochill sytem.

I am getting it next year (a bit expensive £530 for the latest edition).

 

[Maskirovka]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
Not really true........ Hl2 will just look more like the original for people with low-end systems.

when i said "problems" i meant problems getting it to look amazing. not problems playing it at all. i know valve is scaling the gfx.

 

[Kenny]

What exectly is the AF function?

What does it do?