Valve's Benchmarks vs Publics PC's

[Bastion]

1. How many of you all have the systems that Valve did the benchmarks with ?

2. How many of you are worried that they only got 60FPS?

I see alot of systems that are AMD, GeForce cards & not everyone can afford a 9800 Pro. I just wanted to know what you all think about how the norm pc's out there will perform.

PS: if this has been posted before delete this thread.

thanks Bastion

 

[Scudded]

The benchmarks were made with all settings maxed. They'll run a lot better with average settings. Nothing to worry about.

 

[qckbeam]

Actually 60 fps is great. The lowest I saw it go was 45 or so and that was the city 17 test which looks like it was very intense.

 

[TheRook]

all i need now is the 9800pro which i will hopefully get before HL2's release!

therook

 

[vissione]

I've been waiting for winner, and it looks like the Radeon 9600 pro won. It performs so close to it's high-end brothers!!

I have one question though, something that has bothered me ever since I've been looking at websites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware. Do the FPS they show correspond to the LOWEST registered FPS or just an average? Being able to run HL2, a next-gen game that I will be playing for years (probably HL2 will last as long as HL), and never dipping below 44FPS is AMAZING. This is with maximum detail people!! There will be mods all over the place, and they'll maximize the graphics even more... but the Radeon 9600 pro can probably take the abuse and never dip below 30.

The Radeon 9600 pro can keep up so damn close at 1280x1024 it's unbelievable. At 1024x768 it loses the battle a bit, not sure why, but it's still in the ballgame. I can't believe the 9800 pro loses so many FPS when it's at 1280x1024, but at 1024x768 can take on a considerable lead. I'm glad the Radeon 9600 pro exists, it even friggin' beat the 9700 pro once!!

For me and probably for the rest of budget HL2 fans that want to see everything, run well, but pay less, the 9600 pro is our best buy. I'll get a 9600 pro, along with an overclocked 2500+ @ 3000+ and I'll be getting pretty similar numbers to what was benched at Shader Day.

 

[Bastion]

well I was worried about getting in a fire fight with like 5 people and having the FPS drop, just running around a bare map is most likly fine. I always would like the highest FPS i can so when I get in a fire fight my FPS dont drop below 40ish.
I plan on getting a 9800 pro, just most ppl dont have the money to through down on a new card.

 

[Doobz]

they also probably have some real FPS eaters on, considering they said absolute max settings were used, they probably had things like dynamic LOD turned off and such, which would almost double the polygons being rendered and shaded in a scene

i'm almost certain that nobody will be running with dynamic LOD off

 

[dawdler]

60 fps is just the average... So one cant really say how it is in terms of smoothness.

What they did note though was that it seems to be more CPU dependant. Its already gone past the GPU limit. One need a good CPU to take the load of of the physics and achieve higher fps. But we need more tests to really make an opinion, a broad base only users can provide.

 

[Bastion]

true dawdler I agree.

 

[Mr.B]

Originally posted by {RiP}Bastion
1. How many of you all have the systems that Valve did the benchmarks with ?

2. How many of you are worried that they only got 60FPS?

1. I do! I have nearly the exact system with the 9800 pro.

2. 60fps is good for all that eye candy. Like most people said, that is also with graphics tottally maxed. So I and alot of other people should have nothing to worry about.

 

[vissione]

Originally posted by dawdler
60 fps is just the average... So one cant really say how it is in terms of smoothness.

What they did note though was that it seems to be more CPU dependant. Its already gone past the GPU limit. One need a good CPU to take the load of of the physics and achieve higher fps. But we need more tests to really make an opinion, a broad base only users can provide.

Hmmm good point. That could explain why the Radeon 9600 pro performs so damn good. :bounce: I guess 9800 pro owners need to start saving for Athlon64's in order to get the real HL2 performance hidden within their cards.

Anyone notice how the Radeon 9600 pro doesn't lose consistency in frames... no matter the resolution? At 1024x768 it's about 17 frames behind the 9800 pro (not even worth the extra $150 it costs for a 9800 pro) and once they bump the res to 1280x1024 then Radeon 9600 pro takes NO hit in performance, yet the Radeon 9800 pro cuts considerably and is BARELY above the 9600 pro?

9600 pro will be the best video card for a very long, long time. :afro:

 

[nsxownzme]

Originally posted by vissione
I've been waiting for winner, and it looks like the Radeon 9600 pro won. It performs so close to it's high-end brothers!!

I have one question though, something that has bothered me ever since I've been looking at websites like Anandtech and Tom's Hardware. Do the FPS they show correspond to the LOWEST registered FPS or just an average? Being able to run HL2, a next-gen game that I will be playing for years (probably HL2 will last as long as HL), and never dipping below 44FPS is AMAZING. This is with maximum detail people!! There will be mods all over the place, and they'll maximize the graphics even more... but the Radeon 9600 pro can probably take the abuse and never dip below 30.

The Radeon 9600 pro can keep up so damn close at 1280x1024 it's unbelievable. At 1024x768 it loses the battle a bit, not sure why, but it's still in the ballgame. I can't believe the 9800 pro loses so many FPS when it's at 1280x1024, but at 1024x768 can take on a considerable lead. I'm glad the Radeon 9600 pro exists, it even friggin' beat the 9700 pro once!!

For me and probably for the rest of budget HL2 fans that want to see everything, run well, but pay less, the 9600 pro is our best buy. I'll get a 9600 pro, along with an overclocked 2500+ @ 3000+ and I'll be getting pretty similar numbers to what was benched at Shader Day.

Yeah man, and just imagine the cat 3.8's are supposed to be ATi's best catalyst release yet, improving performance.

 

[Bastion]

one of the main reasons im getting my first ATI card ever is becouse the drivers have been greatly improved. I was a 3DFX & Nvidia user for years.

 

[nsxownzme]

yeah but people still use that against ATi even thought that shit was like years ago now

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by vissione
Anyone notice how the Radeon 9600 pro doesn't lose consistency in frames... no matter the resolution? At 1024x768 it's about 17 frames behind the 9800 pro (not even worth the extra $150 it costs for a 9800 pro) and once they bump the res to 1280x1024 then Radeon 9600 pro takes NO hit in performance, yet the Radeon 9800 pro cuts considerably and is BARELY above the 9600 pro?

I think this the part where the CPU comes in and choke it, so actuall card doesnt matter, they are all fast enough to display the effects. Just a guess yet though.

At any rate, I was very doubtfull about the 9600 at first... Its quite crippled. But it appears its crippled in a good way
At least performance is consistent with the 9800 and 9600, and not the dive down a hill like the 5900 against the 5600/5200.
Actually I think ALL ATI cards below 9800 are to fast for their own good
I mean, the 9600 Pro a very, very, VERY, good buy, and challenges the 5900 in DX9. But it shouldnt, it should be slower and cheaper to fit in its niche. Quite funny.