Valve's Demonstration Computer

W

WabeWalker

Newbie
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
The Valve demo system that the reviewers of Half-Life2 played on had these specs:

* ASUS P4C800-E dlx motherboard
* Intel P4 3.2GHz CPU
* 2.0GB DDR400 dual-channel RAM
* Radeon 9800PRO 128MB video
* Creative Audigy 2 ZS sound
* Western Digital 160GB SATA HD

What's interesting here is that Valve has included a video card that, although decent, certainly isn't cutting edge - and yet they've included 2.0GB of RAM in the system.

It seems to me that Valve is attempting to say - 'Now look here: Half-Life2 does not require an absolute cutting edge system in order to play with all of the graphics maxed out.'

Why then does Valve not provide a test system with less RAM in it?

I've heard dozens of gamers claim that no game needs more than 512 megabytes of RAM, and certainly not more than 1 GB. So if Half-Life2 is in this same category, why does Valve provide a system with a mainstream video card, but then loaded with such a ridiculous amount of RAM.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of attempting to demonstrate that Half-Life2 will run on a mainstream system. See what I'm saying?

If they wanted to demonstrate that the game runs on mainstream systems, then why didn't they just put 1 GB of RAM in their demo system?

Seriously, if Valve put in 2.0 GB of RAM, then they might as well have put in an X800 XT video card as well.

Signed,
Confused.
 
I was confused at that also.

But I bet that they are just some of their work computers, and since they are good enough to game on, the use them. To produce games, all the heavy-duty software probably needs a lot of RAM, but not a cutting edge gamer card, so that is why the specs. Then they just use a couple of those for the test beds.
 
If that's the detail I'm able to pump out with my 9800 Pro (minus the AF and AA) I'm so happy!
 
To state the obvious: there are 4 flavors of video card that are more powerful than the one that the reviewers played on at Valve's headquarters - there's the X800 pro, the 6800 GT, the X800 XT, and the 6800 Ultra.

Based solely on the evidence, Valve is basically saying: 'You won't need an absolute cutting edge video card to play Half-Life2 on, but in order to play the game the way that we want you to play it, then you'll need 2.0 GB of RAM."

Remember, I'm simply basing this statement on the evidence I have to go on.
 
It's not evidence of valve saying you need 2GB's of RAM tho, your making an assumption. It's the PC it was played on, that and that only.

Some of you people really look hard into things lol
 
bear in mind they didn't want to have the slightest judder while playing and they wanted it all to load very quickly and smoothly then i'd take a wild shot and guess that they just pumped the system a bit. Why risk looking stupid? We gamers (for the most part) can withstand the extra seconds while a level loads or the occasional judder when playing on max everything ut when you are showing off your new toy i'm guessing it means something more.
 
As gobeavs said, I bet they just used the work computers for the reviewers to play. It makes sense to have 2GB ram computers for developers.
 
K, 2.0 gigs of RAM isn't going to give you a HUGE increase in performance. I doubt even HALF of that 2 gigs was ever used when playing the game.
 
Darksonic made my point. I've got 512mb w/ a Radeon9800 and get very happy results!
 
don't the screenshots use up some RAM while you're playing? and these reviewers were snapping hundreds/thousands of screenshots while playing... would be nice to have a gig of extra ram then maybe?
 
If you're using Hammer to make levels and then test them out while Hammer is still running then 2GB is a must.

I have 1GB and I have to shut Hammer down before I load the level up in CS: Source.
 
I knew that people would re-state that no game really needs that much RAM. But...

... it doesn't really answer the question, does it?

The people at Valve are incredibly astute. They went out of their way to provide a system setup that wasn't outfitted with one of the 4 fastet available video cards.

Why then did they not go out of their way to remove the extra 1.0 GB of RAM?

I'm guessing - and this is just a guess, mind you - that Half-Life2 will actually be one of the first games that will take advantage of a system that's outfitted with more than 1.0 GB of RAM.

By the way, is it just me, or did the IGN reviewer spend most of his time raving about Half-Life2's graphics, both from an artistic and technical viewpoint? I can't remember when I read a review in which a reviewer invested so many words just talking about the graphics.
 
Oh, it makes it load faster.

Wouldn't a faster video card make Half-Life2 look better and run better? Why the hell didn't Valve stick in an X800 XT video card into their system?

Wouldn't that aid in providing an even more robust gaming experience for the journalists? Isn't Vavle trying to sell this game?

It just doesn't add up for me - but then, maybe it's just me.
 
The extra memory is no doubt to help out the lower end cards with a bit of work, and make the load times faster so the tests finish faster. This way the benchmarks are not memory limited, though I doubt they ever would be with 1 gig.
 
WabeWalker said:
Wouldn't a faster video card make Half-Life2 look better and run better? Why the hell didn't Valve stick in an X800 XT video card into their system?
Click to expand...

A 9500 non pro SE looks just as good as a 9800 pro does, the differences in speed make no difference if they are based on the same core and instructions, just like an X800XT looks no better then an X800 pro.
 
I'm not looking too much into it. I'm just glad that the Radeon 9800 Pro delivered such an apparently stutter-free performance, at 1280x1024 no less!

(And as well it should, really, given the number of people who bought one for Half-Life 2.)
 
Alientank said:
A 9500 non pro SE looks just as good as a 9800 pro does, the differences in speed make no difference if they are based on the same core and instructions, just like an X800XT looks no better then an X800 pro.
Click to expand...

The point is, the IGN reviewer played the game on a machine with a 9800PRO video card.

Wouldn't Half-Life2 run better on an X800 XT video card - of course it would. How could you say that it wouldn't?
 
Hmmm.... I have a P4 3.2, 1 gig of ram, and a Radeon 9800 XT 256mb, and well, my CS:S Performance sucks with everything maxed out except AA at none and AF at 4x and res is 1024 by whatever it usually is 768 i think. And I get an average of 40fps, and drop below thirty a lot. Wierd, maybe half life 2 performance is better than CS:S performance but I cant imagine why when CS:S has much worse graphics than Half LIfe 2. Im confused as well.
 
how ignorant are you people ? read my post just before, they used a x800 on some of the tests [ie, gamespy].
 
Is this the same comp made by that case-modder from europe? If so, it might have been the only card he was able to get and mod into the case, and since everything was so well unified on the case Valve didnt want to add in the latest and greatest card and make it look bad.
 
wooooops, no, it wasn't :eek:
http://www.bit-tech.net/article/146/2

Specification

• Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz
• DFI LANPARTY PRO875
• ASUSTeK AX800 PRO/TD - 256 MO DVI/TV-Out
• Corsair TwinX 1024 PC3200LL CAS2
• Antec 1040 BII black w/ 400W PSU
• Western Digital Raptor 36.7 Go 10,000 RPM SATA
• Ortek Clavier Office Noir Qwerty
• Logitech MX500 Performance Optical Mouse
 
People, let's not get confused. The amount of system memory is available to the system. Windows will be using some of that. Who knows if they had anti virus, firewalls etc running. If it was an internal PC, maybe not, but who knows.

2GB of Ram is pretty well standard these days for developer machines. You can bet that valve pretty well has a stock PC configuration that they buy for all of the company PCs. This would have been no different. I doubt they went and bought one just for the reviewers. They would have looked around the office for a spare PC, made sure it was up to scratch, and off they went.

I doubt the game itself will use of 512MB of that. I run developer tools such as Visual Studio, SQL Sever, Outlook and loads of crap all at the same time and my system, even running something like Dod never goes ovr aout 400 to 500MB.

Other apps like Hammer though may need lots.
 
WabeWalker said:
I've heard dozens of gamers claim that no game needs more than 512 megabytes of RAM, and certainly not more than 1 GB.
Click to expand...
Please.

Counter-Strike: Source already uses 500 MB after a while of playing a couple of map rotations. Doom 3 uses nearly a 1 GB. I wouldn't be surprised if HL2 spills over 1 GB.

Look my Task Manager. That's after playing CS:S.
 
Look my Task Manager. That's after playing CS:S.

That does not show anything. That is peak for the system. Go back to the processes tab and sort by Mem, that will show yo how much is actually being used by CS:S
 
destrukt said:
how ignorant are you people ? read my post just before, they used a x800 on some of the tests [ie, gamespy].
Click to expand...

The IGN reviewer did NOT play Half-Life2 with a computer outfitted with an X800 XT video card.

Nevertheless, I'm guessing that Half-Life2 will run better with at least 1.0 GB of RAM - we'll find out soon enough, anyhow.
 
Here's the official reason why you'll want the extra RAM:

"1GB gets you the highest detail textures. 512MB will knock you 1 mip
level down."

So there it is. I have no idea what that means?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Hectic Glenn
Valve and Perfect World Announce 'Steam China'
Replies
0
Views
20K
Hectic Glenn
Hectic Glenn
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Half-Life's lost feature, Timeline
Replies
0
Views
6K
Barnz
B
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
12K
Barnz
B
Back
Top