We Need New HL2 Benchmarks...

[denlife7]

HardOCP have come out with benchmarks of Doom3 taken at the id software offices in Texas. These benchmarks were made on Doom3 in the presence of nVidia and ATi reps and truly show the performance of Doom3 on varying configurations. See the article here:

http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy

I truly hope that Valve can give us something similar so that we can compare the differing hardware solutions and make an educated decision on what video card to purchase. It should be noted that nVidia outperformed ATi in all respects.

I for one am more excited about HL2 than Doom3, and I would prefer better framerates in HL2 than Doom3, so it would be a wise move for Valve (considering their ties to ATi) to produce benchmarks that maintain that HL2 plays better on ATi (especially since the new generation of video cards have been released).

If they could prove that ATi's latest is the best buy for HL2, I'd buy ATi and suffer lower framerates in Doom3...

(on a side note... I can't believe gaming has come to the stage where game companies are siding with graphics card manufacturers to woo consumers into these sorts of decisions, but that is life now I guess....)

 

[Dead-Inside]

I'm good without benchmarks, you don't need a good comp really to run HL2.

 

[sHm0zY]

I'm good without benchmarks, you don't need a good comp really to run HL2.

That's true but some people are paranoid like me. lol

 

[Kazuki_Fuse]

If you're lucky enough like me and own a X800pro and a 9800pro, benchmarks tend not to worry you much. Althought at HardOcp I was astounded at how much slower the X series was running Doom 3. I don't care though, I got my cards for HL2 not D3.

 

[Chris D]

To remind you all that in roughly 2 and a half weeks, anybody that owns CS:CZ will be able to try out CS:S. This will be an excellent way of benchmarking for HL2.

 

[aeroripper]

What is reallly depressing is that i don't have a budjet to keep up with these games!

AMD [email protected] ($100)
Gigabye something or other mobo... pretty nice one ($90)
1gb DDR 333mhz (total = maybe $200)
Radeon 9800 Pro 128 (ICEQ) ($260 off newegg)

I built that back in march and its already in a mid range system level. I guess its not a bad thing but i can't upgrade my whole computer every 6mo just to play games with all the bells and whistles

I'd like to play everything on full but i'm getting use to playing on medium (better fps is funner than gorgeous gfx and low fps)

 

[poseyjmac]

To remind you all that in roughly 2 and a half weeks, anybody that owns CS:CZ will be able to try out CS:S. This will be an excellent way of benchmarking for HL2.

yeah. except de_dust doesnt seem like it would stress your rig much, despite the graphical enhancements it has. plus not having AI would be also painting a different picture.

what would be great benchmark for HL2 is a strider battle with AI friendlies attacking it along with you in a detailed environment with plenty of physics objects and destructible things(like the pillars in the e3 video). that would tell you how hl2 would run in a typical high-load situation for source.

 

[craigahart]

(on a side note... I can't believe gaming has come to the stage where game companies are siding with graphics card manufacturers to woo consumers into these sorts of decisions, but that is life now I guess....)

It's not a matter of taking sides. Carmack is an openGL guy. nVidia have always had better support for openGL in their drivers. Valve are going DX9, and they arn't the only company to find ATI delivers the best performance with that API - even DX9 games from nVidia partners play better on ATI.

Valve went with ATI because of this. HL2 does not work better on ATI because Valve has partnered with them, it's because they use DX9.

 

[Biscuit]

Ok, I have a 1.3 Ghz CPU, 512 MB RD-RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9200. I'm not worried about my system's capability to handle H-L 2, so neither should you lol.

 

[crownest]

New HL2 benchmarks? HAve you seen the 6800 vs the X800 XT benchmark on HL2? I think its the latest one, and it looks like the Ledtek 6800 Ultra won this one by a hair.

 

[poseyjmac]

Ok, I have a 1.3 Ghz CPU, 512 MB RD-RAM, and an ATI Radeon 9200. I'm not worried about my system's capability to handle H-L 2, so neither should you lol.

you should be worried :rolling:

 

[Biscuit]

Nah, I figure I can deal with a little choppiness here and there, it's really just the processer that will slow me down. It won't run bad for a rig that I got in 2000.

EDIT: Plus, I can run UT2004 at max settings & 1024x768 res, BFV at max settings and 800x600 res, and Far Cry at medium settings, 800x600 res, so I should be able to play H-L 2 at medium settings, with a few low here and there, right? I guess I am doing some worrying lol.

I'll have a new rig come November though. It's (future) specs are:

2.0 Ghz CPU
1 GB RAM
and my trusty 9200

That should run at mostly med and some high.

 

[iamaelephant]

I agree, if there's one thing I want to see from Valve it's benchmarks. I don't care about videos or interviews anymore.

crownest - I have never seen these benchmarks. Link?

 

[poseyjmac]

Nah, I figure I can deal with a little choppiness here and there, it's really just the processer that will slow me down. It won't run bad for a rig that I got in 2000.

ok, its just some people can't, which is why some people are worried and are getting ulcers :thumbs:

 

[Biscuit]

Well, I figure, it's not all about the graphics. Judging from what we've seen, once you get started, you'll be so hooked that you won't notice many of the things that look nice, because you'll be busy playing the game.

 

[poseyjmac]

Well, I figure, it's not all about the graphics. Judging from what we've seen, once you get started, you'll be so hooked that you won't notice many of the things that look nice, because you'll be busy playing the game.

i will notice all things i see in hl2 and will take in everything slowly and hopefully at high framerate as i admire the graphics. there. proof that not everyone in the world thinks like biscuit :thumbs:

 

[Patten]

New HL2 benchmarks? HAve you seen the 6800 vs the X800 XT benchmark on HL2? I think its the latest one, and it looks like the Ledtek 6800 Ultra won this one by a hair.

I don't think I have seen this, got a link??

I am just going to go out and buy something when it comes time to upgrade, I don't care if its ATI or nvidia just as long as it runs HL2 fine.

 

[Biscuit]

i will notice all things i see in hl2 and will take in everything slowly and hopefully at high framerate as i admire the graphics. there. proof that not everyone in the world thinks like biscuit :thumbs:

Lol, well, look at my system specs, that's why I think like that

 

[[Dragoon]]

A benchmark program of some sort would be nice, to atleast see how well Source will run on my PC when it's loaded down.

Not too worried though.

Pentium 4 3.06 with HT, a gig of ram, and a Radeon 9600 Pro. Should be able to run it perfectly

 

[Lanthanide]

That article was written so awfully. It was so chummy and smug and just generally a big promotion for nVidia and Doom 3.

 

[SAJ]

You will see HL2 benches , just not untill its gone gold.
So thats any time between august and december.

 

[CR0M]

What would be slick is a 3DMark HL2 special edition in the near future. Maybe Valve and Mad Onion could team up for such a project... I wouldn't mind paying to have that on my harddrive.

I might email valve and suggest it.

 

[urseus]

I shouldnt have any problems running it:

SkyNet 9.7 Terramegapixelhutz Cpu
19 Racks of 466Gig RAM
ATINVIDA 966Gig Video Card
48" Moniter on 90880 x 3220
74 Mice
18 Keyboards
Live!Value Soundcard



I think i need to upgrade that...

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Umm, that computer is probably sentient! I wouldn't trust it....

 

[coleslawjoe]

I shouldnt have any problems running it:

SkyNet 9.7 Terramegapixelhutz Cpu
19 Racks of 466Gig RAM
ATINVIDA 966Gig Video Card
48" Moniter on 90880 x 3220
74 Mice
18 Keyboards
Live!Value Soundcard



I think i need to upgrade that...

Holy shit, thats like a 28:1 aspect ratio
Super wide screen

<edit> I did some quick math and that turns out to be about 47 and a half inches by an inch and a half monitor

 

[urseus]

No kidding. Bastard printed itself out some arms and legs and tryed to strangle me in my sleep last night.

Lucky for me it has a shithouse soundcard so i heard it coming through its crackley speakers......

 

[Rupertvdb]

lolzor, cpu nor s3nt3nt bing cat slAzoR u wen u r slepig

 

[Gunner]

Hmmm, one of two threads is "will mah computaarrr run HL2?!!" and the other one is "when HL2 came out?!!!"... amazing isn't it?

 

[Shuzer]

yeah. except de_dust doesnt seem like it would stress your rig much, despite the graphical enhancements it has. plus not having AI would be also painting a different picture.

what would be great benchmark for HL2 is a strider battle with AI friendlies attacking it along with you in a detailed environment with plenty of physics objects and destructible things(like the pillars in the e3 video). that would tell you how hl2 would run in a typical high-load situation for source.

I really haven't seen much more in terms of detailed environments when comparing HL2 to CS:S. The only thing different in my eyes has been larger maps, so there's been more terrain to draw.

Plus, AI would be CPU dependant (and I'm sure most everyone here meets the preferred CPU, so that should be a mostly non-issue), not graphics card dependant. CS:S should be a very good benchmark for HL2

 

[FragBait0]

I saw that article a few days ago and i have to say, it was written like a big promo for nvidia/id. Even in the much closer ones the comments tended towards saying "well here we see nvidia still with an impressive lead". To be frank I think its a little unfair. ATI haven't had much chance to work at the drivers in preperation for doom 3. (and newbies, i dont mean in terms of time.)

I think once it hits the shelves we are going to see ati work their ass off to make things right. And they will.

An important issue for me is that in many of todays benchmarks even mid-range cards are getting very high frame rates - many well above the average refresh rate for that resolutiuon. I see *quality* of these frames as one of the most important things at high frame rates. I mean, once you are over 100 fps you are going to need the eyes of some non-existant being to see the difference between 110 and 120 fps. I question NVIDIA's driver integrity and accuracy in following instructions from games. Just look at some of the cheats used in Halo, for example. I know that ATI is not clean of cheating in this manner either and usually they (NVIDIA and ATI etc) are caught fairly quickly. My problem is things like LOD bias tweaks and such. I find the blurry graphics of nvidia _software_ unacceptable. When i next purchase a video card I will not be making my decision not based on some random benchmark, rigged up by the involved parties, with little or no proof of scientific method. I will see that the better looking card/driver combo looks better and is a whole 5fps behind @100+ fps - in benchmarks with respectable people behind them and others that have the same or similar results plus the balls to make a proper article without biasing either side for right to the little yellow packages of cash left in various cracks in the cement on the way home. Even when it means I lose out on 10 bucks Im still gonna get the prittier picture.

Some people will always like the blurry images for their look of being fast (they fail to notice the blur is not a result of motion, how sad.) and i can only pity them. They are an essential component in the intergalatic graphics card shebang and killing them all with FSAA/AFed screenies will not solve the problem. Nither will writing this crap and probably someone will flame me, or at least try it. I don't really care because at the end of the day its all about my personal happyness.


EDIT: damnit valve give us HL2 quick anyway! Oh yeah i fixed the first 15 spelling bads too.

 

[mutt]

Im shocked by how shitty the x800 pro runs doom 3,

 

[nc17]

Im shocked by how shitty the x800 pro runs doom 3,

Why are you shocked? the x800 is a pretty crappy card, all ati did was supe up the 9800, throw in a new fsaa grid array and change the name

 

[oldagerocker]

you want the x800 XT for the actual x800 :S
confusing, but i dont like it how graphic card manufactuers rip off their customers with a new series gfx card of which the cheaper versions are worse than the high end of the previous series, it doesnt make sense to me.

 

[-TaNaKa-]

Dont worry about it too much guys, if you have a 9600 or higher, HL2 should run just fine. All these card discussion, bleh. Soon im getting a 9800 pro, and that card is a very good one, and not that expensive. It will run half life 2 at max settings with 1024x768, im pretty sure about it. The rest is amd athlon64 3200+ and 1 gb ram.

 

[bodhi]

What is reallly depressing is that i don't have a budjet to keep up with these games!

AMD [email protected] ($100)
Gigabye something or other mobo... pretty nice one ($90)
1gb DDR 333mhz (total = maybe $200)
Radeon 9800 Pro 128 (ICEQ) ($260 off newegg)

I built that back in march and its already in a mid range system level. I guess its not a bad thing but i can't upgrade my whole computer every 6mo just to play games with all the bells and whistles

I'd like to play everything on full but i'm getting use to playing on medium (better fps is funner than gorgeous gfx and low fps)

if you genuinely think that is a mid range system then you are a dumbass. all these ignorant people who think their uber-machines wont run hl2 with loads of detail are either just plain stupid or trying to show off their system specs. it really pisses me off that i always read posts that people dont rate their super computers very highly. you dont have to upgrade every six months either, and to anyone that does im just gona laugh at you because you're pissing your cash away

 

[poseyjmac]

if you genuinely think that is a mid range system then you are a dumbass. all these ignorant people who think their uber-machines wont run hl2 with loads of detail are either just plain stupid or trying to show off their system specs. it really pisses me off that i always read posts that people dont rate their super computers very highly. you dont have to upgrade every six months either, and to anyone that does im just gona laugh at you because you're pissing your cash away

how ignorant of you. some of us here are 'enthuiasts'. if we have the money, more power to us. you are what we call 'jealous' of these people. but not everyone is poor bodhi.

 

[Crusader]

You have to say though, that you'd think "enthusiasts" would know enough about computers to realise it will run HL2 just fine if they have an excellent one. I am not poor and I have a computer that will run HL2 on max details, it runs Far-Cry with everything maxed, but I can see why it annoys people.

Quite often click on a thread and it is somebody there going:

Omg, will my 40 thousand terrahexel
RadeonvidiaNASA graphics planet extreme,
3000 quazillion quantum Qbit master LIGHTRAM
Powered by a miniature self contained sun...


Run HL2 at medium settings at 800x600?

And it's just like.. what the hell? Why do you not know that will run the game? Do you just need an excuse to tell your system specs?

 

[Pitbul]

Nah, I figure I can deal with a little choppiness here and there, it's really just the processer that will slow me down. It won't run bad for a rig that I got in 2000.

EDIT: Plus, I can run UT2004 at max settings & 1024x768 res, BFV at max settings and 800x600 res, and Far Cry at medium settings, 800x600 res, so I should be able to play H-L 2 at medium settings, with a few low here and there, right? I guess I am doing some worrying lol.

I'll have a new rig come November though. It's (future) specs are:

2.0 Ghz CPU
1 GB RAM
and my trusty 9200

That should run at mostly med and some high.

that will run HL2 medium low, i have a 2.4Ghz P4 1 Gig DDR and a 9600XT, that will run it Med high.

 

[poseyjmac]

You have to say though, that you'd think "enthusiasts" would know enough about computers to realise it will run HL2 just fine if they have an excellent one. I am not poor and I have a computer that will run HL2 on max details, it runs Far-Cry with everything maxed, but I can see why it annoys people.

Quite often click on a thread and it is somebody there going:

Omg, will my 40 thousand terrahexel
RadeonvidiaNASA graphics planet extreme,
3000 quazillion quantum Qbit master LIGHTRAM
Powered by a miniature self contained sun...


Run HL2 at medium settings at 800x600?

And it's just like.. what the hell? Why do you not know that will run the game? Do you just need an excuse to tell your system specs?

not every enthusiast is smart, but theres a difference between 'running' hl2 on max details, on running it on max details getting over 85fps.

your opinion of acceptable differes from others. some want 100fps steady, others dont care. with that in mind you can understand why some people are skeptical of getting the performance they want because obviously there is no benchmark yet.

 

[Mcn@sty]

I'm hoping that the 6800 GT will be able to run everything on highest. But valve have said that they have had to like disable some stuff so that the 5900 Ultra would play the game nicely, I hope it's not the same case for the 6800 GT...

Valve are so far down ATi's pants that I can't trust their comments. I was planning on getting the x800 pro but after seeing the doom3 bench tests and throwing up, I changed my mind. It was really stupid to disable 6 pipes on that card, I don't know what ATi were thinking. I think that with all 16 pipes enabled the x800 pro was almost as fast as the XT so the messed around with it untill it ran slower and they could then justify it being like 80 pounds more...

Happy Stressing...