Half-Life 2 Performance Benchmark Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 12, 2003 12:34 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
By now you've heard that our Half-Life 2 benchmarking time took place at an ATI event called "Shader Day." The point of Shader Day was to educate the press about shaders, their importance and give a little insight into how ATI's R3x0 architecture is optimized for the type of shader performance necessary for DirectX 9 applications. Granted, there's a huge marketing push from ATI, despite efforts to tone down the usual marketing that is present at these sorts of events.
One of the presenters at Shader Day was Gabe Newell of Valve, and it was in Gabe's presentation that the information we published here yesterday. According to Gabe, during the development of Half-Life 2, the development team encountered some very unusual performance numbers. Taken directly from Gabe's slide in the presentation, here's the performance they saw initially:
Taken from Valve Presentation
As you can guess, the folks at Valve were quite shocked. With NVIDIA's fastest offering unable to outperform a Radeon 9600 Pro (the Pro suffix was omitted from Gabe's chart), something was wrong, given that in any other game, the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra would be much closer to the Radeon 9800 Pro in performance.
Working closely with NVIDIA (according to Gabe), Valve ended up developing a special codepath for NVIDIA's NV3x architecture that made some tradeoffs in order to improve performance on NVIDIA's FX cards. The tradeoffs, as explained by Gabe, were mainly in using 16-bit precision instead of 32-bit precision for certain floats and defaulting to Pixel Shader 1.4 (DX8.1) shaders instead of newer Pixel Shader 2.0 (DX9) shaders in certain cases. Valve refers to this new NV3x code path as a "mixed mode" of operation, as it is a mixture of full precision (32-bit) and partial precision (16-bit) floats as well as pixel shader 2.0 and 1.4 shader code. There's clearly a visual tradeoff made here, which we will get to shortly, but the tradeoff was necessary in order to improve performance.
The resulting performance that the Valve team saw was as follows:
Taken from Valve Presentation
We had to recap the issues here for those who haven't been keeping up with the situation as it unfolded over the past 24 hours, but now that you've seen what Valve has shown us, it's time to dig a bit deeper and answer some very important questions (and of course, get to our own benchmarks under Half-Life 2).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
#61.. i take it YOU have the money to shell out for top of the line hardware ????????? i sure as hell don't, but like #42 said, " more widely used comp "i my self am running a 1700+ at 2400+ speeds, no way in hell am i gonna go spend the 930 bucks ( in cdn funds )on a 3.2c P4, thats NOT inc the mobo and ram, and i'm also not gonna spend the 700 cdn on a barton 3200+ either, for the price of the above P4 chip i can get a whole decient comp, may not be able to run halflife at its fullest, but still, i'm not even interested in HL2, it just not the kind of game i play, but if i was, whay i typed above, is still valid..
anand... RUN THESE HL2 BENCHES ON HARDWARE THE AVERAGE PERSON CAN AFFORD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not he spoiled rich kid crap .....
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
#42 "...should have benchmarked on a more widely used computer like a 2400 or 2500+ AMD...":The use of 'outdated' hardware such as your 2400 AMD would have increased the possibility of cpu limitations taking over the benchmark. Historically all video card benchmarks have used the fastest (or near fastest) GPU available to ensure the GPU is able to operate in the best possible scenario. If you want to know how your 2400 will work with HL2, wait and buy it when it comes out.
In reference to the 16/32 bit floating point shaders and how that applies to ATI's 24 bit shaders:
It was my understanding that this quote was referencing the need for Nvidia to use it's 32 bit shaders as future support for its 16 bit shaders would not exist. I don't see this quote pertaining to ATI's 24 bit shaders as they meet the DX9 specs. The chance of future HL2 engine based games leaving ATI users out in the cold is somewhere between slim and none. For an example of how software vendor's react to leaving out support for a particular line of video card, simply look at how much work Valve put into making Nvidia's cards work. If it was feasible for a software vendor to leave out support for an entire line like your are refering to (ATI in your inference) we would have had HL2 shipping by now (for ATI only though...).
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
58, http://myweb.cableone.net/jrose/Jeremy/HL2.jpgAnonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
Are pixel shader operations anti-aliased on current generation video cards? I ask because in the latest Half Life 2 technology demo movie, anti-aliasing is enabled. Everything looks smooth except for the specular highlights on the roof and other areas, which are still full of shimmering effects. Just seems a little sore on the eyes.Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
An observation:Brian Burke = Iraqi Information Officer
I mean this guy rode 3dfx into the dirt nap and he's providing the same great service to Nvidia.
Note to self: Never buy anything from a company that has this guy spewing lies.
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
OK, this article was great.For us freaks, can you do a supplement article. Do 1600x1200 benchmarks!!!
Things will probably crawl, but it would be nice to know that this should be the worst case at this resolution when ATI and NVidia come out with next gen cards.
Also, was any testing done to see if the benchmarks were CPU or GPU limited? Maybe use the CPU utilization montior in Windows o see what the CPU thought. maybe a 5.0 GHz processor down the road will solve some headaches. Doubtful, but maybe....
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
Whats really funny is that Maximum PC magazine built an $11000 "Dream Machine", using a GeforeFX 5900 and i can built a machine for less then $2000 and beat it using a 9800 pro.Long Live my 9500 pro!
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
I can play Frozen Throne and I am doing so on a GeForce2MX LOL (on a P2@400mhz).Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
look at my #46 posting - i know it's different engines, different API's, different driver revisions etc...but still it's interesting..
enigma
Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link
#52 different engines, different results. hl 2 is probably more shader limited than doom 3. The 9600pro has strong shader performance, which narrows the gap in shader limited situations such as hl 2.btw, where did you get those doom 3 results? Only doom 3 benches I know about are based off the old alpha or that invalid test from back when the nv35 was launched...