Half Life 2 GPU Roundup Part 2 - Mainstream DX8/DX9 Battle
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2004 6:35 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Valve has done an incredible job with making Half Life 2 playable on just about any graphics platform sold over the last couple of years. While our first guide was more of an upgrade guide telling you what card to upgrade to, Part 2 let us know more about where your graphics card stands today.
We found that as far as DirectX 9 support goes, if you've got a Radeon 9600XT you are in very good shape, the game is quite playable at 1024 x 768 and if you want higher frame rates then 800 x 600 works just fine as well. If you want a low cost upgrade then a GeForce 6600GT AGP would be a good way of smoothing things out at 1280 x 1024. Even owners of the Radeon X300 will find that their performance is relatively decent, albeit at 800 x 600. Slower cards like the Radeon 9550 and the X300SE may be better played in DirectX 8 mode instead.
If you've got a NV3x part your Half Life 2 performance isn't too bad so long as you stay far away from the DX9 codepath; as a DX8 solution, the NV3x GPUs do just fine, there's actually no reason to upgrade unless you want better image quality, since the frame rates they will provide are pretty high to begin with. The same can actually be said about the GeForce4; we found the GeForce4 to run Half Life 2 extremely well in DX8 mode, and the image quality is quite good. Be warned, if you are upgrading from a GeForce4, you are going to want to go for something no slower than the Radeon 9700, otherwise you will get an increase in image quality but a decrease in frame rate.
In the end, we hope these two guides can give you a good idea of how powerful your current graphics card is and what your upgrade path should be if you want higher frame rates or better image quality. The next step is to find out how powerful of a CPU you will need, and that will be the subject of our third installment in our Half Life 2 performance guides. Stay tuned...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
62 Comments
View All Comments
meatless - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
I agree with #31, mostly; after playing both I don't think that HL2 is any better than Doom3, just different in how they look f'ing awesome.And saying that DX looks better than OpenGL "just because" is about the stupidest f'ing thing I've ever heard.
[sarcasm] Oh, and have fun running those DX games on other platforms without emulation. [/sarcasm]
TheRealSkywolf - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
Hl2 can be easier on the eyes due to art, and the animations are also very cool. But i think doom3 is more intense in technology, doom3 just uses more in very ways, and in the long run the doom3 engine will power the best games. hl2 looks amazing, but doom3 is a better estimate to how games in the future will run in your card.Filibuster - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
This article was a fun read.I particularly liked the part about the fallbacks that are in place for older cards and the screenshot comparisons.
Thanks.
Filibuster - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
>I can't believe how much better DirectX looks compared to OpenGL. Seems like Id made the wrong choice...What a rediculous generalization.
I do think that Halflife2 looks far better than Doom3 but the API has nothing to do with how things look. (I imagine HL2 will be much more fun too but I'm replaying HL1 w/source to get back into it)
Carmack will never use Direct3D. He said so years ago and I doubt he will change his mind (even if it is just to make a point). He is sort of the champion of Opengl for games. Besides, all of the features of the video cards can be exposed in Opengl just like Direct3D (perhaps moreso through the use of extentions). Carmack just targeted a different set of features with Doom3 (mostly it was designed around the Geforce3/4 featureset, and the 6 series was designed for Doom, not the other way around like so many people like to claim)
GonzoDaGr8 - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
Thanx kevin and ksherman..Jeff7181 - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
I agree with #1... I'm well into City 17 and I have all my stuff... because of the first review saying I didn't have a flashlight, I was expecting to be thumped on the head again and have all my stuff taken away and end up in a prison cell or something.MrGarrison - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
#3That's pathetic.
nForce4 is around the corner and there are lots of good alternatives like MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum.
I have "pals" at home who are the same way. Only Intel and only ABIT... I'm missing words to how pathetic that is.
unclesam - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
What is the difference between DX 8.0 and 8.1? I am playing the game on a 1.6 GHz Pentium M ThinkPad T41 with a DX 8.1 ATI Mobility Radeon 9000, 32 MB. I too have everything turned on to high, including 1400 x 1050 resolution, and I have experienced no serious hiccups. I had to reduce reflections to the minimum setting, but I just went back to that scene with reflect everything, and the water looks exactly like the DX 9.0 output. The only time the game stutters is just after loading a level. The performance limiter does not seem to be the CPU/GPU, but rather the limited throughput of my FSB. I assume that your CPU test will use "equivalent new patforms" and then compare the fastest "gaming" CPU. Since you have gone through the trouble of benchmarking older graphics cards, I think you should also benchmark the older paltforms and CPUs that go with them, or rather the other way around. Please compare platform performance rather than just CPUs.By the way, I am extremely envious of anyone with a halfway decent desktop setup (P4HT800fsb, >ATI 9600). For a small section I turned on reflect all and 6x AA and 16x AF. Got .25 fps, but damn, it's like you are there.
Happy computing.
Saist - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
same setup Revrnd.The benchs I want to see though are Geforce4 MX on a 1.2ghz P4 or Athlon XP 1500. Ya know. Something that AVERAGE people have.
GoodRevrnd - Saturday, November 20, 2004 - link
Am I blind or did Anand not post what system these benches was ran on? Or was it the same setup from the first article?