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
A Pretty Decent DirectX 7
The second most popular Half Life 2 GPU according to Valve’s own statistics is the GeForce4 MX. As a quick refreshed, the GeForce4 MX is basically a GeForce2 MX with an updated memory controller, so its feature set will not be DirectX 8 compliant like the GeForce4, rather it is more of a DX7 part. So what do you lose if you’ve got an older card like a GeForce2, GeForce4 MX or original Radeon?
Of course the water quality in DX7 mode is similar to what we saw in DX8 mode, but there are much larger sacrifices made in DX7 mode.
For starters, features like bump mapping are gone, making the levels look significantly worse than when using the DX8 path. The screenshot below shows Valve’s DX8 path at work, mouse over to see what you lose by going to DX7:
Hold mouse over image to see DX7 mode
While you could argue that there’s not too big of a difference between DX9 and DX8 (other than the water), everything looks significantly worse in DX7 mode.
The other big change is that in DX7 mode the draw distances are significantly reduced, so what you notice are that certain objects will slowly fade in the closer you get to them. For example, staring into the distance we see nothing in front of the chain link fence:
Stepping forward we begin to see something faint fade in:
Moving in a little closer we see the green dumpster completely:
Another few steps and we see two more objects faintly appear:
A little further and we see two trashcans appear as well:
Running in DX7 mode does sacrifice quite a bit, but the game is extremely playable as you are about to see. If you have the ability to run in a higher quality mode then you definitely should, but what’s most important is that even in DX7 mode Half Life 2 looks better than any other DX7 title. At the same time Half Life 2 in DX7 mode runs and looks better than newer games on graphics hardware that’s now four years old. You can download all of the screenshots on this page in an uncompressed format here.
Let’s see how well the GeForce4 MX runs in DirectX 7 mode…
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?