Half-Life 2 Performance - e3_bugbait.dem

Under this demo, the GeForce4 Ti 4600 steps up to the plate and comes in as a third place winner. Once again, remember that out of the entire bunch, the visual quality on the Ti 4600 would be the worst here as it is using the baseline DX8.0 (pixel shader 1.1) code path.

The Radeon 9800 and 9700 Pro both take the lead, outperforming the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra by around 32% here. The Radeon 9600 Pro manages to offer extremely good bang for your buck, slightly outperforming the 5900 Ultra.

The performance gap grows to be a massive 61% advantage for the Radeon 9800 Pro over the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra at 1280x1024.

Half-Life 2 Performance - e3_techdemo_5.dem Half-Life 2 Performance - e3_c17_02.dem
POST A COMMENT

112 Comments

View All Comments

  • dvinnen - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    #31: I know what I said. DX9 dosen't require 32 bit. It's not in the spec so you couldn't write shader that uses more than 24bit percision. Reply
  • XPgeek - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    Well #26, if the next gen of games do need 32 bit precision, then the tides will once again be turned. and all these "my ATi is so faster than for nVidia" will have to just suck it up and buy another new card, whereas the GFFX's will still be plugging along. by then, who knows, maybe DX10 will support 32 bit precision on the nVidia cards better...
    btw, im still loading down my GF3 Ti500. so regardless, i will have crappy perf. but i also buy cards from the company i like, that being Gainward/Cardex nVidia based boards. no ATi for me, also no Intel for me. Why? bcuz its my choice. so it may be slower, whoopty-doo!

    for all i know, HL2 could run for crap on AMD CPUs as well. so i'll be in good shape then with my XP2400+ and GF3

    sorry, i know my opinions dont matter, but i put em here anyhow.

    buy what you like, dont just follow the herd... unless you like having your face in everyones ass.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    #28 Not 24bit, 32 bit. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    Yeah, like mentioned above, what about whether or not AA and AF were turned on in these tests? Do you talk about it somewhere in your article?

    I can't believe it's not mentioned since this site was the one that make a detailed (and excellent) presentation of the differences b/w ati and nvdia's AA and AF back in the day.

    Strange your benchmarks appear to be silent on the matter. I assume they were both turned off.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    >>thus need full 32-bit precision."<<

    Huh? Wha?

    This is an interesting can of worms. So in the future months time, if ATI stick to 24bit, or cannot develop 32 bit precision, the tables will have reversed on the current situation - but even moreso because there would not be a work around (Or optimization).

    Will ATI users in the future accuse Valve of sleeping with Nvidia because their cards cannot shade with 32-bit precision?

    Will Nvidia users claim that ATI users are "non-compliant with directX 9"? Will ATI users respond that 24bit precision is the only acceptable standard Direct 9 standard, and that Valve are traitors?

    Will Microsoft actually force manufacturers to bloody well wait and force them to follow the standard.

    And finally, who did shoot Colonel Mustard in the Dining Room?

    Questions, Questions.
    Reply
  • dvinnen - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    #26: It means it can't cheat and use 16 bit registries to do it and need a full 24bit. SO it would waste the rest of the registry Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    #26 That was in reference to the fx cards. They can do 16 or 32 bit precision. Ati cards do 24 bit precision, which is the dx 9 standard.

    24 bit is the dx 9 standard because it's "good enough." It's much faster than 32 bit, and much better looking then 16 bit. So 16 bit will wear out sooner. Of course, someday 24 bit won't be enough, either, but there's no way of knowing when that'll be.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    Valve says no benchmarks on Athlon 64! :-/
    Booo!

    Quote:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/business/20030911/inde...
    "Valve was able to heavily increase the performance of the NVIDIA cards with the optimized path but Valve warns that such optimizations won't be possible in future titles, because future shaders will be more complex and will thus need full 32-bit precision."

    The new ATI cards only have 24bit shaders!
    So would that make ALL current ATI cards without any way to run future Valve titles?

    Perhaps I do not understand the technology fully, can someone elaborate on this?
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    I agree with #23 in terms of money making power the ATI/Valve combo is astounding. ATI's design is superior as we can see but the point is that ATI is going to get truckloads of money and recognition for this. Its a good day to have stock in ATI, lets all thank them for buying ArtX! Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, September 12, 2003 - link

    I emailed gabe about my 9600 pro, but he didnt have to do all this just for me :D

    I love it.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now