Half Life 2 GPU Roundup Part 1 - DirectX 9 Shootout
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 17, 2004 11:22 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battle in the Canal
Our first benchmark is packed full of just about all of the stressful elements you will encounter throughout Half Life 2. The demo starts aboard a boat driving in a tunnel before making a splash into a wide open body of water. The boat is piloted over to the shore where the player dismounts and heads inside for some action.
While inside the flashlight is used to illuminate dark areas and the player encounters a few firefights before heading upstairs to the outside. While outside (and while being pursued by a helicopter) the player encounters a few enemies on his way into a warehouse. The demo concludes inside the warehouse.
We created this demo because it incorporates just about everything – water, the flashlight, a vehicle, engaging enemies indoors as well as outdoors and sunlight. Since we’re dealing with all very capable cards here, let’s first look at performance at 1280 x 1024. Remember that we used the highest detail settings with the exception of anisotropic filtering and antialiasing, which were both disabled for this test (we will look at their impact on image quality/performance later on in this review).
It’s no surprise that we find ATI’s Radeon X800 XT at the top of the charts here, but interestingly enough, NVIDIA’s GeForce 6800 Ultra is not far behind. In fact, the X800 XT only outperforms the 6800 Ultra by around 5%.
At the $400 price point, the GeForce 6800GT is able to outperform the Radeon X800 Pro by just under 10%, so while ATI takes the #1 spot, NVIDIA takes numbers two and three here.
As we drop down in price we see that the Radeon X700 XT, GeForce 6800 and GeForce 6600GT all provide virtually identical performance. With the GeForce 6800 being the most expensive of the three, the winner for the $200 - $250 range ends up being both the X700 XT and the 6600GT. If you want an AGP card then your only option will be the 6600GT.
The Radeon 9800 Pro doesn’t actually do too bad at 1280 x 1024, however in actual gameplay the GPU can stutter a bit, interrupting an otherwise smooth performance experience. Radeon 9800 and 9700 owners will find a much better balance of performance and image quality at 1024 x 768.
The biggest thing to take away from our resolution scaling graphs is an idea of what cards are best suited for 1024 x 768 and what it takes to have butter smooth performance at 1280 x 1024.
The Radeon 9700 Pro and 9800 Pro are both best suited for 1024 x 768, while they will play 1280 x 1024 just fine if you are willing to deal with some choppiness.
While the 6800 and the 6600GT perform relatively well at 1600 x 1200, their sweet spot is much closer to 1280 x 1024. Even though all of the cards here seem to scale relatively similarly to one another, only the highest end $400+ cards manage to truly perform well at 1600 x 1200.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
View All Comments
ballero - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
it'd be nice a comparison between cpuJalf - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
To those wanting benchmarks on older hardware, remember that this is a hardware site, not a games review site.Their focus is on the hardware, and honestly, few hardware enthusiasts can get excited about an 800 mhz cpu or a Geforce 3. ;)
For AT, HL2 is a tool to compare new *interesting* hardware. It's not the other way around.
CU - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
I would also like to see slower cpu's and 512meg systems tested. It seems all recent cards can run it fine, so it would be nice to see how other things affect HL2.CU - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
Based on the 6800nu vs 6600gt I would say that HL2 is being limited by fillrate and not bandwith. I say this since they both have about the same fillrate, but the 6800nu has around 40% more bandwidth than the 6600gt. So, unlocking extra pipes and overclocking the GPU should give the most increase in fps. Anyone want to test this?Jeff7181 - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
... in addition... this is a case where minimum frame rates would be very useful to know.Jeff7181 - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
Those numbers are about what I expected. I'm sorta thinking that triple buffering isn't working with the 66.93 drivers and HL2 because I have vsync enabled, it seems like the frame rate is either 85 or 42.I also suspected that anistropic filtering wasn't particularly necessary... I'll have to try it without and see how it looks... although with 4XAA and 8XAF I'm still getting acceptable frame rates.
nserra - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
#8 i never heard of 6800 extra pipes unlocked, where did you see that. Arent you making some confusion with the Ati 9500 cards?MAME - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
Make some budget video card benchmarks (Ti4200 plus or minus) and possibly a slower cpu or less ram so that people will know if they have to upgradeAkira1224 - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
#8 Thats not a fair comparison. Yes atm it would seem the 6800Nu is a better buy. However if you go to Gameve you will find the XFX (clocked at PCIe speeds)6600GT for $218. Thats a much better deal than your example using Newegg. You talk about a $5 diff... if you are a smart shopper you can get upwards of a $50 diff.THAT makes the 6600GT the better buy. Esp when you consider that the market this card is aimed at is not the same market that will softmod their cards to unlock pipes. Either way you go you will get great performance.
I digress off topic.... sorry.
nserra - Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - link
You didn’t use overclocked nvidia cards like hardocp did. That Kyle has the shame to say he used stock clock, those BFG OC are overclocked from factory. Just 25Mhz but its something.Very good review!!! Better then the NVIDIA's GeForce 6600GT AGP review where something was missing.