How about a walk on the beach?

Just like in the original Half Life, Half Life 2's levels are split into multiple parts and are loaded as you encounter them in order to make the game flow more like a story rather than your average first person shooter.  Our next benchmark is a continuation of the d2_coast levels: d2_coast_12. 

This particular demo takes place on a beach during the early morning.  In the demo, our player walks along the beach only to be ambushed by a few soldiers, which he mows through with ease.  Here's where things get interesting though; one of the most stressful shaders in the entire game is located in the d2_coast_12 level.  There are a couple of huts armed with machine guns placed on the beach, but to protect the operator of the gun there's a bit of protective glass much like a windshield at the front of the huts.  The glass shaders end up severely reducing frame rate, although with all of the cards we have here the game is still playable. 

Our player stares at the glass of one of these huts for a bit before moving on, finally coming across a couple of enemies in an elevated hut.  The player fires a few rockets at the hut, which produce explosions that are also fairly GPU intensive, while being shot at from above.  The demo closes with our player tossing a grenade at the enemy hut as a last resort. 

We chose this level and section of the game for two reasons: 1) The GPU intensive glass shader we mentioned earlier intrigued us and slowed down even the fastest GPUs, and 2) the level had a lot of good combat which we were lacking from some of the other demos.  Once again, you can see how this demo is also typical of Half Life 2 gameplay. 

Once again, the standings remain virtually unchanged in this demo with the 9700 and 9600XT performing very well. The Radeon X300 and GeForce 6200 also perform very closely to one another here:

Half Life 2 AT_coast_12 Demo

In DX8 mode there's more of the same, the 5900XT does pretty well as does the age old GeForce4:

Half Life 2 AT_coast_12 Demo

Let’s go for a Drive In Jail, with Friends
Comments Locked

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

    #3
    That'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?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now