View Single Post
Old 11-19-04, 09:59 AM   #28
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
so you're saying ATI seems to perform better with shader less intenstive parts of HL2? damn that goes against eveything you said before about pixel shader performance. Ok you can believe Firing squads benches if you want, but they seem to have always used maps and drivers slanted towards ATi, just like the Far Cry benchmarks where they only use outdoor scenes!
No I was saying that using NVs newest Beta driver can help but its not going to add 40 fps back during shader limited parts. Don't believe me? Fine, Xbit lab's testing both NV drivers:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...lf-life_4.html

Quote:
We also wanted to check out the influence of NVIDIA’s new driver (ForceWare 67.02) on the performance, but found that the difference between the new version and ForceWare 66.93 was no more than 1-2fps in the three scenes we used in our tests. Considering that the absolute fps rates are about 60-100fps, this difference fits into the measurement error range.
Quote:
now when you take a look that this, why is nvidia losing so much ground with a not so intensive game. And it only losses in Anandtech's with AA and AF on so my guess it seems nV drivers are more cpu dependented on this game. Which can be optimized for.
Xbits numbers also seems to back up FS numbers as other sites show that the XT has a bigger lead before AA/AF are even turned on when your in the water levels. So you dont believe FS or Xbit. Fine lets go to a 3rd site that shows the same thing:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=6


Granted since the whole game is not played on the water its not that big of a deal but its does show why/where ATI wanted to flex its PR pimpage..
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote