GeForce FX lagging in Half-Life 2 performance

[Edge]

Well, I think people don't realise that Doom 3 WILL, for better or for worse, become the new engine for a large number of games (hell, most games still use the Quake 3 engine). If performence in it on a FX card is decent, then the games that run off it's engine will also get acceptable performence. btw, I thought I read somewhere that it does use new "DX9 quality" shaders for the shadows, obviously not actual DX9 though since it's OpenGL.

But I still think everyone is overestimating the importance of DX9 shaders. Yes, they will be used, but certainly not by every game, and even more rarely will they be used for a great number of effects, as they have been in TR:AOD and HL2. Obviously, the ones that DO use those features will run much, much better on ATI hardware, but a feature is only important when it's actually used often. Oh, and everyone seems to be forgetting that the "mixed mode" on HL2 brings performence on FX cards up to acceptable levels. Granted, that's only a temporary fix for one game, but there aren't many other games coming out soon that will use DX9 effects. By the time DX9 becomes prevalent, both ATI and Nvidia will probably have new graphics cards out. Come to think of it...does anyone have a list of games that will actually use DX9 features? I'd kinda like to know myself. You can rarely even find a game nowadays that uses DX8 shaders, much less DX9.

But we'll see what Nvidia does. They may scrap the NV3x series very quickly to get a card on the market that can compete with ATI's 9x00 series (excluding the 9000 and 9200, of course) in DX9 performence. If they're smart, they'd quickly redesign the FX5900 with more pixel shader pipelines and sell it at a reduced profit to gain people's trust back. Unless they're totally stupid (which may or may not be the case), they'll get something on the market that competes with the 9x00's DX9 capabilities, one way or the other.

Well anyway, I've gotta head out to class. I kinda expect this thread to reach 10 or so pages by the time I get back. Hopefully it will have at least a SOME amount of mature discussion

And by the way OWA, they DID optimise Half-life 2 for Geforce FX, and if you'll notice the performence is quite good with the mixed mode shaders.

[DaveM]

You don't have to dump your FX to play the game. It plays the game just fine. Just no where near the speed of the 9800 Pro.

I think I like Valves stand point. Don't let company tinker your code to make it run better on there hardware. Theres tweaks and what not, but re-writing shaders behind the companys back is differnt then "tweaks".

I applaud them in there action. Base a game on a specification not a "way to be played" optimization "code altering".

My 2 cents. I sold my 5900 Ultra awhile back and got a 9800 Pro and I'm not looking back. That 5900 was the biggest dissapointment. It wasn't any faster than my o/c 9700 Pro.

DaveM

Also to add to you Edge even though not all games will use DX9 spec they will indeed us Pixel Shader 2.0 in games like Doom 3 which suffers compared to the radeon still.

So DX9/PS2.0 in general suffers in comparsion. So including Doom 3.

[mrsabidji]

Dazz : yeah... I remember a time when coders had to optimize their games for each different type of card (Tandy, Hercules, CGA). then a few years later, when it was about SVGA, each video adapter had to be optimized too. Thus have always thought it was the programmers job to make their game run the best way it could on each type of hardware.then there was glide... now it seems like they've all become lazy bastards .
anyway, letting aside all the cheating cr*p, maybe it just shows that directX isn't such a good solution. I can't believe nv3x (high-end models) can't perform any better. sure they are not the Radeon eaters Nvidia told us they would be, but find it hard to believe a 9600 would beat a 5900 that easily.

mrsabidji

edit : had forgotten some words here and there...

[JemyM]

I do not think this will be the last 'bomb'.
I think more blood will be spilt in the 'bloodwar' and that a enthusiast will in the end need to have both cards to play all games.

I believe Half Life 2 is optimized for Radeon as much as Doom 3 is optimized for Nvidia. I only didnt thought a game so graphically featureless like HL2 would show such bad result. Becouse honestly, http://jemym.no-ip.com/HalfLife2&Doom3.JPG

[1stFlight]

What worries me the most is that the mid-range card 5600 performs like utter crap, anyone thing Nvidia will produce something new (quickly), that'll make the 5900 the new mid-range?

[Dazz]

D00M 3 was showcased with ATi so i don't think it's fully optmised for nVIDIA, anyway anything that D3 was pushed back due to things like this?

[oqvist]

Originally posted by IISquintsII
I wonder what system they are getting 60FPS and if thats a constant 60FPS or if thats the max? Hopefully that wasnt with a 3ghz P4. I want to be able to play at 40fps at least on my 9500 pro.

It was a P 4 2.8 Ghz. Check over at www.hardocp.com for more info. I wonder how many missed video card releases nVidia can afford? I mean nVidia said they would be back with the NV30. Obviously wrong. Then they would be back with the NV 35. Which apparently is a total failure also.

Even if nvidia fixes this with the NV 40 who would dare to buy one? That may very well be a dx 10 card and what says the card won´t be obsolete when dx 10 games arrives?

But nVidia maybe wants to move away from the small video card enthusiast market and go for bigger markets like OEM and mainboards? Maybe don´t want to invest the money they need to keep up with ATI?

[mrsabidji]

seriously, I mean, a 9800 outperforming a 5900 seams realistic to me. It handles PS way better. But a 9600... its a great card, alright, anyway I find it hard to believe that it could even compete with a nv35. by the way, it's the only benchmark where it occurs as far as I know...

mrsabidji

[Solomon]

No offense, but nVidia has done it to themselves on this one. If they just went ahead and just followed the DX9 guidelines to a "T" then maybe things would be different. I think there is just too much 3dfx involvement in the FX... Hehehe. Has anyone see Guru3D's Aquamark3 results? The 50.xx are night and day over the previous 45.33's... I'm sure a lot of sites will rip these apart now.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

[Sazar]

Originally posted by mrsabidji

seriously, I mean, a 9800 outperforming a 5900 seams realistic to me. It handles PS way better. But a 9600... its a great card, alright, anyway I find it hard to believe that it could even compete with a nv35. by the way, it's the only benchmark where it occurs as far as I know...

mrsabidji

it may be an indication of just how bad nvidia's dx9 performance really is...

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally posted by OWA
I guess I'm missing something but why would a game company try to hurt sales of a video card company? A lot of the comments seem like Valve is trying to undermine nvidia and I don't understand that.

It's easy to understand actually.

Valve is primarily interested in ONE thing: staisfying it's gamers. Valve wants it's customers to have the best experience with their game, because that means more game sales.

If Vlave knows that nVidia cards are not as good as ATI cards for its game, it has the "obligation" to tell its customers that. The more people who have ATI cards, the more people will be happy with Half-Life performance and quality.

So indirectly Valve is in fact trying to hurt nVidia sales...but this is only because the more people that have nVidia cards, the more people will be upset with Half-Life2.

Look at SOME of the reaction in this very thread: there's people mad at Valve for Half-Life performance on nVidia cards! It's insane! But that's eactly why Valve is taking a stand. Lots of people (myself included) are waiting for Half-Life before they upgrade their systems. I want the TRUTH from valve. I want to know what card is best for Half-Life, and to what degree.

I don't want Valve or any other developer playing "cozy" with every IHV to make it seem like the performance quality is the same....if it's not. I just want the truth, so I can make an informed decision.

And to the idiots (not speaking about you, OWA) who ALREADY bought a "high-end video card to play Half Life 2"....without knowing how these cards play on Half-Life2....well...you're idiots.

[emotionstation]

Hahah.

[karlotta]

Originally posted by mrsabidji

seriously, I mean, a 9800 outperforming a 5900 seams realistic to me. It handles PS way better. But a 9600... its a great card, alright, anyway I find it hard to believe that it could even compete with a nv35. by the way, it's the only benchmark where it occurs as far as I know...

mrsabidji

yeah only in the DX9 benchmark of a real game.....
can you say Shader? can you say 5900 is a 1.1 shader king? can you say 9600 is a 2.0 shader champ! sure you can..... what is so hard here? its been known for 9 months and longer if ya realy are a geek.(15 months) And if nvidia went down hard.... Intel will buy up the good parts and keep Ati honest,. think about it.

[GamblerFEXonlin]

DirectX rant:
So Microsofts DX9 documentation, requirements and specifications are too loose? Should valve have used OpenGL instead?

In that article Valve claims their Halflife2 is very directX 9 and an "accurate predictor of future DX9 performance."

i use XP only and i play games alot, but it seems Valve is sleeping with Micros~1 and are promoting DX9. I tohught Vavle was "goodguys" but why didnt they use OpenGL, and port this game to other platforms.

If the gamer knew whats good for him, hed pay 1$ extra for each game just so it could be ported to linux and mac. more competition less DirectX.

580fps in quake3, and as carmack says openGL is easier/more efficient to program then DX (less commands give same results).

[Flavius]

I only didnt thought a game so graphically featureless like HL2 would show such bad result. Becouse honestly, http://jemym.no-ip.com/HalfLife2&Doom3.JPG

You're right!! HL2 looks like a glorified Max Payne with TrueForm on, whereas Doom3 is truly groundbreaking. I don't mind Nvidia optimizations, because they don't break older games. ATI optimizations always break older games. The amount of game glitches with ATI even today is staggering! Games that work fine in one release might lock up the system for the next 2 driver releases, only to be fixed again. Games from 1999 that are perfect on Nvidia in DirectX show all kinds of graphical anomalies on ATI, etc etc!

[aapo]

Originally posted by OWA
I guess I'm missing something but why would a game company try to hurt sales of a video card company? A lot of the comments seem like Valve is trying to undermine nvidia and I don't understand that. I thought the game companies would want to make their game run well on as many cards as they can to give people more of a choice and make everyone as happy as possible.

Hey, that's a good point, really!

I can only think of two reasons:

1. ATi paid Valve big money to screw nVidia (unlikely IMHO).

2. nVidia wanted to add some kind of discutable optimizations like they wanted to add into 3dMark03. When Mr. Newell would then say: "Hell no, it would disgrace my beloved graphics!", the nVidia forced the optimizations into the drivers (Det50 beta). That would make Mr. Newell pissed beyond repair. (likely IMHO)

[Deathlike2]

The main reason to why Valve used DX9 instead of OpenGL 1.4.. is because there was no way of implemented it the way they needed to (in my opinion)..

OpenGL 1.5 was just recently ratified to take advantage of PS2.0 support (don't confuse the fact that this is a DX term used in an OpenGL context)...

Obviously until developers have time to write code to support all the new features (which couldn't be effectively used before)... they had to use DX9...


With all the DX9 GAMES out... have you people that side with NVidia notice the TREND with NVidia support?

HL2 - DX9 "Mixed Support"
Tome Raider:AOD - CG Complier support
Doom 3 - NV3X specific paths

Notice that this "special support" will continue to grow as MORE games come out...

[Solomon]

Originally posted by GamblerFEXonlin
So Microsofts DX9 documentation, requirements and specifications are too loose? Should valve have used OpenGL instead? In that article Valve claims their Halflife2 is very directX 9 and an "accurate predictor of future DX9 performance." i use XP only and i play games alot, but it seems Valve is sleeping with Micros~1 and are promoting DX9. I tohught Vavle was "goodguys" but why didnt they use OpenGL, and port this game to other platforms.[/b]

Please tell me you are joking? Do you realize how many games are in DX? That's like telling Westwood, Blizzard, Epic, EA Sports, Etc... That they don't know what gamers want... I think you need a little reality check and understand that companies might get better documentation and help if they use DX over OpenGL. Not just because it's Microsoft. Plus it might help them port the game over to the XBox if they want to try their game on a console. I think you aren't looking at the entire spectrum. This is a first to see someone diss DX9 now...

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

[Hellbinder]

You're right!! HL2 looks like a glorified Max Payne with TrueForm on, whereas Doom3 is truly groundbreaking. I don't mind Nvidia optimizations, because they don't break older games. ATI optimizations always break older games. The amount of game glitches with ATI even today is staggering! Games that work fine in one release might lock up the system for the next 2 driver releases, only to be fixed again. Games from 1999 that are perfect on Nvidia in DirectX show all kinds of graphical anomalies on ATI, etc etc!

You know what the really Sad thing is here...

The R360 is going to be the Fastest card running Doom-III benchmarks when it comes out. For a few reasons. Does this mean that you will now Suddenly Turn on D00M-III now as some kind of inferior product??

I Guess when that happens you and others will suddenly start touting Whatever the Latest Demo Nvidia is pushing as the only *Real groundbraking game*.. Or perhaps Aquamark 3 will suddenly be elevated to the True greatest game.

Some things never cease to amaze me.

[Toaster]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
For the record when i say Cheating.. i am not talking about using FP16 or something like that. Valve and these other developers are already putting every _PP Hint and low Percision hint they can in these games. Thats Before these Det50's do whatever they are doing to it.

Even Tomb Raider was 30% slower and worse. Even when Nvidia gets to use CG.

*Scheduling* is simply not going to make hadware handle more Raw instructions than its designed to. The Gains have to be comming from somewhere else.

optimizing for the nv3x contains far more than using fp16 over fp32. a mixage between fx12/fp16, low registerusage and proper scheduling is needed to get the most out of the nv3x.

and sheduling might not make the hardware go faster, but it can make more effecient use of that same piece of hardware and will increase the overal performance.


But even then they won't be able to beat ATI unless they start to cut corners in shaders (using less instructions to aproximate the original one) and what a victory that is..heh
it still amazes me what the r3xx cards are capable of even after a year of its introduction

lets hope nv40 can get nvidia back in the shaderperformance race again.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
You know what the really Sad thing is here...

The R360 is going to be the Fastest card running Doom-III benchmarks when it comes out. For a few reasons.

I disagree.

I think the R420 will be the fastest card running Doom3.

...or perhaps even the R420 refresh in Fall '04. I'm not expecting Doom3 until at LEAST the spring '04.

[combat_wombat]

Originally posted by Solomon
I've been trying to say the same thing. ATi has followed the DX9 guidelines more accurately then nVidia. End of story. There really is nothing else to explain really on this matter. It was bound to show up in a popular DX9 game sooner or later. Why all the complaining now? I'm puzzled.



Guru3D I think is playing the business side of things. The business side of things is that they have been really pimping Aquamark3 as they are an "official mirror" for the program. To explain why they seem to pimp the Det 50's though as some miracle driver is beyond me. They shouldn't have said anything but, "These are the results we are getting with the Det 50's." That's it... Don't antaganize things by saying, "I don't think anything was sacraficed"... He should of left that part out until doing more work on it.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

you're pushing it by questioning Hilberts motives. He's a good guy. He like any other webmaster does what is in the best interest of his readers and the livelyhood of his website

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Joe DeFuria
I disagree.

I think the R420 will be the fastest card running Doom3.

...or perhaps even the R420 refresh in Fall '04. I'm not expecting Doom3 until at LEAST the spring '04.

he did specify WHEN IT COMES OUT

ergo @ the release.. r360 will be faster than r420 or even r5000000

simply because those products will not be on the market

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally posted by combat_wombat
you're pushing it by questioning Hilberts motives. He's a good guy. He like any other webmaster does what is in the best interest of his readers and the livelyhood of his website

Sadly, what many webmasters believe is in the best interests of their web site, is NOT what's in the best interest of it's readership.

What's even sadder, is that sometimes, it's true.

[Deathlike2]

Well, Guru3D is alright.. I don't see much siding with either company...

In any case, also notice the fact that developers are optimizing for NV30 MAINLY to reduce the penalty of using NVidia's hardware... NOT to take advantage of hardware that could potentially accerlate the game (except for NVidia's shadow acceleration technology in Doom 3 I believe)...