Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-19-04, 06:56 PM   #37
Skinner
Registered User
 
Skinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,128
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
do you have your cat ai on? can you turn them off if they are on and test?
I don't have CCC, and its defaulted to 1 believe.
__________________
*Intel i7@3,8gHz*Asus P6T Deluxe* 2x Sapphire HD7970 3GB Crossfire *6 GB Corsair Dominator 1600C8*OCZ Vertex 120 GB SSD*adaptec 19160U160*Intel X25 80 GB Quantum Atlas 15KII SCSI U160 147Gig* WD Raptor 300 GB*Apple 24" LED Cinema *X-Fi Titanium*Logitech Z5500*Coolmaster RP 1000W*W7 64 Home *
Skinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-04, 05:08 AM   #38
dan2097
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by {Sniping}Waste
I stated whats going on but I will state it again for you. The big differece is the water settings. The ones that show ATI winning has the reflect all setting and that is the MAX setting for water. The review that show Nvidia and ATI a tie has the reflect world setting and that is a lower water setting then reflect all.
Firingsquads results are actually only with reflect world

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...2_performance/
Quote:
We set all graphics options to their highest settings except for water reflection, which was set to world instead of reflect all
dan2097 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-04, 12:00 PM   #39
Ruined
Registered User
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,447
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
No compared to other HL2 benchmark ATI is in the lead as we all expected them to be....
considering even an x800pro can run hl2 with max details, max aa/af, max resolution, buying a 6800 for HDR in FarCry and faster doom3 performance (where its actually needed) is a way smarter move
__________________
We're all in it together.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz CPU | Intel G965WH mobo | 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667mhz CAS5 RAM (1066MHz FSB) | BFG GeForce 285 GTX OC 1GB | Dell E228WFP 22" DVI-HDCP LCD Monitor | 1TB Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Main Drive | 500GBx2 Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Scratch Drives in RAID0 | Western Digital RE3 1TB SATA2 Media Drive | External 2TB Western Digital MyBook Backup Drive | Adaptec eSATA 3.0gbps PCI-E interface | Sandisk External 12-in-1 Flash Card Reader | LG GGC-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD writer | LG GGW-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD/BD writer | Microsoft E4000 Ergonomic Keyboard | Logitech Trackman Wheel | Antec P182 ATX Case | Thermaltake ToughPower XT 850w modular PSU | KRK RP-8 Rokit Studio Monitors | Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Ruined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-04, 11:14 PM   #40
bkswaney
Mr. Extreme!
 
bkswaney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SC
Posts: 3,421
Send a message via Yahoo to bkswaney
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined
considering even an x800pro can run hl2 with max details, max aa/af, max resolution, buying a 6800 for HDR in FarCry and faster doom3 performance (where its actually needed) is a way smarter move
I agree.

All my overclocked GT needs is a 4Ghz P4 or 4000+ 64.
I'm just going to slap a 3.4E in my rig and clock it to 4Ghz.
That should bring my lowest FPS's up quiet a bit.
__________________
Notebook!
Compaq Presario CQ60-215DX
AMD 64 Athlon X2 @ 2GHz (QL62)
15.6 inch HD WideScreen
Nvidia 8200M-G 895mb
2Gig system ram
250Gig SATA 5400rpm HDrive
Vista Premium
bkswaney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-04, 12:03 PM   #41
dan2097
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined
considering even an x800pro can run hl2 with max details, max aa/af, max resolution, buying a 6800 for HDR in FarCry and faster doom3 performance (where its actually needed) is a way smarter move
Except thats not really true

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page8.asp

The X800 pro is too slow for 1600x1200 4xfsaa 8xaf on some levels

The 6800GT is definitly too slow for that res in this test:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=7
dan2097 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-04, 12:59 PM   #42
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan2097
Except thats not really true

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page8.asp

The X800 pro is too slow for 1600x1200 4xfsaa 8xaf on some levels

The 6800GT is definitly too slow for that res in this test:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=7
new drivers fix the speed of HDR on far cry just letting ya guys know that,

The min frames might drop below 30 but its on a rare occassion. I played HL2 on all things cranked up only a few times did it show lag.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-04, 03:06 PM   #43
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
What you stated before about the Doom 3 benchs done by [H] both parties were there, both had beta drivers both had equal time to optimize for thier drivers too, these benchmarks are ATi time demos, so they are biased!
I am talking about 2003 (about may) when a few sites got a chance to benchmark Doom3 earliy. NV sposored the event and created custom demos. Catalyst Maker himself stated that ATI new knowthing of the test. Infact there driver was (3.2 or 3.4 forget which) was broke and did not use the 256mb on the 9800Pro's back then.


http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthre...0&pagenumber=2
Quote:
Anyways.... Doom III.
Interesting little game, even more interesting that reviews would appear on an unreleased game. All I can say at this point is that we have not had that particular benchmark before the review sites started using it. What a shame that people are getting to look at something that we havent had a chance to play around with a bit.
Thus if it was ok for NV to have all the time in the world to work on Doom3 and not ATI last year, turn about is fair play no?

We have differnt timedemos recorded by a few different sites and they all seem to back it up ATIs demo and you still think the are biased?



Quote:
no I'm not missing your point, I'm trying to figure out why its hurting the gf and not the radeon, Reflect world is your premade cm, Reflect all is real time reflection. It should hurt both cards equally, There really is no extra geomtry calculations just that its a render to texture at every single frame. I might be wrong with the premade CM but even then if the geometry is double it still shouldn't be enough to stress either card, I think its near the million mark when ATI's vertex shader performance will really show through.
Dave over at Beyond3d has a possible reasoning:
Quote:
R3x0 architectures have a main ALU that contains the DX9 instructions and a secondary ALU that contain PS1.4 modifiers and "some other instructions that we won't say"; it also has a separate texture address precessor so texture instructions/lookups can be interleved with no performance loss (when running numerous other shader instructions). NV40 has "two ALU's" however these do not both contain a full instruction set - its more of a distribution of instructions between the two and there is, IIRC, just one instruction that is in both (MAD or MULL, I forget which); the first ALU also deals with the texture address instructons.
Which seems pausable.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-04, 04:25 PM   #44
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
I am talking about 2003 (about may) when a few sites got a chance to benchmark Doom3 earliy.

Why are you talking about a benchmark of a demo? ATi's are not of a demo we are talking about the full final benchmark releases

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthre...0&pagenumber=2
Thus if it was ok for NV to have all the time in the world to work on Doom3 and not ATI last year, turn about is fair play no? .
Actually ATi blew its chance when they leaked alpha, if I was making software and a company I was showing it to leaked let be accidental or not I wouldn't trust that company anymore. And as you recall ATi now how has the game they aren't fixing their drivers to deliever better performance but doing shader replacement instead of fixing whats wrong. But from Carmacks view I'm sure Doom 3 was made with alot of communication with ATI, If you remember the 9800 and 5900fx perform very close in all situations on that game. As for all other Ogl programs too. Its not just Carmacks engines don't be blind and make a statement that the ID's engines run better because nvidia has optimized for them this is not true to any degree, you know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney

We have differnt timedemos recorded by a few different sites and they all seem to back it up ATIs demo and you still think the are biased?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney

Dave over at Beyond3d has a possible reasoning:


Which seems pausable.

Not saying they are biased I'm saying something else is going on. As I explaind reflect world and reflect all work similiarly. Unless reflect world is just a premade cubemap. Which you seem to have ignored. Its the process of how real time reflections are done that you and dave seem to have over looked.

See its one shader thats occuring in either of the two types of reflections but how are they occuring. pre made CM's is the same cube map at every single frame reguardless of camera location. on the other had real time refections are snap shots of the world at the every frame (a render to texture at every single frame) both use fresnel's equation to do refraction so thats not going to change on what texture you use. The texture look doesn't change because the refraction is the same with either type of reflection.

The only difference is that render to texture at every single frame.... between those two shaders.

Since thats the only difference, what operations are occuring, a fresel refraction, a render to texture,

draw water plane

then a render to texture is aplied in second pass, along with fresnel refraction.

this second pass is the problem area for the geforce so lets take that apart

Dave said is not presumably possible, render to texture would be taken care of by the primary shader unit MUL or SFU or a texture operation, and the fresnel operation is taken care of by second operation since its a MAD and Dot operation.

Also you would see the same huge speed drop in other games that use the same types of shaders and thats not happening in Far Cry is it?

Last edited by Razor1; 11-22-04 at 04:46 PM.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-22-04, 06:52 PM   #45
NoWayDude
Charlie don't Surf!
 
NoWayDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 866
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
I am talking about 2003 (about may) when a few sites got a chance to benchmark Doom3 earliy. NV sposored the event and created custom demos. Catalyst Maker himself stated that ATI new knowthing of the test. Infact there driver was (3.2 or 3.4 forget which) was broke and did not use the 256mb on the 9800Pro's back then.


http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthre...0&pagenumber=2
Thus if it was ok for NV to have all the time in the world to work on Doom3 and not ATI last year, turn about is fair play no?

We have differnt timedemos recorded by a few different sites and they all seem to back it up ATIs demo and you still think the are biased?





Dave over at Beyond3d has a possible reasoning:


Which seems pausable.

You failed to mention this bit also

Quote:
I'll just add Deano C's comments about the NV40 vs X800.

Quote:

Most of the day to day work is done on P4 3.0Ghz with ATI 9800 Pro's. The movie would have been made on a P4 3.4Ghz with a X800 (12 pipe) in it (that machine has a massive projector (we get to watch HS on a 10 foot screen Smile ) which we use for our meetings etc.). We have a bunch of NV40 to explore PS3.0 but the X800 (we currently only have the one) is a clear winner speed wise so is used for demo's etc.


And further on:

Quote:

Its probably more our fault than nVidia's to be honest, we built it pretty much on 9700 and 9800, so its not surprising its runs better on an X800. The NV40 path is nowhere as optimized at the moment. We seem to encounter a fair few bugs on the NV40 that cause us to run slower code paths.


And Valve is pretty much in bed with Ati (upcoming "Ati" levels" f.e) so i'm guessing that the time Valve spent on optimizing any NV40 path is close to much non existing.
This is Bjorn quering some Deanos'C comment about the codding for NV40 and X800.
If you think that Doom 3 was biased, what do you make of those coments?
__________________
Beer,helping ugly people getting laid since the dawn of time
My Rig
Gigabyte DS3IS3, C2D Q6600 @ 3400,4096 megs Geil C4 800mhz DDR2,SB Audigy 2, 750W PSU,Palit 460GTX 160 Sata Samsung + 120 Seagate ATA + 80 Sata Seagate, Atapi DVD Rom x16 ,Samsung DVD/RW x12x8
NoWayDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-04, 10:09 AM   #46
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
Why are you talking about a benchmark of a demo? ATi's are not of a demo we are talking about the full final benchmark releases
You and others were "crying" that ATI had all the time in the world to tweak ... and NV had none....blah blah blah I was just trying to point out that the same case was present in Doom3. And the fact these same folks did not seem to mind when NV/Doom3 has this advantange. So if its good for one but not good for the other? Thats the point I was trying to make. We all know that NV and ID worked together to bring Doom3. We all know that ATI/Valve worked on HL2. Alls I am saying is we knew that NV was going to be faster in Doom3 with out looking at any bechmarks. Just as we know ATI was going to be faster in HL2.


Quote:
And as you recall ATi now how has the game they aren't fixing their drivers to deliever better performance but doing shader replacement instead of fixing whats wrong.
Whats wrong with ATI drivers in Doom3 besides being a bit slower? My 9700pro played the game just fine. Abeit not at the FPS that NV users got. Besides since NV is doing shader replacement in Doom3 why shouldn't ATI? Good for the goose, good for the gander right?


Quote:
Not saying they are biased I'm saying something else is going on. As I explaind reflect world and reflect all work similiarly. Unless reflect world is just a premade cubemap. Which you seem to have ignored. Its the process of how real time reflections are done that you and dave seem to have over looked.
I did not over look it I just dont know how value's water shader is working. Do you have the source for it as I would like to see it....

Quote:
Also you would see the same huge speed drop in other games that use the same types of shaders and thats not happening in Far Cry is it?
But your comparing two differnet engines and expecting simular drops in simular effects? Your also forgetting HL2 water shader is around 90 instructions where as the most complicated shader in Farcry is only 60. Thats a big difference and the answer could lie in there.



Quote:
This is Bjorn quering some Deanos'C comment about the codding for NV40 and X800.
If you think that Doom 3 was biased, what do you make of those coments?
Dave already answered the "ATI" level issues you had. And HL2 being ATI biased.....well Duh I would expect for 6 million you get som perks In that same thread that you quoted from I have already said that I am worried that IHV and Developer "realations" like this are bad for us consumers. So no I am not happy about what ATI and NV has done.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-04, 11:14 AM   #47
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
You and others were "crying" that ATI had all the time in the world to tweak ... and NV had none....blah blah blah I was just trying to point out that the same case was present in Doom3. And the fact these same folks did not seem to mind when NV/Doom3 has this advantange. So if its good for one but not good for the other? Thats the point I was trying to make. We all know that NV and ID worked together to bring Doom3. We all know that ATI/Valve worked on HL2. Alls I am saying is we knew that NV was going to be faster in Doom3 with out looking at any bechmarks. Just as we know ATI was going to be faster in HL2.
were we crying, not really, just wondering what the hurt was coming from, thats not the same case, as Doom 3 was orginally made and run on ATI hardware. They had the time to optimize for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
Whats wrong with ATI drivers in Doom3 besides being a bit slower? My 9700pro played the game just fine. Abeit not at the FPS that NV users got. Besides since NV is doing shader replacement in Doom3 why shouldn't ATI? Good for the goose, good for the gander right?.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
I did not over look it I just dont know how value's water shader is working. Do you have the source for it as I would like to see it....



But your comparing two differnet engines and expecting simular drops in simular effects? Your also forgetting HL2 water shader is around 90 instructions where as the most complicated shader in Farcry is only 60. Thats a big difference and the answer could lie in there..
You don't need to look over the code, hmm interseting, 90 instructions do something that should take under 50 wonder why? You just answered the speed question. 90 instructions can be done in one pass on an sm 2.0b path. but on sm 2.0 can't be done, sm 2.0 has a 32 instruction limit on texture operations and 64 instruction slots.

If Vavle is forcing the gf 6 cards to run on the sm 2.0 path and nothing else its taking them an extra pass which they don't need to do. Thats pretty pathatic on Valve's part there is no recoding involved just have to let the gf's run ATI's path

nvidia on Doom 3, probably not shader replacement just better optimization for the engine on the cpu end. They didn't even have ultra shadow going!

Its always been better with Carmack's engine because they optimize for the cpu usage. Thats regular driver developement and maturity.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
Dave already answered the "ATI" level issues you had. And HL2 being ATI biased.....well Duh I would expect for 6 million you get som perks In that same thread that you quoted from I have already said that I am worried that IHV and Developer "realations" like this are bad for us consumers. So no I am not happy about what ATI and NV has done.

Dave didn't answer the level issues, he's off the mark on that one you answered it, well you told me the answer and didn't know it. Now you see its not the cards, its the shader counts and what paths Valve chooses to force the nvidia's cards on.
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-04, 11:34 AM   #48
NoWayDude
Charlie don't Surf!
 
NoWayDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 866
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Dave already answered the "ATI" level issues you had. And HL2 being ATI biased.....well Duh I would expect for 6 million you get som perks In that same thread that you quoted from I have already said that I am worried that IHV and Developer "realations" like this are bad for us consumers. So no I am not happy about what ATI and NV has done.
Agree 100% with this.But contrary to what a lot of people could say, Carmack did not went out of is way to slang one of the IHV, where Mr Newell promised 30% faster gameplay in ATI hardware.I know both IHV's support diferent devs, but normaly the performance across the board is simillar (OGL to NV D3D to ATI) but never too far off
Are we entering in a new era of Games on Demand For Your Fav IVH?
And then when Longhorn cames along and everyone needs to obey M$ specs, what then?

Quote:
My 9700pro played the game just fine. Abeit not at the FPS that NV users got.
So does my GT on HL2.I'm not bothered with that.
But some people are.Even if in the rest of the games out there that is not the case
__________________
Beer,helping ugly people getting laid since the dawn of time
My Rig
Gigabyte DS3IS3, C2D Q6600 @ 3400,4096 megs Geil C4 800mhz DDR2,SB Audigy 2, 750W PSU,Palit 460GTX 160 Sata Samsung + 120 Seagate ATA + 80 Sata Seagate, Atapi DVD Rom x16 ,Samsung DVD/RW x12x8
NoWayDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now Available - London 2012: The Official Video Game of the Olympic Games News Archived News Items 0 06-28-12 09:30 PM
Better Benchmarks for Big Data ' This Week on inside* Publications News Archived News Items 0 05-05-12 02:00 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.