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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-23-04, 01:41 PM   #49
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
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.
My point was from the begining that nV had been working much closer with ID on doom from the very beginning. Everyone else here knows that fact. Its the same thing what is happing with ATI/Valve and again thats the only point I was trying to make.

Quote:
You don't need to look over the code, hmm interseting, 90 instructions do something that should take under 50 wonder why?
Until some one post the code I dont think you or I should try to second guess valve. They know more about making games than your or I


Quote:
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!
Oh yes they are. The big man himself as "said" so. Granted anytime JC says something its always crypitc but yes NV is doing shader replacement in Doom3. Its not that big of a deal. If the game runs faster and the out put is the same then great. However in benchmarks its kind of a cheat...

Quote:
Now you see its not the cards, its the shader counts and what paths Valve chooses to force the nvidia's cards on.
Oh good greif. You have no idea but are just guessing at the reason. Why not wait for some more proof... If you think its just that then trick the device ID and run the becnhmark again. If you get 20 more fps you might be on to something. If you dont..well there ya go...but if its about the same...then there goes your different path theory...


Quote:
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
No but how much time did he spend on making an NV30 path? Granted it did get dropped but thats a lot of time for just one IHV. Also if you believe value they went x5 times as far to optimize the nv3x hardware. So I dont see how Gabe did any worse than JC did.


Quote:
where Mr Newell promised 30% faster gameplay in ATI hardware.
Promised? Or said A was faster than B. Its a big difference. I never saw promissed that one would be faster. I know currently we have seen PR from Valve that says 30% faster. His orginal statements came last year at/around ATIs shader day. This was at the highlight of the NV30 issues we had. There were a few PS2.0 games showing how week the FX was. Gabe said they saw the same thing. We all know that with out serrious help the nV3x line struggles at any PS2.0 work. Since that point valve has always stuck to the fact that ATI would be faster.

I just dont see why people think that Valve on purpose is Making NV run slower than it can...its makes no sense for them as a business move, as a gaming move or any move on vavle's part....
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-04, 02:00 PM   #50
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
My point was from the begining that nV had been working much closer with ID on doom from the very beginning. Everyone else here knows that fact. Its the same thing what is happing with ATI/Valve and again thats the only point I was trying to make.
Please your point is not there, because you left out the fact Carmack didn't make those optimizations, Nvidia did

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
Until some one post the code I dont think you or I should try to second guess valve. They know more about making games than your or I
You're the one that said it uses 90 instructions maybe you want to read over how instruction sets and limitations on different code paths work..... oh yeah we know that the sm 3.0 code path isn't in there, what path is the geforces running on then, not ATI's path because who said the geforce 6 paths are not as optimized as the radeon x800 paths?

I do know alot more then you are giving me credit for, I don't know valve's code but I know the way my code works and how to optimize for different graphics hardware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
Oh yes they are. The big man himself as "said" so. Granted anytime JC says something its always crypitc but yes NV is doing shader replacement in Doom3. Its not that big of a deal. If the game runs faster and the out put is the same then great. However in benchmarks its kind of a cheat...
He never said they were doing shader replacement, so thats not concerete. He said the drivers are doing something funny, most likly something with the AA and AF, not shader replacement. If you remember if nvidia was doing shader replacment they would have a much more pronounced lead with the fx over the 9800 not tied. Its remarkably very similiar to ALL OGL games.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jbirney
Oh good greif. You have no idea but are just guessing at the reason. Why not wait for some more proof... If you think its just that then trick the device ID and run the becnhmark again. If you get 20 more fps you might be on to something. If you dont..well there ya go...but if its about the same...then there goes your different path theory...
I'm not guessing if its using 90 instructions for that shader it will take one more pass on a native dx9 path. Dave was guessing more then I was. Its not a hardware issue if Valve purposefully did that, and from your own mouth you said it was a 90 instruction shader. And that you reported from where?
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-04, 02:28 PM   #51
NoWayDude
Charlie don't Surf!
 
NoWayDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 866
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
I just dont see why people think that Valve on purpose is Making NV run slower than it can...its makes no sense for them as a business move, as a gaming move or any move on vavle's part....
It does not make sense to Valve, or ID or any other dev, but if you have, lets say, 6 million reasons (or any other number we could put in here) then it could make sense for someone else part

PS: I tried to run the game with 3Danalyze but it wont let me.Any ideas?
__________________
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, 02:43 PM   #52
Razor1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 574
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoWayDude
It does not make sense to Valve, or ID or any other dev, but if you have, lets say, 6 million reasons (or any other number we could put in here) then it could make sense for someone else part

PS: I tried to run the game with 3Danalyze but it wont let me.Any ideas?

tried running it too, not working
Razor1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-04, 04:37 PM   #53
NoWayDude
Charlie don't Surf!
 
NoWayDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 866
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Does not like Benchemal also.Weird.Anyone know out to bench this game with a third party app?
__________________
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 11-24-04, 08:07 AM   #54
Lars
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 118
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

I recently purchased a Gainward 2400Ultra Golden Sampl GLH (a 6800GT with 1.6ns memory clocked @ 400/1200 Mhz). I bought this card because I really wanted to try out a Nvidia card once again, haven't had one since ATI put the 9700pro out... At any rate, I already own a ATI x800xt videocard, so I've been eager to try out gaming on both cards and get a feel for the differences.

After watching driverheavens benchmark results I felt puzzled, as I've been playing quite a few hours of HL2 ( I'm @ the prison right now, don't know exatly how far that is in the game actually, but I'm enjoying the game, investigating everything, so I'm not trying to finish as fast as possible). What puzzled me were the reported framerates as I've been playing @ 1600x1200x32 with 4xFSAA and 8xAF the whole time with a feel of much better fps than reported by Driverheaven and a few other places. It's been absolutely fluid all along.

I did the timedemos Anandtech used, mainly because they were easily available for download, and this is what I get @ 1600x1200x32 with 4xFSAA and 8xAF, same quallity settings as Anandtech used (and as recommended by HL2)

at_c17_12.dem, 62.5 fps, 5.8, fps variability

at_canals_08.dem, 68.4 fps, 6.0 fps variability

at_coast_05.dem, 93.8 fps, 6.2 fps variability

at_coast_12.dem, 70.5 fps, 5.3 fps variability

at_prison_05.dem, 65.4 fps, 3.2 fps variability

Haven't benched on the x800xt yet, as I'm rather liking this 6800GT card. On the other hand Doom3 isn't feeling any different on the 6800GT then it did on the x800xt card either...
__________________
Pentium E6600 ES 2.4@3.5 Ghz | Mach II GT | Asus P5WD2-E | 2GB Corsair PC5400UL | X-Fi Fata1ity
Viewsonic VP201s + Dell 2001FP | 2x Club3D x1900xt CF | 2x WD Raptors | PCP&C 850W PSU
3dmark2001se 62845 | 3dmark05 20043 | 3dmark06 11642 | 3dmark03 36921 | pcmark05 9754
Lars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-04, 09:31 AM   #55
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor1
Please your point is not there, because you left out the fact Carmack didn't make those optimizations, Nvidia did
Who wrote the NV30 path for doom and spent more than a year developing it only to drop it at the end? It wasn't NV. Again everyone knows that NV and ID worked together on Doom3.


Quote:
You're the one that said it uses 90 instructions maybe you want to read over how instruction sets and limitations on different code paths work..... oh yeah we know that the sm 3.0 code path isn't in there, what path is the geforces running on then, not ATI's path because who said the geforce 6 paths are not as optimized as the radeon x800 paths?
I realize what paths that are used will effect the perfromance. And I dont know what path the ATI cards are using. Since 3Dc is also not being used you could guess that the other ATI features are also not being used...but I dont know so thats just a wild guess..

Quote:
I do know alot more then you are giving me credit for, I don't know valve's code but I know the way my code works and how to optimize for different graphics hardware.
No I give you credit. Just you can not expect to know all of the details about somone elses shader code when you dont have it in front of you. You have no idea what they are doing with it. Thus your guess to the cause is just as bad/good as the next persons.


Quote:
He never said they were doing shader replacement, so thats not concerete. He said the drivers are doing something funny, most likly something with the AA and AF, not shader replacement.
From JC himself: (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQyLDE=)

Quote:
. On the other hand, the Nvidia drivers have been tuned for Doom's primary light/surface interaction fragment program and innocuous code changes can "fall off the fast path" ,and cause significant performance impacts, especially on NV30 class
I took the liberty of Bolding the part we he says NV has tuned their drivers (IE shader replacement). And please note I am not saying this is a bad thing. Just poiting out that both sides are doing it in Doom3.



Quote:
I'm not guessing if its using 90 instructions for that shader it will take one more pass on a native dx9 path. Dave was guessing more then I was. Its not a hardware issue if Valve purposefully did that, and from your own mouth you said it was a 90 instruction shader. And that you reported from where?
From Brandon last HL2 perfromance review over at FS.


Quote:
It does not make sense to Valve, or ID or any other dev, but if you have, lets say, 6 million reasons (or any other number we could put in here) then it could make sense for someone else part
Your forgetting about the inclusion of HL2 in ATI cards. How many HL2 vouchers got shipped with ATI cards? I think that would be neat to know. I dont think valve let ATI just have them. Part of that 6 million figure had to cover that. I know I have been playing HL2 free thanks to that 9600 I bought last year I mean why should I pay 50 bucks for the game when ATI will do it for me

BTW you do know that nV paid about 4 million to Id/Activision for Doom3 "rights" right? I suppose we can run wild with theories there as well.....
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-04, 09:33 AM   #56
MUYA
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 6,795
Send a message via MSN to MUYA
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

yeah great..can u we get back to HL2 benchies from HardOCP (although it has runit's course) and not what IHV does or what for eh?

thanks
__________________
I5-2500k@4.7GHz - MSI Z77A-GD65 - 4GB X2 A-DATA DDR3 1600 - Corsair H100 - Antec Quatro 850W
Gigabyte Windforce X3 GTX 680 OC - Dell 24" IPS
Intel 320 300 GB SSD - 1 TB Hitachi HDD - 2x 250 GB WD HDD
Corsair K90 - Corsair Venegance 2000 Headset - Razer Naga Epic
Corsair 600T Case
MUYA is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-04, 09:33 AM   #57
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Edited by MUYA:Please read my post jbirney. Thanks. That's one warning
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-04, 09:44 AM   #58
muygar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

where are your results ,

mine = 80.00 FPS

hardocptimedemo_canals01


System info: CPU P4 2.8E @ 3.4 GHZ
GPU BFG 6800 GT OC 370/1000
512 MB PC3200 RAM

Settings = 1024 x 768 4 x AA, 8 X AF Details = All High,
Reflect World ,V-sync off
muygar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-04, 11:04 PM   #59
lmetza
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 151
Send a message via AIM to lmetza
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

the timedmeos no logner work, i get some "protocol version 6 missing , current version 7" tyoe of error
lmetza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-04, 08:51 AM   #60
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default Re: Official HardOCP HL2 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by lmetza
the timedmeos no logner work, i get some "protocol version 6 missing , current version 7" tyoe of error

Usally happens when they update HL2 game itself. And not just HL2, most time demos seem to run under a certian version of that game..update the game and you usally have to make new time demos. Gives Brent over at H something to do
jbirney 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 10:30 PM
Better Benchmarks for Big Data ' This Week on inside* Publications News Archived News Items 0 05-05-12 03:00 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 PM.


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