Driver Heaven CSS benchmarks

[nitromullet]

Those DH tests appear to have something wrong with them, maybe Tobyus is onto something with his MSI K8T theory. However the interesting thing I see in these two tests...

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/half-life2_vst/page4.asp

http://www.gamers-depot.com/hardware/video_cards/source/002.htm

...is that they don't even follow the same pattern... in FS's test, the X800 Pro either beats the 6800 Ultra or only loses by a very small margin. On the otherhand, with the gamers-depot tests, the 6800 Ultra beats the X800 Pro across the board by +10% in most cases. Also, the 6800 Ultra is much closer to the X800 XT PE in gamers-depot tests. Does the nVida card benefit from the Intel setup?

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Those DH tests appear to have something wrong with them, maybe Tobyus is onto something with his MSI K8T theory. However the interesting thing I see in these two tests...

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/half-life2_vst/page4.asp

http://www.gamers-depot.com/hardware/video_cards/source/002.htm

...is that they don't even follow the same pattern... in FS's test, the X800 Pro either beats the 6800 Ultra or only loses by a very small margin. On the otherhand, with the gamers-depot tests, the 6800 Ultra beats the X800 Pro across the board by +10% in most cases. Also, the 6800 Ultra is much closer to the X800 XT PE in gamers-depot tests. Does the nVida card benefit from the Intel setup?

firingsquad does a much more complete analysis. Also, they have a MUCH faster cpu which seems to add ~10fps to each card at 1600 4xAA/8xAF. EXCEPT the x800pro, which seems to gain ~20fps.

it might mean that the x800s are FAR more cpu limited

 

[Tobyus]

I am at work so I can't get to the firingsquad and gamers-depot benchmarks, so I can't see what setups they were using exactly, but another thing that I keep coming across in my mind is that I ran the benchmark with the High Performance setting in the Nvidia driver options rather than Quality or High Quality. Has anyone else tried running the benchmark at High Performance rather than Quality or High Quality? I doubt that this is the answer, but just another thing I would like to eliminate as a possibility.

Have you heard of any other reports of people with Athlon 64's or MSI chipset's having issues nitromullet? So far there doesn't seem to be enough people with access to CS Source with the same setup as me, which makes it hard to find anyone else having the same problem.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it's amazing i'm reading the same comments about the source benchmark that ati fans were making concerning doom3 for the last 2 weeks.

fanboys, regardless of alliance, are quick to declare victory or defeat by virtue of one game. while it's certainly possible the dh benches may have an ati slant, both cards are more than capable of playing it at reasonable settings, just as r420 plays d3 just fine. read everything and make your own choice; just because one card runs one game faster than the other doesn't mean these games can't be enjoyed on either.

both nv and ati offer great hardware this generation (beyond anything most of us thought possible 6 months ago). pick what you prefer and enjoy it. the concept is so simple, yet so many people fail to comprehend it.

This is the first time I have agreed w/ you completely.

Play the damn games and stop worrying about which one plays it faster, since at top setting they both play all games very well.

The stupidist thing I heard all week was someone saying 52.7fps in HL2 was "almost" playable.


If your that worried about a benchmark on a game that's not even released yet, wait for Anand to do a review.

lol.. only the first? i thought you were more reasonable than that

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
I give Driverheaven as much credibility as HardOCP and Tom's...

In other words, none. DH and HOCP are blatant ATi fancamps, Tom's is seriously bent on Nvidia (although lately, they've seemed to just be retarded all around.)


I'll wait for some benches from Anand, Firingsquad, or Xbit before I give a crap.

well, you'll be disappointed then, as FS shows ati kicking ass and taking names; even the PRO bests the ultra at almost all resolutions... even more humerous is once again an example of a "12-pipe" part beating a "16-pipe" part (and the ultra to boot - gotta feel for those whose egos are directly tied to their high end cards) for all those hung up on "pipes" (what's so fkn difficult to understand it's but one part of the entire architecture???).

frankly, i'm surprised with all the whining i see from the nv camp; we've all know for a long time nv > ati in doom3 and nv < ati in hl2. why is everyone so surprised by this?

at any rate, it's still early, the game is not out, and it's not like it's unplayable on either card. for those who just can't stand that one side doesn't dominate the other, deal with it. they're both good products.

 

[dripgoss]

I'm gonna patiently wait until my XTPE comes in and then I'm gonna play Soldat @ 40,000 FPS!

The stupidist thing I heard all week was someone saying 52.7fps in HL2 was "almost" playable.

 

[BenSkywalker]

you forgot the big 2 in video: digit-life.com and beyond3d.com

B3D is probably the most biased site of them all. Between 'the flood of PS 2.0 games'(posted years ago) to 'the DooM3 engine isn't going to be popular anyway' and the like you would have to be pretty blind to think them remotely close to level. You can go back to '99-2K when they were talking about how developers were lining up to use the TBuffer and noone was going to touch hard T&amp;L(heh). B3D is and always has been extremely biased, moreso then Rage3D or nVNews ever have been.

frankly, i'm surprised with all the whining i see from the nv camp

I'm not sure what they are griping about, DH's dishonesty is well known, although I have to say I'm a bit confused when I see FS showing the bench being a slaughter for ATi and then I open up GD and see the GT besting the Pro. I'm more prone to trust FS then GD, and I can't see Newell shipping the game without making absolutely certain it will be much faster on ATi hardware no matter what it takes. No matter what these early benches indicate I'd expect Newell will slow down the game as much as possible on nV before it ships. Not that it matters to me, my R9800Pro seems like it should handle the game pretty well

 

[GeneralGrievous]

frankly, i'm surprised with all the whining i see from the nv camp; we've all know for a long time nv > ati in doom3 and nv < ati in hl2. why is everyone so surprised by this?

They whine because ATI and Valve are cheating.

In any case, this is one hell of an engine. Farcry on these same settings gets in the neighborhood of 35-40 fps average. I'm guessing 5xxx owners are pleased to at least have solid framerates, even with the lower IQ .

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

frankly, i'm surprised with all the whining i see from the nv camp; we've all know for a long time nv > ati in doom3 and nv < ati in hl2. why is everyone so surprised by this?

They whine because ATI and Valve are cheating.

In any case, this is one hell of an engine. Farcry on these same settings gets in the neighborhood of 35-40 fps average. I'm guessing 5xxx owners are pleased to at least have solid framerates, even with the lower IQ .

but nv &amp; id are not? talk about your double standards

i don't think either are; it's just a difference in architecture. much like nv paid close attention to the needs of carmack, ati certainly did with the needs of newell (coffee &amp; doughnuts, anyone?). the amount of crybabies screaming, "unfair! cheat!" from both sides is exhaustingly pathetic... especially considering the level of performance avail to you whether you favor ati or nvidia.

i'm sure a few months down the road (and several driver releases later) the performance gap will close in both titles.. i can't wait until stalker comes out to see who's whining next

 

[ponyo]

The difference is that Doom3 is really unplayable at 1600x1200 on ATI cards. HL2 looks definitely playable on Nvidia cards at 1600x1200.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

frankly, i'm surprised with all the whining i see from the nv camp; we've all know for a long time nv > ati in doom3 and nv < ati in hl2. why is everyone so surprised by this?

They whine because ATI and Valve are cheating.

In any case, this is one hell of an engine. Farcry on these same settings gets in the neighborhood of 35-40 fps average. I'm guessing 5xxx owners are pleased to at least have solid framerates, even with the lower IQ .

but nv &amp; id are not? talk about your double standards

i don't think either are; it's just a difference in architecture. much like nv paid close attention to the needs of carmack, ati certainly did with the needs of newell (coffee &amp; doughnuts, anyone?). the amount of crybabies screaming, "unfair! cheat!" from both sides is exhaustingly pathetic... especially considering the level of performance avail to you whether you favor ati or nvidia.

i'm sure a few months down the road (and several driver releases later) the performance gap will close in both titles.. i can't wait until stalker comes out to see who's whining next

It looks like ATI spent a few million cozying up to Valve. At least that was the implication at Gamers Depot. Thats a lot of coffee and donuts!

 

[Rage187]

Ignore GeneralGrievous, he's the one that said 52.7fps in HL2 was "almost" playable.


/shakes head

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Naustica
The difference is that Doom3 is really unplayable at 1600x1200 on ATI cards. HL2 looks definitely playable on Nvidia cards at 1600x1200.

but it's playable @ 2048 on ati, but not nvidia... :roll:

we could make up excuses forever to "one up" each other... but it gets a bit ridiculous watching people scurry around looking for justification why the performance of their card ok in this game or that.. sheesh...

nvidia bests ati in d3, and ati bests nvidia in hl2.. so fkn what? it's more than playable with all the eye candy on either card.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Ignore GeneralGrievous, he's the one that said 52.7fps in HL2 was "almost" playable

:roll:
I have different standards of what is playable than you do, and I want absolute fluidity in my games. Get that through your head.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Naustica
The difference is that Doom3 is really unplayable at 1600x1200 on ATI cards. HL2 looks definitely playable on Nvidia cards at 1600x1200.

Oh come on now....

Radeon X800XT - Platinum Edition 256MB
Best Playable IQ Settings
Resolution: 1600x1200
Texture Quality: High Quality

at the same settings it only averages 4fps lower than the GeForce 6800 Ultra OC 256MB

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: ChildsIt looks like ATI spent a few million cozying up to Valve. At least that was the implication at Gamers Depot. Thats a lot of coffee and donuts!

that's quite likely (and may even be a low estimate), but keep in mind they HAD to pay valve to bundle the game with the card; valve certainly wasn't going to give it to them for free.... it's not like ati said, "here's a few million; pimp our card and make sure nvdidia's performs like ass"... rather, "here's a few million for the right to bundle your game with out video cards". it would cost valve a helluva alot more than that if it ran so poorly on nv hardware that no one with nv bought the game (and there are a LOT of nv owners).

 

[Rage187]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous

Ignore GeneralGrievous, he's the one that said 52.7fps in HL2 was "almost" playable

:roll:
I have different standards of what is playable than you do, and I want absolute fluidity in my games. Get that through your head.

You only proved you were trolling.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: gururu

Originally posted by: Naustica
The difference is that Doom3 is really unplayable at 1600x1200 on ATI cards. HL2 looks definitely playable on Nvidia cards at 1600x1200.

Oh come on now....

Radeon X800XT - Platinum Edition 256MB
Best Playable IQ Settings
Resolution: 1600x1200
Texture Quality: High Quality

at the same settings it only averages 4fps lower than the GeForce 6800 Ultra OC 256MB

I stand corrected. I thought I remembered seeing fps in the low 30s. I take that back then. Both cards are playable at 1600x1200.

 

[jhbball]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: vshah
looking good for the XTPE

it PISSES me off when reviewers don't mention that 8x is supersampling and takes a crapload more memory bandwidth than 6xmsaa

end rant

-Vivan

That's the only fair way to test Vshah! Each card's top setting! You can't get fairer than that!?!?!?

LOL it is BS

Oh well, so far looks like X800XT is the card for CSS.

Everyone go buy one!

Oh yeah, you can't. LOL

*sigh*

I wait for rollo's remarks like this in every thread. And for the record, are 6800 ultras widely available? It seems both top end cards have been released in limited quanities, and are selling for much higher than their respective msrps.

It seems rollo becomes defensive as soon as a benchmark points the other way? weird. Oh, and I know you've owned both ati and nvidia cards, but that being case, many of your comments are still lack any sense of neutrality.

meh.

 

[RussianSensation]

Firing Squad shows X800Pro beating 6800Ultra Here

so now 3 websites show ATI being faster than Nvidia in the source engine...everyone is still nonbelievers?

Of course top Nvidia cards produce VERY playable frames so comparing 50 - 70 is somewhat trivial. But that was also the case with doom 3 so......

But unlike Doom 3, I think HL2 will have a lot more depth past its pretty graphics...

Of course quoting Gamers Depot: "NVIDIA can, and most likely will, release a new driver right before or shortly after Half Life 2's release which we're confident will help bring up some of the delta we see here."

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Shouldn't they have been comparing the X800XTPE to the 6800UEE?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for a review form a credible site and haven't decided myself between the GT and Pro.

Yes, they should have used the PE against the EE but of course they didn't bother. [/quote]

Why should they? MSRP for 6800EE is $599 not $499 like it is for the 6800U and x800xt pe. In theory X800xt pe was to be the original competitor to the 6800U; and 6800Ultra is an excellent card. NV wins in Doom 3, ATI wins in HL2. This has been the talk for like 2 years now.....it's not like it's a surpise.

EDIT: I think the only person that actually put more thought into the situation about buying a videocard is Cainam. Why? Well because consider that 9800Pro generally beat 5900, 6800GT beats x800pro and x800xt pe beats 6800Ultra. But, at equal settings most of those competitors provide equally satisfying gameplay. The only people that care are e-penis members who just care about bragging rights. Now look at 9800/5900 performance in Far Cry, Doom 3 and HL2 - even if there was a winner 1 year ago, now both cards are EQUALLY slow. So what is the conclusion? Even if 1 card is beating the other right now by 20-100 frames, chances are both of those cards provide equally good performance (ie. 50+ framer per second minimum). And when you up the resolution and IQ, even the fastest cards become slow for the latest games. Who cares if 6800U gets 45FPS and X800xt gets 38fps? Both are pretty slow. And guess what, when more demanding games come out, both of those cards will be very close to performance being memory bandwidth and fill-rate limited like 9800 and 5900 cards as well as 4200 and 8500 cards are now. Like Porsche GT2 and Ferrari 360 Modena, the latest generation of videocards are excellent and both offer their own advantages. But would you ever call someone a "loser" if they bought one or the other? I mean I certainly would be happy with EITHER 6800u or x800xt pe, and i dont see how any of you other there wouldn't be???????????????

 

[Rage187]

Still waiting on Anandtech, although I expect their results to be similar.


GD and FS have checked in already.

 

[nitromullet]

firingsquad does a much more complete analysis. Also, they have a MUCH faster cpu which seems to add ~10fps to each card at 1600 4xAA/8xAF. EXCEPT the x800pro, which seems to gain ~20fps.

it might mean that the x800s are FAR more cpu limited

frankly, i'm surprised with all the whining i see from the nv camp; we've all know for a long time nv > ati in doom3 and nv < ati in hl2. why is everyone so surprised by this?

I don't think that anyone is expexcting nV to beat ATi in HL2... The thing here is that there are some peculiar inconsistencies with this benchmark that were simply not present with the Doom3 tests. nV was faster across the board in Doom3 and evey website's results were roughly the same. With this test, we see completely different results wich are not scaling with different cpu's and are inconsistent with each other. IMO, the benchmark graphs from gamers-depot and FS should , at a glance, look somewhat the same. However, what you see is the that the 6800 Ultra solidly beats the X800 Pro at gamers-depot and it loses out at FS. At gamers-depot you also see the GT beating the Pro (slightly) in every benchmanrk. ...I really don't think that those extra 20MHz on the BFG 6800 GT OC are going to make that big of a difference. Then to top it all off, you get these wacky results from driver heaven that show the Ultra pushing 20 FPS at the same benchmark the X800 XTPE is pushing over 60!?! There are people on this forum that are getting (much) better FPS than that in the same benchmark with a slower cpu.

Obvioulsy, the XT PE is the card for HL2. That can not be disputed. However, the current benchmarks are not really conclusive about the performance of the other cards tested IMO... I guess I'll wait til AT benches these cards.

 

[Drayvn]

I think some of u havent noticed, but when the 6800U was using its max settings, it was using 8x supersampling, which we all know is poo, and it degrades performance totally for the 6800U, because its too much for it, and the fact that it wont run at 6x aa because it doesnt have that level to switch too, so its either 4x or 8x, so thats why in most other benchmarks u see it only going up to 4x, but FS does do the full 6x whack for the ATi tho

So yea, if u think about it, the last bench for Driverheaven isnt that bad, as 8x for the 6800 is absolutly poo and no one really should use it anyway

 

[MemberSince97]

oooppppsss

 

[MemberSince97]

All I know it'll play fine on my Next generation hardware. WHEN MS gets its way all IHV's, will have all the same rendering capabilities. The only differentiating factors will be clocks and bandwitdth... so do yourself a favor and dont even sweat it... It's all good till THEN.............