FiringSquad's new article

[PrayForDeath]

Very interesting read

 

[Dman877]

Summery: Using DX9 in HL2 over DX8.1 on a FX halves your framerate while ATI cards take a 15 - 20% hit.

 

[nemesismk2]

It looks like I made the right choice in getting a 6800 GT, it gives me ATI beating Doom3 performance and when the new 70 drivers from nvidia are released ATI beating Half Life 2 performance as well!

BTW the new drivers do also increase performance for the 5900 range but a 50% increase!

 

[PrayForDeath]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
It looks like I made the right choice in getting a 6800 GT, it gives me ATI beating Doom3 performance and when the new 70 drivers from nvidia are released ATI beating Half Life 2 performance as well!

How can you say that while they haven't posted X800 benchies yet?

p.s: Looks like the FX cards are really getting a Half-Life on DX9

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: PrayForDeath

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
It looks like I made the right choice in getting a 6800 GT, it gives me ATI beating Doom3 performance and when the new 70 drivers from nvidia are released ATI beating Half Life 2 performance as well!

How can you say that while they haven't posted X800 benchies yet?

I can say it because I HAVE seen results and the 6800 GT with the latest drivers outperform the x800 Pro. I guess you have not seen some of the leaked half life 2 performance reviews?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Summery: Using DX9 in HL2 over DX8.1 on a FX halves your framerate while ATI cards take a 15 - 20% hit.

Pretty accurate summary . . . :roll:

Once DirectX 9 is enabled, GeForce FX cards took a significant performance hit in our testing. For GeForce FX 5700 Ultra and 5600 Ultra, we witnessed performance declines of up to 2.5 times running the DirectX 8.1 path in a couple of cases with the video stress test. In comparison, RADEON 9600 XT?s worst-case scenario was a performance decline of 23% at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF. On the high-end cards, GeForce FX 5950 Ultra performance dropped by a factor of two once the DirectX 9 path was enabled (versus RADEON 9800 XT?s 10-27%). Essentially, enabling the DX9 path with GeForce FX cards knocks your frame rate in half with Valve?s video stress test, the performance dropoffs are sometimes even worse for GeForce FX in Counter-Strike: Source beta. Just take a look at the trilinear benchmarks on page 7. It isn?t pretty for GeForce FX at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with the DX9 path enabled.

 

[Blastman]

Heh, ? 9600XT is a lot faster than a 5950 in DX9.

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Dman877
Summery: Using DX9 in HL2 over DX8.1 on a FX halves your framerate while ATI cards take a 15 - 20% hit.

Pretty accurate summary . . . :roll:

Once DirectX 9 is enabled, GeForce FX cards took a significant performance hit in our testing. For GeForce FX 5700 Ultra and 5600 Ultra, we witnessed performance declines of up to 2.5 times running the DirectX 8.1 path in a couple of cases with the video stress test. In comparison, RADEON 9600 XT?s worst-case scenario was a performance decline of 23% at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF. On the high-end cards, GeForce FX 5950 Ultra performance dropped by a factor of two once the DirectX 9 path was enabled (versus RADEON 9800 XT?s 10-27%). Essentially, enabling the DX9 path with GeForce FX cards knocks your frame rate in half with Valve?s video stress test, the performance dropoffs are sometimes even worse for GeForce FX in Counter-Strike: Source beta. Just take a look at the trilinear benchmarks on page 7. It isn?t pretty for GeForce FX at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 with the DX9 path enabled.

Um.. what's the problem?

 

[TStep]

One good thing about the article, is that it provides data to all those in this forum that think they are "futureproofing" by getting a lowest end DX9 card. Most DX9 fps are unplayable at the higher resolutions while DX8.1 is. It gives a good idea of DX9 / DX8 visual compromises to get playable rates.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Blastman
Heh, ? 9600XT is a lot faster than a 5950 in DX9.

LOL! :laugh: Yep, that's gotta hurt if you shelled out for a 5950. D3 isn't exactly spectacular on the FX series and HL2 just blows with the DX9 path. The last gen of ATi cards have definitely proven to have a better shelf life IMO.

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: Blastman
Heh, ? 9600XT is a lot faster than a 5950 in DX9.

No, it's a lie! The whole shader day is wrong and biased! Completely off base!

 

[MemberSince97]

^^^lol^^^

 

[moonboy403]

i wonder if hl2 really do support the shader model 3.0

 

[Genx87]

I think those screenshots are pretty conclusive. There is really not enough of a difference to justify taking a performance hit to run the DX9 path. Especially on the FX cards.

 

[nRollo]

I found that article disappointing and pointless, Shader day all over again. Here's why:
1. I don't want to see a 6800GT compared to a 9800XT. I want to see 6800/6800GT/6800U compared to X800Pro/X800XT PE. This is the relevant comparison, no one is buying 5950s anymore with 6800NUs <$300.
2. We all knew the nV3X series took it on the chin at HL2s straight DX9 path, we've known it for a year when the game didn't come out the first time. I think it has to do 32bit precision with a forced DX9 path, and that's going to be slower than 24bit. (correct me if I'm wrong)

It's nice that ATIs last gen runs DX9 so well, but I think the real comparison here is on current gen hardware. You can barely buy a nV35 anymore.

Note to last person in the world who hasn't seen this horse beaten till dead, reduced to subatomic particles:
Don't buy a nV3X card to play HL2 in DX9.

(if they ever release it)

 

[Bumrush99]

Very nasty results for the FX line.
Pretty clear that you are much better off with a 9800 PRO than a 5950 Ultra.
If your looking to upgrade I still think the 6800GT is the best route, especially since most of them OC to Ultra speeds.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Very nasty results for the FX line.
Pretty clear that you are much better off with a 9800 PRO than a 5950 Ultra.
If your looking to upgrade I still think the 6800GT is the best route, especially since most of them OC to Ultra speeds.

yup, good to see that the 6800 core brings nVidias game up. I think I'd prefer an x800pro or xt to a GT or ultra in this game, but I play lots of doom3 too. So I think a XTPE or GT is the best 1, 2 punch.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Rollo
I found that article disappointing and pointless, Shader day all over again. Here's why:
1. I don't want to see a 6800GT compared to a 9800XT. I want to see 6800/6800GT/6800U compared to X800Pro/X800XT PE. This is the relevant comparison, no one is buying 5950s anymore with 6800NUs <$300.
2. We all knew the nV3X series took it on the chin at HL2s straight DX9 path, we've known it for a year when the game didn't come out the first time. I think it has to do 32bit precision with a forced DX9 path, and that's going to be slower than 24bit. (correct me if I'm wrong)

It's nice that ATIs last gen runs DX9 so well, but I think the real comparison here is on current gen hardware. You can barely buy a nV35 anymore.

Note to last person in the world who hasn't seen this horse beaten till dead, reduced to subatomic particles:
Don't buy a nV3X card to play HL2 in DX9.

(if they ever release it)

A lot of people own FX series cards. If you just bought a new FX card a few months ago, why would you want to upgrade again so soon? Assuming you don't have unlimited funds to throw around like some people.

 

[jrphoenix]

Pretty humbling to see the 9800 run just as fast give or take as my GT (especially since my rig is very similar to theirs, except I have an extra gig of ram) I am going to get an Ultra in October to replace my GT... but still one can only imagine how much faster the x800's will be? Of course maybe my 16 pipes will pull away from the last gen card at 1600 x 1200 (that is the native resolution on my LCD and what I game at).

Pretty interesting read!

 

[ronnn]

Must admit to not seeing a whole lot of differences in the screen shots, but I suppose at speed it may really stand out. Looks like those of us left with last gen hardware should be able to play this game, which is good news. :beer: Interesting how valve has included options for all cards, in terms of graphics and playability. I would like to see more options built into the doom 3 engine.

 

[PrayForDeath]

It was a really smart move from Valve to inlcude specific options for each video card, this way everybody will be able to play the game fast and Valve's sales will be much bigger.
But did you notice how the wall looks better on DX8.1 than on DX9.0 ? It's so strange to see that. They said other people in the comments section said that too. It looks more realistic on DX8.1 IMO
I am glad it'll run fast on my rig

 

[Dman877]

The wall looked sharper in 8.1 and softer, smoother in 9.0. I can't decide which I like better, at best it's a sidestep. The other dx9 stuff is definitely nice though, the shadows looked pretty chunkified under 8.1.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: Rollo
2. We all knew the nV3X series took it on the chin at HL2s straight DX9 path, we've known it for a year when the game didn't come out the first time. I think it has to do 32bit precision with a forced DX9 path, and that's going to be slower than 24bit. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Partial precision (<FP24 in SM2.x) was part of the DX9 specs since its release, AFAIK, so the FX will not do FP32 with a "forced" DX9 path unless there are no _pp calls at all. Surely devs are aware of the FX's limitations, and thus use _pp as often as possible. So, I think you're wrong, but I'm not sure of it.

But it's possible that Valve, knowing that that they wouldn't let FX cards run in DX9 mode, just dropped all _pp hints. That doesn't seem entirely probable, though, as I think the 6800s can still benefit from _pp (if only slightly).

 

[PsharkJF]

yay for my GF 4200 Ti, life breathes in you yet!

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix
Pretty humbling to see the 9800 run just as fast give or take as my GT (especially since my rig is very similar to theirs, except I have an extra gig of ram) I am going to get an Ultra in October to replace my GT... but still one can only imagine how much faster the x800's will be? Of course maybe my 16 pipes will pull away from the last gen card at 1600 x 1200 (that is the native resolution on my LCD and what I game at).

Pretty interesting read!

Where did you see GT being near XT?
At cpu lim 8x6?

Cmon you MUST be jokin of course...