Half Life 2 - 9800 Pro performance still unacceptable

Ogewo

Senior member
Dec 13, 1999
317
0
76

Someone please correct me if I'm missing something, but a 9800 Pro beating a 5900 Ultra, even if by huge margins, seems insignificant when you're still getting an average of 60 FPS. Some benchmarks showed the 9800 Pro averaging 70fps or a little higher, but the low fps will still be unplayable-- 20-30fps. Not a little choppy or have poor visual quality, UNPLAYABLE. How about at 1280x1024? 40fps average!? Its like buying a GF2 right now to play UT2k3.

Games are not fun when they're choppy. Top-of-the-line video cards are not worth buying if they play games unsmoothly. Am I wrong to think we're still one or two generations of video acceleration hardware away from playing HL2/Doom3 at acceptable quality and framerate?
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
A TNT2 wouldn't play Unreal Tournament really well, especially if you wanted high resolutions. (on first release)

And why would anyone bother developing new hardware if there's nothing to push it? Next you'll complain that games look bad in terms of graphics.

And it is possible that the tests were run will all the options turned fully up, in which case you may well se better performance if you turn down some options.

And it's not like buying a GF2 to play UT2k3, since a GF2 is not a top of the range card, while the 9800Pro is.

If you push the envelope of graphics, what the hell do you expect?!?!?
 

INemtsev

Senior member
Jul 24, 2003
260
0
0
I say wait amonth or so....new cards will come....new optimizations will be made.....
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Ogewo Some benchmarks showed the 9800 Pro averaging 70fps or a little higher, but the low fps will still be unplayable-- 20-30fps.


it could just as well be that the whole benchmark, and the whole game for that matter run at 70fps +/- 10fps at any given time. there is no way to guess minimum framerate from an average.
 

ParrotHeadToo

Junior Member
Jul 27, 2003
21
0
0
I'm returning my new unopened GeForce 5900 Ultra. Next week Saturday is the last day to return this thing.

IMO the management at Nvidia doesn't have their act together, don't care, or don't have competitive skills. Or all three. They got blind sided on this and they are probably in damage control mode. Not a good place to be when trying to manufacture QUALITY products. Updated drivers aside, there is no reason for me to keep their top of the line card for results like this. Even though I purchased this card on sale at $400, I am expecting Nvidia (or any company for that matter at this price) to take "care" of it's product during it's life. To take 'care' of it's products the company must have an excellent managemt team. IMO this is Nvidia's REAL problem and that is what needs to be addressed. They need a shake up in management.

This doesn't mean I'm jumping to ATI as I'm sure they have their managemt issues too. That said, I also believe they have worked better as a management team. It shows in their products and how they position their products in the market.

For now and the next 3 months, I'm waiting until all this dust settles.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Heh, dude the game isnt even out yet for chirst sakes. I am sure ATi and Nvidia will still work on drivers, 60 FPS is pretty damn playable.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
20-30 minimum FPS is perfectly playable to most people, you're just spolied by getting 256 FPS in Quake3-engine games.

But if games aren't worth playing to you with less than 40-60 fps minimum you can always play at 800x600.

> Am I wrong to think we're still one or two generations of video acceleration hardware away from playing HL2/Doom3 at acceptable quality and framerate?

I half agree with this, that these engines are demanding enough to push the limits of the next one or two generations of video cards. But this is actually good news, these two engines will be powering some incredible looking games for several years instead of wasting the cards' power like the Quake 3 engine does now.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
well more like 4 or 5 years if hl is any indicator. i mean heck, just sense the 9700pro have i been able to play it at 1600x1200 with aa and af cranked.
 

Goi

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
6,766
7
91
A Voodoo3 or TNT2U got about the same framerates back when Q3A wasn't yet released too. HL2, with its cutting edge game engine, isn't released yet, so how can you expect current cards to play it in its full glory? Also, its a single player game, and those don't require that high a framerate. Unreal II can already bring a 9800 Pro to its knees.
 

Glitchny

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2002
5,679
1
0
an acceptable framerate is anything above 30 to most people so i dont know wht u are moaning about
 

NYHoustonman

Platinum Member
Dec 8, 2002
2,642
0
0
People on this message board seem to generally call anything below 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF at 60 fps unplayable
rolleye.gif
...
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Remember HL2 is not out yet,by the time it`s you can bet we`ll have new cards out from Nvidia/ATi,latest release date now is Feb 2nd 2004.
 

Give it some time. DX9 is brand new. HL2 is the first true dx9 game to be released, with maybe that Tomb Raider game as ab exception.
DX8 was cake compared to DX9. It used to be that the game developers couldn't keep up with the hardware. The applications couldn't even come close to utilizing the full potential of DX8 cards. Now, its going to be the other way around. Hardware makers are going to have to scramble to keep up with the DX9 software titles.
These new titles accomplish what a lot of people were annoyed about. They REALLY make these cards sweat and work hard for every pixel. Hence, the lower framerates. The hardware can't keep up. ATI or Nvidia.

I guess you could say that, everything is as it should be right now.

GM
 

Extrarius

Senior member
Jul 8, 2001
259
0
0
Well, if source is scalable like valve has said, go to options and uncheck some boxes and get your 5000FPS. Sure its ugly, but its fast.
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
What is wrong with some people???

They have not written this game just so you can run it at 2048x1536 @ 120Hz and 6xFSAA/16xAF and get flipping 325fps you know...

They wrote it to utilise DX9, and also to sell the game for the next 5 or 6 YEARS. They want to be able to sell this right up until HL3 comes out, and they want to be able to sell add-ons all all that other stuff.


And why do you think its an isolated case? Remember Unreal? It was released and I was playing it on a top of the range PC back then and getting about 35fps, and I loved it. Remember Final Doom? That really pushed my 486. New games SHOULD ALWAYS PUSH PRESENT TECHNOLOGY, otherwise there would be little chance (due to hardware not being able to keep up) trying to increase the featuresets of graphics api's and the like if you wanted to keep above 100fps for example.

Look, when you are actually in the game, I am confident you will not notice, you will love how it looks, and in less than 1 years time you can get your precious >90fps at 1280x1024 or whatever you want due to the Radeon 9900 Pro or the FX 6000.
 

Alkali

Senior member
Aug 14, 2002
483
0
0
I will tell you though, I will have fun enabling 1600x1200 @ 4xFSAA and 8xAF just to see my Radeon 9700 Pro beg for its little life!
 

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
Originally posted by: Ogewo
Someone please correct me if I'm missing something, but a 9800 Pro beating a 5900 Ultra, even if by huge margins, seems insignificant when you're still getting an average of 60 FPS.
Shock! Lets all panic, we arnt getting 200+ fps average in a game. Someone put the world on a state of emergency!.
Who gives 2 sh1ts if its 60fps? 30fps is all thats needed for 99% of people to percieve it as smooth(the 1% is for the people who will no doubt question this)
Some benchmarks showed the 9800 Pro averaging 70fps or a little higher, but the low fps will still be unplayable-- 20-30fps.
As above 30fps is all thats needed.
Hell, ive seen Splinter Cell hit 25fps on my rig, and its still smooth.
Not a little choppy or have poor visual quality, UNPLAYABLE.
You really are speaking out of your league here.
How about at 1280x1024? 40fps average!?
As above and before, 30fps is all thats needed. I, and most of the people here would be more than happy with 40fps in any game.
Its like buying a GF2 right now to play UT2k3.
And whats wrong with that? the GF2s can run UT2K3 well. Just not in high res and at the stupidly high frame rates that you want.
Games are not fun when they're choppy. Top-of-the-line video cards are not worth buying if they play games unsmoothly.
So your saying that if you buy a 9800 now, then in 2 years you`d still expect 100+fps in games?
Games evolve, its only a matter of time till we`re getting frame rates in HL2 and D3 at over 200fps, and another game to be released that slows everything down to lower frame rates.
Am I wrong to think we're still one or two generations of video acceleration hardware away from playing HL2/Doom3 at acceptable quality and framerate?
Yes. We are at that level now.
We`ve seen in benchmarks that many cards out today can run both HL2 and D3 very well. We`re seeing the 9800s pull 60-70fps in some of the more chaotic scenes of HL2, and the 5900s run D3 at 60+fps.

FPS does not make a game, and as ive said 30fps is all thats needed. You are trying to comment on something that you dont fully understand. Sure you know what fps stands for and what it means, but you still think that anything below 100fps is bad, when it is not.
Let me ask you a question?
Have you played GTA:VC or GTA3, or even C&C Generals?
Im guessing that you have, and it was probably pretty smooth with no jerkyness?
Well guess what? Shock!!! All 3 are locked at 30fps by default!
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,998
126
Some of you are acting so surprised when a new game engine comes out and crushes all of the current high-end hardware. It's nothing new and it happens every time any new engine comes out.

Typically it takes hardware 1-3 generations to catch up in terms of performance.
 

Ogewo

Senior member
Dec 13, 1999
317
0
76
My intention with this thread was to make a point: the hype around current high end hardware makes it seem better than it is. The majority of people buying high end video cards and entire gaming rigs these past few months have been doing so in anticipation of HL2/Doom3. I'm not saying game designers should hold back to match hardware ability, just that a lot of consumers think current high-end hardware ability matches up with high-end game requirements.

The FPS issue must be more subjective than I thought. Playing UT2k3 at 30fps gave me eye/headaches. It didn't matter if I had AA/AF/Resolution at high settings when my game played choppy, it looked horrible. Then a 9700 came into the picture and it was a world of difference looking at 60fps. But when the framerate dropped during intense scenes (the really cool scenes with tons of stuff happening, the ones that are our reason for playing these games) the fun level dropped as well.

Anyway, if you have a solid video card a GF4 Ti or something, sit on that as long as you can. $300-500 now for a card who's high-end game performance is billed as "playable on average" is a rip-off when you can wait a few months and that same $300-500 nets you a card that is playable during every scene in the game. The best card is still not necessarily an adequate card. My $300 will do more for me than a 60fps "average". With some added patience that money buys a card that doesn't ask me to put up with sub-40fps in HL2/Doom3 means.
 

gramboh

Platinum Member
May 3, 2003
2,207
0
0
I've been playing mostly CS/DOD/TFC etc (HL based) and Quake 3 for the past 4/5 years and am now used to 100fps solid with vsync on (6X/16X with 9800 now). When I try to play games like UT2003 where there are large frame rate swings I have a lot of trouble, I just used to the absolute smoothness of a steady 100+ fps frame rate. Dips below 50fps feel very very choppy to me in online games and make me miss shots, single player it's not much of an issue though. I'm guessing by scaling back a few detail settings in source you will be able to get 80+ fps pretty easily with today's top end hardware.
 

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
If you want super high framerates, play at 640x480 and turn all the effects off. If you want to play the game the way it's meant to be played (pun partially intended) crank up the effects and AA\AF and have a feast for your eyes. Most of all QUIT YER BEACHIN. Whine to your momma that new games actually utilize new hardware and give you what you paid for. You wanted DX9? You got it. Be happy you didn't buy Nvidia. Now flame on :p.
 

jagilbertvt

Senior member
Jun 3, 2001
653
0
76
I remember when Quake came out, we were psyched to get 15fps on a 486 :). Pentium machines faired a bit better (this is before 3d cards started coming out).

 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
For offline mode....the 9600PRO and up will be fine for HL2. Since your enemies have the exact same framerate.

Next generation cards will be needed though to play it online competively throughout next year.