Halo PC Benchmarks?

[0roo0roo]

wonder if the non 30 fps locked setting doesn't bother to lower polys for far away objects etc.

still no real confirmation whether its truely gold

 

[Shagga]

Okay. Seen the GOLD version running and got some default benchmarks for ya...

The BETA 1.5 gave the following -

3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO VendorID=0x4e48 Driver=6.14.10.6378
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.8.5.452)
Frames=4700
Total Time=199.70s
Average frame rate=23.81fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.127s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 7% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 25fps= 72% (time) 63% (frames)
Below 30fps= 83% (time) 76% (frames)
Below 40fps= 98% (time) 96% (frames)
Below 50fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Below 60fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Memory used Max=160MB, Min=114MB, Ave=151MB

The GOLD version or should I say BUILD 01.00.00.0564

Date / Time: 29/09/2003 22:43:58 (1917656ms)
3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO (DeviceID=0x4e48) Driver=6.14.10.6378 Shader=2.0
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.0.0.564)
Frames=4700
Total Time=111.55s
Average frame rate=42.13fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.038s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 25fps= 5% (time) 2% (frames)
Below 30fps= 18% (time) 10% (frames)
Below 40fps= 44% (time) 31% (frames)
Below 50fps= 67% (time) 55% (frames)
Below 60fps= 94% (time) 89% (frames)
Memory used Max=170MB, Min=138MB, Ave=157MB

Unfortunately you cannot make a direct comparison. The BETA 1.5 ran 2 Scenes when running the timedemo. However the GOLD version ran 4 Scenes so you cannot make a direct comparison between the two results. What I will say is visually the timedemo ran a lot smoother, very noticeable.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Shagga
Okay. Seen the GOLD version running and got some default benchmarks for ya...

The BETA 1.5 gave the following -

3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO VendorID=0x4e48 Driver=6.14.10.6378
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.8.5.452)
Frames=4700
Total Time=199.70s
Average frame rate=23.81fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.127s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 7% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 25fps= 72% (time) 63% (frames)
Below 30fps= 83% (time) 76% (frames)
Below 40fps= 98% (time) 96% (frames)
Below 50fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Below 60fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Memory used Max=160MB, Min=114MB, Ave=151MB

The GOLD version or should I say BUILD 01.00.00.0564

Date / Time: 29/09/2003 22:43:58 (1917656ms)
3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO (DeviceID=0x4e48) Driver=6.14.10.6378 Shader=2.0
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.0.0.564)
Frames=4700
Total Time=111.55s
Average frame rate=42.13fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.038s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 25fps= 5% (time) 2% (frames)
Below 30fps= 18% (time) 10% (frames)
Below 40fps= 44% (time) 31% (frames)
Below 50fps= 67% (time) 55% (frames)
Below 60fps= 94% (time) 89% (frames)
Memory used Max=170MB, Min=138MB, Ave=157MB

Unfortunately you cannot make a direct comparison. The BETA 1.5 ran 2 Scenes when running the timedemo. However the GOLD version ran 4 Scenes so you cannot make a direct comparison between the two results. What I will say is visually the timedemo ran a lot smoother, very noticeable.

What's the file size on that Gold ...

688?

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Shagga
Okay. Seen the GOLD version running and got some default benchmarks for ya...

The BETA 1.5 gave the following -

3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO VendorID=0x4e48 Driver=6.14.10.6378
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.8.5.452)
Frames=4700
Total Time=199.70s
Average frame rate=23.81fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.127s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 7% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 25fps= 72% (time) 63% (frames)
Below 30fps= 83% (time) 76% (frames)
Below 40fps= 98% (time) 96% (frames)
Below 50fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Below 60fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Memory used Max=160MB, Min=114MB, Ave=151MB

The GOLD version or should I say BUILD 01.00.00.0564

Date / Time: 29/09/2003 22:43:58 (1917656ms)
3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO (DeviceID=0x4e48) Driver=6.14.10.6378 Shader=2.0
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.0.0.564)
Frames=4700
Total Time=111.55s
Average frame rate=42.13fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.038s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 25fps= 5% (time) 2% (frames)
Below 30fps= 18% (time) 10% (frames)
Below 40fps= 44% (time) 31% (frames)
Below 50fps= 67% (time) 55% (frames)
Below 60fps= 94% (time) 89% (frames)
Memory used Max=170MB, Min=138MB, Ave=157MB

Unfortunately you cannot make a direct comparison. The BETA 1.5 ran 2 Scenes when running the timedemo. However the GOLD version ran 4 Scenes so you cannot make a direct comparison between the two results. What I will say is visually the timedemo ran a lot smoother, very noticeable.

What's the file size on that Gold ...

688?

465 i think
686-688 is the FLT i think

 

[Shagga]

Actually it's 608MB. FLT release maybe? How do you know if it is? What Build release was the FLT release?

 

[XBoxLPU]

FLT ?

 

[Johnbear007]

anyone playing it online?

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007
anyone playing it online?

servers?

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
FLT ?

http://www.fairlight.org/

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Shagga
Okay. Seen the GOLD version running and got some default benchmarks for ya...

The BETA 1.5 gave the following -

3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO VendorID=0x4e48 Driver=6.14.10.6378
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.8.5.452)
Frames=4700
Total Time=199.70s
Average frame rate=23.81fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.127s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 7% (time) 5% (frames)
Below 25fps= 72% (time) 63% (frames)
Below 30fps= 83% (time) 76% (frames)
Below 40fps= 98% (time) 96% (frames)
Below 50fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Below 60fps= 99% (time) 99% (frames)
Memory used Max=160MB, Min=114MB, Ave=151MB

The GOLD version or should I say BUILD 01.00.00.0564

Date / Time: 29/09/2003 22:43:58 (1917656ms)
3000MHz, 1024MB, 128M ATI Radeon 9800 PRO (DeviceID=0x4e48) Driver=6.14.10.6378 Shader=2.0
D:\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo -use20 (Version=1.0.0.564)
Frames=4700
Total Time=111.55s
Average frame rate=42.13fps
Below 5fps= 1% (time) 0% (frames) (2.038s spent in 4 frames)
Below 10fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 15fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 20fps= 2% (time) 0% (frames)
Below 25fps= 5% (time) 2% (frames)
Below 30fps= 18% (time) 10% (frames)
Below 40fps= 44% (time) 31% (frames)
Below 50fps= 67% (time) 55% (frames)
Below 60fps= 94% (time) 89% (frames)
Memory used Max=170MB, Min=138MB, Ave=157MB

Unfortunately you cannot make a direct comparison. The BETA 1.5 ran 2 Scenes when running the timedemo. However the GOLD version ran 4 Scenes so you cannot make a direct comparison between the two results. What I will say is visually the timedemo ran a lot smoother, very noticeable.

the FLT release runs 4 scenes and the file size is 698MB and it has a few small bugs that makes me believe it may not be the GOLD.

 

[alkemyst]

A couple schools of thought on this one.

10x7 is a sort of recent development in gaming and now some want 12x10 or 16x12 resolution (all full eyecandy )

A console game system is probably running much lower than that (even though Xbox has a max resolution of 19x10)....

Going from 320x240 to 640x480 is geometic progression and going to higher level even more so....now add eye candy and it's amazing the CPU and videocards can handle even basic games

Another thing is people are running out and buying new hardware more and more as it becomes available...people (idiots) believe that 2.4 they bought for AOL needs to be upgraded to 3.06 to speed up the internet and everyone knows newer CPU's have better virus protection, right? guys, right? heheh.

So I wouldn't be surprised to see a game released prior to Christmas that will require revamping of systems to use fully. Anyone got 640x480 or 800x600 benches for this with a midrange CPU (1.6-2.4GHz) and midrange video (Geforce4 and Radeon 8500/9000)? I think that's where most families will want to be.

 

[josedawg]

After much testing with the FLT release (which as far as I know, IS the gold release) I have come to the conclusion that the -timedemo CANNOT prove useful as a benchmark.

MSI K7T Turbo2 MS-6330 v.5
AMD XP2000+
PC133 512mb
Radeon 9700 Pro (stock)

I ran both with PS2.0 and 1.4, as well as 640x480 and 1024x768 resolutions. I found the best fps output to come from 1024x768 w/PS2.0 (yes, i'd figure 640x480 w/PS 1.4 would give the best readout)

Gave me almost (~4-5fps difference) the same results on a

MSI 875P Neo-FIS2R
Intel P4 2.6C
PC3200 1024mb
Radeon 9800 Pro (stock)

Until the "official" Halo is released, and until timedemo is fixed, I wouldn't use it to benchmark anything.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: josedawg
After much testing with the FLT release (which as far as I know, IS the gold release) I have come to the conclusion that the -timedemo CANNOT prove useful as a benchmark.

MSI K7T Turbo2 MS-6330 v.5
AMD XP2000+
PC133 512mb
Radeon 9700 Pro (stock)

I ran both with PS2.0 and 1.4, as well as 640x480 and 1024x768 resolutions. I found the best fps output to come from 1024x768 w/PS2.0 (yes, i'd figure 640x480 w/PS 1.4 would give the best readout)

Gave me almost (~4-5fps difference) the same results on a

MSI 875P Neo-FIS2R
Intel P4 2.6C
PC3200 1024mb
Radeon 9800 Pro (stock)

Until the "official" Halo is released, and until timedemo is fixed, I wouldn't use it to benchmark anything.

the time demo is not SUPPOSED to be a bench for in game

 

[RamIt]

Anyone for a radeon 8500?

Date / Time: 9/29/2003 9:12:37 PM (22310796ms)
3500MHz, 512MB, 128M ATI Radeon 8500 (DeviceID=0x514c) Driver=6.14.10.6378 Shader=1.4
C:\Program Files\Halo\halo.exe -timedemo (Version=1.0.0.564)
Frames=4700
Total Time=205.54s
Average frame rate=22.87fps
Below 5fps= 7% (time) 0% (frames) (15.506s spent in 14 frames)
Below 10fps= 9% (time) 1% (frames)
Below 15fps= 23% (time) 8% (frames)
Below 20fps= 41% (time) 21% (frames)
Below 25fps= 60% (time) 40% (frames)
Below 30fps= 81% (time) 65% (frames)
Below 40fps= 92% (time) 80% (frames)
Below 50fps= 95% (time) 86% (frames)
Below 60fps= 98% (time) 94% (frames)
Memory used Max=159MB, Min=128MB, Ave=147MB

By the way the game runs fine on my system with the default settings.

 

[styrafoam]

Out of everyone who has posted timedemo numbers only mosco and shagga have version 1.8.5.452 stamped on their results, everyone else is 1.0.0.564(which is what the FLT marks the timedemo as). Shagga then got better results after using 1.0.0.564, which everyone was displeased with their own inital timedemo results. What now? 564 is official? Molasses?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
A couple schools of thought on this one.

10x7 is a sort of recent development in gaming and now some want 12x10 or 16x12 resolution (all full eyecandy )

People hve been using 1600x1200 since GLQuake in games. But, for the sake of performance, most games still choose a default of 800x600 or so.

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: alkemyst
A couple schools of thought on this one.

10x7 is a sort of recent development in gaming and now some want 12x10 or 16x12 resolution (all full eyecandy )

People hve been using 1600x1200 since GLQuake in games. But, for the sake of performance, most games still choose a default of 800x600 or so.

What card could do 16 x 12 back in GLQuake days?

 

[Shagga]

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: alkemyst
A couple schools of thought on this one.

10x7 is a sort of recent development in gaming and now some want 12x10 or 16x12 resolution (all full eyecandy )

People hve been using 1600x1200 since GLQuake in games. But, for the sake of performance, most games still choose a default of 800x600 or so.

What card could do 16 x 12 back in GLQuake days?

GLQuake days? God they were good days. Transformed the same game so that I never god bored of playing it.

 

[skace]

Pretty sure my old Voodoo could. It didn't do it WELL but it could do it (it was a freaking slideshow). BUT people had those SLI cards (I think it was SLI) where you could buy 2 cards and put them in your pc sidebyside. I think those ones ran the higher resolutions a bit better.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: dguy6789
do you guys think i would get in trouble for uploading some pics of halo to theforumisdown.com?

Are you using the Halo release by FLT? If not don't bother...hell even if it you are, don't bother. Either you're using a 1.5 beta which understandably has glitches in it or you're using the aforementioned 9/25 release which may not be retail as well.

i "came across" that version and for whatever reason, it doesn't run right. there are no textures at all. just large 1 pixel polygons for the ships, planets, etc. have details on high =\

I d/l'ed the same release from Usenet a couple of nights ago and the game looks "normal" to me. Nothing appears to be missing but I do get some weird sound errors. During some of the cutscenes the speach will be working then stop and I can see the characters mouths moving but they are silent. Must say other than the speach this release looks "retail" to me. I played the 1.5 beta that was released a little while ago and it was much slower and had many missing textures (doors not there that should be).

As far as speed I haven't run a timedemo yet. But since I'm getting Halo I'll do a test... I've got the FLT release installed now and I'm picking up Halo retail (probably today @ lunch if the local Best Buy has it yet). I'll timedemo it with FLT and keep the results, then uninstall the FLT release and install the full (legal) retail version and compare them. I'll post the results of both.

 

[LukFilm]

Originally posted by: skace
Pretty sure my old Voodoo could. It didn't do it WELL but it could do it (it was a freaking slideshow). BUT people had those SLI cards (I think it was SLI) where you could buy 2 cards and put them in your pc sidebyside. I think those ones ran the higher resolutions a bit better.

You must have some special edition Voodoo because those cards were limited to 640x480 Also Voodoo2 in SLI mode could only do 1024x768, nothing more.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: alkemyst
A couple schools of thought on this one.

10x7 is a sort of recent development in gaming and now some want 12x10 or 16x12 resolution (all full eyecandy )

People hve been using 1600x1200 since GLQuake in games. But, for the sake of performance, most games still choose a default of 800x600 or so.

I have been around PC's since 1983....that 1600x1200 may have appeared on the GLQuake Video menu, but would it run?

Also I am talking games in general...consider consoles, standup machines, etc....only in the PC arena do we want such high resolutions and bit depths to color.

 

[apolir]

Where are you guys getting these flt and gold versions of halo? i cant find a link to download or anything. the fairlight link was something about comadore games. i cant get in stores yet, so i just wana check it out to see if i want to buy it or not. too bad there isnt a demo

 

[Thor86]

Halo 1.01 Patch Link.

What it fixes? Who knows.

 

[chocoruacal]

Here's a real world opinion....it runs like a$$. Well...most of the time its okay, but during cut scenes and lots of explosions I get a lot of stuttering.

Xp2600 166x12.5
512MB RAM
ti4400

I needs me to ditch this ti4400 and get a Radeon.