Source engine benchmarks

flyboy84

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2004
1,731
0
76
close indeed, but HL2 will have some more demanding scenes, as they said in the article's conclusion
 

Actaeon

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2000
8,657
20
76
Cool benchmarks. The only real difference was at 1600x1200 @ 4xAA/8xAF, (the rest all appear to be engine/cpu limited) and even then (aside from the 6800), the difference was pretty small, and all are still above playable framerates.

ATi seems to have the upper hand with the Source Engine, but the difference was miniscule between the top cards. No where near as the significant difference between the D3 benchmarks.

Though, as the reviewer said, HL2 will be more demanding, perhaps we'll see different results when HL2 is offically benchmarked.
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
Originally posted by: gururu
wow, the 6800s really choke at high resolution and AA/AF...

Yeah, looks like the slower core and memory really catches up with the 6800's there.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
this does not look like the 30% performance differance that was said by gabe to come with ATI
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Lame, they didn't bench any of the older cards. The 9800XT 4X AA shot looks bad too, something is wrong.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Wow, those non-AA shots look terrible - all those jaggies. Hope I can find a good deal on a X800XT or 6800GT/Ultra before HL2 comes out.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Looks like they are pretty damned close to me. Certainly nothing like the disparity between the cards in Doom3.

Why do you say that..?

My guess is ATI didnt wipe the floor with Nvidia in a game everybody expects ATI to wipe the floor with Nvidia with.
 

reever

Senior member
Oct 4, 2003
451
0
0
My guess is ATI didnt wipe the floor with Nvidia in a game everybody expects ATI to wipe the floor with Nvidia with.

Their fault for mis-reading/memorizing a quote from gabe which talks of HL2, not CS:Srouce
 

Rage187

Lifer
Dec 30, 2000
14,276
4
81
Man, Nv is getting creamed....oh wait.


New and improved gabe, spouting off 30% more BS.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Well, I'm not going to put words in Tabb's mouth. Just curious is all...

I'm actually pretty impressed overall. All the cards tested minus the 6800NU are more than playable at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF. It's too bad they didin't give us a few screenies to look at.
 

Childs

Lifer
Jul 9, 2000
11,313
7
81
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Well, I'm not going to put words in Tabb's mouth. Just curious is all...

I'm actually pretty impressed overall. All the cards tested minus the 6800NU are more than playable at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF. It's too bad they didin't give us a few screenies to look at.


Fileshack has some movies.
 

Insomniak

Banned
Sep 11, 2003
4,836
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Looks like they are pretty damned close to me. Certainly nothing like the disparity between the cards in Doom3.

Why do you say that..?

My guess is ATI didnt wipe the floor with Nvidia in a game everybody expects ATI to wipe the floor with Nvidia with.



I'd agree. I think some of the ATi fannies are a little disappointed that they may not get their Doom 3 Revenge...

To be fair though, Half-Life 2 isn't out, and this isn't a free for all benchmark...just early, limited benchies of different content on the same engine. We'll see what happens with HL2 when (if) HL2 comes out. It may very well be different from these benches.

For the record though, I hope it's not. I do not like the prospect of having certain games perform much better on certain video chipsets. Buying one graphics card is expensive enough....
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
this is just plain funny, average framerate numbers from a capped benchmark is no absolutely no way to compare things. now if they would have made graphs of the fraps logs that would be telling, but as it stands their benchmarking was a complete waste of time.