HL2 Bits

[Dirk]

CS:S is a complete waste of time till they fix the game and remove it from beta status. I just don't get it. It is more random at times then 1.6 is. Half-Life 2 is very well done though. I'm glad they took their time on it....wish I could say the same for CS:S.



EDIT



Also I just read what the nVidiot said and I hope someone stabs you in the face with a wooden spork.

[xlokix]

Just because someone else has different benchmarks, doesn't mean one is wrong from another. Face it, ATi does better on half-life for an obvious reason. It's how you get the benchmarks that counts. A good thourough benchmark is when you record a demo and timedemo it and get the average frames per second, rather than just going to one part of the map and checking the fps at that moment.

[lpkapo]

You are a idiot vullrath. You just keep on rolling out the stupid comments that are totally wrong. Its hilarious actually.

[Mobius?]

xlokix wrote..

Just because someone else has different benchmarks, doesn't mean one is wrong from another. Face it, ATi does better on half-life for an obvious reason. It's how you get the benchmarks that counts. A good thourough benchmark is when you record a demo and timedemo it and get the average frames per second, rather than just going to one part of the map and checking the fps at that moment.

He is right.



According to the benchmarks my computer is a peice of shit, but ingame with detail at max (no AA or AF of course) I get a steady framerate around 50 in HL2.

[zidane2010]

PRES_00 wrote..

So, are you running the game in DX9 using Cedega or 8.1?

yes 9.0..... if i look in the video options it sais that im running it in 9.0 so i guess so (maybe i should try 8.1 and see if that fixes some of the graphical glitches)

[grendel03]

Last night I decided to drop my resolution from 1280 X 1024 to 1024 X 768. I did this so I can play with AA/AF on max with my 9800 pro (Flashed to an XT). Having AA/AF on max with a lower resolution looks much better then a higher resolution with no or little AA/AF.

[PRES_00]

grendel03 wrote..

Last night I decided to drop my resolution from 1280 X 1024 to 1024 X 768. I did this so I can play with AA/AF on max with my 9800 pro (Flashed to an XT). Having AA/AF on max with a lower resolution looks much better then a higher resolution with no or little AA/AF.

Slashdot.org is posting the story on Cedega. It seems that DX9 graphics are translated into OpenGL using this technology. I want to see if there are any visual differences using this method.

I'm gonna investigate some more.

[.b0w. Bushwacker]

i dont get the joke

[MonKsTeR]

Vlux wrote..

The clocked down speed was the default. I don't really want to take the risk of overclocking my CPU, even it was meant for 2.5 GHZ. I had it overclocked to 1.9, but didn't see a difference so I brought it down.



I apologize for not adding the + at the end of 2.5, but yeah, it is an AMD XP 2500+.

Are you dense?

It was not meant for 2.5 Ghz, it was meant for 1.8 Ghz, that is not underclocked. The 2500+ number is just a way to compare it to a P4, it's good for advertising to idiots *cough* you.

[KhAoS]

VuLLrath wrote..

prices vary. thus the word i stated "around". im pleased to see that its down to 600 now. mine was expensive around 900ish because i got it like the day it came out. heh.



as of 16 pipe line go to nvidia or evga.com they will tell you that the ultras are 12 pipes while extreme is 16. the gt i've yet to look at. but a known fact is the extreme comes with the maximum power of the 6800 series.

No, yet again you are wrong. The 6800 Ultra and 6800 GT have 16 pixel pipes. The 6800 has 12.

[-:Nighthawk:-]

VuLLrath wrote..

as of 16 pipe line go to nvidia or evga.com they will tell you that the ultras are 12 pipes while extreme is 16. the gt i've yet to look at. but a known fact is the extreme comes with the maximum power of the 6800 series.

Here's the breakdown:



6600 - 8 pipelines, 128-bit bus, low clock

6600GT - 8 pipelines, 128-bit bus, high clock



6800LE - 8 pipelines, 256-bit bus, low clock

6800 - 12 pipelines, 256-bit bus, low clock

6800GT - 16 pipelines, 256-bit bus, medium clock

6800U - 16 pipelines, 256-bit bus, high clock

6800UE - 16 pipelines, 256-bit bus, highest clock



All of these, with the exception of the 6800UE, are available in 128 or 256MB configurations. The 6800UE is 256MB only.



Now stop making crap up okay?

[Scroto]

woohoo you can beat corpses

[VuLLrath]

Edited by [user="90352"] @ [time="1100929835"]

basically what you wrote nighthawk, is the same on both nvidia and evga websites.

so i was right :P no ones making anything up ^_^



who cares my main point of ultra extreme is the best maximum power card.

but they tested the best radeon vs ultra, which isnt the best nvidia card (the extreme is) so how is that fair? should be best vs best not best vs low class or second best... ya know.

[Dirk]

Ill tell you what. I will buy an x800 XT PE and will overclock it and then I will call it the x800 XT PE ULTRA EDITION x 4! Then we will see who is the king.



BTW That ultra extreme or whatever is just an overclocked card. So why would they test an overclocked card verses a stock one?

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Dirk... you're trying to use logic against a hardcore nVidiot. Give up now!

VuLLrath wrote..

so i was right :P no ones making anything up ^_^

You claimed the Ultra had 12 pipelines. In what universe were you right?

but they tested the best radeon vs ultra, which isnt the best nvidia card (the extreme is) so how is that fair? should be best vs best not best vs low class or second best... ya know.

You can compare an X800 to a TNT2 for all I care. If your conclusion is "the Radeon X800 is faster and better-looking in every test case than the TNT2 card was" then there's no problem, and no lack of "fairness" or whatever. The X800 is leagues better than a TNT2, and a comparison of the two would clearly reveal that.



Now, if you did that same test and tried to use the results to say "ATi clearly makes better cards than nVidia does" or something, then you'd have a problem, as you haven't made a valid comparison. If you want to do a shootout for the fastest card on the market, sure, use nVidia's ultra extreme, and while you're at it, try overclocking the sucker. Same thing for ATi's end of things.



Don't get me wrong, I like nVidia cards, have owned a couple, and my next card will be one as well, but that doesn't negate the fact that you can compare any card to any other, and the comparison is perfectly fine. There's no reason that you have to pick one card or another, and that's just reality. In the end, people will make their own decisions based largely off of price, and only within that bracket will they judge on performance.