Nvidia and Half-Life 2 question.

[AmonRa7]

Was the HL2 problems with nvidia cards only a problem with their newere FX line or to all nvidia cards? I have a GeForce Ti 4600, is there any hope for me?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: AmonRa7
Was the HL2 problems with nvidia cards only a problem with their newere FX line or to all nvidia cards? I have a GeForce Ti 4600, is there any hope for me?

Your card will run it fine under the DX8 path. Actually, you will have higher FPS than with a GeForce FX 5200 or 5600 series.

 

[AmonRa7]

Does anyone know of a site that provides benchmark results using the Ti4600? I found some ATI vs FX series ones, but that's about it.

Thanks for the help.

 

[nRollo]

How about Anandtech?

4600 HL2 benchmarks

 

[AmonRa7]

lmao, ty

 

[yhelothar]

i think nvidia will fix the performance issues...
after i read the leaked marketing slides from ati... which one of their plans was to get software companies to make ati look better in benchmarks.... that was their first objective on the slide...

 

[AmonRa7]

Honestly, I'm quite content with the GF4 Ti4600, afterall, I'm getting it for free. I just don't feel like dishing out $200+ for a new card to play HL2.

I know they released some driver updates for the newer cards, what about the older ones?

GeForce4 Ti 4600 DX8.0 vs GF4 Ti 4600 DX9?

 

[Corporate Thug]

ti4600 is DX8

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
i think nvidia will fix the performance issues...
after i read the leaked marketing slides from ati... which one of their plans was to get software companies to make ati look better in benchmarks.... that was their first objective on the slide...

Alert the presses! Company wants their product to look good in the media! Film at 11!

Seriously, what do you think nVidia was doing when it called 3DM03 useless and said it was using PS1.4, which nobody uses according to them, and makes their cards look bad, to boot? (The same company that then said HL2 should use more PS1.4 instead of PS2.0 in HL2.)

 

[nRollo]

You can't play HL2 in DX9 on a 4600. However, if AA/AF at high settings aren't an issue for you, a Ti4600 will play that game and any other pretty well. Free 4600 beats $250 9700 Pro in my book.

 

[MDE]

If I blow $50 on HL2, it won't be accompanied by $250+ for a 9700/9800, my Ti4600 will have to sludge through it (albeit not that badly compared to a $150-$200 FX5600).

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
i think nvidia will fix the performance issues...
after i read the leaked marketing slides from ati... which one of their plans was to get software companies to make ati look better in benchmarks.... that was their first objective on the slide...

I think nVidia will fix the performance issues too. I mean, it's a hardware problem and all, but I'm sure they'll release a new driver set and let you buy an add-on card for the FX series that gives it more Pixel Shader pipelines.

.
.
.
.
.
.

[hopefully, your sarcasm detector is going off the charts here]

 

[AndrewKu]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
i think nvidia will fix the performance issues...
after i read the leaked marketing slides from ati... which one of their plans was to get software companies to make ati look better in benchmarks.... that was their first objective on the slide...

Those are two seperate issues. Fixing performance for NVIDIA is independent from the marketing analysis that ATI performs for their public relations function. Both companies want to look good, so therefore it is logical to assume that ATI will focus on what they are good at the moment: full precision DX9 mode in heavy pixel shader games. NVIDIA fixing their performance will depend on NVIDIA not ATI. Competition will be very agressive no doubt, and like Anand said NV40 is something definately something we are keeping our eyes on.

 

[us3rnotfound]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
i think nvidia will fix the performance issues...
after i read the leaked marketing slides from ati... which one of their plans was to get software companies to make ati look better in benchmarks.... that was their first objective on the slide...

I think nVidia will fix the performance issues too. I mean, it's a hardware problem and all, but I'm sure they'll release a new driver set and let you buy an add-on card for the FX series that gives it more Pixel Shader pipelines.

.
.
.
.
.
.

[hopefully, your sarcasm detector is going off the charts here]

I agree w/ virtualgames0. Sorry for posting my opinion, but this will hopefully get straightened out to a point, because there are always game patches, driver updates, etc. and this is Nvidia we're talking about.

There's no way that thousands of people bought a Geforce FX, and will play the game like crap. It wouldn't make any sense to them (actually, it will confuse the hell out of them because they just bought an Alienware Area 51, and will be playing HL2 at 30 fps). Maybe it will make sense to us computer enthusiasts why that is, but not to these people who love playing games, but could care less about computer hardware.

Most of them, who don't even go on forums like at, etc., or don't care to, don't even have a clue that this is whole ordeal is going on. All they know is their $2k comp with a 5600 ultra will pwn in HL2 (which is not yet true). No offense, but some people here jump the gun way too soon when it comes to unreleased games and say that Nvidia is screwed or start bashing them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the game isn't out yet.

Finally, if the game gets released eventually, and it does run like crap, it'll be a threat to Valve and Nvidia. Let's see what these next dets do in these Directx 9 games *crosses fingers*.


C here: I chose the word them to equal a person who does not know crap about computer hardware. Now, that "them" may be some kid who is asking for this game for Christmas, is going to preorder it and knows this game will rock on his Alienware with a GeForce FX, etc.

 

[AndrewKu]

Indeed, the next move will be interesting to watch.

 

[Jeff7181]

Wasn't there an article on this site about the GF FX5800 Ultra when it was released that said something to the effect that nVidia has been able to gain as much as 20% performance with new, revised drivers in the past, and not to consider the FX5800 Ultra junk compared to the 9700 Pro?

 

[Jeff7181]

I knew I read it somewhere =)

Historically, NVIDIA has always provided a driver release 3 - 6 months after the launch of a new GPU that has improved performance anywhere from 10 - 20% on average.

 

[Pete]

Yes, and we're learning that some of these huge performance increases of the past were based on, essentially, IHV optimizations--app detection that changes or lowers quality in a not-easily-noticable way. The furor over the FX these past few months is that these "optimizations" are multiplying, people are catching and documenting them, and some are visibly reducing IQ.

shminu, don't be afraid to share your opinion--that's what these public forums are about. As to FX DX9 performance, it's possible the current FX hardware will never be up to its ATi competitors simply because of the way each card was engineered and the way DX9 is coded. As to FX HL2 performance, Valve may well just default FX cards to the DX8 path, where they perform much better. I'm curious to see if new drivers can better translate shaders to the FX hardware's strengths, but I really doubt it. It's been six months since the 5800's release, and we haven't seen any huge performance gains that didn't come without IQ compromises.

It seems to be a combination of engineering trouble on nV's part and unanticipated game delays and releases on game devs' parts that has put nV in a situation where it looks worse than ATi almost across the board. I think that if Doom 3 were to be released at the same time as HL2, the FX line would look much stronger. As it stands, Doom 3 is still far off, and we're seeing a handful of hotly-anticipated games being released with DX9 features that make the FX line look bad in comparison to ATi's cards. Bad luck and bad timing can't last forever, though, so I expect a much stronger part in the NV40.

 

[Jeff7181]

Well, as I've said many times before, nVidia claims the FX GPU is highly programmable. So, the drivers can be written for specific pieces of software... is that cheating? Nope. It's optimizing... as far as I'm concerned, optimized drivers are better than just one universal one. The only problem with that is nVidia is creating a lot more work for themselves, having to modify the drivers for each game that comes out.

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Well, as I've said many times before, nVidia claims the FX GPU is highly programmable. So, the drivers can be written for specific pieces of software... is that cheating? Nope. It's optimizing... as far as I'm concerned, optimized drivers are better than just one universal one. The only problem with that is nVidia is creating a lot more work for themselves, having to modify the drivers for each game that comes out.

They are actually creating a lot more work for game developers. They have to write a special codepath instead of using standard DX9/ARB code. The game developers have expressed their displeasure with having to do this. Not all developers are as big as Valve and ID. Many may not have the resources to write special code just for nvidia hardware. Using standard codepaths is the better way to do business.

 

[Eagle17]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Well, as I've said many times before, nVidia claims the FX GPU is highly programmable. So, the drivers can be written for specific pieces of software... is that cheating? Nope. It's optimizing... as far as I'm concerned, optimized drivers are better than just one universal one. The only problem with that is nVidia is creating a lot more work for themselves, having to modify the drivers for each game that comes out.

That is not the root of the problem with the FX hardware. In general when talking about the shaders you can write to them in a programable fashion and optimize the code you right, however the architecture in the processor that runs the code cannot run the code well enough to keep up, a matter of where to put the thansisters. This is why we are seeing issues with all directx9 based software. Right now many of the games coming out do not have very much directX9(PS2.0 shaders) features. I cannot believe Nvidia will let the next generation of hardware be this bad. But that is what I said when the 5800fx came out.

I agree that optimizing in not cheating (as long as there is no difference to the out put of the scene) however many of Nvidia's optimizations have yeilded far less IQ than the non-optimized versions. This does not mean that it is the only way to optimize it is just the path taken thus far.

As far as optimized drivers being more usefull than just one universal one I must be misunderstanding you because one the the biggest coplaints with the ATI 8500 when it came out was the issue of needing to change drivers for each game. I do not think that would be a good thing.

And I do agree that Nvidia is making it very hard on themselves not just with having to optimize but the fact that they have lost the trust of a great number of people. It makes it even harder to justify paying top dollor for hardware that is not top of the line.

 

[SilverTrine]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Well, as I've said many times before, nVidia claims the FX GPU is highly programmable. So, the drivers can be written for specific pieces of software... is that cheating? Nope. It's optimizing... as far as I'm concerned, optimized drivers are better than just one universal one. The only problem with that is nVidia is creating a lot more work for themselves, having to modify the drivers for each game that comes out.

No you're mixed up what Nvidia is doing is lowering visual quality via precision to get better benchmark scores, they're taking effects like fog out of games like Halflife 2 to increase scores and they've added rail cheats to only benchmarks that have no bearing on the game but increase benchmark scores. This is out and out cheating, like I said before you're confused about what they're actually doing.

 

[SickBeast]

Let's not forget the "QuackIII" episode that ATi pulled not that long ago...

They all cheat at one stage or another. That's why we need reviews by objective writers such as Anand to let us know what's really going on.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Let's not forget the "QuackIII" episode that ATi pulled not that long ago...

They all cheat at one stage or another. That's why we need reviews by objective writers such as Anand to let us know what's really going on.

except this is more than cheating. its cheating over and over again accompanied with poor dx9 and ps2.0 performance.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Let's not forget the "QuackIII" episode that ATi pulled not that long ago...

They all cheat at one stage or another. That's why we need reviews by objective writers such as Anand to let us know what's really going on.

Actually, it wasn't that recently. And ATI learned from their lesson. Nvidia, apparently, instead of taking the high road has just followed in their footsteps.

ATI gave up this kind of cheating with the Quake/Quack 3 debacle. Nvidia is doing it for many benchmarking programs today.