Half-life 2 video stress test out today on steam

My system:
Athlon 64 3000+
MSI K8T800
1GB OCZ PC3200
Geforce 6800 GT
Windows XP Pro SP1
DX9.0c
Forceware 61.77

When I first tried the stress test, I was getting similar results to driverheaven.net (33 fps at 1600x1200 with max settings, and 4xAA and 8xAF application controlled). At first I thought that there must have been a problem with either the via chipset, or the MSI motherobard, or the Athlon 64 that was causing our poor performance, but I couldn't find a single answer anywhere to why I was getting such poor performance. The first thing I tried was installing the 4in1 via hyperion drivers, which boosted my performance by 5 fps. After having good luck with that, but not making up all of the difference, I went to the nvidia control panel and started looking for settings that might make a difference. The first thing I noticed was that Antistropic Filtering optimizations were turned off by default, so I turned them on, and got an extra 4 fps boost from that. Last I tried turning off vsync within the game, and this only gave me about a 2 fps boost, so I went to the nvidia control panel and disabled vsync from there and that gave me a nearly 10 fps boost.

Now with the same settings that driverheaven.net was using (1600x1200, High quality everything, Reflect all, 4xAA and 8xAF) I am getting 52 fps.

I have a feeling that some if not all of the steps that I took to improve my performance were not taken by the testers at driverheaven.net. If they took these steps I think their results would be closer to what the other sites are getting.
 
Tobyus said:
My system:
Athlon 64 3000+
MSI K8T800
1GB OCZ PC3200
Geforce 6800 GT
Windows XP Pro SP1
DX9.0c
Forceware 61.77

When I first tried the stress test, I was getting similar results to driverheaven.net (33 fps at 1600x1200 with max settings, and 4xAA and 8xAF application controlled). At first I thought that there must have been a problem with either the via chipset, or the MSI motherobard, or the Athlon 64 that was causing our poor performance, but I couldn't find a single answer anywhere to why I was getting such poor performance. The first thing I tried was installing the 4in1 via hyperion drivers, which boosted my performance by 5 fps. After having good luck with that, but not making up all of the difference, I went to the nvidia control panel and started looking for settings that might make a difference. The first thing I noticed was that Antistropic Filtering optimizations were turned off by default, so I turned them on, and got an extra 4 fps boost from that. Last I tried turning off vsync within the game, and this only gave me about a 2 fps boost, so I went to the nvidia control panel and disabled vsync from there and that gave me a nearly 10 fps boost.

Now with the same settings that driverheaven.net was using (1600x1200, High quality everything, Reflect all, 4xAA and 8xAF) I am getting 52 fps.

I have a feeling that some if not all of the steps that I took to improve my performance were not taken by the testers at driverheaven.net. If they took these steps I think their results would be closer to what the other sites are getting.
Click to expand...


What about the trilinear opts? Did you enable those?
 
I didn't even think to check that. I will have to when I get home. If I haven't, I will and I will post any changes.
 
Tobyus said:
My system:
Athlon 64 3000+
MSI K8T800
1GB OCZ PC3200
Geforce 6800 GT
Windows XP Pro SP1
DX9.0c
Forceware 61.77

When I first tried the stress test, I was getting similar results to driverheaven.net (33 fps at 1600x1200 with max settings, and 4xAA and 8xAF application controlled). At first I thought that there must have been a problem with either the via chipset, or the MSI motherobard, or the Athlon 64 that was causing our poor performance, but I couldn't find a single answer anywhere to why I was getting such poor performance. The first thing I tried was installing the 4in1 via hyperion drivers, which boosted my performance by 5 fps. After having good luck with that, but not making up all of the difference, I went to the nvidia control panel and started looking for settings that might make a difference. The first thing I noticed was that Antistropic Filtering optimizations were turned off by default, so I turned them on, and got an extra 4 fps boost from that. Last I tried turning off vsync within the game, and this only gave me about a 2 fps boost, so I went to the nvidia control panel and disabled vsync from there and that gave me a nearly 10 fps boost.

Now with the same settings that driverheaven.net was using (1600x1200, High quality everything, Reflect all, 4xAA and 8xAF) I am getting 52 fps.

I have a feeling that some if not all of the steps that I took to improve my performance were not taken by the testers at driverheaven.net. If they took these steps I think their results would be closer to what the other sites are getting.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what you would get with the 65.62 drivers. Care to try it? :)
 
Sure, why not :D I have been tempted to try them, but I was waiting to make sure they were stable with all of the games that I play.
 
Tobyus said:
Sure, why not :D I have been tempted to try them, but I was waiting to make sure they were stable with all of the games that I play.
Click to expand...

Let us know. Some people are saying up to a 10% speed increase. Personally I'm thinking 3-5% (if that).
 
I got a massive boost on Far Cry [over 10FPS] and a moderate one for D3 [3 FPS]. Also, 8xS is finally playable [I average about 40FPS] for KotOR under the new drivers.
 
ok here we go this is on 4.8s whql

All game settings maxed 4x/8x AA/AF

800x600: 126.54fps
1024x768: 114.23fps
1280x1024: 82.36fps
1600x1200: 67.43fps
 
Ok, I installed the 65.62 beta drivers to test this out, but I'm not sure that it really gave me much of a performance boost, at least at 1600x1200. I think I may have gained 1 or 2 fps at that resolution, but up until now I hadn't tested the lower resolutions so they may have improved quite a bit. Trilinear optimizations were on by default in the beta drivers. I enabled both AF optimizations and disabled vsync within the CP.

Again, my system is this:
Athlon 64 3000+
MSI K8T800
1GB OCZ PC3200
Geforce 6800 GT
Windows XP Pro SP1
DX9.0c
Forceware 65.62

My tests were all run with the highest settings in the advanced options, except reflect world/reflect all which I will specify in each individual benchmark. These tests were also run with 4xAA and 8xAF.

800x600
Reflect World: 126.88
Reflect All: 114.45

1024x768
Reflect World: 113.25
Reflect All: 102.98

1280x960
Reflect World: 88.95
Reflect All: 83.25

1600x1200
Reflect World: 55.61
Reflect All: 53.21

2048x1536
Reflect World: 31.30
Reflect All: 29.98

I was happy to see that at 2048x1536 with max settings, it still manages to pull off 30 fps average. Text is almost too tiny to read though, :p I also noticed that in 61.77 and 65.62 at 1600x1200 there is a strange graphical glitch in the top left hand corner of the screen that looks like something trying to be rendered but not quite succeeding, and it is there throughout the benchmark. I'm not sure if that hurts the performance any, but it is strange that it occurs at only that particular resolution.

I am pretty happy with the results. Now to see if the 65.62 drivers break any of my games :eek:

Edit:
Doom 3 seems to be working fine, running the timedemo showed a result of 64 fps at 1600x1200 High Settings(not ultra high) with 0xaa 8xaf
 
Tobyus said:
Ok, I installed the 65.62 beta drivers to test this out, but I'm not sure that it really gave me much of a performance boost, at least at 1600x1200. I think I may have gained 1 or 2 fps at that resolution, but up until now I hadn't tested the lower resolutions so they may have improved quite a bit. Trilinear optimizations were on by default in the beta drivers. I enabled both AF optimizations and disabled vsync within the CP.

Again, my system is this:
Athlon 64 3000+
MSI K8T800
1GB OCZ PC3200
Geforce 6800 GT
Windows XP Pro SP1
DX9.0c
Forceware 65.62

My tests were all run with the highest settings in the advanced options, except reflect world/reflect all which I will specify in each individual benchmark. These tests were also run with 4xAA and 8xAF.

800x600
Reflect World: 126.88
Reflect All: 114.45

1024x768
Reflect World: 113.25
Reflect All: 102.98

1280x960
Reflect World: 88.95
Reflect All: 83.25

1600x1200
Reflect World: 55.61
Reflect All: 53.21

2048x1536
Reflect World: 31.30
Reflect All: 29.98

I was happy to see that at 2048x1536 with max settings, it still manages to pull off 30 fps average. Text is almost too tiny to read though, :p I also noticed that in 61.77 and 65.62 at 1600x1200 there is a strange graphical glitch in the top left hand corner of the screen that looks like something trying to be rendered but not quite succeeding, and it is there throughout the benchmark. I'm not sure if that hurts the performance any, but it is strange that it occurs at only that particular resolution.

I am pretty happy with the results. Now to see if the 65.62 drivers break any of my games :eek:

Edit:
Doom 3 seems to be working fine, running the timedemo showed a result of 64 fps at 1600x1200 High Settings(not ultra high) with 0xaa 8xaf
Click to expand...


You didn't push you settings to HIGH QUALITY after you enabled the opts did you?
 
Nope, actually believe it or not that was with the Image Setting at High Performance. I just reran it at Quality (not High Quality) and got 50 fps, so it looks like you gain about 3 fps at 1600x1200 4xaa 8xaf with max settings, reflect all, if you turn it to High Performance over Quality. Not a huge difference I guess.
 
Hm. Well I'm not sure why those scores are so low. D3 seems ok. I get 74FPS at those settings but I've oced my GT.
 
4aa, 8AF, 1024*768

65.62 Drivers
With optimizations

126.55 FPS

Without optimizations, same settings, highest quality in Nvidia CP:
104.55

These optimizations give me a huge boost on my system.
 
What kind of systems do you all have? Actually, both of you all are overclocking and have 3200+ processors on different motherboards than mine. That may be why I am having worse performance, I am running everything at stock. There may still be something going on here with MSI for all that I know though. I am just happy I'm not getting 33 fps anymore, but if I can get better, I'll take it ;)

Edit:
I reran the test with 66.00 beta drivers at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF, highest settings, with reflect all enabled, and got 55 fps. This also did away with the graphical glitch that I mentioned before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top