• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Xbit Labs CS Source Benches

burningrave101 said:
Then why were a whole lot of ATI fans saying they went with ATI cards because they wanted the fastest card for CSS? I distinctively remember them saying that every fps counts.

So tell me again why ANYONE would currently buy an X800Pro over a 6800GT?
Click to expand...

I remember a fuss about HL2, not CSS. As for X800 Pro over a GT, I wouldn't get one unless it was a modded VIVO.

burningrave101 said:
How exactly does the X800's do better with 4xAA and 16xAF? The 6800's usually have higher performance Anti Aliasing and the 6800GT beat the X800Pro at 1600x1200 w/ 4xAA + 8xAF in every single level of the CSS benches but one where it lost by .3 fps lol. ATI's Anisotropic Filtering is also more optimized then nVidia's which means its lower quality and you can see this from comparative AF tests.
Click to expand...

Bolgona, you seem to be conveniently leaving out the fact that 6800 cards have a shimmering issue which many people have experienced. I'll refer you to this thread:

1. Texture shimmering on 6800 GT even with optimizations disabled

And these videos:

1. Painkiller
2. UT2003
 
MFZ said:
I remember a fuss about HL2, not CSS. As for X800 Pro over a GT, I wouldn't get one unless it was a modded VIVO.



Bolgona, you seem to be conveniently leaving out the fact that 6800 cards have a shimmering issue which many people have experienced. I'll refer you to this thread:

1. Texture shimmering on 6800 GT even with optimizations disabled

And these videos:

1. Painkiller
2. UT2003
Click to expand...

How many such videos and screenshots are around for the x800s? I don't think it really matters because nearly every time it comes down to a driver bug...
 
MFZ said:
I remember a fuss about HL2, not CSS. As for X800 Pro over a GT, I wouldn't get one unless it was a modded VIVO.
Click to expand...

The original Counter-Strike fanbase is HUGE and its still one of the most played multiplayer first person shooters out there. CSS should be no different.

A few fps make a much bigger difference in a multiplayer game then in a single player. FPS isn't going to matter in HL2 because we all know its going to run perfect on ither card without really having to think about it. If your playing CSS however on a large server then a few fps might actually mean something.
 
burningrave101 said:
The original Counter-Strike fanbase is HUGE and its still one of the most played multiplayer first person shooters out there. CSS should be no different.

A few fps make a much bigger difference in a multiplayer game then in a single player. FPS isn't going to matter in HL2 because we all know its going to run perfect on ither card without really having to think about it. If your playing CSS however on a large server then a few fps might actually mean something.
Click to expand...


CSS runs great on both platforms, so I don't know exactly what your point is? It runs fantastic on my 9800 pro at 1280x960 w/2xAA/8x AF so it must naturally do better on a 6800GT/X800pro or higher. You would have a point if any of these cards dipped down to the teens in fps and every crucial frame counted but that isn't the case here. HL2 may turn out to be another beast and isn't there supposed to be a CS2?
 
try out the new drivers, do any sites show the shimmering, does any one complain about shimmering with the 65 drivers? I have had no issues with it and have been using the 65 drivers for a month now
 
rancor said:
try out the new drivers, do any sites show the shimmering, does any one complain about shimmering with the 65 drivers? I have had no issues with it and have been using the 65 drivers for a month now
Click to expand...

If the issue were resolved, I'm sure someone would have updated that thread with the results. So as it stands there is no proof the issue has been fixed aside from your own assertion that it has.
 
rancor said:
you would also be hearing alot of people still bitching about it and that hasn't happened

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=30641

AA investigation
Click to expand...

Funny you linked me to an outdated AA investigation by ChrisRay who incidentally is the one that reported this shimmering issue. BTW this isn't about AA, if you take the time to read the threads on the subject it seems to be something to do with the LOD.
 
MFZ said:
CSS runs great on both platforms, so I don't know exactly what your point is? It runs fantastic on my 9800 pro at 1280x960 w/2xAA/8x AF so it must naturally do better on a 6800GT/X800pro or higher. You would have a point if any of these cards dipped down to the teens in fps and every crucial frame counted but that isn't the case here. HL2 may turn out to be another beast and isn't there supposed to be a CS2?
Click to expand...

HL2 is NOT going to be another beast lol. I know this for a FACT. Valve does not program games like that. Their games are perfectly coded and run extremely well on normal low-mid range systems. Just take a look at the original Half Life.

The D3 engine is the graphics beast, not HL2.

And BTW, i have a 6800GT so dont try to feed me some crap about a shimmering effect with AF lol.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12486
 
ok if it is due to LOD by decreasing LOD it should increase the texture shimmering not reduce it in that case you just proved it was a bug.
 
burningrave101 said:
HL2 is NOT going to be another beast lol. I know this for a FACT. Valve does not program games like that. Their games are perfectly coded and run extremely well on normal low-mid range systems. Just take a look at the original Half Life.

The D3 engine is the graphics beast, not HL2.

And BTW, i have a 6800GT so dont try to feed me some crap about a shimmering effect with AF lol.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12486
Click to expand...


Wow a debunked thread from May 04, way to go champ! So you know for a FACT how HL2 is going to run huh? You must work for Valve because aside from them and a select few individuals, nobody knows exactly how the game will perform. BTW excuse me if I don't take your word, emptys or trancendenz about anything relating to nVidia as anything but !!!!!! babble. I'll happily converse with rancor but you guys are just plain !!!!!!s.
 
rancor said:
ok if it is due to LOD by decreasing LOD it should increase the texture shimmering not reduce it in that case you just proved it was a bug.
Click to expand...

They've tried adjusting the LOD using rivatuner but apparently it screws the textures up. So far there has been no fix from nVidia assuming it is a software bug which at this pt. nobody knows.
 
MFZ said:
Wow a debunked thread from May 04, way to go champ! So you know for a FACT how HL2 is going to run huh? You must work for Valve because aside from them and a select few individuals, nobody knows exactly how the game will perform. BTW excuse me if I don't take your word, emptys or trancendenz about anything relating to nVidia as anything but !!!!!! babble. I'll happily converse with rancor but you guys are just plain !!!!!!s.
Click to expand...


They're the same muppets that think the leaked hl2 is a reliable way of testing cards as well. Says it all really. Bedtime for me, i'll read the angst in the morning. :eek:
 
MFZ said:
Wow a debunked thread from May 04, way to go champ! So you know for a FACT how HL2 is going to run huh? You must work for Valve because aside from them and a select few individuals, nobody knows exactly how the game will perform. BTW excuse me if I don't take your word, emptys or trancendenz about anything relating to nVidia as anything but !!!!!! babble. I'll happily converse with rancor but you guys are just plain !!!!!!s.
Click to expand...

Yea well i've been right about everything i've said this year concerning the NV40's vs R400's so far.

I said that nVidia would dominate in DOOM 3 because of the API it was built on and i said nVidia would have at least a 10-20 fps lead on ATI. Well that more then held true on the release date for D3.

We've already seen countless HL2 VST and CSS benchmarks and there is nothing in Half Life 2 that is going to make the game a graphics beast.

And that thread from May 04 discusses in depth some of the tricks ATI uses in their AF filtering quality lol. Way to go champ :p.
 
Chris_B said:
They're the same muppets that think the leaked hl2 is a reliable way of testing cards as well. Says it all really. Bedtime for me, i'll read the angst in the morning. :eek:
Click to expand...

Heh yeah pretty much. I won't be around either, gonna go out for the night.
 
MFZ said:
They've tried adjusting the LOD using rivatuner but apparently it screws the textures up. So far there has been no fix from nVidia assuming it is a software bug which at this pt. nobody knows.
Click to expand...


Well I don't see it in the 65 drivers I'll revert back and test it out on older drivers tomorrow and see I can generate the same issues.
 
Well lets put it this way lol, there has been absolutely NOTHING to show that HL2 will be a graphics beast or that it will run noticeably faster on ATI hardware. On the other hand there has been plenty to show the opposite like the CSS and VST benches and the horrid leaked HL2 beta which of course doesn't mean much as it wasn't a finished product. Also the fact that HL2 will be coded very well and should run at max settings on even mid-range systems.

Its great to have all these fun ideas about things but it helps to have something that reinforces those ideas.
 
Chris_B said:
They're the same muppets that think the leaked hl2 is a reliable way of testing cards as well. Says it all really. Bedtime for me, i'll read the angst in the morning. :eek:
Click to expand...

Right, so valve releases benchmark numbers that show ATi in the lead last year and those numbers are GOLD and everyone now firmly believes that ATi will lead massively in HL2...but then someone takes that same code and runs some benchmarks and suddenly it's "unreliable"...face it...the only reason it doesn't matter is because it doesn't show what you want to see...
 
The XT-PE atleast has a reason to be in the lead, with core speeds, so that will prolly have atleast a slight lead, the pro will prolly be right around the GT, since they practially the same fillrate since it has more mhz but less pipelines, but I think it's safe to assume they're fairly even, with the GT edging it out.
 
Don't you guys see that the 6800U wins in half of the 1600x1200 4xaa 16xaf benchmarks? I really hope you do, and you see that they are even. Hell from the previous stress test benchrmaks when those came out the 6800U was tested with 61.77's and Ati with 4.9 drivers, for the hell of it I ran my stress test at the highest settings (1600x1200 4xaa 8xaf) with High Quality in cp aka no optimizations, and I scored 69.13 FPS. I go to techreport.com and check to see what the x800 xt pe got at the same settings a 69.93 . I'm sorry but ATi's considerable lead is pretty much gone.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Right, so valve releases benchmark numbers that show ATi in the lead last year and those numbers are GOLD and everyone now firmly believes that ATi will lead massively in HL2...but then someone takes that same code and runs some benchmarks and suddenly it's "unreliable"...face it...the only reason it doesn't matter is because it doesn't show what you want to see...
Click to expand...

Preach on brotha ^eMpTy^ preach on!
 
ATI has good hardware but their driver team is lacking. nVidia however has an excellent driver team for both Windows D3D/OpenGL and Linux. nVidia has shown they can continue to increase performance with each driver release. ATI's driver releases are primarily bug fixes the majority of the time with a few performance increases thrown in now and then. ATI's real performance increases usually come out of desperation like with the beta drivers for DOOM 3.
 
Banko said:
Don't you guys see that the 6800U wins in half of the 1600x1200 4xaa 16xaf benchmarks? I really hope you do, and you see that they are even. Hell from the previous stress test benchrmaks when those came out the 6800U was tested with 61.77's and Ati with 4.9 drivers, for the hell of it I ran my stress test at the highest settings (1600x1200 4xaa 8xaf) with High Quality in cp aka no optimizations, and I scored 69.13 FPS. I go to techreport.com and check to see what the x800 xt pe got at the same settings a 69.93 . I'm sorry but ATi's considerable lead is pretty much gone.
Click to expand...


Ditto, I'm thinking the same thing

here are some benchmarks of CS: Source when it first was tested from x-bit labs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/counterstrike-source_9.html

The nV drivers really pumped up thier score

Intead of being down by 10 fps at the highest setting nV is now trading blows
 
Is anyone else slightly disappointed in the performance loss with the PCI-E versions of the Nvidia cards. Yeah, it's only 3-6 FPS, but still, a $400 card on a new bus technology should perform the same as the same card on an older bus.
 
I wouldn't put much stock into those numbers since actual server gameplay is extremely different. CS:S isn't a single player game so benchmarking it how they did is pointless to a degree. The only way to benchmark is to go to a server with a minimum of 20 players and benchmark about 5 minutes of gameplay. Another big thing with CS:S is minimum fps, which for quite a few is very low. I know I dip into the 30s at times when there are a lot of people on my screen and especially when in a large firefight with all the gun flashes and players around.
 
well when ya look at it that way yes, but in effect that has nothing to do with graphics performance, since the cpu is the limiting factor as would be lan bandwidth if you have 20+ people playing. And this will be the same for all graphics cards.
 
Harrath said:
Is anyone else slightly disappointed in the performance loss with the PCI-E versions of the Nvidia cards. Yeah, it's only 3-6 FPS, but still, a $400 card on a new bus technology should perform the same as the same card on an older bus.
Click to expand...


It is a bit disappointing but thats the hurt of the HSI agp to pci-e bridge chip. They might not have used a native pci-e 6800 gt
 
It has a lot to do with graphics performance. It's not the simple fact that there are a lot of people on your screen because that isnt what dips my fps into the 30s. With a lot of people on screen my fps dips into the 50s, but when you have a lot of effects going on it will dip into the 30s. That isn't a result of cpu processing power, thats the graphics card getting taxed.
 
not exactly, if there are alot people on your screen firing, phsyics is going crazy, your cpu is a gaurenteed bottleneck, try this do you have Farcry? open up the editor and place 20 characters on a map don't attach any ai so they are dumb lol. Then add in 20 particle effects. You will see the graphics cards aren't tasked at all. These graphics cards can handle alot, they can average around 200k polys on the screen at 60 fps with particles effects the works with these engines (Far Cry, HL2, Doom 3).
 
gordon151 said:
It has a lot to do with graphics performance. It's not the simple fact that there are a lot of people on your screen because that isnt what dips my fps into the 30s. With a lot of people on screen my fps dips into the 50s, but when you have a lot of effects going on it will dip into the 30s. That isn't a result of cpu processing power, thats the graphics card getting taxed.
Click to expand...

I think it's a combination of everything. More players on the screen means more triangles to push, more bandwidth to use up, more effects going on, more physics...blah blah blah...everything goes up with more players on the screen...unless those players are doing something extremely graphic in nature though, your cpu and internet connection will probably go first...but if they were like, firing a gun or blowing up a grenade that had some special effects associated with it...that could put the vid card to work...

Overall, I think the only way to test it is to benchmark it...this subjective "it plays smoother" idea is controlled by so many other factors, there's no way to narrow it down to the vid card...
 
rancor said:
not exactly, if there are alot people on your screen firing, phsyics is going crazy, your cpu is a gaurenteed bottleneck, try this do you have Farcry? open up the editor and place 20 characters on a map don't attach any ai so they are dumb lol. Then add in 20 particle effects. You will see the graphics cards aren't tasked at all. These graphics cards can handle alot, they can average around 200k polys on the screen at 60 fps with particles effects the works with these engines (Far Cry, HL2, Doom 3).
Click to expand...

And that would explain why I get a much lower minimum framerate than a person with a less powerful cpu than mine but a much better graphics card how?

Edit: Either way, like I said. Graphics power is a factor in dogfight situations, as the cpu isnt the only limiting factor.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Right, so valve releases benchmark numbers that show ATi in the lead last year and those numbers are GOLD and everyone now firmly believes that ATi will lead massively in HL2...but then someone takes that same code and runs some benchmarks and suddenly it's "unreliable"...face it...the only reason it doesn't matter is because it doesn't show what you want to see...
Click to expand...


Same code? Are you really that deluded? The leaked hl2 beta was full of missing textures, missing enemies, no ai, messed up physics, city17 and the strider demo looked practically NOTHING like the friggin e3 presentation, whole sections of the level were missing. Its blindingly obvious you have not messed with the leaked beta, i on the other hand have and anyone else that has had it will tell you the same thing, the leaked "beta" was practically nothing like the e3 demo, so much stuff was missing it was a total joke and a waste of 1.2 gigs or so of harddrive space.

The version valve showed at e3 worked properly, had the physics had the ai, wasn't missing entire chunks of levels had npc's running around on the maps. The beta did not so how in the HELL can the 2 be compared? They can't, anyone with half a frigging brain would know this. However you havn't messed with the leak therefore you're concluding WRONGLY that its the same thing valve showed at e3, sorry to bust your bubble but its not. Therefore can't be compared so wave bye bye to your argument as its just fallen flat on its face.

What you're basically saying\ doing is taking a fps average from a working benchmark, then removing parts of the map\textures\ai then running the benchmark again and expecting it to show the same numbers, doesn't take a genius to figure out that aint gonna happen. Don't even try to argue with me on this because its not gonna make any difference, you cannot compare the two.
 
Chris_B said:
Same code? Are you really that deluded? The leaked hl2 beta was full of missing textures, missing enemies, no ai, messed up physics, city17 and the strider demo looked practically NOTHING like the friggin e3 presentation, whole sections of the level were missing. Its blindingly obvious you have not messed with the leaked beta, i on the other hand have and anyone else that has had it will tell you the same thing, the leaked "beta" was practically nothing like the e3 demo, so much stuff was missing it was a total joke and a waste of 1.2 gigs or so of harddrive space.

The version valve showed at e3 worked properly, had the physics had the ai, wasn't missing entire chunks of levels had npc's running around on the maps. The beta did not so how in the HELL can the 2 be compared? They can't, anyone with half a frigging brain would know this. However you havn't messed with the leak therefore you're concluding WRONGLY that its the same thing valve showed at e3, sorry to bust your bubble but its not. Therefore can't be compared so wave bye bye to your argument as its just fallen flat on its face.
Click to expand...

Why do I get the feeling that you work at a video store and know everything there is to know about all the babylon 5 movies...

I downloaded the leaked beta just like everyone else.

It looked exactly like the e3 presentation...I didn't see any missing textures at all...it was probably an issue with your vid card...

FYI the files of the leaked beta were dated a week after the e3 presentation...nice theory...but it's a little more complex than a babylon 5 plot...take a seat
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Why do I get the feeling that you work at a video store and know everything there is to know about all the babylon 5 movies...

I downloaded the leaked beta just like everyone else.

It looked exactly like the e3 presentation...I didn't see any missing textures at all...it was probably an issue with your vid card...

FYI the files of the leaked beta were dated a week after the e3 presentation...nice theory...but it's a little more complex than a babylon 5 plot...take a seat
Click to expand...


Kid you are full of it, i dont need to say anymore, anyone that dloaded it knows what the hell it played like, barely anything worked, just keep deluding yourself its quite funny.
 
Chris_B said:
Kid you are full of it, i dont need to say anymore, anyone that dloaded it knows what the hell it played like, barely anything worked, just keep deluding yourself its quite funny.
Click to expand...

Man I don't know what you're on...here's what I know...in the beta version that I downloaded, there were several levels which were completely finished and quite playable...AI, physics, textures, everything was good to go...the only thing I had a problem with was getting the buggy stuck in the water in a couple of places and not being able to kill the stupid flying things no matter how many rockets I shot at it...

At this point, I think it's safe to say that whatever you downloaded was either incomplete, you installed it improperly, or you had vid card driver issues...
 
And furthermore...the fact that the CS: Source benchmarks back up precisely what the beta benchmarks showed should completely end all discussion on the subject...not to mention the fact that the video cards used in both instances of benchmarking were not the same...

The 5900 still does horribly in DX9...nothing has changed...the two sets of benchmarks done by valve and later done on the beta completely agree with one another...

I see what you're trying to say, but basically the only evidence you have for your entire argument is the fact that YOU saw missing textures on YOUR computer...and I don't think that really means dick in the big picture...
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Man I don't know what you're on...here's what I know...in the beta version that I downloaded, there were several levels which were completely finished and quite playable...AI, physics, textures, everything was good to go...the only thing I had a problem with was getting the buggy stuck in the water in a couple of places and not being able to kill the stupid flying things no matter how many rockets I shot at it...

At this point, I think it's safe to say that whatever you downloaded was either incomplete, you installed it improperly, or you had vid card driver issues...
Click to expand...



Rofl yeah lemme see vid card drivers made the npc's disappear, these drivers also made the strider not work, these drivers also made the machine eating away at the city disappear, these drivers also made the ai not do anything besides stand and do nothing. Yeah very convincing argument you got going there. FYI it was installed properly, and the thing barely worked, all the "beta" was good for was looking at the weapons and messing about with them, that was about the limit of its usefulness. For some morons at a site to use it as a benchmark was beyond retarded. The version i had was installed with the "patches" that were made available a few days later, made no difference. Incomplete, barely functional, inadmissable as any kind of benchmark. Take a seat kid. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top