6800NU = really really bad Half-Life2 performance

got a 550w :/

 

... i can't believe it ...

Whooohooo

Yeah buddy lets talk some real bulls****..

Man i can't believe it. If i were mean i'd call you a fanATIc, idiot
or find some other form of insulting you, but i'll calm myself and
just take a guess that you simply don't have a clue and repeat
what you've been told by others.

So, lets get this staight.

most, if not all, geforce cards have really horrible direct x support.

Wrong.
Most GF cards have rather excellent DX-support, except
the FX-line of cards, which indeed has poor DX 9 support but
performs absolutly impressive under any earlier DX Version.
The GF 6 series perform just as good as the competition in DX9.


halflife 2 uses dx9 STRONGLY

Wrong.
HL² makes use of DX9 specific shader-effects, but not nearly as
heavy as for example FarCry, TR-AOD or other titles. HL² uses
DX9 very reservedly to improve water reflection & refraction,
some bumbmapping and particleeffects (smoke).


which is why most people with a gf has fps problems

Wrong.
Some people with GF-cards have fps-problems with HL².
My rig is to the right,and i played HL² with 1280 with all details
maxed out and 4x AA and 8xAF with no stuttering at all, and that
counts for dozens of people i know with similar/comparable rigs
and million other people i don't know. The problem that is described
here obviously is special to his rig/setup and resulting from some
screwed up driver/configuration fault or a defect.


And by the way ... ever tried forcing HL² to detect a GF FX as a
Radeon? No? Well guess what, all of a sudden, DX9 works on
a FX card ...
(OK. Slow, as DX9 is a weak spot for FX-cards, but with 16bit
precision it runs like silk and the difference is a joke)


Sorry, din't mean to be rude, but i'm sick and tired of reading such
rubish from either fanboys or people that are just repeating what
they heard here and there and thus spread wrong information ...

never mind

 

just stating facts...ati cards run better on dx and nvid cards run better on opengl...thats just the way it works. also, the fx series cards run better on farcry than hl2. thats more than enough proof to get my point across that hl2 is one of the most dx based games ever made to date.

6800 cant top a x800 in a dx9 based game...maybe par preformance, but not better, as well as a MX/FX series gf compared to a 9xxx series radeon

as stated above, if farcry runs better on fx cards than hl2, then what does that say about the level of directx9 support used in hl2?

take a look around. there ARE more gf users with graphic problems in hl2 than radeons. that is a blatently obvious fact.

no big. just to let u know though, im not an ati fanboy. i dont care what i buy aslong as it is one of the best parts i can get. as for the wrong info part, just apply a little bit of common sense (no offence or nething) and u should see what im talking about.

 

pretty sure that is what's holding that card back. No sense in having that ultra and a cheapie mobo. Get a top notch Mobo and you will see more than 1000 pts on your 3DM05 score

 

i dont think a cheap motherboard will set him back THAT much and 3dmark03 and 3dmark05 is mainly gfx card dependent.

3l_gringo: what kind of chipset does it use? have you install the driver for you chipset?

 

my ecs Mobo w/ same setup gives my less than 1000+ pts in 3DM05 than with my abit board go figure?

 

Its a Via chip set and yes I have the most recent 4in1 drivers.
What really bugs me is that i´ve tried my gfx card in another Pc (with a asus P4P800) and got basicly the same results ...

 

I have a near identical setup to yours except i have an amd 3500+ and a Gainward 6800GT. So for me to have the problem and you not just seems abit odd. Maybe if you tell me what you have your bios set to and if you have upgraded the bios on your mobo since you bought it and if so to what version. Cheers

 

You can try this suggestion from this thread.

Watcher

 

Wrong.

The reason FarCry runs a little better on ANY card then HL² is
that HL² simply buts LOTS more work to the card in high detail
then FarCry. And this is not due to more DX9-specific effects,
but due to way higher geometric and texture load. Concluding
a game uses more DX9 features as another from the one fact
that it runs slower on a FX-card is quite amusing. This COULD
be one part in the puzzle, but it is not the essential reason.

One reason, for example, is that crytek did a rather good job to
make it's engine run excaptable on NV and ATI hardware, where
as VALVE did a lousy job in supporting NV-hardware. Thats a
prooven fact. It could even be discussed if Valve did lower performance
on NV-cards on purpouse, as latest results with changeing
vendor- and hardware ID's of NV-cards to ATI-numbers show.
Explanation: HL² by default uses DX8 on FX-cards. If forced to
use DX9-features it produces some severe grafical errors,missing
textures and effects. If you now change the vendor- and poduct-
ID of an FX-card to ATI Radeon with a tool, all of a sudden, HL²
runs with flawlessly beautiful DX9 grafics on a FX-card. Strange, uh?

Wrong. (LOL)
Even in HL², that runs so much better on ATI in your view,
the 6800GT wins over the x800pro in the VideoStressTest,
not much but some percent. Oh btw, "MX" is not a series of NV
cards, but a subdivision to lable low-end versions ...

Honestly? Very little to nothing.

Wrong.
You're seriously mixing up things here and trying to sell quick-hand
conclusions as facts without proof or backup information at all.
You generalize problems of single users with certain hardware
on a broad scale to fit your view of things.

Common sense of course is something very important, but serves
you nothing without solid background information on real facts.
If you're laking that, no sense in the world will lead you to any
usefull or objective conclusions.


Again, my text might sound harsh, maybe even provocative, but
i am not meaning to insult you. Just stating my point that your
argumentation is flawed.

 

they should make your post a sticky Madmonkey. lol

 

proven facts radeons tend to run better than geforce.

http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/Half life 2/
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=hl2_performance&page=2
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjkyLDI=
http://www.ukterrorist.com/news/hl2_benchies/
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117071&highlight=x800+hl2

those are all benchmarks though. benchmarks only tell one side of the story, but they prove a very valid point on my part. pm me a link of the site you saw a 6800 outpreform a x800 (unless its the GT vs Pro cuz ive already seen that and they still preform about the same). the next link is to a forum with ppl posting their results on the stress test...read up!

http://www.forumplanet.com/counterstrike/topic.asp?fid=8447&tid=1458999&p=1

now lets save any future posts for another topic and lets try to help this guy out with his low preformance on a geforce problem.

 

you better update your screen shots because the top 3DM05 scores no longer belong to ati top 15 slots now belong to Nvidia(8606 best ati setup and 11086 top Nvidia set up), and you point out one game "hl2" game we all no was optimized for ati hardware. In conclusion your still WRONG!

 

one reason why those rigs have a high mark is because of their processor...look at their gpu score.

 

once again WRONG!! 3DM05 of the top nvidia is the GFX score. And the top one is only overclocked to 3.4 . You should instruct yourself before you speak so as if it looked like you knew what you were talking about

 

congrats, thats 2 for nvidia (doom 3 and 3d mark 05) and how many for ati?

if you wish to further debate about what card is better go here http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117071&highlight=x800+hl2 as i will not reply to any more "what vid card is better" on this thread as it is way off topic.

 

it isnt a question anymore with nvidias SLI set up whats better.