HOC Half-Life 2 Benchmark Results Ok let me start off a proper thread which might turn in to a more structured place to post your HL2 Benchmark scores. Ok first off you'll need: HOC Half-Life 2 Benchmark v 1.2 Read everything in the post so you know what you to have to get the benchmark running. Ok my results are as follows, using 67.03 with driver settings: Image Settings High Quality AA & AF Settings Application Controlled Vertical Sync Off [if that matters] PC was OC'd / Configured with the settings in my profile on the right. My HL2 is completely up-to-date with all patches and fixes as well. Rest of Benchmark settings are listed below: Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 45.3 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 8× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 45.9 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 8× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 49.4 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 92.2 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 8× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 92.2 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo5 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 87.8 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo6 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 98.3 FPS Well thats all the available demo's in the benchmark tool. But you can see there seems to be no differencee between selecting 4xAA and 8xAA. This could be for a number of reasons, perhaps cos i have a Nvidia card and 8xAA isn't selectable in game. So i decided to force 4xAA & 8xsAA to see what difference's there might be. Here are the results: Forced 4xAA Via Driver Control Panel Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 43.6 FPS Well you can see letting HL2 handle 4xAA offers a slight performance gain. Forced 8xsAA Via Driver Control Panel Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 8× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 30.9 FPS Big difference in result here so i'm guessing the benchmark tool is unable to force 8xAA when you select it. Perhaps needs to be fixed? So thats it, hope everyone else can share their results here. I'm pretty pleased with mine overall as theres no apparent difference in performance between 8xAF & 16xAF. Thanks for reading P.S Does HL2 crash the first time you run the benchmark? I've had to do a Ctrl + Alt + Del and close HL2.exe and hit the Run button again in the benchmark tool for HL2 to run properly. This only happens for the first time a demo is run.
Heres my results. --- Global image quality via drivers = High Quality. AA/AF = Application controlled. Vsync = Off. Drivers = 65.73's See Sig for specs. --- Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 256mb Score = 52.4 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 256mb Score = 63.9 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 256mb Score = 117.0 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo5 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 256mb Score = 95.2 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo6 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 256mb Score = 98.5 FPS
welli just benchmarked using guru3d demo 4 as of now. Here is my score. ============ Resolution: 1024×768 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 8× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 128.8 FPS ============= Muahahah A64 and 6800GT power Will post more results after benchmarking.
hey guys dont run this benchmark at AA set to 8X on nvidia cards. Its not using AA when set to 8XAA from utility. I found out this as i benchmarked it at 4XAA and I got 127.5FPS. So i got confused. How come 8XSAA is faster. So i looked closely and found out AA is not on at all when 8X is selected. I confirmed this by taking screenshot. Benchmark at 4XAA. here are new results ================= Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 127.5 FPS
just wondering, did you do it with 1280x1024 or 1024x768?, because on your first run with the 8xaa you say you did it with 1024x768 and scored 128.8, but on your second post you used 1280x1024 with 4xaa & 16xaf and scored 127.5, that doesnt seem right.
ok I did the testing for all demos now. I put the Gt to stock speeds for this run. ============================= Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 66.5 FPS ================== Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 51.8 FPS ================== Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 118.6 FPS ================== Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo5 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 102.2 FPS ================== Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo6 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 90.0 FPS ==================
here's mine... Resolution: 800×600 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 128 MB Score = 97.6 FPS Resolution: 1024×768 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 128 MB Score = 86.1 FPS Resolution: 1600×1200 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 128 MB Score = 45.1 FPS
Very nice benchmark tool: Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 8× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 121.0 FPS Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 120.3 FPS My 6800 GT was @ 410/1.10 using the 67.03 drv. now the GT @ stock 350/1/10: Resolution: 1280×1024 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Score = 107.6 FPS
just did a quick benchmark-run. the tool is really helpful. All tests were done with the following settings: Sys Specs (copy+paste from the another signature): Asus A7N8X Dlx 1.009beta Uber bios AMD TBred 2400+ @ 2200 mhz (11x 200fsb) / 1,75v Vcore SLK800a @ 3000 rpm 2x 256mb + 1x 512mb Corsair XMS3200LL @ 200mhz FSB 6-3-2-2 / 2,8v Vdimm Gigabyte N68T256DH 6800GT @ 400/1100 (1.4v mod) IBM 60GB 7200rpm IC35L060AVVA07-0 IBM 120GB 7200rpm IC35L120AVV207-1 Pioneer DVD-106 16x/40x Slot-In Pioneer DVR-106 4x DVD-RW Chieftec CS-601 midi-tower with side fan 80mm 3x 80mm case fan enermax adjustable Antec TruePower 480W TrueBlue Windows 2000 Pro SP4 w. 6.14 UDP ForceWare: 70.90 VXG modified Resolution: 1280×1024 (60hz) Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Demo: HardwareOC – Coast Score = 54.2 FPS Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Score = 44.7 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Score = 97.2 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo5 Score = 87.5 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo6 Score = 91.7 FPS -- do this scores seem about right? I guess my CPU is holding me back, but would a switch to Barton core (512kb L2-Cache) make a difference?
re-did the benchmark with the 67.03 drivers and I get better results, especially on guru demo 6: ForceWare: 67.03 Resolution: 1280×1024 (60hz) Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Demo: HardwareOC – Coast Score = 53.7 FPS Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Score = 47.7 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Score = 97.5 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo5 Score = 97.1 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo6 Score = 108.8 FPS
Mine doesn't run at all. I can load the program just fine but when it tries to do the benchmark it just hangs, I don't get it.
Go ctrl + alt + del and you'll see both programs are not responding End Task on HL2.exe. Then the benchmark.exe is fine. Click run again and everything should run fine.
Geez ppl are whipping my fps on Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171. I only scrape 45fps. Need a new CPU asap!!
whohoo tried the 67.03 VXG modded drivers and got another huge performance increase: ForceWare: 67.03 VXG Quality Resolution: 1280×1024 (60hz) Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 512 MB Demo: HardwareOC – Coast Score = 72.4 FPS Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Score = 54.3 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Score = 99.2 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo5 Score = 109.5 FPS Demo: Guru3D - demo6 Score = 128.7 FPS
What were your scores previously? [Another edit lol] Didn't link ur above post with ur previous one. I see you've gone up from: Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Score = 44.7 FPS Thats a kick ass performance increase. Think i'll have to check those drivers out! [EDIT] updated title of this thread and gave new link to latest version of Benchmark program currently 1.2.
I downloaded the 67.03 driver from http://www.valancestudios.com/Drivers/ but i don't seem to have a performance boost in HL2 benchmark results. Stilll get 45FPS in d3c171. (Image quality set to Quality). You use the 67.03 drivers from the above link?
everytime i try to run version 1.2 i get this error "Unable to create directory" ??? can anyone help me
i have had a look to see why there is about a 40fps difference between using the benchmarks MAX quality and my own MAX quality in game. here is the settings the bench uses: // Roadside & HardwareOC - Maximum details sv_cheats "1" sv_unlockedchapters "15" ai_norebuildgraph "1" mat_picmip "0" mat_envmapsize "256" mat_reducefillrate "0" cl_showfps "1" cl_detailfade "1000" cl_detaildist "2500" cl_maxrenderable_dist "6000" lod_TransitionDist "1600" r_rootlod "0" r_decal_cullsize "3" r_decals "4096" r_maxmodeldecal "100" r_lod "-8" r_maxdlights "64" r_waterforcereflectentities "1" r_waterforceexpensive "1" r_shadowrendertotexture "1" mat_forceaniso 8 mat_trilinear 0 mat_antialias 4 mat_dxlevel 90 and here are the screenshots between mine and the theirs: mine resized from 1600x1200: theirs resized from 1600x1200: the difference is the grass (there is abit more) in the distance, and the pole supports in the distance are a bit more detailed. is this worth the 40fps difference? i dont know,but why did they change the settings manually from the game MAX settings? either way i am still using my MAX setting as it runs much smoother with them. just thought i would share this info. oh and heres my test results: 1600x1200 tests Cat 4.12 Officals Coast: Resolution: 1600×1200 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 8× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 69.2 FPS Guru3D Demo4: Resolution: 1600×1200 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 8× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 126.1 FPS and heres coast with my MAX config file in the screenshot above: Resolution: 1600×1200 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Custom quality Antialising mode: 4× Filtering mode: Anisotropic 8× Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 9 Heapsize: 64 MB - default Score = 94.7 FPS
Because all of you have these ultra fast videocards like 6800 and x800, and I have a GF 5900 XT, I adjusted the settings a little bit to the settings with which the game looks fantastic enough to me . Besides that, for my card they didnt enable dx9.0, so I am forced to use dx8.1 , but I do use the JoshuaC reflections patch, so I do have water reflection! I use the 66.93 forcewares My specs ---------------> My results: Resolution: 1024 × 768 Demo: HardwareOC - d3c171 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4x Filtering mode: Anisotropic 4x Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 8.1 Heapsize: 256 MB Score = 41.0 FPS Resolution: 1024 × 768 Demo: HardwareOC - Coast Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4x Filtering mode: Anisotropic 4x Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 8.1 Heapsize: 256 MB Score = 53.8 FPS Resolution: 1024 × 768 Demo: Guru3D - demo4 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4x Filtering mode: Anisotropic 4x Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 8.1 Heapsize: 256 MB Score = 76.9 FPS Resolution: 1024 × 768 Demo: Guru3D - demo5 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4x Filtering mode: Anisotropic 4x Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 8.1 Heapsize: 256 MB Score = 73.5 FPS Resolution: 1024 × 768 Demo: Guru3D - demo6 Detail: Maximum quality Antialising mode: 4x Filtering mode: Anisotropic 4x Hardware DirectX level: DirectX 8.1 Heapsize: 256 MB Score = 72.9 FPS The main reason why I use 1024x768 is that the refresh rate can be set on 85-100 Hz, with 1280x1024 my refresh rate is 75 Hz max, which makes me a bit nauseous .
You do know you can get DX9.0 working on your FX card? Search the forum it was discovered here how to get DX9.0 working for FX cards and with added performance boosts. In respect to the benchmarks Max quality and our own, how do i run the benchmark with my max settings? And to answer about the error "Unable to create directory" i don't know, because i haven't seen that before sorry.
Oh and no i haven't tryed these. I've installed 3 drivers this week alone. I didn't read that much great things about those drivers. I'll check out their thread.
I'm very aware of that post about the dx9.0 enabling (I even replied to it ), but I couldnt get it to work .
