Techreport CS:S benchmarks (good ones)

yes they're excellent.

X800xt by 9-10fps at 1600x1200, but that's without many Nvidia ops I think, using their 61 driver's instead of the 65, and no SM3.0.

So both cards do excellent, that's at full detail too.
 
fallguy said:
Of course you do, NV is closer in this one.
Click to expand...
The XT PE still outperforms everything. DH is so ridiculously biased. Besides, it's not like I am posting some crap from Toms or something. Hell, they were even using the 61 version drivers.
 
ye 9800 pro only better in super low res, as if any1 will run it at 640 by 480.
 
I think fallguy is refering to the firingsquad and vr-zone benchies which show the xt out by a lot more. I noticed those dont get posted a lot myself.
 
AH786 said:
ye 9800 pro only better in super low res, as if any1 will run it at 640 by 480.
Click to expand...
We're talking CS players here
 
AH786 said:
ye 9800 pro only better in super low res, as if any1 will run it at 640 by 480.
Click to expand...

Hm...lol ;) I plan to play at 1280x1024 unless I get a 6800gt by then. My freind is selling me his for 250$+a HDD
 
obs said:
The XT PE still outperforms everything. DH is so ridiculously biased. Besides, it's not like I am posting some crap from Toms or something. Hell, they were even using the 61 version drivers.
Click to expand...

*laughing* yea I'll admit it: What's wrong with Tom's hardware guide?
I remember hearing something long time ago, but was getting out of the whole computer gaming and going console for a while *I go in waves*
 
Netrat33 said:
*laughing* yea I'll admit it: What's wrong with Tom's hardware guide?
I remember hearing something long time ago, but was getting out of the whole computer gaming and going console for a while *I go in waves*
Click to expand...


Perceived bias due to $ kickbacks and some claim that their results cannot be replicated. Also, there was some sort of falling out between [H] and Tom's, but I don't know why. I'm not 0ld sk00l enough.......or something like that. :(
 
gordon151 said:
I think fallguy is refering to the firingsquad and vr-zone benchies which show the xt out by a lot more. I noticed those dont get posted a lot myself.
Click to expand...


There was a huge thread about those here....
 
THE JEW (RaVeN) said:
Perceived bias due to $ kickbacks and some claim that their results cannot be replicated. Also, there was some sort of falling out between [H] and Tom's, but I don't know why. I'm not 0ld sk00l enough.......or something like that. :(
Click to expand...
Partly bias towards certain cards at different times and B7 for a long time because of Tom's rant after 9/11.
 
Circuitbreaker8 said:
Hm...lol ;) I plan to play at 1280x1024 unless I get a 6800gt by then. My freind is selling me his for 250$+a HDD
Click to expand...
y is he selling it that cheap? i want one!
 
obs said:
We're talking CS players here
Click to expand...


hey I play at 1024x768 in pretty much every game I play....the only ones I can htink of off hand that play at stupidly low resolutions are those who seem to think it makes the players on screen "bigger" or the CAL players
 
rancor said:
There was a huge thread about those here....
Click to expand...
What huge thread? He's referring to the new vr-zone HL2 VST benchmarks, not the CS:S timedemo ones. I can't find any threads other than this one: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=796720

For some reason, the ATI cards perform consistently worse in the tech report benchmarks compared to the vr-zone ones. Both sites use a similar setup: A64 3800+, 1GB RAM. The only real difference is the chipset. TR uses the K8T800 Pro while VR Zone uses the nForce 3. The nvidia cards perform about the same in both sets of benchmarks

Anyways, take a look at the benchmarks from both sites and you'll see what I mean.

http://techreport.com/etc/2004q3/source-engine/index.x?pg=4
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1193&s=3

AA/AF enabled
http://techreport.com/etc/2004q3/source-engine/index.x?pg=5
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1193&s=4
 
Well from Tech-Report benches, IMO, nvidia is still the one to get this generation. a 6800GT will spank ati in doom3, and has identical performance in HL2 with the x800 Pro. Not to mention PS3.0 support for games coming down the pipe later
 
Just so you know...there's a fucking huge difference between CS: Source and the VST...that's why the numbers were different. And there's still a difference between CS: Source and actual HL2
 
Killdozer said:
Just so you know...there's a fucking huge difference between CS: Source and the VST...that's why the numbers were different. And there's still a difference between CS: Source and actual HL2
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. The VR-Zone benchmarks and the Tech Report benchmarks are both using the HL2 VST.
 
Blad3 said:
So both cards do excellent, that's at full detail too.
Click to expand...

its' not at full detail, they are using reflect world instead of reflect all, i would say that this is one of the reasons for the different bench results depending on what site you look at
 
Visable-assassin said:
hey I play at 1024x768 in pretty much every game I play....the only ones I can htink of off hand that play at stupidly low resolutions are those who seem to think it makes the players on screen "bigger" or the CAL players
Click to expand...

It's called a preference. Some people enjoy 1600x1200 while i do not... it's all in a matter of what you like... Just because somebody plays in something you don't like doesn't make them stupid.

note: i generally play all games in 1024x768... tho doom 3 at 1600x1200 isn't to bad.
 
rancor said:
much closer to what everyone else has been benching too
Click to expand...

Their numbers are pretty close to mine. With the same settings in-game, and res at 1280x1024, Im 5 frames slower with no AA, and Trilinear. And 4 frames faster with 4xAA/8xAF. [email protected], just like them.1gig same as then, but my timings are looser. I have a NF3-250 not the Via chipset they have.

trilobyte said:
Well from Tech-Report benches, IMO, nvidia is still the one to get this generation. a 6800GT will spank ati in doom3, and has identical performance in HL2 with the x800 Pro. Not to mention PS3.0 support for games coming down the pipe later
Click to expand...

How do you know its identical? This stress test is not a true representation of HL2's. The GT may be faster, it may be slower, the simple fact is we do not know yet. Why do you forget 3Dc when listing other features that may play a role on future games?
 
GoatMan said:
It's called a preference. Some people enjoy 1600x1200 while i do not... it's all in a matter of what you like... Just because somebody plays in something you don't like doesn't make them stupid.

note: i generally play all games in 1024x768... tho doom 3 at 1600x1200 isn't to bad.
Click to expand...


I said "stupidly low res" I never called anyone stupid...there is a difference...you are reading in a different context that what was intended.
 
Spank said:
its' not at full detail, they are using reflect world instead of reflect all, i would say that this is one of the reasons for the different bench results depending on what site you look at
Click to expand...

I lost 6 frames with 4xAA/8xAF, and 11 frames with NoAA, and Trilinear. Versus when it was reflect world. It seems to take about a 10% performance hit.
 
The techreport benchs are similar [the pattern spread] to gamers-depot.

http://www.gamers-depot.com/hardware/video_cards/source/002.htm

The GT is again eeking out a victory. Who cares if the Pro is a frame or two faster in the actual game, considering the GT is easily twice as fast as the Pro in D3 it seems like a good deal for people with a GT.

And fallguy, for bullet pointing features, let's not forget enabling Opts and moving to the newer drivers. I think those two will more than easily pop the 3Dc ballon.
 
I don't believe any of these shit-marks. I'll wait until OCP, Anandtech, or Xbit come out with benchmarks. Then judge the cards from their offerings. Might as well trust a reliable source.
 
I didnt say it wouldnt, but we dont know yet. Its just a peeve of mine when people list PS3.0 as a speed feature, yet never mention 3Dc. Especially when the only game out that (not officially) supports PS3.0 also supports PS2.0b, and they both get virtually the same performance boost.

As for Doom3, I dont care about it anymore. Beat it, and the multiplayer stinks, to me. 8 players, and 5 maps is not the recipe for a long lasting multiplayer game. Again, in my opinion. Same as Farcry, beat it twice, and the multiplayer is very unbalanced, with many issues. Untill a total conversion, or another game with the engines comes out, they dont matter to me anymore.

Once again though, this stress test does not represent HL2's gameplay. If its any indication which cards are better, the Pro and GT are pretty close, and the XT/PE is far and away the best card.
 
fallguy said:
As for Doom3, I dont care about it anymore. Beat it, and the multiplayer stinks, to me. 8 players, and 5 maps is not the recipe for a long lasting multiplayer game. Again, in my opinion. Same as Farcry, beat it twice, and the multiplayer is very unbalanced, with many issues. Untill a total conversion, or another game with the engines comes out, they dont matter to me anymore.
Click to expand...
I understand that Doom3 don't matter to you anymore but the Doom3 engine is going to be used in quite a few games so to just disregard it doesn't do it justice. Hell, I personally can't wait to give Doom3 Fortress a try. They are apparantly reworking a lot to allow the game to play well with 16 players (not the max). Besides, good multiplayer games usually aren't very good just after release (CS, Q3, etc). It generally take some patching and modding.
 
fallguy said:
I lost 6 frames with 4xAA/8xAF, and 11 frames with NoAA, and Trilinear. Versus when it was reflect world. It seems to take about a 10% performance hit.
Click to expand...

what card is that with? 6800 drops around 15%
 
Mojo said:
I don't believe any of these shit-marks. I'll wait until OCP, Anandtech, or Xbit come out with benchmarks. Then judge the cards from their offerings. Might as well trust a reliable source.
Click to expand...

X-Bit dropped the ball big time in that huge round-up article of theirs. The Pro was beating the GT in Call of FREAKING Duty. I believe people at hard found that someting with the Nvidia was optomizations was off or something. Too bad too, Xbit was one of my favorites [still is for everything besides video benchs]. If they had just issued a public apology and fixed their benchs like Anand did all would be peachy. Honestly, I'm starting to get REALLY jaded against most hardware reviews sites weather they are neutral or pro-Nvida and ATI. Like in Elvis's sig, the best benchmarker is you yourself.
 
Spank said:
what card is that with? 6800 drops around 15%
Click to expand...

BFG6800 GT. With the exact same game settings as they used. I have my drives set to max quality in D3D though. They probably dont.

Went from 69, to 63. And 101 to 90.
 
fallguy said:
BFG6800 GT.
Click to expand...

need someone with a x800 to bench there fps hit with all vs world, i wonder if there are any ati ppl still browsing this board though :(
 
sativa said:
i got banned from driverheaven.net for linking to techreports article

http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=111686&poll_id=0&warned=y
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=111690&poll_id=0&warned=y
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=111692&poll_id=0&warned=y
Click to expand...

lol...I'm tempted to sign up there just to tell them all what a worthless bunch of biased morons they are...

if they wanna be biased that's fine...but why hide it...why pretend to be fair when every review or article you have ever done is so completely one-sided...
 
hey i emailed the admin and asked why i was banned... here's the response i got

I would class "you guys must have used a GT" as quite incorrect.

anyway its not open for discussion, we have had 100 1 post users just
posting crap all over the forums many with the same IP. ive no
patience left to deal with it.

have a nice weekend.

--
Kind Regards,
Allan "Zardon" Campbell
www.driverheaven.net site owner.

funny how i'm responsible for other newly registered members. I only registered one account at DH.

Also funny because i didn't say "you must have used a GT."
look at my above screenshots to see the post that got me banned.

oh yeah and here's a screenshot of his email to me
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=111711
 
sativa said:
hey i emailed the admin and asked why i was banned... here's the response i got

I would class "you guys must have used a GT" as quite incorrect.

anyway its not open for discussion, we have had 100 1 post users just
posting crap all over the forums many with the same IP. ive no
patience left to deal with it.

have a nice weekend.

--
Kind Regards,
Allan "Zardon" Campbell
www.driverheaven.net site owner.

funny how i'm responsible for other newly registered members. I only registered one account at DH.

Also funny because i didn't say "you must have used a GT."
look at my above screenshots to see the post that got me banned.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why DH is considered the bottom of the hardware bin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top