[Spaceman-Spiff]

GeForce FX and Half-Life 2: DirectX 8 only?
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_fx/

The comparison between different DirectX versions is interesting, and the fact that Half-Life 2 auto detects FX 5200-5900-series as DirectX 8 and 8.1 cards. Maybe it's because those cards perform poorly in DirectX 9?

Quite an interesting article, but it seems rather weird that they didn't add Radeon X800 to the benchmark. Thus, it might cause novice readers to think that nVidia has the fastest card for HL2.

thoughts? comments?

[jvd]

interesting


i wouldn't mind seeing how much the x800 line gains

[ZoinKs!]

Last year, Valve said the best thing to do with the FX series was to treat them as dx 8 or 8.1 cards. So different paths shouldn't come as a surprise. And yes, the given reason is that they're too slow.

But according to FS's results, most fx's get practically the same fps regardless of what path they use. So why use different paths?

[jvd]

Based on the screenshots and performance benchmarks, it appears that not only do GeForce FX cards default to DX8/DX8.1, but they also can’t be forced to run Valve’s DX9 path in the Counter-Strike: Source beta release. Instead, the maximum level GeForce FX cards currently support is DirectX 8.1.

they are just idiots zoinks . They put down it was running dx 9 in the benchmarks but according to the conclusion they couldn't be forced to run it. So those were just rebenched dx 8.1 haha .

[ZoinKs!]

OMG

You'd think they'd put info like that in the graphs.
As is, it's misleading.

[jvd]

Originally Posted by ZoinKs!

OMG

You'd think they'd put info like that in the graphs.
As is, it's misleading.

Yea i know. For just looking at the graphics it puts nvidia in a very good light which may or may not be true. Though seeing the gains all the cards get going from dx 9 - dx 9

[oddfellow]

I sent a message to the editor a few days ago telling him how to force the dx9 path by editing the dxsupport file. You can even force the stdshader_hdr_dx9 path nv3x hardware, though I haven't tested the results.

I haven't heard a response yet.

[Unknown Soldier]

How does one go around to editting this file and getting this DX9 support for HL2 oddfellow.

Please show us how to do it.

I'd like to see some sites enabling DX9 for the GF FX series showing us some performance benchmarks.

US

[oddfellow]

I was fooling around with command line options and config files the other day, tyring to force ps2.0 on my nv35, when I stumbled upon this. I don't have the current build I only have the, errr, other build that has been around for a while, but I assume the same system is employed in the new builds (can someone please check). While the command line options didn't work, this does.

If you look in the game directory and then inside the bin folder you'll find several shader dll's and a "dxsupport.cfg" config file.
The game looks for device id's and checks them against this config file for the hardware's supporting shader version. By editing this file you can make the game run different shader profiles and force whatever shader.dll you want.

The original file looks like this:

"dxsupport"
{
	"nv30"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x300"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x30F"
		"DXLevel"		82
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
		"ShaderDLL" 	"shader_nvfx.dll"
	}

	"nv31"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x310"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x31F"
		"DXLevel"		82
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
		"ShaderDLL" 	"shader_nvfx.dll"
	}

	"nv34"
	{						   
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x320"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x32F"
		"DXLevel"		80
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
	}

	"nv35"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x330"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x33F"
		"DXLevel"		90
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
		"ShaderDLL" 	"shader_nvfx.dll"
	}

	"nv36"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x340"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x34F"
		"DXLevel"		90
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
		"ShaderDLL" 	"shader_nvfx.dll"
	}

	"nv3x"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x350"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x3FF"
		"DXLevel"		90
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
		"ShaderDLL" 	"shader_nvfx.dll"
	}

	"ati9800"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x1002"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x4E48"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x4E48"
		"DXLevel"		90
		"CentroidHack"  1
	}

	"ati"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x1002"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x0"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0xFFFF"
		"CentroidHack"  1
	}
}

I simply edited the "NV35" part from this:

"nv35"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x330"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x33F"
		"DXLevel"		90
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
		"ShaderDLL" 	"shader_nvfx.dll"

To this:

"nv35"
	{
		"VendorID"		"0x10DE"
		"MinDeviceID" 	"0x330"
		"MaxDeviceID" 	"0x33F"
		"DXLevel"		90
		"FastZReject"	1
		"FastClip"		1
		"ShaderDLL" 	"stdshader_dx9.dll"

This makes the engine use the standard dx9 path when it detects NV35 class hardware. You can also force any of the other shader.dll's in the bin folder. I have forced the "stdshader_hdr_dx9.dll" and it works fine, but all HDR effects are missing form the build I have so I cannot confirm that they will work. This is something someone with the new build could try.

I also added an "ati9600" part so I could test my R9600pro.

The water and some other effects look totally different on NV3x hardware when comparing to R3x0 hardware. When the standard dx9 dll is forced using this method, there is no longer any difference between the two (though you do notice a little banding on the water with the R3x0 hardware, but much worse banding on nv3x hardware. Obviously FP24 vs FP16, which I assume the nVidia driver is forcing).


Again, though I can confirm that, in my tests anyway, this is the only way to force the PS2.0 path in the old build, I don't know if it will work on the new build, or even if this text file is still there. This is something that others will have to confirm.

EDIT: I just checked it out again and did some more tests. It's actually a CFG file not a text file (my bad, edited appropriately), so to fool around with it, make a copy of it first, rename or move the original, then edit the copy.
Also, it seems that if you simply rename or move the actual "dxsupport.cfg" file and don't make a copy, the game still starts, detects that the card is dx9 capable, and seems to run the dx9 path by default anyway.

[ZoinKs!]

They put up a new article... now the fx's are running dx 9 path and the results are
In CS: S, the 9600xt outperforms the FX 5950 Ultra.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...e2/default.asp

First page with benchies:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ife2/page5.asp

[Spaceman-Spiff]

Originally Posted by ZoinKs!

First page with benchies:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ife2/page5.asp

Interesting... That's quite a huge performance drop.

I'm still curious why they didn't include X800 cards.