The First DX9 "Game" Benchmark... Well, Nearly

DaveBaumann said:
Sent this in reply:

Could I ask if you’ve done any compatibility testing on this benchmark at all? As it stands there are numerous graphical errors on Radeon boards. Given that the earlier “NVIDIA only†demo could be made to run on Radeon’s without these graphical glitches there doesn’t appear to be anything to suggest that Radeon boards should not be able to run without these errors.

Anyway, I hope you have already been in contact with ATI’s developer relations if you are unable to resolve these graphical glitches internally, however if not I’ve copied this to Richards Huddy’s email address and I’m sure he’d be happy to assist you if you are having trouble. As it stands I would not be comfortable using this as a benchmark when it doesn’t render correctly on the majority of DX9 boards presently in use.

On another note, could I ask exactly what the requirement for VS2.0 is? Given this was an Xbox title, what has changed from the Xbox to the PC that requires VS2.0? Also if this is being billed as a DX9 benchmark why does it not utilize PS2.0? With only PS1.1 in use I would categorize this more as a DX8 benchmark given that VS2.0 can be achieved at reasonable rates across a CPU.
Click to expand...

Let see what the responce is...
Click to expand...

You will not get a response, I sent them a email with screenshots in Decemeber of captures of their error they had popping up on R300's..'No compatible 3D card found' on a supposed DX9 title !, then tb's 3Danalyze Gunmetal option, then screen shots of the game running on a 9700.

I asked them why they would do that, limit their audience...I have never got a reply.
State of the industry is in rough shape.
 
Doomtrooper said:
You will not get a response, I sent them a email with screenshots in Decemeber of captures of their error they had popping up on R300's..'No compatible 3D card found' on a supposed DX9 title !, then tb's 3Danalyze Gunmetal option, then screen shots of the game running on a 9700.
Click to expand...

For the record I also e-mailed them back when the demo was released and I also e-mailed them when they sent out the press release.

Didn't get a reponse back when the demo was launched but perhaps now I will since my site statistics are really good nowadays.
 
Have fun not playing HL2

I dunno why but I also have a hunch that cardmack also might go the TWIMTBP way.
Click to expand...

Well, no D3 or HL2 for me either then (no big loss for D3, btw, ID has yet to come with a decent game as far as gameplay is concerned). Or DeusEx2 for that matters. If NV and ATI are stupid enough with this crazy marketing war to turn PCs into nothing more than web browsers/typewriters while people decide to play on consoles, so be it.

All this "this DirectX/OGL game will only run on our hardware" has to go. Seriously. If people want their game to run only on NV hardware, they can develop on XBox. If they prefer ATI hardware, they can develop on GameCube.

The PC was supposed to be an hardware-independent (more or less, sheer power still counts) gaming alternative to consoles. "Thanks" to the GPU war, this is starting to become untrue (IIRC, MGS2 (a supposed DX game) only ran on NV hardware before a patch).

But if they go on this way, neither ATI, Nvidia, or the game developers stupid enough to cut the branch they are sitting upon, will get a cent of my money. Do you imagine getting a "Toshiba : the way it's meant to be watched" each time you insert a DVD in your player ?

Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose a slight amount of pimping hardware with a new game, or joint press-releases... But still, things like TWIMTBP are way over the top. As a consumer, I'll vote with my money on this one.

Let this go for long, and soon you will need two high-end PCs, one ATI and one Nvidia, to play all titles. And of course, Intel and AMD could do the same thing, so you would need 4 PCs : one ATI/Intel, one ATI/AMD, one Nvidia/Intel, and one Nvidia/AMD. What about motherboards ? Well, this title needs a PC with Nvidia graphic card, Asus motherboard, and AMD CPU. Perhaps Logitech could start a program too, followed by Microsoft ? I say let's stop the insanity when it starts.
 
Ante P said:
Hellbinder said:
Here are my scores. Game at 1024x768 with 4x FSAA and no AF

Benchmark 1
Min 10.46
Average 17.92
MAX 43.01

Benchmark 2
Min 9.89
Average 17.92
MAX 48.66
Click to expand...

According to the FAQ Aniso is always forced in this benchmark.

Could anyone with a 9800 Pro try out this benchmark at the default settings please? (which is 2x FSAA chosen in-game and whatever AF mod the game selects)

Strange that you got so low scores when the game actually runs better on a 9700 than my 5900 ;)
Click to expand...

I enabled Performance AF in the control panel and this benchmark ran fine on my 9800Pro.

Gun Metal Benchmark Results
Created: 14/06/2003 17:09:05


Benchmark 1
Validity
Results valid? Yes
Statistics
Minimum frames per second 28.57 fps
Average frames per second 49.50 fps
Maximum frames per second 87.60 fps
Benchmark duration 75.72 seconds
Total frames rendered 3748
Computer information
Processor Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz
Processor speed 3503 Mhz
Operating System Windows XP Service Pack 1
Graphics card RADEON 9800 PRO
Game settings
Screen resolution 1024 X 768
Screen colors True (32-bit)
Aspect ratio Normal
Antialiasing 2x
Terrain detail High
Draw distance High
Cloud shadows On
Lens flare On
Sun Glare On
 
CorwinB said:
Have fun not playing HL2

I dunno why but I also have a hunch that cardmack also might go the TWIMTBP way.
Click to expand...

Well, no D3 or HL2 for me either then (no big loss for D3, btw, ID has yet to come with a decent game as far as gameplay is concerned). Or DeusEx2 for that matters. If NV and ATI are stupid enough with this crazy marketing war to turn PCs into nothing more than web browsers/typewriters while people decide to play on consoles, so be it.

All this "this DirectX/OGL game will only run on our hardware" has to go. Seriously. If people want their game to run only on NV hardware, they can develop on XBox. If they prefer ATI hardware, they can develop on GameCube.

The PC was supposed to be an hardware-independent (more or less, sheer power still counts) gaming alternative to consoles. "Thanks" to the GPU war, this is starting to become untrue (IIRC, MGS2 (a supposed DX game) only ran on NV hardware before a patch).

But if they go on this way, neither ATI, Nvidia, or the game developers stupid enough to cut the branch they are sitting upon, will get a cent of my money. Do you imagine getting a "Toshiba : the way it's meant to be watched" each time you insert a DVD in your player ?

Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose a slight amount of pimping hardware with a new game, or joint press-releases... But still, things like TWIMTBP are way over the top. As a consumer, I'll vote with my money on this one.

Let this go for long, and soon you will need two high-end PCs, one ATI and one Nvidia, to play all titles. And of course, Intel and AMD could do the same thing, so you would need 4 PCs : one ATI/Intel, one ATI/AMD, one Nvidia/Intel, and one Nvidia/AMD. What about motherboards ? Well, this title needs a PC with Nvidia graphic card, Asus motherboard, and AMD CPU. Perhaps Logitech could start a program too, followed by Microsoft ? I say let's stop the insanity when it starts.
Click to expand...

I dunno what you're so worried about.
All TWIMTBP games I've tried (4 or 5) runs better on ATi hardware and have no "nvidia only" functionality.

MGS2 was a crappy Xbox port and probably had more to do with Konamis crappy programmers than nVidias influence IMHO.
 
R9700 results:

Gun Metal Benchmark Results
Created: 14/06/2003 18:55:54


Benchmark 1
Validity
Results valid? Yes
Statistics
Minimum frames per second 22.66 fps
Average frames per second 39.67 fps
Maximum frames per second 64.96 fps
Benchmark duration 94.47 seconds
Total frames rendered 3748
Computer information
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3000+
Processor speed 2205 Mhz
Operating System Windows XP Service Pack 1
Graphics card RADEON 9700 PRO
Game settings
Screen resolution 1024 X 768
Screen colors True (32-bit)
Aspect ratio Normal
Antialiasing 2x
Terrain detail High
Draw distance High
Cloud shadows On
Lens flare On
Sun Glare On
Gun Metal Benchmark Results
Created: 14/06/2003 19:05:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Benchmark 2
Validity
Results valid? Yes
Statistics
Minimum frames per second 17.19 fps
Average frames per second 42.18 fps
Maximum frames per second 82.76 fps
Benchmark duration 117.53 seconds
Total frames rendered 4957
Computer information
Processor AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3000+
Processor speed 2205 Mhz
Operating System Windows XP Service Pack 1
Graphics card RADEON 9700 PRO
Game settings
Screen resolution 1024 X 768
Screen colors True (32-bit)
Aspect ratio Normal
Antialiasing 2x
Terrain detail High
Draw distance High
Cloud shadows On
Lens flare On
Sun Glare On


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I ran the "benchmark" and it has weird dark area's everywhere not from shadows its at a constant distance away from the camera... anyone else get this? This is with the cat 3.4's9700pro the really odd thing is the real game works just fine :p Looks like they want to make ati look bad anyone try it with 3danalyzer or some other way of making the app think its on a nvxx card? BTW this has to be the ugliest "DX9" demo ever!
 
Ante P said:
MGS2 was a crappy Xbox port and probably had more to do with Konamis crappy programmers than nVidias influence IMHO.
Click to expand...

Interesting thing in MGS2 is the fact that atleast GF3 couldn't run press-beta version of this game at all. It wouldn't even start. This info is from my local computer-games magazine. They had to use Radeon 9700 to test the game. Strange that in the final version things changed so completely.
 
Considering that Parhelia supports VS2.0 in hardware (although, I'm not sure their drivers have exposed it yet) but PS1.3 we all term this as a DX8 part, shouldn't that same logic apply to this benchmark? If Parhelia is a DX8 chip then this is a DX8 benchmark, or if this is a DX9 benchmark then Parhelia is a DX9 chip! ;)
 
There appears to be a very large grey area when talking DX9 compliant including precision modes, and I always thought the PS version is what aligns a benchmark/game to what version of DX it supports.
To me this benchmark is a DX8 benchmark, as it certainly isn't using the strengths of modern cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
WoJ DXVK Manager for Windows
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
worldofjoysticks
W
A
Understanding game performance through profiler trace graphs *spawn
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
4K
XboxKING
X
D
RTX Video HDR modded to work in games, RTX Game HDR?
Replies
7
Views
2K
DegustatoR
D
S
SDL_Gpu API, SDL 3.0 ... New cross-platform graphics API.
Replies
1
Views
1K
Lurkmass
L
X
Shimmering lines, common in menus, HUDs: Term for the artifact? And possible to "fix" with post-processing?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Davros
D
Back
Top