Benchmarking With Halo For PC 60
Thanks to ExtremeTech for their article discussing comparative benchmarking of PCs using newly-released FPS Halo. The piece explains how to "add a few command line options to the [Halo] shortcut" to enable benchmarking, which "runs through several of the game's cut-scenes", and the final page of the article has results for ATI and NVidia's current high-end graphics cards. The article concludes: "Halo is not the most elegant console game port, and given what you see on the screen it's odd how slowly it runs at times... Still, the Halo benchmark is a pretty good graphics card test- at once stressful, deterministic, and scalable with both graphics cards and CPUs."
Hmm... (Score:1)
Keep in mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep in mind... (Score:2)
Now considering the game was heavily optimized for the xbox, theres a NVIDIA chip inside.
The test results show the best ATI card blows away the best NVIDIA card.
Re:Keep in mind... (Score:1)
Why isn't it fair? (Score:2)
Re:Keep in mind... (Score:2)
Great. (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously though, you'd think they'd take these options out before release, knowing how it makes even a P4@3GHz + Radeon9800 cry. Considering most users are still on GF2 or GF3 class hardware, it's not going to help sales, surely?
Idiot AC (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at Q3. According to Gamespy stats, there are almost 4600 people playing Quake 3 online right now. Do you think they are using the same resolution and color depth as when it was released on 12/3/99? I'm going to say no, but I bet they are glad the engine scaled upward. Idiot.
Re:Idiot AC (Score:2)
PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:3, Funny)
A Radeon 9800 on a 2.4GHz P4 is *required* to get even halfway decent performance. I'm done with PC gaming.
Dave
Re:PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:2)
Game runs stellar for me. Looks great, even though I had to shut the specular effects off. I seem to average around 60fps which is fine by me.
Re:PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:1)
Re:PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:1)
Re:PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:1)
Re:PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:1)
Re:PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:1)
But yeah, sorry about that. I jumped to some conclusions there. Guess I'm kind of unhappy that the game I was looking forward to for 5 years was delayed 6 months
Re:PC gaming - that's it, I'm done. (Score:1)
It's part of a Intel/Microsoft-led conspiracy to maintain their respective business models.
Microsoft, and other software excreters write bigger, fatter, slower code in order for Intel (and AMD, ATI, nVidia) to be able to sell bigger, faster, more wasteful processors to make those software excretions look good. After all, what would be the incentive to buy new hardware if the software vendors came out with smaller, faster code that ran better on existing hardware? You can call it a symbiotic/parasitic relati
Bad Port (Score:1)
I have an Barton-code AthlonXP 3200+, 1GB of DDR400 Dual Channel RAM, nForce2 mobo and a GeForceFX 5900 and it's dog-slow... and its not like the game is visually stunning... it kinda looks... well about a year old.
Oh, and it won't run if you've got antialiasing turned on.
Re:Bad Port - Very True (Score:2, Informative)
The X-Box origional was visualy stunning and used the console very well (particularly given it was a launch title). It was obviously designed to take advantage of the specific strenghts (and limitations) of the console.
The PC port is a shoddy straight forward could-have-been-done-with-an-emulation-layer port of the X-Box version that althought (like the origional) it uses a few DX9 effects, take no consideration of the advantages of PC gaming h
Re:Bad Port (Score:2)
Runs like Shit, Looks like Shit, Is Shit. Very Sad (Score:1)
* Looks like what it is, which is basically a bad dated console to PC port. I mean UT2k3 look a _lot_ better than it.
* Runs like shit, I mean for the graphics quality you get you would think it runs at +100 FPS on modern hardware, instead you get a measly frame rate that drops to nothing if you look in
Re:Runs like Shit, Looks like Shit, Is Shit. Very (Score:1)
Re:Bad Port (Score:1)
Parameters:
PS1.1 -use11 PS1.4 -use14 PS2.0 -use20
For those too lazy to RTFA: (Score:2)
Re:For those too lazy to RTFA: (Score:1)
Re:For those too lazy to RTFA: (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
It Runs Faster Than That (Score:2)
PLEASE read what Gearbox [avault.com] has to say about this.
Basically, this doesn't work like a "normal" benchmark. The FPS number takes more into account than just FPS (sorta). Please read the above.
Re:It Runs Faster Than That (Score:2)
resolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Most gamers won't play below 1280x1024 on the PC. Comparing the speed between the two is hardly fair unless it is done at 640x480 on both...
-Tim
Re:resolution (Score:2)
Re:resolution (Score:2)
Re:resolution (Score:2)
-Tim
Re:resolution (Score:2)
I've got a 1ghz+geforce2 (i know, old stuff) and I can't even play counter-strike higher than 800x600!
Warning! (Score:2)
nvidia vs. world (Score:1)
I have a 2500+ barton oc to 3200+ with ati radeon 9500 pro. every game (including the new max payne 2) runs silky smooth.
I have other friends who got the game and the pattern of failures seem to center on the graphics card.
all my friends who have it running smooth (out of the box, no patches) are running some sort of nvidia card
all my friends who crash a
Re:nvidia vs. world (Score:2)
Re:nvidia vs. world (Score:1)
i guess you have it lucky.. run good stright out of the box?
-joe
Re:nvidia vs. world (Score:2)
Re:nvidia vs. world (Score:1)
everything else runs silky smooth.
-joe
Re:nvidia vs. world (Score:2)
1.4GHz Athlon - GF2 MX400 (Score:1)
Re:1.4GHz Athlon - GF2 MX400 (Score:1)
On another note, now that I've played all of Halo I can't see how people could say its that great of a game. its about average at best.
I'll take Tribes 2, UT, UT2k3 or Quake 3 over it any day.
Re:1.4GHz Athlon - GF2 MX400 (Score:2)
Halo (Score:2)
The demo runs acceptably well at 1024. Granted it's not using any pixel shaders, but the game works, and it works well enough to play.
The story might be different on a low-end card that can do either spec of pixel shader tho.
Are those numbers wrong or is it just me? (Score:1)
Re:Are those numbers wrong or is it just me? (Score:1)
$200 Video Card - Forget it, razor wire is more fun
$300 Video Card - Forget it, slow and looks like shit
$400 Video Card - Still slow and looks like shit.
$500 Video Card - Looks like shit.
$600 Video Card - Still looks like shit
$700 Video Card - You have too much money!
There, a review Guide to Halo for PC.
Complainers (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:1)
Question (Score:1)