NVIDIA & Half-Life 2 [Sep 11, 2003, 4:59 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Following up on some comments from Gabe Newell and the Half-Life 2
benchmarks presented at yesterday's ATI festivities (story),
NVIDIA has issued a statement in response, which has been posted on 3DGPU
and Gamers
Depot. The statement questions the use of older drivers for benchmark
comparisons, offers their understanding that there is only one Half-Life 2 bug
remaining in their newest (as yet unreleased) drivers, and concludes like
this:
The optimal code path for ATI and NVIDIA GPUs is different - so trying to test them with the same code path will always disadvantage one or the other. The default settings for each game have been chosen by both the developers and NVIDIA in order to produce the best results for our consumers.
In addition to the developer efforts, our driver team has developed a next-generation automatic shader optimizer that vastly improves GeForce FX pixel shader performance across the board. The fruits of these efforts will be seen in our Rel.50 driver release. Many other improvements have also been included in Rel.50, and these were all created either in response to, or in anticipation of the first wave of shipping DirectX 9 titles, such as Half Life 2.
We are committed to working with Gabe to fully understand his concerns and with Valve to ensure that 100+ million NVIDIA consumers get the best possible experience with Half Life 2 on NVIDIA hardware.
Enahs, there are major difference between Direct X 9.0 and the current versions of Open GL (1.2~1.4).
Sure, in the end, both APIs push colored triangles but that's like saying that you can compare PERL, C++, and BASIC because in the end, it gets compiled down to machine code. You can't simply take 2 different games with different APIs and compare hardware.
Also, please remember that HL2 is doing a few more things than the Doom 3 Alpha did. That is not because HL2 is better than Doom 3 but because HL2 is going to come out soon and is feature locked and Doom 3 was ONLY an alpha so it wasn't feature locked nor did it show off all its features like the HL2 Benchmark probably does.
Finally, in general, remember that Carmack has programmed many different OpenGL render paths for ALL the particular hardware paths. It suits his style of programming and is the OpenGL way. In DirectX there really isn't the same sort of thing, Direct X boasts its attempt at universally being compatible with hardware. I don't care to argue which API is better but to rather to argue that they are different.
Brother Raven
Sure, in the end, both APIs push colored triangles but that's like saying that you can compare PERL, C++, and BASIC because in the end, it gets compiled down to machine code. You can't simply take 2 different games with different APIs and compare hardware.
Also, please remember that HL2 is doing a few more things than the Doom 3 Alpha did. That is not because HL2 is better than Doom 3 but because HL2 is going to come out soon and is feature locked and Doom 3 was ONLY an alpha so it wasn't feature locked nor did it show off all its features like the HL2 Benchmark probably does.
Finally, in general, remember that Carmack has programmed many different OpenGL render paths for ALL the particular hardware paths. It suits his style of programming and is the OpenGL way. In DirectX there really isn't the same sort of thing, Direct X boasts its attempt at universally being compatible with hardware. I don't care to argue which API is better but to rather to argue that they are different.
Brother Raven
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2022 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2022 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 25 June 2022, 06:26.