8.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 11:35
8.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 11:35
Jan 5, 2004, 11:35
 
So, to clarify:

1. XBitslabs posts an article claiming to benchmark DX9 Stalker.

2. A Stalker fansite (official?) contacts them and says they couldn't have since the game isn't even in beta.

3. Xbitslabs say they never said it was Stalker, just another DX9 game they were benchmarking. (hey, maybe it was DX:IW - that's the kind of framerates you're getting, right? Huh? Hah.)

4. People on the Bluesnews thread accuse GSC (the developer) of a cover-up because they're sponsored by Nvidia.

If we were to join the dots of this little story, how many lines would connect to GSC?

I think the point is: the fansite is worried that when the game is released people are going to expect an all-singing DirectX 9 game running at the framerates shown on the X-bitslabs website. The actuality will probably be something similar to what's happened with Half Life 2 and the Nvidia cards will show a greater framerate deficit under full DX9. And in fact it's unlikely anyone is going to see anything like the posted framerates for their video card of choice. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
2.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
4.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
5.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
6.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
7.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
9.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
12.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
       ?
14.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
        Re: ?
15.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
         Re: ?
20.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
          Re: ?
21.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
           Re: ?
22.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
           Re: ?
23.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
            Re: ?
17.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
        Re: ?
18.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
         Re: ?
19.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
         Re: ?
10.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
13.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
 8.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
  Re: Stalker benchmarks
3.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
11.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
16.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004