23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  2  ] Newer
1.
 
Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 10:03
1.
Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 10:03
Jan 5, 2004, 10:03
 
These benchmarks aint Stalkers, source:

http://oblivion-lost.xu2.net/en/index.php

q[The benchmarks that were released by X-bit Labs yesterday are not from a DirectX 9 version. After having contacted them, I received this response:

Thanks for your feedback.

We have never said we tested STALKER game, but referred the title we benchmarked as yet another DX9 game. Unfortunately, this puts me into position of not discussing any details of our article.

Since the STALKER game is going to be great, we are looking forward to test its beta or final version, though, we have not had such opportunity so far.

Yours sincerely,

Anton Shilov,
News Editor,
X-bit labs
]

2.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 10:12
2.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 10:12
Jan 5, 2004, 10:12
 
Sounds like some nVidia sponsored developer wants to hide the fact that his game runs better on and ATi card ;p

-------
Calling Cthulhu webmaster
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
-------
Calling Cthulhu
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
3.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 10:15
3.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 10:15
Jan 5, 2004, 10:15
 
they must be blind idiot developers

_____________________________________________
Give me slack. Or kill me.
______________________________________________
"When the bomb drops it'll be a bank holiday
Everybody happy in their tents and caravans
Everybody happy in their ignorance and apathy
No one realizes until the television breaks down..."

- SUBHUMANS
4.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 10:51
4.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 10:51
Jan 5, 2004, 10:51
 
Sounds like some nVidia sponsored developer wants to hide the fact that his game runs better on and ATi card ;p

What are you talking about?!?! They scored the ATI cards higher. What makes you think they aren't trying to make ATI cards look better then?

5.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 11:02
5.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 11:02
Jan 5, 2004, 11:02
 
STALKER is sponsored by NVidia (that "the way it is meant to be played" thing). Now a benchmark comes out where ATi card score better, resulting in some PR cover-up operation: "We never said the game was STALKER, no no, it's some other game we benchmarked."

-------
Calling Cthulhu webmaster
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
-------
Calling Cthulhu
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
6.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 11:13
6.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 11:13
Jan 5, 2004, 11:13
 
Did any of you even look at the benchmarks? Who cares that the 9800's got higher FPS, the 5950 still got 76 at 1600x1200 with FSAA and AF. If anyone complains about playing the game at that speed just because another card got 23 obsolete FPS more, they should be kicked in the head.

Avatar 13977
7.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 11:17
Jim
7.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 11:17
Jan 5, 2004, 11:17
Jim
 
Aren't STALKER benchmarks not related to what DX version you have or whether it's ATI or nVidia, but how fast your connection is and how quickly you can click the "next screenshot" link? STALKER is just a screenshot generator, right?

Jim
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.

9.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 11:35
9.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 11:35
Jan 5, 2004, 11:35
 
Calm down guys, to tell you the truth, these benchmarks are based on the leaked version. No graphics card can spit out 100s of fps on DX9. Besides, all three levels that were tested are those that the leaked version contains (they just translated them from Russian to English [The editor who wrote these benchmarks seems to be Russian judging from his name]).
The leaked version is dated May 2002 and the game didn't have any DX9 renderer and the engine wasn't optimized for nvidia boards yet. And besides, the game engine isn't even finshed TODAY so it's doubtable that GSC Game World sent out a version to be benchmarked. Those results are just crap.
EDIT: Additionally, it's strange that they're hosting DX 8 pics and claim to have tested the DX 9 engine first. After contacting them they said that they just chose the title "yet another dx9 game". I don't understand what that site is doing.


This comment was edited on Jan 5, 11:38.
Best regards,

Waqar "HeadHunter" Tariq
Content Manager
http://www.oblivion-lost.com
news@oblivion-lost.com
10.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 11:38
10.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 11:38
Jan 5, 2004, 11:38
 
Oh, ref the clicking screenshots thing. An alpha build of Stalker that was released to journalists was leaked. For what it is, and it is reputed to be a May 2002 build, it looks interesting. The textures are fantastic and the maps huge without fogging. But it's still only a DX7 release apparently.

11.
 
No subject
Jan 5, 2004, 11:43
11.
No subject Jan 5, 2004, 11:43
Jan 5, 2004, 11:43
 
Bah, there goes my conspiracy theory...

-------
Calling Cthulhu webmaster
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
-------
Calling Cthulhu
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
12.
 
?
Jan 5, 2004, 11:51
12.
? Jan 5, 2004, 11:51
Jan 5, 2004, 11:51
 
What do you mean?
EDIT: @ John Nelsen: Yes, we are an official fansite, the first and biggest one currently, in close contact with GSC.

This comment was edited on Jan 5, 12:10.
Best regards,

Waqar "HeadHunter" Tariq
Content Manager
http://www.oblivion-lost.com
news@oblivion-lost.com
13.
 
Re: Stalker benchmarks
Jan 5, 2004, 12:21
Jim
13.
Re: Stalker benchmarks Jan 5, 2004, 12:21
Jan 5, 2004, 12:21
Jim
 
Oh, ref the clicking screenshots thing. An alpha build of Stalker that was released to journalists was leaked. For what it is, and it is reputed to be a May 2002 build, it looks interesting. The textures are fantastic and the maps huge without fogging. But it's still only a DX7 release apparently.

Not to say that I'm not enthusiastic about STALKER, but I've been waiting a LONG time for this game, and it seems we've been looking at the same screenshots for 3 years, hence my sarcasm.

DX7. So it has been that long...

Oh well, now ALL THREE of my big anticipated single-player FPSs have been leaked. Doom3, HL2, and now STALKER. I guess it's a right of passage now. Next time I'm waiting for a groundbreaking game to come out, I know that if it ain't leaked yet, the game is still better than a year away from release.

Jim
14.
 
Re: ?
Jan 5, 2004, 13:06
14.
Re: ? Jan 5, 2004, 13:06
Jan 5, 2004, 13:06
 
What do you mean?
I was joking about my nVidia-Ati conspiracy theory

Yours is better.

Keep up doing the fansite love you do, I know how it is.

-------
Calling Cthulhu webmaster
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
-------
Calling Cthulhu
http://www.callingcthulhu.com
15.
 
Re: ?
Jan 5, 2004, 16:35
15.
Re: ? Jan 5, 2004, 16:35
Jan 5, 2004, 16:35
 
eunichron, erm you got ne barin cells there?

23fps is 23% more, that's helluva big difference for card in the same price range, hell radeon 9800 out done FX 5950 and it's 100 bucks cheaper.

You must be some nvidia fan or some shit.

This comment was edited on Jan 5, 16:40.
16.
 
Windoze 98 phase-out
Jan 5, 2004, 17:23
Jim
16.
Windoze 98 phase-out Jan 5, 2004, 17:23
Jan 5, 2004, 17:23
Jim
 
Is it groundhog day or something? I could have sworn that MS made this announcement about a month ago.

Jim
17.
 
Re: ?
Jan 5, 2004, 18:08
17.
Re: ? Jan 5, 2004, 18:08
Jan 5, 2004, 18:08
 
> What do you mean?

Oh, was that at me? I mean:- people were accusing GSC of cover-ups when they weren't even involved in the benchmarking story. I was being quite sarcastic so it's understandable you may have not picked up on that if English isn't your first language. No harm done, comrade.

Long-haired Jim, you're lucky to have three highly anticipated games. One of them might even turn out okay. Thank your lucky stars you weren't anticipating DX:IW.

This comment was edited on Jan 5, 18:12.
18.
 
Re: ?
Jan 5, 2004, 18:16
18.
Re: ? Jan 5, 2004, 18:16
Jan 5, 2004, 18:16
 
No, I was reffering to Nyarlathotep.

Best regards,

Waqar "HeadHunter" Tariq
Content Manager
http://www.oblivion-lost.com
news@oblivion-lost.com
19.
 
Re: ?
Jan 5, 2004, 21:03
19.
Re: ? Jan 5, 2004, 21:03
Jan 5, 2004, 21:03
 
I was anticipating DX:IW

But I also look forward to Doom3, HL2, STALKER and Painkiller. All those have been leaked and I have tried them out and they made me want those games even more.

Oh, Far Cry too....but no leak there...yet

Always expect the worst and you will never be dissapointed
20.
 
Re: ?
Jan 5, 2004, 21:13
20.
Re: ? Jan 5, 2004, 21:13
Jan 5, 2004, 21:13
 
23fps is 23% more, that's helluva big difference for card in the same price range, hell radeon 9800 out done FX 5950 and it's 100 bucks cheaper.
Ok, I'm sorry for taking things other than pure performance into account when talking about video cards, how ungeeky of me. I'll do my best to only consider numbers next time.
You must be some nvidia fan or some shit.
Once again I'm sorry for prefering quality over quantity. Those extra 23 obsolete FPS don't mean jack if it takes 59032 bajillion (obviously exaggerated) workarounds to get the game to run stably in the first place. And before anyone retorts with, "omg nvidia fanboy ATI's drivers pwn you," I speak only from personal experience, I don't give a damn how far ATI's drivers have come, the day I stop seeing "Fixed crash in [insert name of popular game here]" in ATI's driver releases is the day I'll consider an ATI offering.

Avatar 13977
23 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Older [  1  2  ] Newer