More on the H-L2 Date

The Neowin Winhec 2004 Blog (thanks Wookiestick) reports on the presentation of Half-Life 2 at an ATI bash, offering more support for the theory that Summer 2004 is the new September 30:
The demo was very impressive but was not a touch on the demo by Gabe Newell from Valve. This stole the whole keynote to actually see some new footage from Half Life 2. Again we got the whole video which is approximately 3 minutes long and as soon as we find somewhere with firewire we’ll get it on here asap because it’s one to watch! Gabe claimed the X800 is 40% faster than the GeForce 6800 for Half Life 2 and confirmed that we’ll see Half Life 2 this summer.
View : : :
77.
 
Re: HL2
May 5, 2004, 15:43
77.
Re: HL2 May 5, 2004, 15:43
May 5, 2004, 15:43
 
it still doesn't make sense. You can't say that two cards get more or less the same framerates, and then follow that up with "but at different resolutions". That's a completely useless statement.

I did suggest you read the review, and not just that one page, but it's lengthy and I can see where you're missing my point..

The review at HardOCP attempts to discover the best image quality settings (resolution+AA+AF) that can be used in a given game, while still allowing you to max-out all its visual settings and achieve playable framerates (they use 30fps as a minimum desireable framerate, and consider anything 60+ as essentially gravy). Oddly enough, that's exactly what I attempt to discover when I sit down with a new game, so I find that approach extremely helpful. My initial comment about "more or less the same framerates" was a poorly worded and very loose interpretation of the wiggly-line graphs which show exactly how well each card performed this task -- the lines tend to overlap more often than not = "more or less the same framerates". OR, the very slight variation in average FPS scores shown = "more or less the same framerates".

That said, take a look at the table on this page of the review, which shows a breakdown of all the tests run in this manner, and the IQ settings used on each card:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDEw

You will see that all four cards tested are capable of running those games at playable framerates in high resolutions, and with varying degrees of AF and AA turned on. You will also see that the two new ATI cards were able to use higher-quality settings than the 6800. In the case of the X800Pro, the diffence is minor, but X800XT vs. 6800U (flagship to flagship), there is a considerable difference. Hope that helps clear up what I meant there..

Unless you're trying to gloss over the misgivings of something, it's generally best, when comparing two things, to compare them on as close to equal footing as you can. It tends to be more useful for generating a valid comparison between things. Unless of course, one is trying to hide something.

Again, I can see where you're coming from there.. people have all kinds of opinions about HardOCP and their methods, and that is - of course - the way it should be. As I said, I tend to find it usefull to look at how well a card can supply a combination of playable framerates+max detail+best IQ (and if HardOCP is part of some sort of hidden-agenda black-ops video card propaganda machine, then I remain grateful that they aren't the only source of info on the planet).

For an equal-footing comparison, you can skip to this page (but read the part about "Apples to Apples"):
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjExLDg=

I agree with the author that the other method is far more usefull to me. Even still, out of 6 tests the 6800 takes top position in only 2, and by a very small amount.

Anyway, performance be damned -- they're all fucking insane!! What's far more interesting to me (and only barely, becsuse I ain't buying any of this tech) is that the 6800 is still producing shittier rendering on some of the shaders in Far Cry than the 97/9800's!!


----
The dactylic pentameter consists of too [sic] parts separated by a diaeresis. Each part consists of to [sic] dactyls and a long syllable. The spondee may take the place of the dactyl in the first part, but not in tEh [sic] second... -Harkness.
This comment was edited on May 5, 15:49.
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
3.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
4.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
6.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
11.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
   Re: HL2
10.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
16.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
  X800
18.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
   Re: X800
25.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
31.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
   Re: HL2
47.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
    Re: HL2
54.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
     Re: HL2
56.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      Re: HL2
 77.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      Re: HL2
79.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
       Re: HL2
90.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
        Re: HL2
35.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
   Re: HL2
36.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
    Re: HL2
38.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
     Re: HL2
43.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
     Re: HL2
46.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      Re: HL2
48.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
    Re: HL2
49.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
     Re: HL2
51.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      Re: HL2
52.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
       Re: HL2
55.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
        Re: HL2
58.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
         Re: HL2
59.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
          Re: HL2
62.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
          Re: HL2
63.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
           6800 vs X800
67.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
           Re: HL2
69.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
            Re: HL2
70.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
             Re: HL2
78.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
              Re: HL2
72.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
             Re: HL2
75.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
              Re: HL2
57.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
        Re: HL2
60.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
         Re: HL2
61.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
          Re: HL2
66.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
        Re: HL2
53.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      Re: HL2
2.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
5.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
20.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
83.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
84.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
109.
May 9, 2004May 9 2004
7.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
14.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
15.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
27.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
29.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
    Getting Ugly
33.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
19.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
21.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
23.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
28.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
     Re: No subject
32.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      Re: No subject
34.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
       Re: No subject
39.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
       Re: No subject
40.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
        Re: No subject
41.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
        Re: No subject
22.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
26.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
30.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
42.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
     Re: No subject
44.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      AA and AF
50.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
       Re: AA and AF
45.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
      Re: No subject
101.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
9.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
8.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
17.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
24.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
12.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
13.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
37.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
64.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
68.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
65.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
71.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
73.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
74.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
76.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
81.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
82.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
80.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
85.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
86.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
88.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
87.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
89.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
91.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
106.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
92.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
93.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
96.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
  Meh
98.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
   Sorry
97.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
99.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
100.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
102.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
   John...
107.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
    Re: John...
94.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
95.
May 5, 2004May 5 2004
103.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
104.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
105.
May 6, 2004May 6 2004
108.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004