Your results are much lower than everyone elses for the 6800 cards.

You did something wrong. You probably left trinlinear optimizations off.

There's def something wrong with the nvidia results here - I know for a fact that they don't perform that low!

Sounds pretty ATI-biased if you ask me...

I'd really love to see a couple benchmarks with older/slower CPUs.

Quote Page 6 :The RADEON X800 XT cannot run this game at a comfortable speed even in the lowest resolution.

Error?

And it would be nice if we could see how last generation cards handle the game... e.g. (5200, 5600, 9200, 9600) Try it on medium settings for an example, you don't need 'pure' mode (highest settings) to make it playable.

Bias. What is ATI paying you guys?

You idiots claiming bias do notice that there are no standard demos out there and the results you see on sites will vary since everyone is doing something different.

I would like to see the results on a newer set of drivers namely Forceware 67.02. This driver is known to be so far the driver to use when playing HL2.

They probably used ATi's demos instead of making their own.


Shame.

I love XbitLabs, but your results match with DriverHeaven - ATI won every single benchmark with NVIDIA staying behind. How can all your demos perform so differently that they don't match with AnandTech, HardOCP, and Firing Squad's results?

Are you use you correctly measured the performance?

Another very useful review guys! At least most of the entire range of of both major IHVs cards were tested esp Ati's X800XT PE vs X800XT & X700 vs 6600GT. Perhaps you should've kept 67.02 drivers although your reasons are clear.

For all you incredulous naysayers... Note that Xbit did not use overlcocked Nvidia cards, & correctly enabled the option for HQ watershader features for all cards. Not only that, they also correctly identified CPU limited benches, where all IHV's products tested similarly. Have a look at other sites & note which ones are promoting a close bunching of results & then concluding that Nvidia's products are as fast as Ati's in HL2. Well chosen demos, indeed... ;) The driver/IQ comments are also very useful, esp where one IHV has an issue with fog... ;) Compare Firingsquad vs HOCP, heh...

The thing to note is the great performance of the A64 system...

Noob question. How do you activate HQ watershader features? And since quality is an issue, could you maybe post some pictures regarding the 'quality' of the images? Like comparing HQ watershader and non HQ watershader.

I'd like to know why the NV cards performs so much worse than in other benchmarks.
Anandtech's version showed the 6800 GT beating the X800 Pro, and I wouldn't call them incompetent.
I'm not interested in defending either side, I just want to know how such different results were achieved. They can't both be right... :D

what codepath does 6800 use by default? dx8.1 or dx9.0? looking here i'd surely say dx9.0, but when looking at PCperspective, i'd say dx8.1. Did xbitlabs force dx9.0 on 6800?

"Hardocp used an overclocked nvidia card" !

!

what the? it wont post the rest? trying again: i like this comment! so let me get this, it is not fair using an nvUltra OC card, but fair to use ATI's OC edition called PE? XT is 500/500 right? XTPE is 520/560 or am i wrong..

I say that you've made the test in a way that it didn't compromise the news you've posted the other day. The news had the exact scores ATI gave. I don't think you did right.

As always a good indepth review, thank you :-)
Did you use the "reflect all" setting? How much does this setting slow down the 6800 as opposed to "reflect world"?

OK, pretty interesting review. I'll note just the following points :
- how much do the "ReflectAll" impact performance on both card versus "ReflectWorld" ?
- where are you demo from ? ATI ? NV ? Vendor independent ? or did you dreate your own ?
- how are the demo balanced between "shader intensive" and "real gameplay" ?

AWx