PDA

View Full Version : "Half-Life 2: Lost Coast" Stress test results



Harrison
14th February 2012, 13:16
I thought it might be interesting to see what results you all get running the Half-Life 2: Lost Coast stress test on the following settings:


Resolution 1280x1024 (LCD)
Normal Aspect (4:3)
Full Screen
Water Detail: Reflect All
Color Correction: Enabled
AA: 4x MSAA
Filtering: Anisotropic 4x
HDR: Full (if available)


For my older Q6600 system I get 177 FPS

Spec: Q6600 at 3GHz, 8GB DDR2 800MHz ram, ATI 4870 1GB GPU

For my new i7 2600K system I get 273 FPS

Spec: i7 2600K at stock 3.4GHz (3.8GHz TB), 16GB DDR3 1600MHz ram, ATI 6950 2GB GPU.

So what do you get?

Chinners
14th February 2012, 13:30
So what do you get?

Jealous?

[Will benchmark later tonight or tomorrow]

Gouldin
14th February 2012, 13:36
Got HL2 downloading now, will post results later tonight once it's finished :)

Witcher1979
14th February 2012, 13:59
Is this a free download? I have HL2 but not Lost Coast

Gouldin
14th February 2012, 14:01
HL2 uses the same stress test.

They used to be different as Lost Coast was released as a demo to highlight enhancements to the game, they've since been patched into HL2 :)

Witcher1979
14th February 2012, 14:04
HL2 uses the same stress test.

They used to be different as Lost Coast was released as a demo to highlight enhancements to the game, they've since been patched into HL2 :)

Ah sweet :) I will get HL2 installed then. Thanks

morcar
14th February 2012, 14:27
sadly i cant do this as i dont have either but i will test out 3d mark 11 on the standard settings and let you know the marks i get

Witcher1979
14th February 2012, 14:32
Might be an idea to make a 3d mark thread, will get messy in here if people start posting results from different apps.

scrappysphinx
14th February 2012, 14:46
My Samsung Laptop (would only let me select 1024x768,):

Core i5-2430m, 6gb DDR3, Intel HD Graphics

Average FPS: 69.68

Will test on my desktop later.

Harrison
14th February 2012, 15:00
That's quite impressive with Intel HD Graphics. Is it the GPU build into the CPU? Or separate?

In general for integrated graphics I've been impressed with the Intel CPU integrated GPUs. For anyone not into current PC gaming, that just needs a general purpose PC, they really don't need a discrete GPU any more, just a motherboard that supports the one built into the CPU.

My i3 system is running the CPU's built in GPU Intel HD graphics so I'm now tempted to run it on there and see what it can produce.

Harrison
14th February 2012, 16:01
Was just wondering. HL2 was finally released for Mac OSX in 2010 via steam. Does that also include Lost Coast? And if so the stress test? If it does then it would be great to see some Mac uses post your scores as well to see what you can get.

Witcher1979
14th February 2012, 16:03
I just ran it 3 times:

1) 277
2) 273
3) 275

GPU was 40-50% used. Was hitting frames of 300+ lol This is why I use MSI to limit all games to 60fps max :)

Harrison
14th February 2012, 16:13
A lot of newer games allow you to restrict the framerate, and I generally do set it to 60fps these days because there isn't really any benefit to it running more on a monitor that can only display 60fps. Although many hardcore gamers believe that allowing it to run at maximum settings in FPS games does make for faster game response and reaction time. Not sure how much of that statement is true or psychological though.

Witcher1979
14th February 2012, 16:17
A lot of newer games allow you to restrict the framerate, and I generally do set it to 60fps these days because there isn't really any benefit to it running more on a monitor that can only display 60fps. Although many hardcore gamers believe that allowing it to run at maximum settings in FPS games does make for faster game response and reaction time. Not sure how much of that statement is true or psychological though.

Yeah, well anything more on 60fps on my monitor I won't be able to see it anyway. Also games like Dead Space that run at 300fps, fans are going crazy, at least at 60fps the fans are quiet :)

I just maxed out HL 1920x1080 with every setting maxed out and the benchmark was 268.

Harrison
14th February 2012, 16:22
Mine was 262 when I ran it the other day. So I expect the HL2 test is hitting a ceiling in performance and we are running it to the fastest it can manage.

BTW, one funny thing I got when I did this, and I think its related to the filtering, is that some of of the graphics went pink/purple. Towards the beginning of the test it was the bottom parts of the rocks on the shore/harbour area, and later it was the reflections/light in the windows. Also it appeared inside the church on the lamp reflective maps. Very odd. I'm wondering if its an ATI/driver issue. Dropping the Filtering back down from 16x to 8x got rid of it.

Witcher1979
14th February 2012, 16:40
Mine was 262 when I ran it the other day. So I expect the HL2 test is hitting a ceiling in performance and we are running it to the fastest it can manage.

BTW, one funny thing I got when I did this, and I think its related to the filtering, is that some of of the graphics went pink/purple. Towards the beginning of the test it was the bottom parts of the rocks on the shore/harbour area, and later it was the reflections/light in the windows. Also it appeared inside the church on the lamp reflective maps. Very odd. I'm wondering if its an ATI/driver issue. Dropping the Filtering back down from 16x to 8x got rid of it.

Hey man,

Yeah you could be right I reckon we are hitting a wall with HL2 tests. I never got the colour thing, but then again I still run the 11.12 drivers. They seem to be the best at everything at the moment, I always say if it aint broke then leave the drivers alone :) I will upgrade at some point though.

ash
14th February 2012, 20:05
So what do you get?
I got 229 fps on i5 750, 4 GB DDR3 1333 MHz, GeForce GTX260 Core216.

keropi
14th February 2012, 20:19
just did the test: 268.21 fps

2600K at stock settings, 560ti and 16GB DDR3 on Z68 mobo

Harrison
14th February 2012, 21:08
Other than GPU very similar specs to me keropi. :)

Skilgannon
14th February 2012, 21:14
Just ran it Harrison (And re the mac version - I can't see it available for me to get on the Macbook...)

My machine is a couple of years old now. Running Win7 pro 64bit on AMD Phenom II (Black) X4 955 @3.2 Ghz with 8Gb RAM and an ATI 4850 (1Gb) video card.

I got 220 FPS (not brilliant - but not too shabby given the age of my machine compared to the new "i" processors).

Cheers

John

keropi
14th February 2012, 22:20
Other than GPU very similar specs to me keropi. :)

don't tell me your ram is also corsair vengeance :lol:

Witcher1979
14th February 2012, 22:30
Just ran it Harrison (And re the mac version - I can't see it available for me to get on the Macbook...)

My machine is a couple of years old now. Running Win7 pro 64bit on AMD Phenom II (Black) X4 955 @3.2 Ghz with 8Gb RAM and an ATI 4850 (1Gb) video card.

I got 220 FPS (not brilliant - but not too shabby given the age of my machine compared to the new "i" processors).

Cheers

John

Thing is the game seems to be capped so we can't push the FPS any higher. We know this as the GPU is not maxed on the game they sit aroound 40-50% so in theory if we could 99% the cards it would be double so over 500fps :)

Chinners
14th February 2012, 22:53
Benchmarked my PC in it's overclocked state
(AM2 4200 running at 2365mhz, geforce 460oc).
Got 87 fps.

:thumbsdown::(:(:(:(:(:(:(

Harrison
15th February 2012, 03:57
Other than GPU very similar specs to me keropi. :)

don't tell me your ram is also corsair vengeance :lol:

Indeed it is. Vengeance LP blue 1600.

scrappysphinx
15th February 2012, 14:34
My Desktop

Athlon X4 645, 10Gb DDR3, ATI HD5830

Average fps is 168

One thing i noticed though is while the test was running the HDD was constantly being accessed but i didn't notice this when i did it on my laptop

AmiNeo
15th February 2012, 16:00
129.87 Average


Core2Quad Q6600 (stock)
BFG Nvidia Geforce 280
4GB DDR2 800MHz

Harrison
15th February 2012, 18:54
That seems low AmiNeo. On my Q6600 it was getting 177fps with a ATI 4870. Or is the GeForce 280 a long way below that? I've not kept up with nVidia's confusing naming structures for a long time.

AmiNeo
15th February 2012, 20:02
That seems like AmiNeo. On my Q6600 it was getting 177fps with a ATI 4870. Or is the GeForce 280 a long way below that? I've not kept up with nVidia's confusing naming structures for a long time.

The 280 is a few years old now yeah, its the power hungry predecessor to the GTX480. In DX10 games its about same performance as your Radeon 4870.

I've always thought of it as about as powerful as 2 9800GT's in SLI.

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:58 ----------

Could do with trading it out for something a little greener to be honest... :lol:

D.B
15th February 2012, 21:20
i7 930 Skt 1366 @ 4.00Ghz, 6GB Tri Channel RAM @ 1820Mhz 8-8-8-24, nVidia 9800GT 1GB Green card (PCIe power only) @ stock 550/800 & shader @ 1375Mhz

175.11fps

Then I upped the anti & set monitor to optimum 1920 x 1080 as per LG W2363D so we had 120Hz available.

120.69fps

Then I put V-SYNC on.....

104.42fps :blink:

Despite the visuals not tearing & only 16 fps less, I was quite impressed. :)

Harrison
15th February 2012, 21:59
Isn't your 9800GT holding your system back a bit D.B?

D.B
17th February 2012, 18:15
Isn't your 9800GT holding your system back a bit D.B?

Sure, if all you want to do is play games on it, but not in any instance is the Graphics card holding the system back. ;)

The 9800GT use to be a dedicated PhysX card, but has been the main card for nearly 12 months now. GTX590 was returned for refund in March last year so I guess we will wait for the 6 series now & then the 3D 120Hz monitor will be put to better use.

AmiNeo
17th February 2012, 21:29
Answer your question Harrison? :lol:

Talk about rubbing it in :p

Harrison
18th February 2012, 01:28
Sure. I was just wondering why someone would spend quite a lot on the rest of a system build, but not the gpu. Makes sense as a temp measure until something better can be purchased.

AmiNeo
18th February 2012, 10:54
:lol: Using it as a physx card is a great use of it :D


Personally I could do with something equally powerful as my GTX280 but less energy consuming...

Witcher1979
18th February 2012, 11:07
:lol: Using it as a physx card is a great use of it :D


Personally I could do with something equally powerful as my GTX280 but less energy consuming...

I want to get a cheap nvidia card to use for physx alongside my 6950

AmiNeo
18th February 2012, 11:11
I'd offer you mine for about 60 + postage but it sucks around 200W and requires 1 PCI-E 8 pin and 1 PCI-E 6 pin :lol:

D.B
18th February 2012, 13:06
:lol: Using it as a physx card is a great use of it :D


Personally I could do with something equally powerful as my GTX280 but less energy consuming...

To be honest, anything over anything over an 8800GTS is a waste of processing power for the requirements of PhysX, but the 9800GT was cheap enough @ 65 new & the 1GB of ram instead of 512Mb was a real bonus. HL2 & anything Source based runs like a charm @ 1920x1080 with 16x Aniso & 4x MSAA, so the cheap PhysX card still has some clout

RE: your GTX280, they are stunning cards in their own right. Just put a decent PSU behind her & enjoy. An nVidia Ti560 card still chomps around 200+W but then you are getting infinitely better performance & more eye candy from the 5 series at this level. :thumbsup:

ShambleS1980
19th February 2012, 20:13
196.41 Fps.
Q6600 @ 3201Mhz "8x 400Mhz"
DDr2 ram at 800Mhz
Gpu 5770 at 900Mhz
Abit quadGt Ix38 running at 1600Mhz fsb.

Reasonably happy with that actually.

Changed everything to Max.. "seems it was all at default"
192.77 Fps

Still happy with it.

Witcher1979
19th February 2012, 21:15
:lol: Using it as a physx card is a great use of it :D


Personally I could do with something equally powerful as my GTX280 but less energy consuming...

To be honest, anything over anything over an 8800GTS is a waste of processing power for the requirements of PhysX, but the 9800GT was cheap enough @ 65 new & the 1GB of ram instead of 512Mb was a real bonus. HL2 & anything Source based runs like a charm @ 1920x1080 with 16x Aniso & 4x MSAA, so the cheap PhysX card still has some clout

RE: your GTX280, they are stunning cards in their own right. Just put a decent PSU behind her & enjoy. An nVidia Ti560 card still chomps around 200+W but then you are getting infinitely better performance & more eye candy from the 5 series at this level. :thumbsup:

Yeap an 8800 is all that is needed for physx. Cheap as chips :) I aim to find one over the next few days, keep meaning to. Also with an 8800 I can keep my 550w PSU. I think anyway, not really looked into power.

ShambleS1980
19th February 2012, 21:21
you used to be able to buy dedicated physx cards untill nvidia bought them out. always wonderd how they preform as a dedicated card compared to an 8800..
Guess its time to google lol.

Harrison
20th February 2012, 11:46
I've been interesting in trying out PhysX via a plugin for 3DSMax and Maya.

But how much other software actually utilises physx?

And I only know of a handful of games that support it.. how many are there?

I found this interesting site http://physxinfo.com

Witcher1979
20th February 2012, 13:03
Not sure, I think most new games have it, I was using my 6950 to do it on Batman AA but as you can imagine it slowed the game down big time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHq80VF811A&feature=player_embedded

That was on my 6950, with no physx we get no sparks, also I noticed a shed loads of cobwebs with physx on as well. It does improve the game a lot imo. Byt as said slow downs were terrible. Hence why I need a card to slot in next to my 6950 for it.

ShambleS1980
20th February 2012, 13:37
seems the fastest available agea PPU Pci-e 4x used as dedicated physx is about on par as a nvidia 9600.

having said that the ones i can find are system pulls and the details about them is "scetchy at best"
So for 5 more on avarage i may be more inclined to use a 8800 as a dedicated physyx device as atleast we can get decent details about those..
and from memory.. I think the 8800 out preformed the 9600 any way..

having said that..
my spare pci-e 16 slot will run at 4x if the 1stslot is in use any way..
so what would that mean for a 8800 running at 4x as a dedicated physx card..

i hate variables lol.

Harrison
20th February 2012, 14:06
Not sure about 4x, but I read that in real terms the difference between 16x and 8x is 1% performance in the real world. I was very surprised by that.

If you have an nVidia card installed purely to be used as a PhysX card, do they need the graphics drivers installed? Or just the PhysX drivers? And has there been any indication of them playing nicely in a system running an ATI card? I know the days are long gone of multiple cards and drivers clashing like they used to, and for example in my current system, my i7's intel GPU is installed alongside my 6950 and the motherboard load balances between the 2 to reduce power consumption when you don't need the descrete GPU.

Witcher1979
20th February 2012, 14:44
Nah you just install something called physx mod when you are using physx but Nvidia is not the main GPU but second GPU.

EDIT: In fact you may need to install the proper GPU drivers and then the mod on top.

Harrison
20th February 2012, 15:00
I was using my 6950 to do it on Batman AA but as you can imagine it slowed the game down big time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHq80VF811A&feature=player_embedded

That was on my 6950, with no physx we get no sparks, also I noticed a shed loads of cobwebs with physx on as well. It does improve the game a lot imo. Byt as said slow downs were terrible. Hence why I need a card to slot in next to my 6950 for it.

So all it added in that video was sparks? :blink: hmm...

If you don't have a dedicated PhysX card, doesn't the software use the CPU instead? Or does it use your main GPU?

Witcher1979
20th February 2012, 15:05
I was using my 6950 to do it on Batman AA but as you can imagine it slowed the game down big time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHq80VF811A&feature=player_embedded

That was on my 6950, with no physx we get no sparks, also I noticed a shed loads of cobwebs with physx on as well. It does improve the game a lot imo. Byt as said slow downs were terrible. Hence why I need a card to slot in next to my 6950 for it.

So all it added in that video was sparks? :blink: hmm...

If you don't have a dedicated PhysX card, doesn't the software use the CPU instead? Or does it use your main GPU?

I can't remember what it was meant to use, you might be right and it did use the CPU and not my GPU. Yeah in that clip it was just sparks, but you get paper flying around and other debris. But the sparks add a lot to that scene imo. I would rather have them then not kinda thing.

Harrison
20th February 2012, 15:21
There is some interesting information about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX

Most interesting is PhysX SDK 3.0 released last year which states it utilises multitasking and SSE in CPU much better so performance will be greatly improved when running PhysX using a CPU rather than GPU.

Also interesting is the mention of nVidia building hardware detection into their drivers and disabling PhysX if an ATI card is found in the system. Surely that is unfair competition?

ShambleS1980
20th February 2012, 16:12
Thats called monopolizing and would soon be over ruled in courts if they forced it.

and yet again my fave example of this exact same thing is

Sun java Vs Microsoft :)

Sets a prety decent presidence for this kind of stuff meaning that they cant really hope to do it legaly, as it prevents people utilizing theire choice of configuration.

Witcher1979
20th February 2012, 16:40
Thats called monopolizing and would soon be over ruled in courts if they forced it.

and yet again my fave example of this exact same thing is

Sun java Vs Microsoft :)

Sets a prety decent presidence for this kind of stuff meaning that they cant really hope to do it legaly, as it prevents people utilizing theire choice of configuration.

Yeah same as the old you had to have IE and no way to remove it, until they got done. I am sure they will try it though.

ddni
20th February 2012, 16:52
On my aged machine, I get:

116.3 fps
1440x900 No HDR, No AA, No Filter, Reflect World.

70.50 fps
1440x900 HDR, 6xAA, 16xFilter, Reflect All.


----------------------

intel core2 e6600 @ 2.4 GHZ
Radeon x1950 Pro AGP
2GB DDR2 RAM

AmiNeo
21st February 2012, 15:36
212.34 with new i3, ATI HD 3850 and 4GB DDR3 1600mhz

Harrison
21st February 2012, 15:47
@AmiNeo> What do you think of the i3? And which one do you have? I've a 540 and have been really impressed with it for the price. Perfect budget CPU IMO, and I'm just running it with the built in Intel GPU which is perfect for general purpose stuff. Never benchmarked it though, and that could be interesting. Might try later tonight.

AmiNeo
21st February 2012, 15:54
Mines the Sandybridge 2100 i3, everythings flying in windows now, its great. Im begining to wonder if I really need to upgrade to an i5 in the future now :lol:

Witcher1979
21st February 2012, 16:11
Mines the Sandybridge 2100 i3, everythings flying in windows now, its great. Im begining to wonder if I really need to upgrade to an i5 in the future now :lol:

What you don't have you don't miss :thumbsup:

AmiNeo
21st February 2012, 16:16
lol yeah. But how much better could they actually be... :blink: I'm amazed how much difference the CPU makes TBH vs the Q6600 I wonder if I left thermal throttling on in the bios or something...

---------- Post added at 16:16 ---------- Previous post was at 16:12 ----------

Best part is my whole system isnt drawing more than 250Watts now :D

Harrison
21st February 2012, 16:43
That is a huge advantage of the i3; very low power consumption, made even better with speedstep so it drops the multiplier when idling (mine idles on x9 at 1.2GHz and at only 20 deg C, and stays there whilst seeding through utorrent, so is great) Plus the i3 has hyperthreading (HT) so the OS sees 4 threads, whereas the i5's don't have HT, so they have that advantage, although obviously only dual core compared to quad with the later. However at the moment most games don't take full advantage of more the 2 cores, so for gaming at the moment stick with your new i3 and upgrade your graphics when needed, and then wait until you start finding it struggling in newer games.. and by that time you should be able to pick up a second hand i5 2500 at a good price.

Witcher1979
21st February 2012, 18:11
Some gaming benchmarks here, not sure how accurate they are.

But overall you would get a very nice boost from an i5 with games and apps, but if you don't need it, then no point :lol:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

In fact that site has lots of tests, even apps.

AmiNeo
21st February 2012, 23:45
Good advice Harrison I think I'll do just that :thumbsup:


This is without a doubt the fastest system I have owned up to now. The extra speed from an i5 would be nice ofcourse but I dont see the need to shell out 175 pounds any time soon. Looking at those benchmarks the results are still way over the playable bar and the difference (average of maybe 20fps? ) just isnt worth another 175 pounds when I can pick up a good graphics chip for little over half that. I'll look at picking up a 6770 or something over the summer and that should do me for a year or 2. Its all retro after that :D

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------

I'm going to stick the 280 in this system and see what shes capable of with this i3 :D.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:26 ----------

211.64 with the i3 and the 280, I just realised when I did it with the HD3850 in the game had reset to default values :Doh:

Just doing a gtx280 test on defaults to compare

---------- Post added at 23:26 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------

213.96... wtf ? lol I only gained 2fps by dropping the resolution and taking off the AA? and AF? There seems to be a limit as to the cpu or something... The 280 should be kicking the HD3850s ass...

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

Ideas anyone? I'm stumped :blink:

ShambleS1980
22nd February 2012, 00:23
no idea because i noticed the same minimal decrease between 1024x768 at default valuses vs 1280x1024 everything maxed on my 5770.
I could put the 3870 back in to compare but i put it up for sale on evil bay. so dont wanna do that

AmiNeo
22nd February 2012, 00:54
Damn I'd have had that off u if I wasnt so short on funds, dont suppose you want to trrade for anything Im selling in this thread? lol

ShambleS1980
22nd February 2012, 01:03
you got postage costs?
Il let you have it for that, i seriously hammer these things but should work well with yours in crossfire.
i think it will drop down to your 3850's specs though.

Its far from standard though.

has thermaltake duorb cooler, new heat synks on the ram and the PWM heat sync had to be bent to get a previous cooler on. il straighten them out for you though..

works prety well really. considering how i treat anything with a bus speed that i can change

AmiNeo
22nd February 2012, 01:07
My i3 board only has 1 PCI-e slot, built it specially for the power savings, and ironically it outperforms anything I've had up to now so far :D

ShambleS1980
22nd February 2012, 01:13
Well a 3870 is not that much better than your 3850, and with what i do to them probably only preforms the same as a 3850 by now.
Shame you dont have crossfire as it would have worked with your 3850 prety well.

AmiNeo
22nd February 2012, 01:39
yeah couldnt really afford an uber expensive motherboard with having to buy CPU board and RAM at same time.


Just been playing crysis maxed everything and very playable on this system with the 280 :)

In the future ill be looking for a card that can rival its performance or better with less wattage draw. From what I've read, the 5770 comes close indeed.

On the other hand, the 6870s look very nice , and at 150W max TDP and 19W idle, theyre looking more tastey indeed.

ShambleS1980
22nd February 2012, 01:54
5770 probably uses more power than your 3850 tbh

AmiNeo
22nd February 2012, 02:08
yeah not by a heck of a lot tho, 3850 is 75W, I think the 5770 was 100W, the 6870s are usually between 130W - 150W depending on OC models or what not. My current GTX280 is about 300W lol.

Witcher1979
22nd February 2012, 08:28
Yeah this test has a limit somewhere, most of us maxed out at the same average of around 270 or something. I think it has a 300fps cap as I was hitting 300 on the test.

HonestFlames
27th February 2012, 14:18
I'm plodding along at ~90FPS on the Lost Coast test.

GT440 (GDDR5) and 2x Opteron 285's @ 2.4GHz.

It's an old machine, but it's perfect as a home server / workstation.

AmiNeo
2nd June 2012, 14:44
Just run it on my i3 laptop... 113FPS :lol: :D

mjnurney
2nd June 2012, 14:52
Back when this was released my amd 3.0 ghz and radeon 9800se would not play this at a frame rate quicker than a slide show :-(

AmiNeo
2nd June 2012, 14:59
Back when this was released my amd 3.0 ghz and radeon 9800se would not play this at a frame rate quicker than a slide show :-(


Yeah and now a laptop with no dedicated graphics chip can run it over 100fps :D

Gotta love how fast tech evolves ;)

Sardine
2nd June 2012, 16:38
i7 2600k@4300, 16gb
Nvidia 480GTX
win7x64

279fps

my bottle neck is VGA but cant afford or see the need for anything faster, all my games max detail 1920x1080 run smoothly

AmiNeo
2nd June 2012, 16:41
nice, but can your eyes tell the difference between my laptops 113 and your 279? :lol: Not that its not awesomely impressive.


I wonder how the i7 would fare alone....

AmiNeo
23rd July 2013, 07:01
Installing lost coast on MACOSX now (Macbook Pro 13" 2012) will post back with results for OSX and Windows. :D

AmiNeo
23rd July 2013, 09:05
HD4000 73.5 fps under MacOSX

Had to have resolution at 1280 x 800 though as was closest it supports. Will download for Windows now.

Powerpie5000
23rd July 2013, 11:13
I'll give this a try using the specs Harrison posted in the first post



Resolution 1280x1024 (LCD)
Normal Aspect (4:3)
Full Screen
Water Detail: Reflect All
Color Correction: Enabled
AA: 4x MSAA
Filtering: Anisotropic 4x
HDR: Full (if available)



Back soon...

AmiNeo
23rd July 2013, 11:21
Windows came in at 66.8fps.

OSX FTW! lol.

Powerpie5000
23rd July 2013, 11:24
My results were 299.22fps with the following spec:

Core i5 3570K (stock 3.4GHz)
3GB HIS Radeon 7950 Boost (running stock)
8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600


I'm now going to try again with everything maxed :)...

AmiNeo
23rd July 2013, 11:25
I wonder how the i5 alone would compare... :lol:

Powerpie5000
23rd July 2013, 11:34
I got 288.91fps with everything maxed (1920x1080, 16x anisotropic filtering, 8x MSAA etc...)... Not much lower than the previous score using lower settings. I'll also mention that i have everything set to maximum quality in the Radeon Catalyst drivers too!, so really my scores should be higher if i set the driver to default (not that i'd actually notice the speed increase anyway).



I wonder how the i5 alone would compare... :laugh:

I doubt there will be much (if any) difference between the i5 and i7 when running an old game like this... The i7 chips don't usually offer much of an improvement when it comes to gaming anyway. I know the integrated GPU on my i5 3570k will be better than the integrated GPU found on the i7 2600K (HD4000 vs HD3000).

AmiNeo
23rd July 2013, 11:43
Yeah. This Macbook Pro has a mobile i5 Ivybridge. I was curious how the desktop model would differ. :unsure:

Of course you'd probably need to have the settings identical too.

johnim
23rd July 2013, 12:46
I will try later with the i7 4770

its mad as my i5 750 with sli gtx660s

beat my i5 2500k with sli gtx760s

270 vs 280

both had 8gb ram
and the 750 had mechanical hd and 2500k had ssd

what gives

Sardine
23rd July 2013, 13:05
122 fps 1920x1080
i7m 2.4
16gb ddr3 ram
Nvidia 680m 4gb

benching the built in HD4000 gives similar results so cpu limited.

Powerpie5000
23rd July 2013, 13:33
I will try later with the i7 4770

its mad as my i5 750 with sli gtx660s

beat my i5 2500k with sli gtx760s

270 vs 280

both had 8gb ram
and the 750 had mechanical hd and 2500k had ssd

what gives

I'm thinking HL2 is not great with multi-GPU setups... You should be getting a higher score than me with those cards in SLI :o. SSD will only give faster loading times, i don't think it affects GPU & CPU benchmarks or gameplay. Are both machines using the same OS and same nvidia driver version? I find those results a bit strange too :unsure:.

EDIT: I'm going to benchmark my ex's PC (which used to be my living room PC :roll:) when i go over and pick up my daughter. It's running a Core i5 2500, 8GB Avexir DDR3 1333 RAM and a 2GB KFA2 GTX 660Ti... Would be interesting to compare the results :).

keropi
23rd July 2013, 14:05
yeah I'll update later with benchmarks of my system... still the same 2600K setup but with a 3GB/660ti instead of a 560ti

johnim
23rd July 2013, 15:09
yes both systems have same drivers and both win 7 64 ultimate

I will try the both systems with sli disabled

johnim
23rd July 2013, 18:28
using the intel 4600 in the i7 4770

i got 87fps on high settings

and 110fps on low settings

eg model,texture,shader and shadow

what do you need to set it to

AmiNeo
23rd July 2013, 18:34
using the intel 4600 in the i7 4770

i got 87fps on high settings

and 110fps on low settings

eg model,texture,shader and shadow

what do you need to set it to

that will prob do me tbh. Based on that I can say that the HD4500 on an i7 desktop is about 12 frames faster than the laptop i5 HD4000. Its a modest improvement. Could go either way for more modern games. I imagine its a significant difference either way. :thumbsup:

johnim
23rd July 2013, 18:40
i also tried full everything at 1920x1080

and got 30fps

AmiNeo
23rd July 2013, 19:58
Not too bad for full HD maxed out. :thumbsup:

keropi
24th July 2013, 00:50
just did the test: 268.21 fps

2600K at stock settings, 560ti and 16GB DDR3 on Z68 mobo

just re-did the test on the same pc but with a 3GB 660ti card this time: I got 295.12 fps

Powerpie5000
25th July 2013, 11:26
Just run the test on a PC with a Core i5 2500 (stock 3.3GHz), 8GB DDR3 1333 RAM and a 2GB GTX 660Ti... It scored 287.35fps using the settings in the first post and then 280.32fps with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 (8xMSAA, 16x Anisotropic filtering etc.). All nvidia driver settings were set to default.

AmiNeo
25th July 2013, 15:57
300 seems to be the peak for todays tech. I wonder if anyone can get to 400... :lol:

Powerpie5000
25th July 2013, 19:46
300 seems to be the peak for todays tech. I wonder if anyone can get to 400... :lol:

I'm thinking maybe the stress test is limited. Does anyone here have an overpriced e-peen GPU like a GTX Titan or Radeon 7990? Would be interesting to see how much higher the score would be :). Can anyone here try it with an AMD crossfire setup? We know it doesn't appear to work well with nVidia SLI.

AmiNeo
26th July 2013, 08:19
It could be that due to age of the software it just doesn't support multi GPU setups at all. If I recall correctly, the multi-core support for CPUs was added in post release.