Falcon-K
09-11-03, 01:22 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1862
"Valve is ****ed at all of the benchmarking "optimizations" they've seen in the hardware community;
Half-Life 2 has a special NV3x codepath that was necessary to make NVIDIA's architecture perform reasonably under the game;
Valve recommends running geforce fx 5200 and 5600 cards in dx8 mode in order to get playable frame rates.
even with the special NV3x codepath, ATI is the clear performance leader under Half-Life 2 with the Radeon 9800 Pro hitting around 60 fps at 10x7. The 5900 ultra is noticeably slower with the special codepath and is horrendously slower under the default dx9 codepath;
the Radeon 9600 Pro performs very well - it is a good competitor of the 5900 ultra;
ATI didn't need these special optimizations to perform well and Valve insists that they have not optimized the game specifically for any vendor."
so as it looks right now the game is fully playable with a 5200..and not like some of the people were worrying about if a 9800 pro was good enough...
"Valve is ****ed at all of the benchmarking "optimizations" they've seen in the hardware community;
Half-Life 2 has a special NV3x codepath that was necessary to make NVIDIA's architecture perform reasonably under the game;
Valve recommends running geforce fx 5200 and 5600 cards in dx8 mode in order to get playable frame rates.
even with the special NV3x codepath, ATI is the clear performance leader under Half-Life 2 with the Radeon 9800 Pro hitting around 60 fps at 10x7. The 5900 ultra is noticeably slower with the special codepath and is horrendously slower under the default dx9 codepath;
the Radeon 9600 Pro performs very well - it is a good competitor of the 5900 ultra;
ATI didn't need these special optimizations to perform well and Valve insists that they have not optimized the game specifically for any vendor."
so as it looks right now the game is fully playable with a 5200..and not like some of the people were worrying about if a 9800 pro was good enough...