HL2 & CS:S - Nvidia FX Cards (30% FPS Increase)

[Joswin]

What is this? This is old news, not even news, we have all heard long ago that Valve have disabled DX9 on the FX range of cards because -they suck at it basically.

You will see image quality improvements of course, its using DX9 instead of 8.1 but the FPS will NOT increase, they will decrease (as its been said). Most likley to an unplayable degree, if not at first, later in the game.

It's not a conspiracy, its Vavle trying not to **** off FX users by giving them options that they cant possibly use effectivly. Blame NVIDIA for the FX's poor DX9 performance, not valve for trying to make it a good experience for everyone.

30% Increase in performance by going to DX9 mode... sure. Is that like how NVIDIA's drivers were going to increase the performance of the 5800 Ultra by 50%? but only in 3dmark (with clipping panes and re-written shaders ;)).

[theresiststance2003]

To those people claiming a slowdown using this trick with a 5600 or 5700... did you use the 9800 settings that this guy used? He said you had to use the equivalent ATI card to yours.. so like if you have the 5700 ultra.. use the 9600 xt settings or something.. not sure if you did or not, just a thought.

[Joswin]

I dont see how enabling more GPU intensive shader effects would result in a 30% performance increase. It's no secret that the FX series do not handle DX9 games that well, and is the reason why Nvidia droped the 'FX' tag ASAP with the 6xxx series.... they didnt want people thinking of the Dustbuster and lackluster performance.

I'd like to see some proper benchmarks, because imo, this is just as simple as it looks -Someone found out how to make the game think you have an ATi card so it lets your FX use the DX9 path. Wowee, there is a reason why you can't do that by default -and the blame lays with NVIDIA not Valve or ATi.

[Nocstar]

I dont see how enabling more GPU intensive shader effects would result in a 30% performance increase. It's no secret that the FX series do not handle DX9 games that well, and is the reason why Nvidia droped the 'FX' tag ASAP with the 6xxx series.... they didnt want people thinking of the Dustbuster and lackluster performance.

I'd like to see some proper benchmarks, because imo, this is just as simple as it looks -Someone found out how to make the game think you have an ATi card so it lets your FX use the DX9 path. Wowee, there is a reason why you can't do that by default -and the blame lays with NVIDIA not Valve or ATi.

585105425[/snapback]

Totally agree. I in fact have a fx card.

They should say 30% visual increase

[notuptome2004]

Fx series card all of them no matter witch ya have just canot do Directx 9. why well first off Nvidia tried to pass off a new format to Microsoft that they had used for the Fx series cards Witch did not include b Floiting point Pipeline satges witch in tern means no FPblending or FPbuffers or anything to do with Floitingpoint stuff witch isa very very very important part of a Directx 9 GPU and witch si why Hollywood videos look so damn real because ther **** is all FP. now Microsoft threw that out what NV wanted them to do is go ther rout but MS siad NO so ATI intern went the corect Ms rout MS went . so to summ thing up the Fx cant do any PS2.0 shaders only can do custom Nvidia 2.0 type shaders Witch are differant structers compared to Ms 2.0 shaders

Now in the 6x series Geforce card they fixed ther problems and added a Full Pipeline full of FP caculation stages this time thus now they have FPblend FP this that an can do sutch stuff as High Dynamic Range lighting. and mutch mutch more

[3l_gr!ngo]

What I really want is for someone to explain why I get less Fps using a xfx 6800 ultra on a P4 3.0 1gb ram 200mhz than when I plug in a Fx5200 in the same Pc ? and why changing resolution and advance visual Settings (aa, af, shadows and water reflections) doesnt affect the Fps I get using the 6800 ultra ? Its always a crappy 50 average. goes as low as 12 and for brief seconds at times reaches 130.

Stress test I get 69.

Another weird thing is that using the latest drivers from Nvidia 66.93 (i think) I get corrupter images, like lines comming out of weapons, models and objects. this is on a clean system i?ve formated and tried 3 diferent operating systems. with no luck

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

and why changing resolution and advance visual Settings (aa, af, shadows and water reflections) doesnt affect the Fps I get using the 6800 ultra ?

Do you have V Sync enabled in your graphic options?

Sounds like your refresh rate is set to 50, so if V Sync is enabled, technically your not going to get more than 50 fps if V Sync is set to Enable.

[3l_gr!ngo]

Nop, Vsync is always off ! and im set to 85mhz refresh rate

[Argote]

What I really want is for someone to explain why I get less Fps using a xfx 6800 ultra on a P4 3.0 1gb ram 200mhz than when I plug in a Fx5200 in the same Pc ? and why changing resolution and advance visual Settings (aa, af, shadows and water reflections) doesnt affect the Fps I get using the 6800 ultra ? Its always a crappy 50 average. goes as low as 12 and for brief seconds at times reaches 130.

Stress test I get 69.

Another weird thing is that using the latest drivers from Nvidia 66.93 (i think) I get corrupter images, like lines comming out of weapons, models and objects. this is on a clean system i?ve formated and tried 3 diferent operating systems. with no luck

585116738[/snapback]

well because the 5200 uses the DX8 path which is lighter on the card, also check your driver settings, odds are its being bottlenecked by something else, go ahead and turn everythign on, since anything above 30fps is perfectly playable

[3l_gr!ngo]

well because the 5200 uses the DX8 path which is lighter on the card, also check your driver settings, odds are its being bottlenecked by something else, go ahead and turn everythign on, since anything above 30fps is perfectly playable

585126903[/snapback]

Yeah but i payed over 500? for a gfx card so that I can get over 30fps, the problem is that everytime I have more than one model on the screen the frames drop like hell when using the 6800.

But using the fx 5200 fps are more stabel and dont drop so much.

I tried setting CS:S to run dx8 using the 6800ultra and still get the same results.

Gonna go buy a new motherboard this week cause im using a crappy Asrock P4vt8, so if anything is bottlenecking my rig its probably it.

[Vice]

Yeah but i payed over 500? for a gfx card so that I can get over 30fps, the problem is that everytime I have more than one model on the screen the frames drop like hell when using the 6800.

But using the fx 5200 fps are more stabel and dont drop so much.

I tried setting CS:S to run dx8 using the 6800ultra and still get the same results.

Gonna go buy a new motherboard this week cause im using a crappy Asrock P4vt8, so if anything is bottlenecking my rig its probably it.

585127080[/snapback]

Same. I get 70fps when walking about as soon as a model walks in my view range I drop to 40fps even if they are up close are far in the distance. 6800GT with every setting on the highest it will go. running at stock.

[BK666]

There IS a 30% boost in performance. What you guys dont understand is that when I force the game to run in dx9 with the command mat_dxlevel 90 I get messed up graphics and even worse fps than 8.1, around 5-30. BUT, when I did this it looked so beautiful. Water reflects eveything, depth refraction and even soft water to land effects and normal mapping and all the dx9 goodies and its about 45% faster than dx9 when I tell hl2 I have my 5900 ultra and run in dx9 with that command (mat_dxlevel 90). This is a great way to improve DX90 performance AND graphics OVER forced DX9. Now I get about 30fps to higher than refesh rate (140fps). This is sick, gotta try cs source now.

Hl2 graphics settings:

1024x768

EVERY option high except tecture filtering at trilinear.

Reflect ALL

Asus P4P800-Deluxe

Intel 2.6C P4 @ 3.3ghz

1 GB (2x512mb) Dual Channel DDR 3200 Kingston

Gainward Geforce FX 5900 Ultra @ 592/932 mhz

Creative Audigy 2

[ANova]

Why don't you take a screenshot for us and post it. And while your at it type in 'cl_showfps 2' in the console.

[[SST]SLAYER]

Why don't you take a screenshot for us and post it.  And while your at it type in 'cl_showfps 2' in the console.

585132583[/snapback]

My X800 XT has no problem playing HL2 or DOOM III

My son on the East coast wants to buy the 6800 ultra with 256 mb RAM my question after reading all of this will it run HL2 as well as it runs DOOM III?

[ANova]

My X800 XT has no problem playing HL2 or DOOM III

My son on the East coast wants to buy the 6800 ultra with 256 mb RAM my question after reading all of this will it run HL2 as well as it runs DOOM III?

585132763[/snapback]

The 6800 series doesn't have this problem, only the Geforce FX series.

[Chode]

Why don't you take a screenshot for us and post it.  And while your at it type in 'cl_showfps 2' in the console.

585132583[/snapback]

[n00b question]

cl_Showfps 2?

[3l_gr!ngo]

The 6800 series doesn't have this problem, only the Geforce FX series.

585132774[/snapback]

Lol yeah right !

I have a 6800 ultra and 40 - 70 fps most of the time I consider this a problem...

[[SST]SLAYER]

What I really want is for someone to explain why I get less Fps using a xfx 6800 ultra on a P4 3.0 1gb ram 200mhz than when I plug in a Fx5200 in the same Pc ? and why changing resolution and advance visual Settings (aa, af, shadows and water reflections) doesnt affect the Fps I get using the 6800 ultra ? Its always a crappy 50 average. goes as low as 12 and for brief seconds at times reaches 130.

Stress test I get 69.

Another weird thing is that using the latest drivers from Nvidia 66.93 (i think) I get corrupter images, like lines comming out of weapons, models and objects. this is on a clean system i?ve formated and tried 3 diferent operating systems. with no luck

585116738[/snapback]

Yeah but i payed over 500€ for a gfx card so that I can get over 30fps, the problem is that everytime I have more than one model on the screen the frames drop like hell when using the 6800.

But using the fx 5200 fps are more stabel and dont drop so much.

I tried setting CS:S to run dx8 using the 6800ultra and still get the same results.

Gonna go buy a new motherboard this week cause im using a crappy Asrock P4vt8, so if anything is bottlenecking my rig its probably it.

585127080[/snapback]

The 6800 series doesn't have this problem, only the Geforce FX series.

585132774[/snapback]

So should he get it or not

[3l_gr!ngo]

So should he get it or not

585132863[/snapback]

At this moment I would say no ! get the x800 xt if its CS:S you play the most.

[Chode]

Lol yeah right !

I have a 6800 ultra and 40 - 70 fps most of the time I consider this a problem...

585132860[/snapback]

Then I suggest you upgrade your processor and RAM and stop wasting your money on a graphics card that is bottle-necked by the rest of your system. Jesus, I'm running an ancient NVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti4800SE and I'm outperforming you in this game :rolleyes:

The problems with full-precision shaders in DirectX9 mode on NVIDIA cards is unique to the FX-series of cards. This was corrected in the 6x00 series of graphics cards.

[ANova]

Lol yeah right !

I have a 6800 ultra and 40 - 70 fps most of the time I consider this a problem...

585132860[/snapback]

Then you have a problem. Try different drivers, reinstalling, etc. You should be getting an average of around 80.

Though, the X800 series is better for D3D games like HL2.

[n00b question]

cl_Showfps 2?

Typing in 2 instead of 1 also shows the min and max fps.

[BK666]

Ok, I took a screen at 1024x768 everything in the options menu high except filtering is trilinear. Water reflection says I should run at reflect world but its on all instead. This is the lowest I could get the fps to get, even 9800 XT and 6800 and x800 have strange fps drops when you get close to models of high detail, I also looked at it while looking back at the world so its also seen in the reflection. I did the cl_showfps 2 but minimum fps is 0 right when the maps load so its a useless number, it plays 30-146 but sometimes gets that stutter that other people on the steam forums have complained about on any card that runs in dx9, it lasts for about 3 o 5 seconds then goes away and comes back only when you enter a new area and then you get the stutter again for 3-5 seconds. 30 fps is when I am shooting a bunch and there are like 6 antilions jumping at me and there is water. 146 fps is when ther is no water and I am not really close to a model (model takes more than 80% of screen) or i zoom in on a model. As you can see, great reflection, normal mapping on models, the water/land transition effect, cool beans, better than typing mat_dxlevel 90 in console and getting corruption and even lower fps.

[BK666]

BTW, I did this for cs source and it did ok but still no world reflections, but I do get the better shading, normal mapping on models, but no water improvements, water still looks like 8.1, just refractive and fake ass reflection. I went back to 8.1 for cs source cause id rather have the 200 fps in 8.1 than 40-80 in dx9 because online you need really high framerates all the time.

[ANova]

Dude, that looks like crap and your FPS is horribly low. All a result of running DX9 shaders on a Geforce FX without any optimizations.

It should look like this. Run at about 50 fps on a 9500 Pro.

[3l_gr!ngo]

Then I suggest you upgrade your processor and RAM and stop wasting your money on a graphics card that is bottle-necked by the rest of your system. Jesus, I'm running an ancient NVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti4800SE and I'm outperforming you in this game :rolleyes:

The problems with full-precision shaders in DirectX9 mode on NVIDIA cards is unique to the FX-series of cards. This was corrected in the 6x00 series of graphics cards.

585133242[/snapback]

Actually Im running it on a

P4 3.0

1bg ram corsair

160HDD

XFX 6800 ultra

And like me hundreds of 6800gt/ultra users and even few x800pro/xt users are having this problem with crappy Fps. check out the forum @ steam. We have been trouble shooting since the 16th november and still havent got a clue to what causes Source to run so slow on our specs ...