Slashdot Mirror
Benchmarking With Halo For PC
Thanks to ExtremeTech for their article discussing comparative benchmarking of PCs using newly-released FPS Halo. The piece explains how to "add a few command line options to the [Halo] shortcut" to enable benchmarking, which "runs through several of the game's cut-scenes", and the final page of the article has results for ATI and NVidia's current high-end graphics cards. The article concludes: "Halo is not the most elegant console game port, and given what you see on the screen it's odd how slowly it runs at times... Still, the Halo benchmark is a pretty good graphics card test- at once stressful, deterministic, and scalable with both graphics cards and CPUs."
This sounds suspiciously like a timedemo.
Even though Halo was originally designed for the PC, it was long twisted and tweaked for maximum XBox performance. Gearbox virtually had to break down the walls and expand the game engine to fit the wide array of different hardware PCs have. Trying to compare Halo PC with, say, Quake 3 or UT2k3 would be very unfair.
Now everyone can see how badly it plays even on the best hardware.
Seriously though, you'd think they'd take these options out before release, knowing how it makes even a P4@3GHz + Radeon9800 cry. Considering most users are still on GF2 or GF3 class hardware, it's not going to help sales, surely?
Oh my god.
A Radeon 9800 on a 2.4GHz P4 is *required* to get even halfway decent performance. I'm done with PC gaming.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Halo is a very very poor PC port i'm afraid..
I have an Barton-code AthlonXP 3200+, 1GB of DDR400 Dual Channel RAM, nForce2 mobo and a GeForceFX 5900 and it's dog-slow... and its not like the game is visually stunning... it kinda looks... well about a year old.
Oh, and it won't run if you've got antialiasing turned on.
The revolution will not be televised. It won't be on a friggin blog either
Interesting? Because being forward looking is a bad thing, right? Just because an option is there doesn't mean you have to use it. But someday soon the hardware will be affordable and that day you will be glad the option was included. The next person that complains about having many features in a game should be kicked off of slashdot and probably the internet.
Look at Q3. According to Gamespy stats, there are almost 4600 people playing Quake 3 online right now. Do you think they are using the same resolution and color depth as when it was released on 12/3/99? I'm going to say no, but I bet they are glad the engine scaled upward. Idiot.
After all, Halo PC IS competing against UT2k3 and Quake III.
I've been saying this to people for ages (in my /. posts too).
The X-Box origional was visualy stunning and used the console very well (particularly given it was a launch title). It was obviously designed to take advantage of the specific strenghts (and limitations) of the console.
The PC port is a shoddy straight forward could-have-been-done-with-an-emulation-layer port of the X-Box version that althought (like the origional) it uses a few DX9 effects, take no consideration of the advantages of PC gaming hardware.
The FPS is piss poor, it's noteably wrose than the Doom 3 leak (and the exuses that it has it's own rendering engine being the reason for it being unable to support any FSAA just make it look all the more like a throw away port that Microsoft/Bungie didn't care about).
The PC net code is dire too, I have had less lag with X-Box Halo on the net (using a Linux gateway).
No wonder that Counter Strike : Condition Zero went from being in Gearbox's hands to getting done by Ritual. More fool Gearbox for taking this one on. I don't think it makes Bungie look good either.
The Radeons "owned" the Geforce FXs. But then again, ATi must have paid off Gearbox for these scores, just like they paid off Valve and every other company and person, so that their products would outperform nVidia's. Right?
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
After foolishly attempting to run the demo on my six-month-old PC, I can confirm Microsoft's vision of Combat Evolved is shooting their other corporate branches in the feet.
"Neque enim lex est aequior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua."
PLEASE read what Gearbox has to say about this.
Basically, this doesn't work like a "normal" benchmark. The FPS number takes more into account than just FPS (sorta). Please read the above.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
People do realize that the xbox output at NTSC or HD at best... max res is 1080
Most gamers won't play below 1280x1024 on the PC. Comparing the speed between the two is hardly fair unless it is done at 640x480 on both...
-Tim
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
If you run the benchmark you won't be able to select "continue" from the main menu as it will take you to the Convenant ship (the last scene it benchmarks). You'll have to reload from your last save point (potentially forcing you to replay lots of the game if you don't save often).
They called the 9600 Pro a budget card???!!!??? it costs around 300 bucks! They can't expect everyone to buy a shiny new 600 dollar card just because they included some features that only the top end cards can support. i see this as a dumb bussiness choice, focusing on high end hardware. and also... the high end hardware doesn't run it that great. A previous post mentioned the game not looking about a year old. whats the point of the pixel shaders if the game doesn't look that awesome with them? also, look at HL 2 benchmarks, look how the cards perform there. And pretty much anyone can see that HL2 looks just as good, and probably better then Halo. Another thing... look at Tom's Hardware Doom 3 benchmarks. Doom 3 uses a lot of shading (dynamic shadows, lighthning) as well as a whole load of Direct X 9.0 fetures, and it runs fairly good on cards that are choking on Halo!!! i personally think that there is a problem with the way the game was written... it uses a lot of stuff to draw things that don't look that groundbreaking. I'm definitely not buying, not with that perforamce and the year long wait time till the problem is (if it is, it may not even be) fixed. HL 2 is coming out in spring 2004, id much rather get that... a game whos BETA doesnt have performance issues on "budget cards" (and only an idiot or someone who has way too much $$$ calls a 300-400 dollar card a budget card.) for those who r wondering, my prices are in canadian dollars ( i bet they make more sense now, lol)
I brought the game the first day it came out and the first night playing it the machine crashed at least 8 times and the network play was non-existant.
I have a 2500+ barton oc to 3200+ with ati radeon 9500 pro. every game (including the new max payne 2) runs silky smooth.
I have other friends who got the game and the pattern of failures seem to center on the graphics card.
all my friends who have it running smooth (out of the box, no patches) are running some sort of nvidia card
all my friends who crash are running ati radeon cards.. even after two patches later we still have issues with slowness. I think that the port uses some features of the nvidia card that the ati radeon drivers don't support and it is slowing it down.
even after locking the refresh to 30 fps, it would still be unplayable at any resolution. I gave up and sold my copy to my friend for half the price
I picked up max payne 2 last night and running at max detail it runs like dream.. don't think it's so much a hardware issue or lack of processing power on my part.
-joe
I ran the game on a 1.4GHz Athlon with a GeForce2 MX400. It ran FINE. I probably had the graphics turned way down, but I played through the whole single player campaign and a lot of multiplayer without a single slow down that last longer than half a second. I bet it still looked better on my computer and 15" monitor than it would've on a shitty console running on a TV.
I'm playing the DEMO on a Duron 650 with 384 MB of RAM and a 64 MB GF4 440 (the cheapo DX7 and not really DX8 part).
The demo runs acceptably well at 1024. Granted it's not using any pixel shaders, but the game works, and it works well enough to play.
The story might be different on a low-end card that can do either spec of pixel shader tho.
On another note, now that I've played all of Halo I can't see how people could say its that great of a game. its about average at best.
I'll take Tribes 2, UT, UT2k3 or Quake 3 over it any day.
-------- -Cap
~Bommers, Why did it have to be Bommers!?!
Did anyone actually read this review? The conclusion had some scores that looked totally whack unless I'm interpreting things wrong. Using pixel shader 1.1 @ 1024x768 @ 3.2ghz a 9800 pro got 27 FPS. The FX 5900 got 24 fps. Now same pixel shader version except the processor is at 2.4ghz and the resolution is 1600x1200. The 9800 pro got *55* fps. The FX5900 got *31* fps. Why is it this game is performing BETTER on a slower processor at a higher resolution? Is something whack here or am I interpreting this wrong?
I tried to like it. I really did. The graphics were okay (but that doesn't really bother me), but the guns were pretty lame and the level design was bad (i.e. the library -- what were they thinking)? I got to the Covenant ship after slogging through for 10 hours and said to myself, I can't do this anymore. UT2k3 against bots is more fun than Halo. I feel really, really sorry for XBox gamers that bought a system for this game (and who don't really know what aN FPS is!)
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
I was really looking forward to Halo on the PC, what I got was a port worse than RedFaction2 (anybody who has seen it knows what I'm talking about), very very sad, glad it was not my money that paid for it.
* Looks like what it is, which is basically a bad dated console to PC port. I mean UT2k3 look a _lot_ better than it.
* Runs like shit, I mean for the graphics quality you get you would think it runs at +100 FPS on modern hardware, instead you get a measly frame rate that drops to nothing if you look in the wrong direction.
* Plays like a bad port, the FOV perception is fucked and the responsiveness is lagged.
Generally its just a really bad port with the guys who did the ports coming up with poor me excuses and blaming everything from the 'public perception of the xBox', to the PC industry, to PC users, to 'Having to wait for PC hardware to catch up'. Please, were not console morons, tell that crap to someone who gives a toss, you just did a shit job and you know it.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
The game runs like like magic on my 2500+ ti4200 - to all those who complain about performance turn off some of the specular or don't bitch. Go back to number crunching stats on your water cooled system trying to tweak a higher 3dMark score instead of playing any damn games in general.
Halo runs fine on my p4 w/ Raedon 9000 at max resolution ONLY when I turn off all the optional effects like shading etc. with them all on, the game struggles at 800x600.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
I agree; it is definately a bad port. When you release a game, you want it to (yes of course) have some new functions when better hardware comes out, but you don't want to have to force people to use the latest hardware to gain 50+ fps. That's just insane; and a waste of money. I'm regretting that I've ever bought it now. To me, it looks almost the same as it does on the Xbox -- with really crappy FPS. Halo is a great game, I've always loved it, but I wish it ran better. The X-box had an "advance" gpu like... 3 years ago? Equivalient to a GF3/GF4
- john@flipsidesoftware.com
Even though Halo for PC has all the extra material added to it which is better I mean do you think it works better on pc or xbox? Depending on you pc to.