Half Life 2
Here we'll use Half Life 2 to test the DirectX9 rendering performance of the graphics boards in this title. We are using our own internal benchmark from a level that has a lot of shader usage in order to maximise the utilisation of the graphics board, rather than the CPU.
Note: Due to Steam/Half Life 2 updates old demo recordings are not able to be used. For this test a new demo recording is used and although it is from the same scene results will not be comparable with previous articles. In order for this version Half Life 2 to work sound was also enabled.
| Half Life 2 (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X1800 XT | 140.5 | 140.8 | 136.2 | 127.3 | 98.2 |
| X1800 XL | 140.8 | 140.0 | 126.5 | 112.2 | 77.4 |
| X850 XT PE | 134.0 | 133.7 | 124.2 | 113.0 | 80.4 |
| X800 XT | 134.1 | 133.2 | 120.3 | 107.0 | 73.5 |
| X1800 XT % Faster than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X1800 XL | -0.2% | 0.6% | 7.7% | 13.5% | 26.9% |
| X850 XT PE | 4.9% | 5.3% | 9.7% | 12.7% | 22.1% |
| X800 XT | 4.8% | 5.7% | 13.2% | 19.0% | 33.6% |
| X1800 XL % Faster than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X850 XT PE | 5.1% | 4.7% | 1.9% | -0.7% | -3.7% |
| X800 XT | 5.0% | 5.1% | 5.2% | 4.9% | 5.3% |
Up until 1600x1200 all the boards are showing slight graphics limitations, but for the most part are CPU bound, however at 1600x1200 there is more of a performance gap opening up. In this instance the X1800 XL is showing a 5% performance advantage over the X800 XT, but a 4% deficit to the X850 XT PE.
| Half Life 2, 4x FSAA & 8x AF (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X1800 XT | 140.1 | 136.7 | 118.8 | 102 | 73.2 |
| X1800 XL | 137.7 | 127.7 | 97.2 | 80 | 54.6 |
| X850 XT PE | 129.5 | 119.8 | 91.7 | 74.7 | 51.4 |
| X800 XT | 127.4 | 113.8 | 82.7 | 66.7 | 45.5 |
| X1800 XT % Faster than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X1800 XL | 1.7% | 7.0% | 22.2% | 27.5% | 34.1% |
| X850 XT PE | 8.2% | 14.1% | 29.6% | 36.5% | 42.4% |
| X800 XT | 10.0% | 20.1% | 43.7% | 52.9% | 60.9% |
| X1800 XL % Faster than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X850 XT PE | 6.3% | 6.6% | 6.0% | 7.1% | 6.2% |
| X800 XT | 8.1% | 12.2% | 17.5% | 19.9% | 20.0% |
With 4x FSAA and 8x AF enabled the same trend as in other titles is apparent, with the architectural changes for R520 giving it a 20% performance increase over the previous generation with like-for-like clocks. With the architecture changes and increases in clockspeed the X1800 XT is up to 40% faster than the X850 XT PE and the XL is also 6% faster.
| Half Life 2, 6x FSAA & 16x AF (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X1800 XT | 139.1 | 133.4 | 108.8 | 90.6 | 65.5 |
| X1800 XL | 134.0 | 120.5 | 86.3 | 69.9 | 48.0 |
| X850 XT PE | 123.7 | 108.9 | 76.2 | 59.6 | 41.1 |
| X800 XT | 120.1 | 101.2 | 68.8 | 53.4 | 36.7 |
| X1800 XT % Faster than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X1800 XL | 3.8% | 10.7% | 26.1% | 29.6% | 36.5% |
| X850 XT PE | 12.4% | 22.5% | 42.8% | 52.0% | 59.4% |
| X800 XT | 15.8% | 31.8% | 58.1% | 69.7% | 78.5% |
| X1800 XL % Faster than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| X850 XT PE | 8.3% | 10.7% | 13.3% | 17.3% | 16.8% |
| X800 XT | 11.6% | 19.1% | 25.4% | 30.9% | 30.8% |
With 6x FSAA we can see similar trends, but again the performance difference is widened - this is not just due to the large availability of bandwidth the X1800 XT has because the same holds true for the X1800 XL, it would appear to be the case that R520 is better at handling, and optimising, high bandwidth situations, bearing out the work done on the memory controller and related elements.
