Games Benchmarks - Half Life 2 (DirectX)
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, in this title.
| Half Life 2 (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6200 | 42.0 | 26.7 | 15.9 | 12.8 | 7.5 |
| 6600 GT | 114.9 | 81.6 | 51.3 | 42.0 | 25.0 |
| 5200 Ultra | 9.3 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 1.7 |
| 6200 % Faster Than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT | -63.5% | -67.3% | -69.0% | -69.6% | -70.1% |
| 5200 Ultra | 351.9% | 344.1% | 345.1% | 374.7% | 349.4% |
This particular Half Life 2 test makes use of a number of full precision PS2.0 shaders placing the onus on the Pixel Shading capabilities of the graphics board. As such, the 6200 performance deficit to the 6600 GT mirrors its theoretical Texture / Pixel Shader difference very closely. The performance deficit the 5200 Ultra has to the 6200, though, more or less mirrors the performance differences we saw with the RightMark DirectX9 Pixel Shader tests and the 6200 having over 4 times the performance of the 5200 Ultra across all resolutions.
| Half Life 2, 2x FSAA + 4x AF (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6200 | 35.1 | 22.8 | 13.1 | 10.3 | 6.1 |
| 6600 GT | 102.7 | 71.4 | 42.7 | 34.2 | 19.8 |
| 5200 Ultra | 8.7 | 5.6 | 3.4 | 2.5 | 1.5 |
| 6200 % Faster Than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT | -65.8% | -68.0% | -69.3% | -69.8% | -69.1% |
| 5200 Ultra | 302.9% | 308.2% | 288.1% | 306.5% | 297.4% |
The relative performance differences between the 6200 and the 6600 GT with 2x FSAA and 4x AF again do not change that much from the difference displayed under normal rendering. The performance deficit the 5200 Ultra has to the 6200 is reduced a little as the graphics processor is spending such a large portion of its rendering time on the shaders that its not as bandwidth or texture fill-rate limited in the first place, hence enabling AA and AF isn't causing too much more of an overheard - however, the 6200 is still in the order of 4 times as fast here.
| 6200 (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| Normal | 42.0 | 26.7 | 15.9 | 12.8 | 7.5 |
| 4x AF | 37.7 | 24.4 | 14.5 | 11.6 | 6.9 |
| 2x FSAA | 39.2 | 25.1 | 14.3 | 11.4 | 6.6 |
| 2x FSAA + 4x AF | 35.1 | 22.8 | 13.1 | 10.3 | 6.1 |
| % Diff from Normal | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 4x AF | -10.3% | -8.6% | -8.9% | -9.2% | -7.4% |
| 2x FSAA | -6.6% | -6.0% | -9.8% | -10.9% | -11.0% |
| 2x FSAA + 4x AF | -16.3% | -14.5% | -17.7% | -19.1% | -18.0% |
Under these high details settings the performance of this Half Life 2 test on the 6200 means that it is unable to exceed an average rendering of 30 FPS beyond 640x480 so lower detail may be required in order to effectively play this title.
