Any way to force a GeForce FX to run HL2 in DX9 mode?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CleanSlate said:
It's no question that the FX series was horrible in Dx9, alright yes we get it, we got it when Brent said it that thousandth time as well.

However, all DD is saying is that the 5900 series is decent enough to play any game out with full dx9 and I agree, but the frame rates are extremely lacking IMO.

~Adam
Click to expand...
QFT, when people like my self say it's bad at DX9, and the guy shows me a bunch of DX8/7(call of duty is like equiv to DX7 I think) games, it's pretty funny.
But in DX9 games that just came out, or are coming out, it will run them in DX8.1 mode, missing out on features, the card supposedly has.
 
No, he is claiming if his card cant run a game right, its not properly coded. The FACT is the 59xx series is a poor DX9 card, especially with AA. You arent going to get good frames with it. The 9800 series trounces it in DX9, as the latest Farcry patch shows. You can either live with its craptacular DX9 performance, or upgrade.
 
dderidex said:
Ah, that must explain why the 5950 wins over the 9800 Pro in ALL these games, and frequently beats the 9800xt, then, too, right? (Notice that I'm pulling from 3 different review sites to eliminate claims of reviewer bias):I could keep going, if you want?

I mean, it sure looks like the FX 5950 is 'crap' to me, doesn't it? It only pwns the 9800 Pro in every one of those games, and beats the 9800xt in the bulk of them. If that's 'crap', what would you call the 9800?

Now, just to be clear, I'm not some blind fan-boy (unlike some other posting in this thread *cough* not naming names or anything, just saying *cough*) - I fully realize that the 9800 is a great card and beats the 5950 in just as many games as it loses in.

But that's the point - they are equivelant cards. One is not 'crap' compared to the other. Depending on what games you play, the 5950 may well give you better performance than the 9800 - or, the opposite may be true. They ARE equivelant cards, like it or not.
Click to expand...

They are equivelant cards in non-directx 9 benchies.

You are posting a bunch of games that arn't directx 9. By the way, IIRC, Halo ran the nv3x in the ps 1.4 code path.
Your argument seems to be that properly coded ps 2.0 games run fine on the nv3x. For examples, you site a bunch of non-ps 2.0 games. You say that any future ps2.0 game that doesn't run well on your nv3x is not coded properly. . What I think you'll find is that the nv3x will continue to fall further behind as more ps2.0 games come along.
 
fallguy said:
No, he is claiming if his card cant run a game right, its not properly coded. The FACT is the 59xx series is a poor DX9 card, especially with AA. You arent going to get good frames with it. The 9800 series trounces it in DX9, as the latest Farcry patch shows. You can either live with its craptacular DX9 performance, or upgrade.
Click to expand...
If that's his argument, why does he have halo listed.. ZING!
 
Jonsey said:
well... UT2k4 isn't even a directx 9 game, so I don't know why you're bringing that one up. Neither is Doom3. that leaves you with 3dmark03. Don't you remember the huge flap last year about how poorely the nv3x did in that when the benchmark first came out? nvidia said the benchmark was flawed, but many said 3dmark03 was just ahead of it's time, showing how little shader power the nv3x had. Of course you get above 7k now, after nvidia has been optimizing it for years.
I can't believe someone here has not yet pointed out you're trying to use 3dmark to predict game performance. How can you be on this forum and not have heard at least once "3dmark does not predict real world game performance?"

In any case, I wouldn't worry too much. Supposedly directx 8.1 looks almost as good as directx 9 in HL2.
Click to expand...


Actually I forget which version of the patch it was for UT2004 but it did include a D3D9Drv.dll so you can run UT2004 in DX9 mode. It was dropped from the official patch but I kept that dll and still run UT2004 in DX9 mode on my other rig with a 5900 non ultra and it get's very good FPS.

With that said the FX series still lacked in DX9 applications.
 
Actually, NV has their own dx9 paths that needed to be coded for the fx series, they didnt use the default dx9 paths well at all. Thus, he could very well be correct. The problem was that not many game devs have the time and want to spend the months required to learn those paths for one generation of video cards that happened to suck, so they probably just ruled out NV's paths all together. Sounds very feasible and reminiscent of something I read in one of [H]'s articles.

~Adam
 
CleanSlate said:
Actually, NV has their own dx9 paths that needed to be coded for the fx series, they didnt use the default dx9 paths well at all. Thus, he could very well be correct. The problem was that not many game devs have the time and want to spend the months required to learn those paths for one generation of video cards that happened to suck, so they probably just ruled out NV's paths all together. Sounds very feasible and reminiscent of something I read in one of [H]'s articles.

~Adam
Click to expand...
I know that :p
 
Then stop arguing with him about it, it can't be proven which one of you is right, and in the end it's probably a combination of the two things.

Poor optimization and below-par shader calcuation power.

~Adam
 
CleanSlate said:
Then stop arguing with him about it, it can't be proven which one of you is right, and in the end it's probably a combination of the two things.

Poor optimization and below-par shader calcuation power.

~Adam
Click to expand...
What's to be argued?
He's the crazy kook who thinks the FX is a decent DX9 GPU, you can't really win an argument with an idiot.. as the saying goes.
So I'll let him be in his own delusional world.
 
BTW what does QFT mean? Quite Fucking True? Quit Fucking Talking? Quiet French Terd?

~Adam
 
Lol, flattery will only get you into my pants... as long as you're some hot chick. gg :p ;)

you're not as insensible as I suspected Moloch but bro ya need to tone it down some with the flamming :eek:

~Adam
 
pxc said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd be rolling eyes too if I had bought an FX and was in self denial trying to justify my purchase like you seem to be.

There is no iffs ands or buts about it the NV3X Gen was pure garbage. The only people who bought that shit were #1) Hardcore Nvidiots. #2)Joe smoe of course who I can't blame because NV does have its master PR spin doctors so thats to be expected in a follower society. #3) Then the last group who actually had a reason, the ones that wanted 3D glasses support or better OGL preformance and last but not least Digital Vibrance, though how anyone could like it is beyond me but to eachs own.

To the topic, if your just finding out the NV3X sucks at DX9, where have you been honestly?
 
Badger_sly said:
It looks just as good, just slightly different. Most people couldn't pick out which images were which if they were unlabeled.




It was/is a fad that took off, to bad mouth the 59xx series. Mainly by those that never used the cards.
Click to expand...

Haha Badger keep living in your fantasy world.
 
"..........Mainly by those that never used the cards."

It's funny yet sad when there are so many in this thread that write about what they have no experience in.

We're laughing, but also have pity for you.
 
CleanSlate said:
Lol, flattery will only get you into my pants... as long as you're some hot chick. gg :p ;)

you're not as insensible as I suspected Moloch but bro ya need to tone it down some with the flamming :eek:

~Adam
Click to expand...
I was answering the question :eek:
I will tone down my supposed flaming when certain nvidia fans realize the error of their ways.
 
KayossZero said:
Yeah I'd be rolling eyes too if I had bought an FX and was in self denial trying to justify my purchase like you seem to be.
Click to expand...
Or possibly do that @ the several who make like an ostrich and bury their heads in the sand like you do. The facts go away if you don't hear them. LALALALALALALALALALA

LOL
 
Jonsey said:
Again, none of those games you mentioned were directx 9. (maybe painkiller, but I don't think so.) You're right, the r3xx cards were only vastly better than the nv3x cards in a couple of cases, because there were only a few games that had directx 9 support. And if you didn't notice a big difference going from the 5900xt to the 6800, well, congratulations! You're easy to please!

Before, the hoopla about the nv3x not being good it directx 9 didn't mean much... because there wern't that many games that needed it. Now that directx 9 is being used more, the card suffers. Why complain? You got a year or two of good use out of the card, and even then you knew it wasn't future proof. A year is a long time in the video card industry. :cool:
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to argue that it was the best choice for DX9. I was just saying the card isn't total garbage like some people say. For the games that I play (the games I listed), the card did a wonderful job for the money. There are more games than the handfull of DX9 games out there.

And I didn't notice a huge difference in stepping up to a 6800OC because with the games I play, there isn't a lot of room for improvement. Of course if I was playing HalfLife2, or if i had tried FarCry on my old card, it would probably be a much different story.
 
*sigh* ATI fan-bois out in force tonight, it seems.

In any case, I've been busily playing a PS2.0 game on my 5900xt. I suppose I should tell my card that it sucks and performs worse than ATI cards at shaders, otherwise it might keep winning benchmarks in the game (PS 2.0 support was added in this patch - notice how the 5950 beats the 9800s!) As a flight sim, 35 fps is *more* than perfectly playable, anyway.

And if you think nVidia is bothering to do shader replacement on THAT game, you are simply delusional and that's all there is to that. ANY kind of flight sims are a ridiculously niche market, and WW2 combat flight sims of non-American aircraft an even smaller niche of a niche market.
 
Jicks said:
For the games that I play (the games I listed), the card did a wonderful job for the money. There are more games than the handfull of DX9 games out there.....Of course if I was playing HalfLife2, or if i had tried FarCry on my old card, it would probably be a much different story.
Click to expand...
That's the point I've made on a number of boards, and some people can't seem to get.

Apparently, Far Cry and Half-Life 2 consist of 100% of the PC games released over the past 10 years or something.

Hell, if you *believe* that, then, sure, go with an ATI card. You won't be disappointed in either of the two games you apparently feel are all that exist. But I don't live in such a small world, and the games I play (even the PS2.0 DX9 ones) run *just fine* on an FX 59xx series card.
 
dderidex said:
*sigh* ATI fan-bois out in force tonight, it seems.

In any case, I've been busily playing a PS2.0 game on my 5900xt. I suppose I should tell my card that it sucks and performs worse than ATI cards at shaders, otherwise it might keep winning benchmarks in the game (PS 2.0 support was added in this patch - notice how the 5950 beats the 9800s!) As a flight sim, 35 fps is *more* than perfectly playable, anyway.

And if you think nVidia is bothering to do shader replacement on THAT game, you are simply delusional and that's all there is to that. ANY kind of flight sims are a ridiculously niche market, and WW2 combat flight sims of non-American aircraft an even smaller niche of a niche market.
Click to expand...
If it was added in a patch, I doubt it's doing anything interesting.
How does disliking a poor product make you a fan-boy?
Even if the 5XXX series was within 5fps of the radeon's at their price point, there's still the iissue of subpar FSAA and filterting.
*sigh* the N3X fools are out in force it seems.
 
Why even link a res that hardly puts any load on the GPU? 1024x768, with no AA/AF. Really testing the card there!

Go ahead and figure out how to run in PS 2.0 in HL2, then come back and tell us how well it does. Word is "-dxlevel 90" at the end of the game shortcut works for CS:S, not sure if it does in HL2. Or you can simply look at some numbers when CS:S is forced to run DX9 on a 59xx series card. It takes a huge hit. No, CS:S is not the same as HL2, but the hit is probably going to be the same, or worse.

I dont know why its so hard to admit its a poor DX9 performer. In OpenGL and older DX8.1 games its a fine card. AA/AF can slow it down a lot too though.
 
fallguy said:
Why even link a res that hardly puts any load on the GPU? 1024x768, with no AA/AF. Really testing the card there!
Click to expand...

LOL - do you even know what you are talking about? You DO realize that rendering hundreds of miles of pixel shaded water is MUCH more graphics card intensive than anything Half-Life 2 or Doom 3 could do, right?

Okay, let me try this slower. Here is a link to the IL2 performance with various graphics cards. Okay, take a look at that. See how it looks?

Okay, now here is a graph of another game at a resolution that is limited only by the CPU.

Notice the difference?

1024x768 with no FSAA and no Aniso DOES tax the HELL out of the graphics card in IL2. It's a much more stressful test than any shooter could possibly be, as it's rendering a much, MUCH bigger world.
 
Moloch said:
If it was added in a patch, I doubt it's doing anything interesting.
Click to expand...
Splendid! Someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about!

Please read the update history of this game before posting an opinion on the topic. Hell, almost the entire graphics engine has been rewritten since its first release. Oh, and this 'patch' I was referring to was actually a retail "add-on" (although it's really just a patch). 'Patches' in the flight sim world are NOTHING like patches for shooters. Much, much more work goes into them - more aircraft with high-fidelity flight models and virtual cockpits, improved physics engines, improved graphics engines, etc.

Even if the 5XXX series was within 5fps of the radeon's at their price point, there's still the iissue of subpar FSAA and filterting.
Click to expand...
FSAA I'll give you, but it's not THAT 'subpar' - performance is fine, and the quality is definatley workable.

But I'll take non-adaptive anisotropic filtering *any* day over the crap ATI has done forever and nVidia feels the need to copy with the nv40. Just TRY flying a flight sim with adaptive aniso. It utterly butchers all the ground textures, providing a horrific 'shimmer' effect.

No such problem on the nv3x - I can crank the aniso up and enjoy the smoothed terrain without the texture thrashing.
 
And it would be MUCH more stressful in a higher res, with AA/AF. The fact is 1024x768 with no AA/AF is not as demanding as a higher res, with AA/AF. Beat around it all you want, you know its true.

None of this matters. Its about HL2, and 59xx series cards running it slow with DX9. You obviously just cant admit it, Im done talking about it.
 
dderidex said:
Splendid! Someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about!

Please read the update history of this game before posting an opinion on the topic. Hell, almost the entire graphics engine has been rewritten since its first release. Oh, and this 'patch' I was referring to was actually a retail "add-on" (although it's really just a patch). 'Patches' in the flight sim world are NOTHING like patches for shooters. Much, much more work goes into them - more aircraft with high-fidelity flight models and virtual cockpits, improved physics engines, improved graphics engines, etc.
Very well, frame rate is a bit low anyway..

FSAA I'll give you, but it's not THAT 'subpar' - performance is fine, and the quality is definatley workable.

But I'll take non-adaptive anisotropic filtering *any* day over the crap ATI has done forever and nVidia feels the need to copy with the nv40. Just TRY flying a flight sim with adaptive aniso. It utterly butchers all the ground textures, providing a horrific 'shimmer' effect.

No such problem on the nv3x - I can crank the aniso up and enjoy the smoothed terrain without the texture thrashing.
Click to expand...
The FSAA quality is what's subpar, not the performance.
If you're a flight sim guy, perhaps a matrox par..however you spell it.. surround view would be good;)
The FX series is what started the whole brilin filtering business, and sucked badly at it, but AF wasn't as angle dependant, but perhaps you'd want a card that actually does propper FSAA.
 
All this talk about what the 5900 can and can not do in DX9 is fine and all, but seems everyone is missing something.

The 5900 runs runs HL2@ 1024x768 with 2xAA and 8xAF just fine. And HL2 looks good with the 5900 at those settings. Yes it runs it in the 8.1 path . . . but who cares when the difference in image quality is very little. Don't belive me go look at the Firing Squad article using the VST.

Is the 5900 worse at DX9 than the 9800 series . . . yes. Does it matter when the card gives you a good gaming experience with playable frame rates . . . No.

my .02
 
Shzitt said:
............Yes it runs it in the 8.1 path . . . but who cares when the difference in image quality is very little. ..........
Click to expand...

True. And as I wrote before, with unlabeled images (or with two computer, one running the game with DX9 and the other in DX8.1), these anti-nVidia fanatics couldn't pick which was DX9 or DX8.1, other than with lucky guesses. They know it too, but just won't admit it.
 
dderidex said:
That's the point I've made on a number of boards, and some people can't seem to get.

Apparently, Far Cry and Half-Life 2 consist of 100% of the PC games released over the past 10 years or something.

Hell, if you *believe* that, then, sure, go with an ATI card. You won't be disappointed in either of the two games you apparently feel are all that exist. But I don't live in such a small world, and the games I play (even the PS2.0 DX9 ones) run *just fine* on an FX 59xx series card.
Click to expand...

Well, what PS2.0 games are those? Besides IL-2. This thread started with you not being able to accept a massive performance hit from enabling directx 9 in HL2. You have said that HL2 must be poorely coded because it doesn't do well for the NV3x cards. The only proof you provide is that your card does fine in other games.

The funny thing is that you're the only person I've seen on any forum (I don't go to that many, though) that is complaining about the FX's performance in HL2. Everyone else just accepts it.

Why don't you either
1. get a 6800 card that runs directx just as good as any ATI card.
2. Don't play HL2
3. Go enjoy HL2 in directx 8.1 mode

I can't see how trying to convince us of how good your card is at PS2.0 and how flawed HL2 is will improve your gaming experiance. :)
 
dderidex, I noticed that there really wasn't much info on those graphs. Maybe you left that out because IL2 is primarally an OpenGL game, and that those benchies were in OGL and NOT DirectX ???

I'd like to see benches of those cards in IL2 in DX mode with at least 4x AA applied, and THEN see what numbers they came up with.

And, if you want a flight sim that will REALLY stress a vid card, try FS2004 with max cloud settings, or even better CFS3. I'd be willing to bet that my old 9500 Pro gets better FPS in either of those DX games than an FX5900.

You may be able to BS guys that only play Doom, Quake, and the like, but you aren't BSing me.
 
Badger_sly said:
True. And as I wrote before, with unlabeled images (or with two computer, one running the game with DX9 and the other in DX8.1), these anti-nVidia fanatics couldn't pick which was DX9 or DX8.1, other than with lucky guesses. They know it too, but just won't admit it.
Click to expand...
we could doto the low frame rate Ace!
 
Badger_sly said:
True. And as I wrote before, with unlabeled images (or with two computer, one running the game with DX9 and the other in DX8.1), these anti-nVidia fanatics couldn't pick which was DX9 or DX8.1, other than with lucky guesses. They know it too, but just won't admit it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are right. I have no idea which version is which.

HL2DX8.1-1.jpg


H2DX9-1.jpg


Your quesion was answered, dd, Put -dxlevel 90 in the shortcut, and it will be DX9. Happy gaming.
 
GG puting DX9 in the file name ace, I was able to tell the bottem one was it before I chcked properies- look at the bottem of the pic.
Btw, not only are the FX running DX8.1 mode, they're still slower than hell.
You guys are amazing, trying to jusify your purhase saying you can't tell which is which, but when the framerate is much lower, it should be fairly easy to tell, and also I'm sure diffrent levels have diffrent ammounts of DX9 effects.
Edit- oh.. you're making fun of him.. so.. consider this a reply to badger
 
fallguy said:
Yeah, you are right. I have no idea which version is which.

http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/HL2/HL2DX8.1-1.jpg[/i mg]

[img]http://home.comcast.net/~aquacomputer/HL2/H2DX9-1.jpg[/i mg]

Your quesion was answered, dd, Put -dxlevel 90 in the shortcut, and it will be DX9. Happy gaming.[/QUOTE]
You have to turn reflect world back on after changing the dxlevel. The picture you show on top defaults to simple reflection.

I'll post pics in a moment with both having the same options (reflect world).
Click to expand...
 
Moloch said:
GG puting DX9 in the file name ace, I was able to tell the bottem one was it before I chcked properies- look at the bottem of the pic.
Btw, not only are the FX running DX8.1 mode, they're still slower than hell.
You guys are amazing, trying to jusify your purhase saying you can't tell which is which, but when the framerate is much lower, it should be fairly easy to tell, and also I'm sure diffrent levels have diffrent ammounts of DX9 effects.
Edit- oh.. you're making fun of him.. so.. consider this a reply to badger
Click to expand...

I left it in on purpose, "ace".

If you cant tell the difference, you are blind.

"Yeah, you are right. I have no idea which version is which." If you cant tell thats sarcasm... oh my.

pcx, those are not my pics. They are from the IGN article showing the difference from DX7, DX8, DX8.1, and DX9. If its incorrect, Im sorry. Just using their pics.

edit, here is the article. http://gear.ign.com/articles/567/567437p1.html?fromint=1
 
fallguy said:
I left it in on purpose, "ace".

If you cant tell the difference, you are blind.

"Yeah, you are right. I have no idea which version is which." If you cant tell thats sarcasm... oh my.

pcx, those are not my pics. They are from the IGN article showing the difference from DX7, DX8, DX8.1, and DX9. If its incorrect, Im sorry. Just using their pics.
Click to expand...
pxc said:
You have to turn reflect world back on after changing the dxlevel. The picture you show on top defaults to simple reflection.

I'll post pics in a moment with both having the same options (reflect world).
Click to expand...
1234
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top