32-bot UT2004 deathmatch: A CPU test only?

[crsgardner]

I recently got a 6800GT. Hell of a card -- performs really well in UT and a variety of other games.

Just for kicks, I tried running a 32-bot deathmatch and hovered over the level, looking down. I usually leave my settings at 1600x1200, no AA or AF, highest settings otherwise and it performs quite well in most online games (I usually stay around 60 fps, with occasional drops to 40 if things get really hectic). However, looking down at my botmatch, I was getting less than 30 fps (and as low as 15).

Question: with 32 bots running around, am I looking more at a CPU testthan a graphics card test? I have an A64 3200+, which should handle things well, but I'm wondering if I've jumped out of the realm of graphics and into basic CPU stressing.

 

[CrystalBay]

UT2k4 is very CPU dependant...I'll turn the bot AI up and my gamplay starts to deteriorate a lot.
Also rendering a large FOV/field of view kills frames.

 

[Jeff7181]

Definately more CPU limited in that case.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Definately more CPU limited in that case.

Agreed. Why are you playing 32-person botmatches? Get online.

Oh, and your gameplay would be better served, I'd wager, by a drop to 1280x960 and tacking on at least 8xAF. Maybe 2xAA if you really need it, but I'd rather have sky-high FPS and a few jaggies on the head of the person I just converted to chunky kibble. The AF is just there to smooth out all the texture nastiness.

- M4H

 

[BFG10K]

Question: with 32 bots running around, am I looking more at a CPU testthan a graphics card test?

Yes.

I have an A64 3200+, which should handle things well

32 bots is quite a heavy load even for a fast processor like that.

 

[Atomicus]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Definately more CPU limited in that case.

Agreed. Why are you playing 32-person botmatches? Get online.

Oh, and your gameplay would be better served, I'd wager, by a drop to 1280x960 and tacking on at least 8xAF. Maybe 2xAA if you really need it, but I'd rather have sky-high FPS and a few jaggies on the head of the person I just converted to chunky kibble. The AF is just there to smooth out all the texture nastiness.

- M4H

playing @ 1600x1200 is great, but it isn't a realistic test of anything except a max. of what your entire system can do.
Merc bulleted some good points. BTW, at 120x960, the heads will be bigger thus easier to aim at

 

[crsgardner]

Why are you playing 32-person botmatches? Get online.

I always play online. Just wanted to test.

playing @ 1600x1200 is great, but it isn't a realistic test of anything except a max. of what your entire system can do.

To be honest, I've played UT for years. This is the second system I've built almost entirely for UT. I tried a variety of lower resolutions, and they just don't look as great on the Dell 2001FP. If I was using a regular CRT (which I'm considering -- even this one blurs when there's a ton of action), I'd keep it at a lower res, but 1600x1200 makes everything clear.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Atomicus
BTW, at 120x960, the heads will be bigger thus easier to aim at

Um, no. Your FOV doesn't change with resolution, so objects take up the same amount of space on the screen. They just get blockier/jaggier at lower resolution, and it's harder to aim/shoot accurately at more distant objects at a lower resolution.