EDIT: RESULTS ARE IN!!! :) *POLL*: will this machine play UT reasonably?

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
Dell Pentium II 266Mhz
96MB RAM
Matrox Millenium II 4MB
Diamond Monster 3D II 8MB
Win2k

EDIT: My dear AT fellows, for once, the great majority of you were in the wrong!!!!!!! 15% of the people got it right, I tested my setup and guess what...I'm getting 40-50 FPS in 800x600 with details at maximum on Multiplayer Deathmatch, even during battles!!!!

Thanks to everyone for their kind advice!
 

MisterPresident

Golden Member
Mar 6, 2002
1,163
0
0
Here is something I never understood. Is there a difference between the minumum requirements and "suitable" requirements? It looks like the minumum specs are Pentium 200, 32MB RAM. Shouldn't this game then work fine on this setup?
 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
why dont you just try to run UT on that machine ?

Now why did I not think of that????? ;)

J/k, it's because I first need to buy the Monster 3D II...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,096
5,639
126
Yup, with a Voodoo2, UT runs reasonably well with even a k6-2 300. That's provided you be somewhat conservative with the amount of bots and that you don't play maps such as DM-Falkenstein(check this map out anway, it's awesome).
 

nightowl

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2000
1,935
0
0
If you can get Glide to work in Win2k then it should run OK. I have a P2 400 w/256MB RAM and a V3 2000 PCI and I only can run at 640x480 smoothly. This is because Glide UT locks up when I try to use Glide instead of Direct3D. If I could get Glide to work then I probably could run at higher resoltuons.
 

jm0ris0n

Golden Member
Sep 15, 2000
1,407
0
76
Damn it, I was thinking that said diamond viper something. With a voodoo2 at 8megs and A PII processor (it has mmx) you may not get 30 fps @640*480, but it'll be around there. I can tell you however it will be playable, but toomany bots will take the system to its knees.

I voted, "I dont think so" so change my vote to 640*480 at max 30fps :)
 

SWScorch

Diamond Member
May 13, 2001
9,520
0
76
it depends on how you define "reasonably." If all you want is for it to be fairly smooth most of the time, then yeah, most likely. But if you're like me and cant play games at less than 90fps, then no.
 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
90 FPS?? Scorch, you are a geek! ;)

Thanks for your opinions guys, it's interesting that the votes are distributed rather equally...I guess I'll get that Monster 3D II and try it (gotta finish final exams first...4 days left, *sigh*).
Usually I play multiplayer UT with about 2 friends and 3 bots (CTF is so much fun!!). It runs so-so on my laptop celeron800 (w/ crappy integrated Intel 3D). Let's see if I can beat that with the Monster 3D II :) :) :)

I'll try Falkenstein, sandorski, never tried it before! my favorite for now is DM-Face in CTF...sniping is so much fun :)

edit: whoa, the "I don't think so" just got boosted to 50%!! makes me even more eager to try it :)
 

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81


<< Here is something I never understood. Is there a difference between the minumum requirements and "suitable" requirements? It looks like the minumum specs are Pentium 200, 32MB RAM. Shouldn't this game then work fine on this setup? >>


no. i've played UT on a p200mmx + 96mb ram + monster 3d II. I think I got between 11-22 fps. NOT acceptable at all. For that 266mhz box, you could probably pull it off. but if you can afford a $30 cpu (duron) and $50 mobo (ecs k7s5a) that would help ;)
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
FYI, I ran UT on a system with 64MB of RAM, a PMMX 200, and the DM2 8MB. That machine will run it just fine for the most part at 800x600; only the most extreme maps will be a problem.
 

CubicZirconia

Diamond Member
Nov 24, 2001
5,193
0
71
Like CTho said, minimum requirements are generally very innacurate. Rarely should you expect to adequately play a game on a machine that just meets the minimum requirements.
 

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81


<< Like CTho said, minimum requirements are generally very innacurate. Rarely should you expect to adequately play a game on a machine that just meets the minimum requirements. >>


well, sometimes they're too high. diablo 2 requires 233mhz, it ran fine on the 200. in this case, UT was slow.

edit: that doesnt mean I didn't play UT on the 200. if you set everything as low as possible, you could get by ;). on the 266mhz p2, you should be fine.
 

ShadowDJ

Senior member
Mar 6, 2002
365
0
0
I'm still running games at 640-480 on a PII (performance enhanced 256k on die L2 :roll;) w/software graphics. I pull in a MASSIVE 9 fps on firearms and about 12 on original half life. I don't think you can do it...

I'm a student, so I've only got this crummy laptop to lug around, glad I might be upgrading to an XP 1800+ soon. (with a GTS-V 32mb)
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
Virtually ANY system running a Voodoo2/3/4/5/Banshee will look AWESOME with UT. UT just loves Glide. A TNT2 Ultra running in D3D or OGL doesn't compare to a Banshee in the same system running in Glide, I've seen! I have seen RAM issues at 64MB (Game takes 5 mins to become playable and quit chopping as it pages from the hard drive) with most other cards, but not with a Glide card (Somehow uses texture memory better?). 96MB is probably enough to solve that (I used 128 on my friend's problem Rage 128 setup).
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126


<< UT required CPU power. >>

I ran it in software mode with all effects turned on (Still looked crappy though) on a Celeron 366 and got perfectly playable FPS (~30FPS).
 

Belegost

Golden Member
Feb 20, 2001
1,807
19
81
I played UT on a K6-2 333 w/ 64MB FPS RAM and a Banshee. I could play at 512x384 and get close to 30fps on average. You should have no problem with the better cpu and ram setup.
 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
My dear AT fellows, for once, the great majority of you were in the wrong!!!!!!! 15% of the people got it right, I tested my setup and guess what...I'm getting 40-50 FPS in 800x600 with details at maximum on Multiplayer Deathmatch, even during battles!!!!

Thanks to everyone for their kind advice!
 

Budman

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,980
0
0


<< My dear AT fellows, for once, the great majority of you were in the wrong!!!!!!! 15% of the people got it right, I tested my setup and guess what...I'm getting 40-50 FPS in 800x600 with details at maximum on Multiplayer Deathmatch, even during battles!!!!

Thanks to everyone for their kind advice!
>>



Maybe 40-50 FPS at 800X600 is acceptable to you but Us AT Fellows find that unplayable.;)

 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
My dear friend, as the Borg would say, what you capricious AT guys find playable is IRRELEVANT :) :)

My poll specified I wanted at least 30FPS, and I've got them, yihaa! ;)