How Is Your System Handling UT 2004 Demo?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,113
775
126
Originally posted by: Derango
ok, I have to revise my post :)

AMD Athlon64 3000+
1GB of PC3200 ram
Sapphire Radeon 9800Pro 128MB
1152x864 @ 70-90 FPS with 4X AA and 16X AF on with all graphical options on the highest they'll go

It can drop lower if, in onslaught mode there's 6 players with vehicles in the canyon area. However, its pretty stable FPSwise in every other situation.

It hits 200 on the black screen between levels though ;)
Where are you changing AA?

 

xcript

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2003
8,258
2
81
40-60 FPS @ 1024x768/medium-high detail (no AA/AF) on an XP1800+ @ 2GHz / 512MB PC2700 / 128MB Radeon 9100 @ 275/250.
 

The Sauce

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
4,741
34
91
I have been running my 1700+ @ 2200 for a year now, no problems. UT2004 crashed it repeatedly...had to back down to 2100. Now runing great. 9800Pro also.
 

jinduy

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
4,781
1
81
i get 20-22 fps on my gf2 gts-v, but it seems to run pretty buttery good for me at max settings (AA off, 1024x768).
 

rh71

No Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
52,844
1,049
126
As previously mentioned, I'm on a 1GHz 384MB PC133 and GF3 ti200.

If I upgrade my RAM to at least 512MB and get a 9800 Pro, would that be good enough to reach the 40fps+ mark ? I'm only getting 15fps right now.
 

ndee

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
12,680
1
0
just ok on my work P4-2.4GHz with a GF4MX440, 512MB RAM. It runs on 800x600 barely well and it stutters on 1024x768.
 

TwiceOver

Lifer
Dec 20, 2002
13,544
44
91
Three Systems all Fine:

AMD 1.4 Tbird Ti200 Vid card 128mb
AMD 2400+ Radeon 9700 Pro 128mb
AMD 2500+ It4200 64mb

All three of these systems ran just great! Also ran "ok" on a 2500+ w/ Onboard GF4 MX
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
A hell of a lot better than Far Cry, which I can't even play.

Barton 2500+ (it will be oced when I get a chance), geforce 3 (currently...still tweaking how high it can go with OCing), 512 ram. I play at 1024X768X16 with low to medium settings and my frame rate seems to be 40-70 depending on level and what's going on. I need a new vid card I guess, although UT2k4 is perfectly playable and enjoyable.
 

hans007

Lifer
Feb 1, 2000
20,212
18
81
i have tried it on my system but not really played much due to not having time.

but it runs very smooth for me on a athlon 64 3000 , 512mb pc3500 and geforce 5950 (its not the card i normally used but i had a box of them and had to try it out). seems like an excellent game, and reminds me of the original UT (which was better than the little of UT2003 i played).


 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
It handles better than UT2K3 did. I can't wait for my SE DVD set to come in.

1152x864x32
4xAA/4xAF
details as high as game will allow
details max in NV control panel

Lowest FPS I've seen with ingame counter is in the upper 50s. Very playable.
 

LordJezo

Banned
May 16, 2001
8,140
1
0
Originally posted by: rh71
As previously mentioned, I'm on a 1GHz 384MB PC133 and GF3 ti200.

If I upgrade my RAM to at least 512MB and get a 9800 Pro, would that be good enough to reach the 40fps+ mark ? I'm only getting 15fps right now.

You will be wasting your money.

a 9800 pro on a 1ghz chip is useless. sort of like having a car that can do 180 mile per hour but only driving it on roads with speed limits of 40mph.

your cpu will be that speed limit and your 9800 pro will be that sports car. unless you upgrade your cpu you wont take advantage of it.

heck.. my cpu is 2x your speed and i cant even push that card to its limits.

save your money and just get a geforce 4 or something.