ti-4600 and radeon 9700 for UT2k3?

[RyanD]

Ok, so I am planning to get a new computer for Unreal Tournament 2003. I am very competitive and have competed in games for a little over 2 years; I also plan on going to the CPL for the UT2k3 Tournament. Currently I plan on getting a p4 2.0 and over-clocking it hopefully somewhere in the 2.5+ range. My question is, as a gamer that competes, should I get a ti-4600 or a radeon 9700. I read the anandtech review and at the very end it said, and I quote:

There are three things that the Radeon 9700 Pro can offer at this point:

1. 1) The highest performance in current and future games.
   2) The ability to play at 1600x1200 in just about any game currently available or soon to be made available, and
   3) The ability to play virtually any game at 1024x768 with 4X AA and 16X anisotropic filtering enabled at smooth frame rates.

The first point is moot because you should never buy a video card based on the performance it will offer in games that are no where near being released. While it is true that the Radeon 9700 Pro is probably the best card out right now for Doom III, there will be something faster and cheaper closer to the time Doom III is released. But if you're looking to play anything this fall (UT2003, etc...) then the 9700 Pro makes a lot of sense.

The last two points will really determine whether the Radeon 9700 Pro is the card for you; if either of those options appeal to you, then the Radeon 9700 Pro is probably very well suited for your needs.

Which brings me here... As a gamer, I don't plan on running any of that. I don't go as far as making Q3 look like some atari based games, but I don't care for 1600x1200 and AA/anistropic are nothing big to me. I'm really split on this because I probably won't even use 1024x768 in UT2K3 (probably just 800x600 or 640x480) and if I had capability of using AA or anistropic I probably wouldn't use them either.

So I guess I am asking for help. I know whichever card I choose I will be happy with, just looking for some feedback from radeon 9700 users and gf4 ti-4600 users.

Thanks for your time.

Respectfully submitted,
RyanD

 

[brunswickite]

My roomate just installed the UT 2k3, demo that was realisesd a few days ago, and was running it perfectly on high detail
and 1024x768 , it was so smoooth, didnt check the frames though, it only lags veery slightly when he puts it on high detail and 1600 x 1200

his system is XP 1800 +, running a Radeon 8500 64mb , with 512 mb RAM

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

geez, if you're just going to be running them at 800x600 save the money and get a gf4 4200 128 mb card. that will do you just fine.

 

[JackBurton]

I'm really split on this because I probably won't even use 1024x768 in UT2K3 (probably just 800x600 or 640x480)...

Dude, at 800x600 or 640x480, get a $89 Radeon 8500 LE. The Radeon 9700Pro and GeForce TI4600 are made for people that want to play newer games the way they were intended to be played, will ALL the eye candy turn UP!

 

[kylebisme]

heck if you want ut2003 at 640x480 a basic geforce2 gts would surely do the trick and be plenty fast about it. one question though, how could you not for 1600x1200, espesaily as a gamer? after all it makes everything so very sharp and defined that you can pick out headshots from accross the map and see that you made your mark before you even fire.

 

[silentScope]

Right now my system is a Amd 1 gHZ, with a Gf2 MX...

It is not "PERFECTLY" smooth, but it is so FINE for playing. I get avg 40 fps , with World on NOrmal , and everything else on low. I turned off all the dynamic lighting and shadows and stuff. But i can play fine. Its on 800x600 wit 16 bits. If you just keep playing with the details you will get it good enough to play.

MAKE SURE u turn off HARDWARE EAX for sound if you are using a crappy system. I got an increase of a bout 20 fps. It really works. IF you have a good new computer it wont make a difference.

I've come in first in every DM game i've played. Im sure like more than half the players i play against have a better video card then I do lol.

BUt a really good player with a good video card could kick my butt

 

[Dulanic]

Whats the point of running 800x600 if with a Raedon 9700 your likely to get the EXACT same frame rate as with 1024x768 with the eye candy turned on? Turning down the res doesnt do any good when at a certain point your CPU limited.

 

[sandorski]

If those cards fit your budget, get the Radeon. If you don't want to run @ 1600x 1200(don't understand why not, but it's your choice ) the Radeon will likely last longer into the future, besides other things such as 2d, dvd playback, etc also make the Radeon the better choice.

The biggest con to getting the Radeon 9700 is the AGP 8x glitch with the early revision of the gpu. From what I've heard, ATI will replace those cards if you get one that won't work in AGP 8x(I assume the mobo you are getting will have an AGP 8x implementation).

 

[cmdrdredd]

"Which brings me here... As a gamer, I don't plan on running any of that. I don't go as far as making Q3 look like some atari based games, but I don't care for 1600x1200 and AA/anistropic are nothing big to me. I'm really split on this because I probably won't even use 1024x768 in UT2K3 (probably just 800x600 or 640x480) and if I had capability of using AA or anistropic I probably wouldn't use them either.

So I guess I am asking for help. I know whichever card I choose I will be happy with, just looking for some feedback from radeon 9700 users and gf4 ti-4600 users.

Thanks for your time.

Respectfully submitted,
RyanD "

er...800x600 and you're looking at a overclocked 1.5Ghz P4 and Ti4600/R9700? uh...you're stupid to say the least...(sorry I couldn't think of another comment) get a damn duron/celeron 1Ghz and a GF3/R8500 and that'd be fine if that's all you do!

 

[RyanD]

er...800x600 and you're looking at a overclocked 1.5Ghz P4 and Ti4600/R9700? uh...you're stupid to say the least...(sorry I couldn't think of another comment) get a damn duron/celeron 1Ghz and a GF3/R8500 and that'd be fine if that's all you do!

I have tested on a similiar type of machine, actually multiple (gaming center), and on a couple a little better than that (friends) and you can tell the difference with each upgrade IMMENSLY. I am almost content with my friends XP 1800+ with a GF3 but on citadel I can still notice slow down in big firefights.

I just plan on going with the GF4 ti-4600 because of all the negative feedback I am hearing about the radeon 9700.

 

[RyanD]

Also, I was emphasizing RAW-FPS>Eyecandy to me. I will end up using whatever resolution is the best without sacrificing FPS. The main deal was I will NOT be using AA or anistropic no matter what.

UT2K3 Botchmatch

$100 bucks isn't worth 5fps more in 1280x960 or 15fps in 1600x1200.

p.s. Here is the review I got that benchmark from.

 

[CloudsShinji]

I will end up using whatever resolution is the best without sacrificing FPS. The main deal was I will NOT be using AA or anistropic no matter what.

The thing is, though, with the 9700 you can seemingly toss on AA and aniso and still get great frame rates. I don't know why you wouldn't want to use them, if you could use them without a performance hit...

 

[galperi1]

I get pretty good Frames with a Radeon 8500 @ 1280 X 1024.... no stuttering or anything with 6 bots on the Demo... can't tell you about the Full version...But if why bother with even a Geforce 4 if you're not gonna run AA or Aniso? You could get that accomplished with a Radeon 8500 or probably even a Geforce 3 Ti500 at acceptables rates that you want at those resolutions.... and spend less than 100$ to boot

 

[scottrico]

I am running a p4 1.8 @2200 and ati 9700 pro.
I ran the demo @ 1280 X 1024 4x AA 16x AF and it looks great. The best I have ever seen. There are no jagged lines and I have a solid frames (no slowdowns).


Too bad the game is boring.

This card is worth every cent.

 

[Smilin]

I totally understand what you are after.

I use some quality settings on a regular basis, but when I lan I usually bump down the graphics a tad to get into "competitive" mode.

I also understand what you mean by "Atari" settings. I've seen guys running quake so tweaked out with like picmip 9 that the lightning gun looks like two little lasers instead.


I've run UT2k3 on both a 9700 and a Ti500. To answer your question: if you are willing to give on the appearance a bit, I would say anything Ti500 or later is going to be fast enough to compete. In reality I believe putting a bit of $$$ into your processor is going to help you out more. I've found you can make UT2k3 look really, really pretty with a good graphics card but to get those MINIMUM framerates up it's going to take a lot of CPU.

At this point I'm thinking the optimum setup to COMPETE with would be:

A GF3 @ 800x600
A 9700 @ 1280x1024
A minimum 2.0 Ghz CPU
512mb (really) of GOOD memory (Either DDR at Cas2 or Rambus)
Soundcard WITHOUT hardware acceleration or EAX. (kills framerates it seems)

I'm not sure your budget but here's an idea:

Get a GF3 or at most a GF4 4200. Wait until about January or February and see what's available. The NV30 should be out and the community should have some idea of what the performance is for the 9700's successor.

If you can't afford the 1-2 punch of a GF3/4 AND another card 5 mo's later then I'd go ahead and get the 9700 now. The Shiz IS fast.

 

[cmdrdredd]

well, even with a Ti4200 you should NEVER have to go below 1024x768 with maxxed settings on any game. Yes even UT2k3. Seriously...just get a Ti4600/R9700 and run 1024x768 with a bit of AA and some Af with the 9700 you get a better picture without lowering your FPS. So 1280x1024 with 4X AA and 16X AF becomes the sweet spot.

 

[BFG10K]

Get the 9700 and then you can run at higher details levels and resolutions at no perofrmance hit. If you're CPU limited then it's foolish not to crank up the detail levels.