Unreal Tournament 2004 + Patch

[RussianSoldier]

My system specifications:

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1860MHz @ 1925MHz
Motherboard: Micro-Star International K7N2
Memory: 1024 MB of Kingston PC3200 @ 400 mhz
Video Card: Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 w/ 256mb ram (Nvidia nForce 2 Ultra 400)
Hard Drive: Western Digital 40.0 GB @ 7200 RPMS
Additional Hard Drives: Dual Western Digital 20 GB Virtual CD Storage 7200 RPM (Dynamic Drives)
Sound Card: Integrated 5.1 Surround Sound
Operating System: Windows 2000 SP 4
450 watt PSU; Case cooled by 4 fans.

Most of the settings are in the mid-high range, with a few on their utmost, and the resolution at 1024x768x32. On outside maps, I'm only getting an average of 15fps, and inside it jumps up to about 30.

Even if I lower everything to minimum, and the resolution to 800x600x32 I only get about 25 fps outside and about 45 inside. I've tried running through unofficial optimization guides, defragmenting, and removing "preload player skins". I even tried adjusting the agp apeture size to 512.

I have directx 9.0b, and the latest bios, and I'm pretty sure I have the latest drivers for my video and sound. I also have tried disabling AA and AF

I was wondering if anyone else with similar specifications for even just a GeForce FX5200 has a better framerate. I've read some stories about the 5200 series being just as good (or bad) as some 64mb video cards. So before I upgrade my video card (i was thinking GeForce 5700 or 5900 series), maybe someone could point me to something that I've missed.

 

[LTC8K6]

The FX5200 is the bottom of the barrel. That explains your results. 256 megs of ram is a total waste and a ripoff on an FX5200. I hope you didn't pay very much for it.

I would not get less than a 5900 series card at this point if I were going with NV cards. Actually, I'd wait for a NV 6800 series card like the 6800GT.

 

[RussianSoldier]

bah, I figured it was the video card... If I purchase a new one, it will be the third in 3 months...what fun!

 

[rh71]

Wow those were the type of fps I was getting with a GF3 ti200 (1.0GHz T-bird). I tested my fiance's brother's new machine with an FX card (I can't recall the model but it was new at the time) and it wasn't much better in terms of FPS. Practically everything was low or off in the settings already. I upgraded to a 2.0GHz Barton and an ATI 9800 Pro and it's heaven up here. I think you've done all you could as far as optimizing goes... though I'm surprised to see your CPU and RAM don't even do that much for you compared to what I had before.

 

[RussianSoldier]

I'm looking at the FX5900 XT (so many different ones at newegg) and most of the reviews mention "eating farcry alive" and "beating ati out of the farcry water" so It must be good...

I'll see if I can still return my 5200...

If anyone wants to suggest one of the thirteen, here's the Link.

 

[Cheetah8799]

RussianSoldier, is the game play all that bad if you turn the settings down to low-medium at 1024x768 resolution? Maybe that'll make it run better til you get a better card.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, I don't believe the 5900XT is any faster than ATI's 9800Pro/XT at far cry, but it will be a whopping leap up from an FX5200 for you.

You can probably overclock it and try for 5900Ultra speeds.

Don't pay extra for 256 megs of ram on the 5900XT either, you don't need it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: RussianSoldier
bah, I figured it was the video card... If I purchase a new one, it will be the third in 3 months...what fun!

Did you do any research before buying this card? The main AnandTech website has "Video" reviews that show how awful it is, and both the Genral Hardware and Video forums are filled with posts insulting its cardhood (use search).

 

[RussianSoldier]

no, I didn't research it.

 

[drag]

You can get the FX5900 value versions (like the SE/XT, stuff) that's not to expensive... And they are considurably faster.

 

[RussianSoldier]

well, I printed off all the 128mb XT versions from my previous link, and I'll lay all 12 out and look at them... I think one I can already cross off because it requires two punchout slots, and I simply don't have enough room.

If anyone has any suggestions for cases with more than 7 punchouts, I'll be happy to listen...

 

[Gagabiji]

Originally posted by: RussianSoldier
I'm looking at the FX5900 XT (so many different ones at newegg) and most of the reviews mention "eating farcry alive" and "beating ati out of the farcry water" so It must be good...

I'll see if I can still return my 5200...

If anyone wants to suggest one of the thirteen, here's the Link.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...no. Otherway around pal. That should read:

I'm looking at the Radeon 9800 Pro (so many different ones at newegg) and most of the reviews mention "eating farcry alive" and "beating nVidia out of the farcry water" so It must be good...

9800 Pro. $205 shipped.

 

[RussianSoldier]

The only thing I like about ATI is their remote...

besides, everything else is already nvidia based, the case badge has been applied.

 

[n7]

Well, the best value card out there right now is the 9800 Pro.

 

[LTC8K6]

5900xt's should not require two slots.

Some 5900 models might have a cooler that is so wide that it prevents you from using the PCI slot near the AGP slot, but they do not require 2 slots.

All of the cards occupy a single AGP slot.

 

[RussianSoldier]

that would be crazy if they did...