Unreal Tournament 3 Performance Preview(s) :)

[AzN]

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=464

http://www.amdzone.com/modules...ticle&artid=327&page=1

http://www.gamespot.com/featur...timodule;picks;title;3

 

[Jaskalas]

Performance is better than expected. I hear all these complaints about barely playable DX10 games, but UT3 looks like it?ll be solid at 16x10.

 

[AzN]

demo can be downloaded here. http://www.speedyshare.com/664746926.html

 

[MarcVenice]

Dude, had you read the first 10 lines, you would have known it's not really a dx10 game, it's a dx9 engine with some dx10 features added into it. Much like CoH. Besides, dx10 was disabled in the demo, so saying dx10 performance will be okay at 16*10 based on these preliminary results is just retarded.

Having that said, the game does look good, but I did notice some bad textures, look at the floortiles in the very first screenshot for example?

 

[kknd1967]

8800GTS/320M is still quite a performer for CallOfDuty4 and UT3.
not bad.

 

[Cookie Monster]

no AA? or it cant be enabled in UT3?

 

[aka1nas]

I think that UT3 uses Deferred Rendering so you won't get AA in Dx9 mode. Supposedly that will be one of the Dx10 advantages in that it is theoretically supposed to allow for AA and Deferred Rendering to co-exist.

 

[shabby]

Game runs great even on a x1900xtx at 1920x1200 res, im surprised.

 

[Sylvanas]

Good news for 2900 owners (finally)- consistently outpaces the GTS and good preliminary crossfire performance (granted, results would be more clear without the 60FPS cap). If I could see into a crystal ball I'd say there will be a lot of Beta drivers being pushed out by both teams for these new DX10 titles since competition looks very, very close.

 

[cmdrdredd]

downloading now...i'll fraps it while I play around with it and see how it does.

 

[SilentAssassin]

I'm actually really surprised at how well the game runs. Even on my Athlon XP @ 2.3ghz with my AGP Radeon X800 XT Plat the game still holds 20-30fps at max settings 1024x768 rez no AF. I tried turning everything down but framerates mostly hover around the 30fps area so I just put it all high again.

 

[darkfalz]

I'd like to see how 7 series performs...

 

[alcoholbob]

Lol, I have a 7800GT with a 4400+. I'm assuming Bioshock-like performance (15-20fps at 1600x1200)

 

[BFG10K]

no AA? or it cant be enabled in UT3?

I'd wager you can enable it in the same way as previous UT3 games like Bioshock and MoH Airborne.

I think that UT3 uses Deferred Rendering so you won't get AA

I'm actually starting to suspect the engine doesn't use deferred rendering but instead uses plain old FP HDR. I say this for three reasons:

(1) The method to enable AA doesn't take deferred rendering into account (i.e. the flag was originally made for a game that doesn't use deferred rendering).
(2) One of the things in the lawsuit against Epic states the lighting isn't as advanced as they claimed.
(3) Something that really uses deferred rendering like Stalker can't have any form of driver AA forced.

Again it's just a suspicion I have but intriguing nevertheless IMO.

 

[Lord Banshee]

Well just tried the demo out on my machine and i have to say... WHERE ARE MY HIGH RES TEXTURES

Like bioshock, the players have nice looking textures, but the environments lack in HQ sharpness, maybe it is just me. The game does have a lot more detail in terms of objects/polygons in the environment though, very full. It also has better performance than bioshock on my rig at least, but i will not say the game looks better or worse either so take that as how it is.

I think i might just skip UT3 and get GoW instead. I am not much of a FPS and to me UT3 seems way too similar to UT2k4.

One last thing the Effects are Bad @$$ though, very nice. The demo is a beta and it was only 700MB so we can hope there will be better textures in the real game too.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
Well just tried the demo out on my machine and i have to say... WHERE ARE MY HIGH RES TEXTURES

Like bioshock, the players have nice looking textures, but the environments lack in HQ sharpness, maybe it is just me. The game does have a lot more detail in terms of objects/polygons in the environment though, very full. It also has better performance than bioshock on my rig at least, but i will not say the game looks better or worse either so take that as how it is.

I think i might just skip UT3 and get GoW instead. I am not much of a FPS and to me UT3 seems way too similar to UT2k4.

One last thing the Effects are Bad @$$ though, very nice. The demo is a beta and it was only 700MB so we can hope there will be better textures in the real game too.

No DX10 option either here. We shall see

 

[CP5670]

The demo graphics are outstanding, although I don't care that much about graphics in a primarily online game like this. The bloom/HDR is actually somewhat annoying in the daylight maps since it's impossible to see many types of weapon shots if the sky is in the background. Performance is generally decent, with a fairly steady 50-60fps at 1024x768 on my X1900XTX.

It's possible to remove the framecap, along with some strange (and irritating) frame blending effect the game uses by default. I posted this in PC gaming:

I found out how to fix that weird motion problem I described earlier. There is a setting in the \Engine\Config\BaseEngine.ini file called bSmoothFrameRate, which needs to be set to false. This also removes the framecap and makes the game feel much more fluid. My guess is that this can be set in the full version's ingame video options menu, as I recall something similar in UT2004.

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: Azn
demo can be downloaded here. http://www.speedyshare.com/664746926.html

good thing I know some friends who have high performance to-date computers...

*marks memory for UT 3 availability*

 

[Lord Banshee]

The outside Asian level looks much better to me (i think the art style is better) and it seems to more demanding, i get much more frame rate drops in that level.

I like the HDR effect, it added something interesting to the fight but i did notice that werid motion problem too.. Strange that i did not notice it in the night level.

Am I the only one that thinks the character model seem rather small/short? Is this some sort of FOV problem?

 

[Xcobra]

well have to see how my X800XL performs <-----*laughs at it!* lol

 

[asdftt123]

The game runs consistently between 50-60fps for me and only drops to as low as 35 when a million vehicle explosions occur right in front of me at 1920x1200 with stock Q6600 speeds. I'll also add that the graphics are breathtaking. Props to Epic for making this game so well optimized!

 

[n7]

It runs well @ 2560x1600 on my system.

:Q

I am still in shock over that fact.

I'm not forcing AA, since frankly, i have to look to see the jaggies, so i'll take the better performance.

I suspect things are gonna get rough when the retail game gets released though, since textures are indeed lower quality for this beta.

 

[n7]

Hmm, it runs well on HeatRay, but not Shangri La.

And i tried all the way down to 1600x1200, same fps drops to around 20 during firefights, whether it is 2560x1600 or 1600x1200

I know UT2k4 was CPU bound, but is UT3 really CPU-bound on my E6600 @ 3.375 GHz?
Or is it the server being crappy maybe?

I guess i need to test this against bots later.

 

[AzN]

http://www.gamespot.com/featur...timodule;picks;title;3

Here you can see a 7900gs compared to 2600xt @ 1600x1200 max quality along with other cards. Too bad there's no 1950pro in this benchmark but I suspect it gets somwhere in the lines of 2600xt performance.

8800gtx 100fps
8800gts 86fps
2900xt 84fps
1900xt 47fps
2600xt 35fps
7900gs 21fps

 

[AzN]

http://www.amdzone.com/modules...ticle&artid=327&page=1

There bunch of cards here.... Including... 7600gt, 7900gt, 7900gtx, 8600gt, 8600gts, 2600xt, 1950pro, 8800gts 320meg and the 640meg.

Strange... 7900gt actually does better here even out muscling the 1950pro.

While Gamespot benches show 7900gs getting creamed by a 2600xt by double digits.