UT2003 on a Gainward GeForce 2 Pro 64 MB?

[Emultra]

Will I have to buy a new one? I'm a UT enthusiast so I would like it to run good enough, especially since there will be many games using the engine (Thief 3, Deus Ex 2 etc.).
Tell me what you think.

 

[Dragon365]

You shouldn't have to if you leave some of the details off + run it on a low enough resolution... and overclock it

 

[sep]

Emultra,

I got the same video card and the same question. I can't except a game playing any less than almost full details on at 1024x768x32. With my processor I don't think I'm going to get this with my G2 Pro even overclocked@220/475. I'm hoping to see the demo on my PC before I upgrade. If you like me put it in your mind that your going to need an upgrade...wait and see what type of upgrade is what I would recommend.

Long live the G2 Pro, 3dfx, $#@#$ (didn't care back then).
-JC

 

[Emultra]

The newest good card on the market is very assuring but also very expensive. Perhaps a Gainward XP/750?
Or wait longer...

 

[sash1]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1650&p=5

The Pro gets around 80fps w/ high detail, thats not bad. I'd say wait a bit before the upgrade.

~Aunix

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The GeForce 2 Pro should work with UT 2003, provided it wont be able to do any resolution higher than 1024x768 if you want to keep details up and have a respectable framerate.

Overclock the Pro, it's a Gainward so I'm thinking it should hit Ultra speeds... that'll give you a few more fps... but if you plan on playing several next gen games and be competetive online, a new board is probably in order. Anand notices how the GF4 Ti line work very well with the game.

"1024x768 is clearly the sweet spot for a number of these cards, with the GeForce4s completely dominating. It's clear that Epic has worked very closely with NVIDIA to make sure that the game is as optimized for their architecture as possible."

A Ti 4200 would do very nicely and not break the budget.

But I suggest you wait and try to get away with the GF2 Pro. The Radeon 9700 shows that it is clearly a superior solution to even a game that is "optimised" for nVidia architecture. GF4 prices are bound to fall (especially the 4400 and 4600) with the coming of the Radeon 9700 and keep in mind that nVidia's NV30 isn't too terribly far off...

Heck, UT 2003 isn't even out yet... just wait (I know it sucks)

 

[SickBeast]

Just run 640x480, medium detail. The game is really REALLY demanding. I'm running a Radeon 8500 and I can run 1024x768 with the default detail and that's about it. I'm used to running everything at 1600x1200 with all features on. At 640x480 things become more CPU limited. Epic is saying that the bare minimum will be a P3 500mhz, but from what I've seen you'll need at least a 1ghz rig.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

apparently UT 2003 isn't too demanding for a Radeon 9700

"At 1600x1200 with 4X AA enabled, the Radeon 9700 is 2.51x faster than the GeForce4 Ti 4600. While the frame rates are high enough to be playable, even the almighty Radeon 9700 would need to back down to 1280x1024 with 4X AA enabled to be smooth as silk."

1280x1024 with 4X AA...smooth as silk...UT 2003...damn, I play most all of my games on my 8500 @ 1280x1024x32 without any FSAA I could go higher, but I'd sacrafice the refresh rate of my monitor... I assume that means the Radeon 9700 plays UT 2003 @ 1600x2000 (with no AA, or maybe 2x?) and still be "smooth as silk"...