• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UT2004 Performance? Yours OK?

I

INGlewood78

Senior member
I am playing UT2004 on an overclock AMD 1700+ (2.3 ghz) with 1gb of ram and a ATI 9800np(410/310) @ 1280x1024 with highest settings, 4x AA, 8x AF. Seems to run fine. Great game btw!
 
Seeing as how I just upgraded to an Asus K8V Deluxe, an athlon 64 3000+, a Radeon 9800pro, and 1 gig of pc3500 ram, I'd say my performance is actually better than OK. Sorry I was just playing UT, couldn't resist posting in here.
 
I had hella hitch problems at first, but I turned off "Preload All Skins" and that fixed it. Apparently a lot of people are having trouble with that setting...
 
Athlon Thunderbird 1.33, 512 PC133 RAM, Ti4600 128MB, seems to run alright at 1280x1024 with all game settings as high as they'll go.

I don't run AA or whatever the other one is, and the game is well playable. It doesn't feel super snappy, but theres some intangible something where it doesn't feel like its as fast as it could be. But it doesn't feel laggy though, either. Maybe I'll try lessening some of the settings, or just proceed with my upgrade plans. Athlon 64 here I come!
 
Surprisingly well. Looks decent too. I haven't kept up with upgrades at all so I thought any new game would run slow, but the demo was running alright at 1024x768x32 mid details, and a bit faster at 800x600x32 mid-high. I'm used to lower resolutions and no FSAA/aniso thus far, so I'm just glad it runs good.

Athlon 1.33ghz, 512mb PC133, Radeon 64DDR
 
Just to chime in for the PCI graphics card crowd - Here are my results with two PCI Graphics Cards based systems.

1st System:

AMD Duron 1800mhz Applebred core - not overclocked in anyway
256 megs Kingston DDR Ram - timings lowered 1 notch on each setting (Prime 95 stable)
ASUS KT-400 A7V8X-X Motherboard
RADEON 9100 PCI Visiontek Graphics Card 128 meg RAM

I've got all my settings on high and am using card at 1024x768 and I get better that 40fps 99% of the time, never falling below 30fps.

2nd System
AMD Athlon 1.0 Ghz Thunderbird
FIC Motherboard (forget model)
256 megs PC 133 RAM
Geforce 4 MX 440 PCI

Most settings on high ( a couple on medium), and using 800x600 with little or no slowdowns. My son plays it no probs with that system.

I know this isn't scientific, I did not record exacts or other stuff, all I'm saying is that if you have a decent PCI CARD you can join in on the fun too. . . .


Also a props for the DURON 1800, I've built two systems with it my wifes (above) and mine (below). I've been using these PCI cards cause we use to have computers with PCI only before I started building. I recently got me a Radeon 9200 AGP, and gave the wifey the 9100 PCI (her gaming is The Sims) most of the time . .
 
I run 1280x1024 (native lcd res, otherwise I'd go 1024x768) with medium/high details and the fps in the big onslaught games stay over 40 and are usually 60+ which is really nice. In all the reviews, they say UT is extremely scalable, there's even a software render setting! As soon as I can stop playing onslaught and finish school I'm gonna start mapping for it, this UT build looks extremely promising as far as terrain maps (my favorite to design) are concerned.
 
Originally posted by: buyer262000
Just to chime in for the PCI graphics card crowd - Here are my results with two PCI Graphics Cards based systems.

1st System:

AMD Duron 1800mhz Applebred core - not overclocked in anyway
256 megs Kingston DDR Ram - timings lowered 1 notch on each setting (Prime 95 stable)
ASUS KT-400 A7V8X-X Motherboard
RADEON 9100 PCI Visiontek Graphics Card 128 meg RAM

I've got all my settings on high and am using card at 1024x768 and I get better that 40fps 99% of the time, never falling below 30fps.

2nd System
AMD Athlon 1.0 Ghz Thunderbird
FIC Motherboard (forget model)
256 megs PC 133 RAM
Geforce 4 MX 440 PCI

Most settings on high ( a couple on medium), and using 800x600 with little or no slowdowns. My son plays it no probs with that system.

I know this isn't scientific, I did not record exacts or other stuff, all I'm saying is that if you have a decent PCI CARD you can join in on the fun too. . . .


Also a props for the DURON 1800, I've built two systems with it my wifes (above) and mine (below). I've been using these PCI cards cause we use to have computers with PCI only before I started building. I recently got me a Radeon 9200 AGP, and gave the wifey the 9100 PCI (her gaming is The Sims) most of the time . .
Click to expand...

buyer262000,

Is the GF4 MX440 PCI that much faster than the AGP GF2 GTS2 32mb card? I was under the impression that the GTS2 did pretty well against that newer PCI card.

I have both in the same machine (dual display) but tried playing UT2004 using the primary (the GTS2), and i could barely maintain 30fps with settings all turned down to lowest. (640x480, i think). I'm wondering if that's normal or if my GTS2 should be performing a lot better?

I'm running an ahtlon-"C" @ 1.2ghz with 768 PC133 on WinXP Pro. I think i'm going to try running the GF4 MX440 as my primary card and see what happens...

One thing i've noticed is that when i try to run video on my second monitor (running on the GF4MX440), i get a LOT of slowdowns. And if i try to play any games on the second monitor, it just crawls. Anyone have any ideas on this?
 
Originally posted by: Insomniak
I had hella hitch problems at first, but I turned off "Preload All Skins" and that fixed it. Apparently a lot of people are having trouble with that setting...
Click to expand...

you only have 512mb?

dunno, so far i haven't had trouble with 1gb

game seems quite optimized.
 
I'm not sure as far as comparing agp vs. pci.


http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=445

This place reviews a ton of PCI cards and gave their respective performance, maybe you can get from there what you need.

The only thing I could think of is the PCI card that we are running the gf4 440mx has 64 megs of memory. I hear lots of ppl talking about some cards have 64 bit paths 128 bit paths etc, some of that may come into play as well with the older.

There may be issues running two monitors as well (I've got zero experience doing that). . . If it was me, I'd try running one video card and see what happened. . .

If you are comparing the GTS vs the Radeon 9100 pci - the Radeon 9100 is (if you look at this article) the cream of the crop for PCI based video cards and is DX 8.1 compliant has 128 megs of ddr memory has a wide data bus, etc.

 
Cracks me up when people state that there systems run these games super smooth at high detail. I guess its a matter of opinion. In shooters I need at least 60fps constant, and I will tone down the detail and AA / ANistropic till I reach those areas in framerate. I score over 20k in 3dmark2001 and 46k in aqua and I know scores don't mean all that much but it still shows the power of my system and I can't max the settings out of these new games and keep smoking frame rates, its just impossible. Maybe I just have a higher expectation for my detail levels, like turning the AA to 4x and Anistropic to 8x while trying to run 1280x1024 or at the least 1152. Just it cracks me up since I know what dialed in systems can do and its either people have a difference in opinion of what "smooth" is or they really aren't running there AA/Ani on.
 
Originally posted by: eno
Cracks me up when people state that there systems run these games super smooth at high detail. I guess its a matter of opinion. In shooters I need at least 60fps constant, and I will tone down the detail and AA / ANistropic till I reach those areas in framerate. I score over 20k in 3dmark2001 and 46k in aqua and I know scores don't mean all that much but it still shows the power of my system and I can't max the settings out of these new games and keep smoking frame rates, its just impossible. Maybe I just have a higher expectation for my detail levels, like turning the AA to 4x and Anistropic to 8x while trying to run 1280x1024 or at the least 1152. Just it cracks me up since I know what dialed in systems can do and its either people have a difference in opinion of what "smooth" is or they really aren't running there AA/Ani on.
Click to expand...

I agree. When I'm running a game, I like the minimum fps to be in the 60 range. An average fps of 60 is great except you'll get lows in the 30's and then it's not smooth, at least not to me. I never use AA or AF and I'm in agreement with you that these people who claim they run max details, 1280x1024, with 4xaa and 8x af can't tell the dif between 25ish fps and 60 fps. With that said though, UT 2K4 isn't as demanding as some of the other new games right now. The graphic options are real flexible allowing a lot of customization imo. There's another topic on this board though about aa and af which just makes me laugh. No way anyone is playing farcry with 4aa/8af on 1280x1024 and not playing a slide show.
 
I have a 1800+ Athlon XP, 512mb Ram, and Radeon 8500

I have everything set to normal, run @ 1024x768, have sound set to 3d Audio, and it runs smooth. I get avg 30fps second (low 20 max 55).
 
well I can tell the difference between 60fps constant and 100fps, also I can see the difference in 60hz and 100hz. I can walk by a monitor and just tell right away that its running default 60hz. The human eye can tell a difference.
 
Originally posted by: eno
well I can tell the difference between 60fps constant and 100fps, also I can see the difference in 60hz and 100hz. I can walk by a monitor and just tell right away that its running default 60hz. The human eye can tell a difference.
Click to expand...

well everyone should be able to tell the difference between 60 and 100hz refresh rates. 60 hz flickers like crazy. But can you tell the difference between 90 and 100hz? Or 90 and 100 fps? or even 60 and 70fps? I'm not sure that the human eye can detect changes in refresh rates or frame rates unless there are drastic differences...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top