Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

For all the "which graphics card for UT" threads...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    For all the "which graphics card for UT" threads...

    Maybe this will help put them to rest.

    Whatever the cause, it's pretty clear that the current Unreal Engine isn't in desperate need of more graphics power.
    And that's been true since UT99.

    Folks, if you want better UT performance then get the fastest processor (read A-M-D) you can lay your hands on. After that, it won't make much difference if you're running a Geforce 2 or a 7800 GTX in SLI mode. UT loves the processor. :heart:

    Knowing this, (and Epic surely does) then why in the name of sanity is their first suggestion for improving performance to lower the resolution???? That's just stupid. :noob:

    From the UT2004 "read-me":

    ================================================== ======================
    2 Performance
    ================================================== ======================

    2.1 Resolution
    --------------

    The resolution in which you run the game will have the greatest impact on
    performance if you are not in the lucky position of running the latest
    top of the line graphics cards. Running at 640x480 in 16 bit mode or even
    512x384 in 16 bit mode should provide decent performance even on older
    hardware.

    #2
    lol... ut2004 needs more than a gf2 to run. Even my GF4 Ti4400 won't run it satisfactorily (admittedly, my CPU sucks) but you do have a point in that it is SEVERELY CPU limited. Anything as good as a 9700pro or better should be enough to run it at 1280x1024, and likely even 1600x1200.

    Comment


      #3
      I have to admit the CPU i think makes one of the biggest differences, I have to overclock my CPU so bloody much just to get an average of 37 FPS (on assault). It gets so hot i have to turn it down in the summer.

      5900 XT Golden Edition
      I have a kick *** Graphic card running at 545mhz
      with the 128 ram at 890hrz

      And im still only getting 37fps !!

      its my CPU AMD 1200XP (shipped)
      AMD 2600+ Heh heh overclocked

      Comment


        #4
        Thanks for that link.

        Well, I guess some people can look at it this way. If the entire Geforce 5 line was kinda **** (i.e., bad image quality), then it leaves you with a choice of either Geforce 4 Ti line or the Geforce 6 line. I'm not counting the 7800 because it costs more than an entire computer. Anyway, the Geforce 4 Ti line cannot play BF2 and are not said to be able to run UT2007 either. So, that leaves you with the Geforce 6 line. And between PCI-E and AGP, the more future proof choice is PCI-E. It would be a hard choice to sacrifice performance if you can't afford a 6600 GT, but a 6200 just to be able to afford a socket 939 with PCI-E motherboard would at least allow you to save money on a motherboard later on.

        \EDIT: I'd like to say though that those benchmarks in some ways are really ****. Not many people are going to put their games at 1600x1200. On lower resolutions and settings, I've seen the 6600 GT close enough to the 6800 Ultra. Close enough to wonder why you'd pay that much more for a 6800 Ultra knowing that the Geforce 8 line is likely coming out in summer of 2006.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by .dot.Chops
          lol... ut2004 needs more than a gf2 to run. Even my GF4 Ti4400 won't run it satisfactorily (admittedly, my CPU sucks) but you do have a point in that it is SEVERELY CPU limited. Anything as good as a 9700pro or better should be enough to run it at 1280x1024, and likely even 1600x1200.
          not tru, lol i ran ut2004 at all minimal settings on a p4 1.5 ghz, 384 memory, and a geforce 2 ultra 64mb.....lol ahhh good times. and what was even better was that i could actualy play it, by no means was it good but none the less i could play

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by .dot.Chops
            lol... ut2004 needs more than a gf2 to run. Even my GF4 Ti4400 won't run it satisfactorily (admittedly, my CPU sucks)
            Perhaps that´s the reason why your GF4 won´t run it well?

            My 64 Mb Geforce 2 MX in combo with an AMD Athlon 1.2 Ghz ran the UT2004 demo quite well on medium settings.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by .dot.Chops
              lol... ut2004 needs more than a gf2 to run. Even my GF4 Ti4400 won't run it satisfactorily (admittedly, my CPU sucks) but you do have a point in that it is SEVERELY CPU limited. Anything as good as a 9700pro or better should be enough to run it at 1280x1024, and likely even 1600x1200.
              yea, I know that feeling....i used to run a GF4 Ti 4200 128MB, with an AMD XP 2500 (Barton unlocked core, running smoothe to a 3200).

              and i ran it on high, with AA (somewhere around the mid setting)...and it ran fine...a few levels dropped the framerate a bit...but mostly ok.

              then i started having problems, so as a precaution i dropped the 3200 back to stock 2500...

              UT2k4 started running on medium, with no AA....i was dissappointed.

              Now im (saving up to) run a rig that will hopefully run ut2k7 (drool) very satisfactorily.

              Comment


                #8
                You resolution and any AA tyope things are card dependant, after that, yes your proc will effect htings more then anything....


                from 640*480 - 1152*864 I have 4fps differenc on my TI4600 with my 850 proc, but i can't have a lot of things like phsyics and detail set to high

                My frined with a 1.6ghz proc and a Geforce MX (can't remember what line) gets better fps then I do...

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Vive_le_Quebec
                  I'd like to say though that those benchmarks in some ways are really ****. Not many people are going to put their games at 1600x1200.
                  That's because they are not trying to test how well the card will perform for the average gamer but rather what architectural improvements have been made between the NV4x and the G70. To do that you need to stress the architecture.

                  And with the current state of current generation GPUs vs game engines there is really little point testing them under "real world conditions" since nearly every game in existance will be limited by the CPU and thus benchmarking the GPU becomes pretty useless anyways.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Anything as good as a 9700pro or better should be enough to run it at 1280x1024, and likely even 1600x1200.
                    Ur right :up: :up:

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by NakedApe
                      That's because they are not trying to test how well the card will perform for the average gamer but rather what architectural improvements have been made between the NV4x and the G70. To do that you need to stress the architecture.

                      And with the current state of current generation GPUs vs game engines there is really little point testing them under "real world conditions" since nearly every game in existance will be limited by the CPU and thus benchmarking the GPU becomes pretty useless anyways.
                      :up: What he said.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by suttonator

                        Now im (saving up to) run a rig that will hopefully run ut2k7 (drool) very satisfactorily.
                        Just a suggestion. I thought about waiting until summer of 2006 to upgrade then I decided after reading stuff about the socket M2 using DDR2 RAM, I figured it might be worth it to wait even longer. So, I think the cheapest way to last until 2007 or 2008 is to get a 6600 GT. I may or may not do that in summer of 2006 to upgrade mobo/cpu/3d card in 2008. (Maybe by then I'll be considering which geforce 8 to get with a dual core. )

                        The reason why I'm saying this is because I read that processor speeds won't even improve that much next year. The biggest differences we might see in the next year is a Sempron 3700+ for socket 754 and a FX-57 then FX-59 (maybe at 3 GHz, I think) and then a dual core 5000+ instead of the dual core 4800+. Wow, I wouldn't bother upgrading CPU unless I wanted a dual core CPU at this point. And right now the dual core CPUs are too expensive for me. At least when they come out with the 5000+ that will lower the cost for the other models. But when the socket M2 comes out, and there will be dual cores for both socket 939 and M2, who knows, maybe they'll lower the cost for the socket 939 ones. :noob:

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X