Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Post your UT2004 Benchmark results here (download here)

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

    Post your UT2004 Benchmark results here (download here)

    New UT2004 Standard CTF Benchmark now available.
    Download at: http://www.santaduck.com/

    Measure the frames-per-second on your computer with UT2004demo.

    This benchmark set has five settings for the resolutions 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, 1600x1200.

    This benchmark uses custom INI files so you can be sure your settings are the same as everyone else who runs this benchmark! Another benefit is you don't have to manually change mindesiredframerate because it's already been done for you, nor do you have to mess with your normal gameplay settings! FPS is shown during the benchmark, and most keys and mouse buttons are disabled except for spacebar to quit prematurely. It does NOT utilize a demorec.

    The CTF map was selected because it resulted in the most active action out of any of the maps. Most of the other maps were very large and task-oriented, which means the benchmark would just watch a bot sitting by itself shooting a gun installation, or idly standing and building something, or worse just running alone across a large map. Benchmarks of other ut2k4 demo maps could be made, but realistically they would just suck as a measurement of your rig.

    Too many options make benchmarks useless for comparisons, so that's why there are only five. Post your results here.

    In addition I even made a Mac OS X version in a GUI, so no more mucking around in the UNIX Terminal Commandline... Also includes automatic installer! Uses standard custom INI files with the exact same map, botcount, as well as video and audio settings as the windows version above.

    #2
    TBH I never really saw the point in Benchmarking my machine... but kudos anyways

    Comment


      #3
      Great job with the benchmarking program.

      About your website though....What the hells up with the ducks?

      Comment


        #4
        Oh sorry guys, found a bug, I fixed it now. If you downloaded it in the last 10 minutes, please go back and redownload it. It will say v1.2 in the documentation "Instructions.txt".

        Comment


          #5
          Anyways let's compare results...

          _____
          My initial results (not really gaming rigs):

          Compaq Presario 2570US Laptop/ Intel P4 2.4Ghz/512M RAM/Radeon IGP 345M/ Win XP Pro SP1
          640x480 : 5.244830 / 18.749954/ 74.888000 fps -- Score = 18.779989
          1024x768: 3.92237 / 10.964916 / 32.848793 fps Score=10.978272
          1280x960: 1.804364 / 10.983126 / 33.716251 fps -- Score= 11.031237


          Mac G4 Cube/ PL 7457 1.4Ghz/ 1.5G RAM/ Radeon 9000pro/OS 10.3.2
          640x480 : 4.719166 / 17.371588 / 36.755592 fps -- Score = 17.388031
          1024x768 :4.968113 / 17.220768 / 41.075905 fps -- Score = 17.237736
          1280x960 : 5.164147 / 16.880972 / 36.076271 fps -- Score = 16.898134
          1600x1200: 4.797451 / 15.839938 / 36.605736 fps -- Score = 15.854218
          __________________________________________________ __

          Comment


            #6
            I'm download in a second

            Comment


              #7
              celeron 1.8 with 768MB RAM
              ATI 9600 pro (Omega 4.2)

              1024x768

              7.559023 / 19.429409 / 56.472424 fps
              Score = 19.449173

              Comment


                #8
                Athlon 2400+ XP
                1 Gig DDR RAM
                Gainward Geforce FX 5600 Ultra 256

                640 x 480 14.178169 / 38.820965 / 110.470367 fps Score = 38.813087

                1024 x 768 14.112329 / 38.598755 / 105.230537 fps Score = 38.722145

                1280 x 960 13.099446 / 37.970387 / 105.421089 fps Score = 38.061302

                1600 x 1200 8.814240 / 33.649475 / 99.749443 fps Score = 33.730698

                Amazingly little difference between the first three, and not a great gap at the top. Interesting.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Athlon Xp 1700+
                  Sapphire Radeon 9600 256mb
                  768MB DDR 266 RAM
                  Windows XP Pro

                  1024 x 768 11.299284 / 31.465990 / 85.740738 fps -- Score = 31.542969

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Overall Scores


                    Score = 39.162498


                    Score = 38.234569

                    Generally all resolutions give me the same overall score & there dosen't seen to be much differance in FPS which is strange


                    System Specs

                    Windows XP Pro
                    AMD 2400XP
                    521mb DDR 333 Ram
                    ATI 9600 XT (Omega Drivers)

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Macs:
                      Twinky from Inside Mac Games forums
                      G5 DP 1.8GHz Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB) 1GB RAM

                      640x480: 2.416446 / 54.768131 / 138.201691 fps -- Score = 53.797573
                      800x600: 2.412400 / 55.161423 / 136.994354 fps -- Score = 54.156086
                      1024x768: 2.408278 / 55.150372 / 137.979324 fps -- Score = 54.132710
                      1280x1024: 1.780623 / 54.819225 / 138.901627 fps -- Score = 53.788261
                      OingoBoingo from macrumors forums
                      My system setup is a G5 1.6GHz, Radeon 9600 Pro, and 1.25GB RAM. UT2004 has the latest update. Scores are:

                      800x600: 7.018461 / 22.550531 / 47.727844 fps -- Score = 22.568077
                      1024x768: 3.400930 / 21.563698 / 48.459431 fps -- Score = 21.579165
                      1280x960: 6.999010 / 21.789639 / 46.707302 fps -- Score = 21.805939
                      1600x1200: 6.915529 / 21.468527 / 47.128071 fps -- Score = 21.483715

                      MacBandit from macrumors forums
                      MDD PowerMac G4 Dual/1.42 ATI9800Pro and 1GB RAM.
                      640x480 1.700332 / 35.494110 / 100.019432 fps -- Score = 35.386284
                      1024x768 1.914620 / 35.434017 / 99.408890 fps -- Score = 35.330215
                      1600x1200 2.180550 / 34.883617 / 100.075859 fps -- Score = 34.779556

                      me from cubeowner forums
                      Mac G4 Cube/ PL 7457 1.4Ghz/ 1.5G RAM/ Radeon 9000pro/OS 10.3.2
                      640x480 : 4.719166 / 17.371588 / 36.755592 fps -- Score = 17.388031
                      1024x768 :4.968113 / 17.220768 / 41.075905 fps -- Score = 17.237736
                      1280x960 : 5.164147 / 16.880972 / 36.076271 fps -- Score = 16.898134
                      1600x1200: 4.797451 / 15.839938 / 36.605736 fps -- Score = 15.854218

                      Exact same Cube as above, except with Stock OEM Cube Radeon (worse card):
                      640x480 : 5.258971 / 18.200377 / 39.155235 fps -- Score = 18.219358
                      800x600 : 5.276948 / 18.155190 / 51.263905 fps -- Score = 18.172644
                      1024x768 : 2.930723 / 17.439754 / 39.389664 fps -- Score = 17.457092
                      1280x960 : 3.491599 / 15.054925 / 38.744164 fps -- Score = 15.068023
                      1600x1200: 2.275341 / 10.831214 / 38.467617 fps -- Score = 10.838161



                      PCs
                      ______
                      Mav451 from macrumors forums):

                      AMD 2100+ @ 2.231ghz (11.5*194fsb Vcore 1.675) // Asus A7N8X Non-Deluxe rev1.06 BIOS 1004 // 2 x 256MB Crucial PC2700 DDR SDRAM @ 9-3-3-3 Vdimm 2.8 // Radeon 8500 @ (290/290) WinXP Corporate SP1 Integrated
                      640x480:19.712912 / 56.272144 / 161.556473 fps -- Score = 56.558212
                      800x600:19.820021 / 56.302464 / 160.377655 fps -- Score = 56.328781
                      1024x768:18.677559 / 50.942139 / 137.288925 fps -- Score = 51.065140
                      1280x1024:20.113623 / 45.414165 / 128.893066 fps -- Score = 45.666080
                      1600x1200:5.722300 / 31.922544 / 115.784981 fps -- Score = 32.101318

                      me
                      Compaq Presario 2570US Laptop/ Intel P4 2.4Ghz/512M RAM/Radeon IGP 345M/ Win XP Pro SP1
                      640x480 : 5.244830 / 18.749954/ 74.888000 fps -- Score = 18.779989
                      1024x768: 3.92237 / 10.964916 / 32.848793 fps Score=10.978272
                      1280x960: 1.804364 / 10.983126 / 33.716251 fps -- Score= 11.031237


                      As you can see two points:
                      1) with enough RAM and a fast graphics card, and any reasonably fast processor, the results so far are processor-bound. You'll see this if the results are approximately the same across resolutions. With a bad graphics card, you will certianly see a reduction in FPS with higher resolution, so this benchmark is correct.

                      2) Mac ut2k4 is totally unoptimized, apparent because of poor performance against PCs, and because of poor performance (less than 50%) of the same macs on ut2k3, and this is not even consider G5 64bit path optimizations.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
                        Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
                        AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 2207 MHz with 1023MB RAM
                        NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra (5303)

                        ctf-bridgeoffate -ini=UT2004_640x480.ini
                        21.672764 / 62.777882 / 172.072479 fps rand[2944]
                        Score = 62.848545

                        ctf-bridgeoffate-ini=UT2004_800x600.ini
                        21.082752 / 62.742149 / 167.643219 fps rand[2944]
                        Score = 62.809044

                        ctf-bridgeoffate-ini=UT2004_1024x768.ini
                        21.732506 / 62.719540 / 170.530518 fps rand[2944]
                        Score = 62.785110

                        ctf-bridgeoffate -ini=UT2004_1280x960.ini
                        21.697668 / 62.629311 / 169.915115 fps rand[2944]
                        Score = 62.695702

                        ctf-bridgeoffate -ini=UT2004_1600x1200.ini
                        20.713215 / 64.132172 / 171.401794 fps rand[18481]
                        Score = 64.215172


                        Hmmm.. I would not have expected such similar resluts at the lower res. Guessing it's the Vsync :weird:

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Yes, the benchie and game are apparently more cpu abound than video.

                          Intel 2.4C overclocked to 3.0, 512 HyperX DDR 3200, 9600 XT <--- no overdrive or oc YET!

                          640 x 800
                          ctf-bridgeoffate
                          19.983013 / 58.818626 / 159.930374 fps
                          Score = 58.879322

                          800 x 600
                          ctf-bridgeoffate
                          19.968435 / 58.175182 / 158.088409 fps
                          Score = 58.240948

                          1024 x 768
                          ctf-bridgeoffate
                          19.541765 / 58.065346 / 164.630600 fps
                          Score = 58.126972


                          1280 x 960
                          ctf-bridgeoffate
                          18.385792 / 57.024529 / 158.202332 fps
                          Score = 57.082081

                          1600x1200
                          ctf-bridgeoffate
                          14.848794 / 47.353683 / 149.461487 fps
                          Score = 47.401325

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by MLH-Throb
                            Overall Scores


                            Score = 39.162498


                            Score = 38.234569

                            Generally all resolutions give me the same overall score & there dosen't seen to be much differance in FPS which is strange
                            Yeah, I noticed that too. I have a outdated system, and I tried it on 320x200 or whatever the lowest res was, and it seemed to be running worst:bulb:

                            Then I set it up to 800x600, and I still got the same FPS, lower res didn't change anything:weird:

                            OH well at least things are more clearer in 800x600 even if I'm getting 7-15 FPS, lol:cry:

                            Comment


                              #15
                              1024x768
                              11.593697 / 43.980732 / 132.937897 fps -- Score = 44.027081

                              P4 2.66B, 1GB PC2700, Ti 4200

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X