Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unreal Engine 3 FPS Benchmarks?

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

    Unreal Engine 3 FPS Benchmarks?

    Hi all

    Anyone seen any benchmark tests for the 8800gtx gpu's running Unreal Engine 3 games?

    I keep hearing that the 8800 will probably only produce a max of 30 FPS

    Ive just built a custom rig for UT3 and Crysis, and thats the last thing i wanted to hear

    I'm hoping for quite a bit more than 30 FPS as i'm running 64-bit OS which these are allegedly optimized for

    Any ideas

    #2
    The 30fps was for the PS3 wasnt it? Thats what i last heard.

    If ut3 has a fps cap on it for the pc version it should be possible to remove it, depending on the rest of ur specs, it should run well with that card

    Comment


      #3
      The UnrealEngine largely depends on CPU power. An 8800 should be fine, as long as you back it up with a powerful multi-core CPU.

      Comment


        #4
        Bioshock:
        http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?o...tid=315&page=1
        (DX 9 is included)

        Remember the only similarity is engine, so therefore the level of detail they chose to go into may be different.
        UT3 runs on the latest version of the engine also, up until its release.
        (all afaik)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by †TYRANICK†™ View Post
          The 30fps was for the PS3 wasnt it? Thats what i last heard.
          no, PS3 is capable of 60 fps, that's what i last heard.

          Comment


            #6
            YOu just have to wait til it is released for really reliable numbers. They will be tweaking up to release, no doubt. Plus as said, how the maps and such are designed will have more of an impact. Larger scenes tended to bog things down more. The other recent title seemed to be smaller spaces than what a Warfare or outdoor DM map would be.

            Comment


              #7
              I would wait for the Demo and then benchmark that (or wait for benchmarks with different setups published on the web).

              Then you also should take into consideration, what graphical limitations there are in the demo compared to the full release. For example: The demo of UT2004 had the normal texture resolution as maximum setting.
              You probably will also find info how large the map is comapred to other maps that will be in the game.

              Comment


                #8
                I really hope my single core 3700+ @ 2.5ghz can run it, otherwise it's gonna have to be motherboard + ram + processor upgrade
                Glad there's a demo coming first

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by stephen_wq View Post
                  Bioshock:
                  http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?o...tid=315&page=1
                  (DX 9 is included)

                  Remember the only similarity is engine, so therefore the level of detail they chose to go into may be different.
                  UT3 runs on the latest version of the engine also, up until its release.
                  (all afaik)
                  7 FPS...

                  oh dear..

                  Comment


                    #10
                    http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/index.html

                    This is the best write-up and comparison I've seen so far.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Im getting a new PC in November 100%, specially for UT3 and Crysis, but I cant choose if I should buy Dual Core (Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3Ghz) or Quad Core (Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 2,66Ghz)...I want the computer to last 3 years without upgrade. Ive heard that for games the Dual Core is better, but the Quad Core...i guess its more powerful, but there wont be atleast for a year any game that will use it..Dual Core can be tweaked up to 4Ghz, but Quad Core...not much, maybe till 2,8Ghz since it makes alot of heat...so...dunno....Other specs will be a BFG 8800GTX 768MB RAM, 2GB RAM Kingston Dual 1066Mhz, 750GB HDD....

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Jack_6428 View Post
                        Im getting a new PC in November 100%, specially for UT3 and Crysis, but I cant choose if I should buy Dual Core (Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3Ghz) or Quad Core (Core 2 Quad Q6700 @ 2,66Ghz)...I want the computer to last 3 years without upgrade. Ive heard that for games the Dual Core is better, but the Quad Core...i guess its more powerful, but there wont be atleast for a year any game that will use it..Dual Core can be tweaked up to 4Ghz, but Quad Core...not much, maybe till 2,8Ghz since it makes alot of heat...so...dunno....Other specs will be a BFG 8800GTX 768MB RAM, 2GB RAM Kingston Dual 1066Mhz, 750GB HDD....
                        from that...
                        I want the computer to last 3 years without upgrade.
                        but the Quad Core...i guess its more powerful, but there wont be atleast for a year any game that will use it
                        that being quoted... i don't see why you're having problems deciding... go quad.

                        if you REALLY think about it... at the same speed, the quad is a better processor. why? at the WORST a decently programmed game/app that doesn't make use of the 3rd and 4th cores will perform the same as a dual (with really **** poor programming, quad might be worse)... BUT when games and apps ARE programmed for those cores... performance then jumps.

                        if you're talking about overclocking... then the you really should read up on it more. the q6700 should easily overclock over that 2.8 GHz (with STOCK HSF)that you are guessing about. however, to push an E6850, you'd need to use a non-stock HSF... and in that case putting a non-stock HSF on a Quad would allow it to overclock higher. and if you're gonna overclock to 4 GHz on a dual, the E6600 should be cheaper than the E6850 and it should overclock just as well.

                        what it really boils down to is... you're looking at short term benefits for a long term goal (sort of, if you count 3 years). if you look at the long term benefits (just like you said, more and more games/apps using more than two cores)... then the choice is a bit more obvious.

                        the E6850 only has a 333 MHz advantage over the Q6700... and because of the 1066 MHz fsb of the Q6700 compared to the 1333 MHz fsb of the E6850, the E6850 has a 266 advantage on the FSB. the FSB may play a difference depending on the app... but i'm pretty confident that as soon as you have a game/app that has at least two "major" (like some say, processor hungry threads)... the quad should perform better... since there would be a number of other threads ALONG with those two major threads, which could be dumped on the 3rd and 4th cores.

                        the one other factor... which is fairly important (to most people)... cost. at about $550 it's about twice the cost of the E6850 ($280 here).

                        i have a QX6700, and i won't be going back to dual core anytime soon.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by da ghost View Post
                          no, PS3 is capable of 60 fps, that's what i last heard.
                          source? I believe it is capped at 30 for ps3, unfortunately.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Thanks for the replies guys.

                            I guess we'll all just have to wait and see...lol...doh!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              You know it's going to run at 30fps at 13*7 at highish settings with 16 players if you have a geforce 7900GT, a low end dual core P4 and 1 gig of memory as that's approx PS3 spec's.

                              If you want higher settings, res, fps, more players, or in the future to play on more demanding custom maps then you'll need something faster.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X