PDA

View Full Version : UT2003 - processor vs graphics card


elusive
10-03-02, 09:40 PM
AMD Tbird 1.33 @ 1.533
512mb sdram
leadtek 4400 o/c'd


ok

1024 with everything all the way up and 2x fsaa no ansi

30.82 drivers


i get the SAME FRAMES with everything all the way up as I do EVERYTHING ALL THE WAY DOWN.


that makes no sense.

i shouldn't be cpu limited THAT BAD, wholly shiiiiet!!
im talking 30fps-50fps in that skyscarper map

imtim83
10-03-02, 10:54 PM
elusive well all i know is i want a faster processor than my athlon xp 1800+ i just got. Plus a new chipset rather than my old, anicent KT133A chipset with only 256 mb of pc133 sdram. I have a Leadtek GF4 ti 4400 too overclocked to 300/650 so GF4 ti 4600 speeds. I mean the performence is ok but i want faster whenever i can. The latest Nvidia beta drivers seem to help smooth out unreal 2003 performence out a lot !! To me it seem it did. New drivers just came out today i have a feeling the help a little more in unreal 2003 with being a little more smoother.

ragejg
10-03-02, 11:19 PM
Could this be an SDRAM specific situation?

Maybe UT2k3 is memory bandwidth dependant... has anyone run any tests like that on this game?

HEY ANANDTECH OR SOMEONE WITH RESOURCES AND TIME (ha ha, a challenge)!!

8 tests:

1.33 (xp or tbird) cpu and 1.6 P4...
Pc133 mobo test, ddr266 test, ddr333 test, RDRAM 800 test

2.0 (xp) cpu and 2.0 P4
Pc133 mobo test, ddr266 test, ddr333 test, RDRAM 800 test

A test like this could show quite a bit...

imtim83
10-03-02, 11:24 PM
Yeah but i play at 1600x1200 resolution with all details on maximum. So its a lot more video card dependent. So i bet going to a new chipset and ddr ram would only give me a 2 to 10 fp increase which to me is not a lot. Now 15 fps maybe but more like 20 fps + is a lot to me. If i knew it would be 20 fps increase in the 1600x1200 resolution i played at then that would cool but i don't think it is.

Chalnoth
10-04-02, 02:15 AM
Well, on the Anandtech site, the recent review of the first 166MHz-bus Athlon shows a significant increase over the 133MHz-bus Athlons in UT2k3, so it may be related somewhat to memory speed.

SavagePaladin
10-04-02, 07:32 AM
As I understand it, UT2003 is pretty heavy on everything...
sound, video, CPU, RAM
its going to be a trend these days, I sink.

imtim83
10-05-02, 03:49 AM
Anyone think doom 3 will be a lot worst than this on all hardware? I am hoping not but we will see. Do you all think a 3 to 4 ghz processor will help unreal 2003 performence much at all or will we need a faster fsb too ?

Greg
10-05-02, 03:53 AM
Yep, UT2003 wants all of everything it can get, but I have a few comments:

o You can test the performance of your video system with the 'fly by' benchmarks, they love a fast triangle rate, and at high res, a fast fill rate. however...

o Once the bots are doing their thing, most current video cards at resolutions of up to 1024x768 will all come to rest at the same frame rate dependant on the CPU and memory systems. because...

o UT2003 was designed for DirectX7 level acceleration. It just so happens that the new programable hardware accerates the DX7 level geometry very well. And...

o UT2003 AI and scripting uses a load of CPU time. If that is true, then multiplayer only games with a dedicated server should be the fastest game experience possible since that overhead is all but eliminated.

o Also, I don't believe that UT2003 did what the original UT did, and that was, spend huge amounts of CPU time and memory bandwidth rendering the screen in software to determine almost pixel precise occlusion to reduce the number of triangles on screen. If it still did this, the flyby benchmarks would be CPU/Mem bound as well. The UT2003 performance comes from optimised triangle stripped meshes that are stored in video memory and reused within the same map. For example, in CTF-Citadel, notice that 4 out of 5 bridges are the exact same mesh? Check out the position and direction of the shadows on them all except the center one.