UT - XP: Who is the new King of the hill?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydolike
Jan 11, 2000
538
0
0
Wisconsin, USA
www.bfgn.com
3Dfx was once the undisputed heavyweight champion of the UT world. With the Voodoo 5 5500 AGP card, we had 64 megs of raw speed. Glide was rock-solid, sneaky-fast, and precache-free. Add in 4x FSAA and you had a killer card running a killer app.

Admit it, how many of us upgraded as a result of Unreal / UT? I know I had two (count ‘em) major upgrades because of this specific franchise. (My very *first* major upgrade was due to the original Carmageddon, but don’t get me started on *that*).

However, the King is dead. Long live the King.

But who *is* the new King for UT, specifically, UT in XP? Is it the GeForce 3? Can you do 4xFSAA with the GF3 in UT? Does it match the speed and smoothness of the Voodoo 5? And how about the Radeon, specifically the Radeon 2? (We find out more about that on Tuesday, I believe.) Will that mount any kind of serious threat for the die-hard UT player?

I’ve been messing around with the release candidate downloads of XP for a number of weeks and I admit it - I’m hooked. This OS is fun to play around with and is thoroughly stable. I've thrown everything I have at it and have never been able to get it to crash. I can slow it down for a little while if I really try, but it always blows the tasks out and comes roaring back.

By this time, I’m thoroughly peeved at Nvidia for not supplying the 3Dfx source code. I totally understand it from a business point of view, but I still think it's heavy-handed and arrogant, the same things I used to detest about 3Dfx. (Be careful, Nvidia, lest history repeat itself.) I tried UT with the stock 3Dfx XP drivers in D3D, 640 x 480, and it was awful. After being used to 60 fps, phenomenal color, and no jaggies (not to mention zero precaching load-times), I almost cried. Clearly, the Voodoo cards are no longer the weapon of choice if the gamer has upgraded to XP.

As I said, the King is dead. Long live the King.

Whoever that is.
 
T

Terminal {DTH}

Guest
yep, its the Geforce2. One guy who posted here said he for the G3 and was disipointed that there was no proformance increse in running UT.
 
Rooster

Rooster

Local Legend
Jan 4, 2000
5,287
0
0
Fort Mill, SC
www.legionoflions.com
That was OVER his "old" Radeon 64MB card.

He had no reason to expect better performance in UT. None at all. I'm pretty sure just about every review has actually show that the Radeon 64MB out performs just about every nVidia card out: ON UT.

I'd still take a GeForce3 over my GeForce2, but it sounds like I'm waiting till this winter to upgrade.
 
S

Samiam

New Member
Jan 25, 2001
20
0
0
Visit site
I bought a 64 radeon and saw a drop in performance from my geforce 256.. SO, i can't see how a geforce3 could be worse than a radeon..
 
Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydolike
Jan 11, 2000
538
0
0
Wisconsin, USA
www.bfgn.com
McKenna: Can't run Glide in XP, though D3D works just fine (as far as that goes - D3D in UT is peaked compared to Glide). Nvidia isn't supplying the source code to MS for XP and is effectively killing it off. This alone is worth checking all the options. I'm mostly interested in the quality of FSAA out there, if anyone has managed to get it right other than 3Dfx. As for XP, well, it's just so freaky cool. For one, RC2 has been completely and utterly stable for me, and XP has alot of the stupid little user enhancements that add to the overall user experience. It's the OS that Windows should have been all along, and now that it's here, I'm really excited to finally be able to use it. It's a slap that the best card for UT isn't supported in this release, but I'm willing to move along as long as there's something to move forward *to*.

As for opening up the stick with my wife barrel, I must confess that I have no clue what that means, but it sounds dirty. ;)

I'll be watching to see what Tuesday's ATI announcement is with some interest.
 
Peregrine

Peregrine

Death from above
Jan 16, 2001
2,507
0
0
Lake Erie Shoreline
www.gaihope.net
Originally posted by Samiam
I bought a 64 radeon and saw a drop in performance from my geforce 256.. SO, i can't see how a geforce3 could be worse than a radeon..
Click to expand...

It wasn't worse. It was the same. Because UT doesn't utilize the GF3 bells and whistles.

I have XP too and it's nice, agreed. The SYS REQ's are to high for a lot of people, and it is a huge install compared to my 280 MEG install of 98.

Originally posted by Phydeaux

As for XP, well, it's just so freaky cool. For one, RC2 has been completely and utterly stable for me, and XP has alot of the stupid little user enhancements
Click to expand...

Yeah, in other words, they're making it more idiot proof.
:)
 
Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydolike
Jan 11, 2000
538
0
0
Wisconsin, USA
www.bfgn.com
Right!

;)

Anand posted an 18-page preview on the new ATI products, the
ATI 8500 and ATI 7500. These take the place of the rumored Radeon 2.

This is just a preview (Anand stresses that throughout) using preview drivers, but the GeForce 3 bests it in pretty much every area. It appears that FSAA (of particular concern to me) is on a par with the GF3 Quincunx FSAA. I presume that drivers will get better and prices will fall, so my dream card may actually come to pass in time for me to get a decent price on it, ("Can anyone say All-in-Wonder Radeon 8500?",. If the recent All-in-Wonder is any sign of what's possible, I may get a decent UT XP card *and* all the video / cable TV goodies that come with the current Radeon product . I'm looking for 64 megs of video RAM, FSAA, 2D brilliance, TV-on-Demand, Guide+, and TiVo. And why not? With everybody producing high framerates, the extras become more important.

Nvidia stole much of ATI's thunder with their announcement on Monday about the impending release of their Detonator 4 drivers. These drivers provide a modest improvement at the lower resulutions but a 25 - 30% boost at the higher resoulutions. Releaseing the drivers now instead of this fall is being hailed as a savvy move on Nividia's part. Bottom line, this is shaping up to be a decent struggle. This is good for consumers (in general) and UT nuts (specifically).
 
Last edited:
S

SimplyCosmic

ERGO. VIS A VIS. CONCORDANTLY.
Dec 25, 1999
6,311
0
0
Northeast Ohio
www.simplycosmic.net
The problem some are having with the Nvidia release is that while there is some basis for the "30% improvement" claim, the applications that are showing this improvement are benchmark programs (such as 3DMark 2001), while some actual games, such as Giants are showing a 29% decrease in performance.

It's a smart PR move to release a driver that's been tweaked to give an advantage in benchmark programs when another company releases information on their next card. That's one thing Nvidia learned from 3DFx. ;)
 
Kokensu

Kokensu

Fire in Ma Belly!
Jan 4, 2000
2,912
0
0
Shut yo mouth!
Visit site
I think the Radeon 2's will work just as well as the GF3's in upcoming games. Hell, in UT my Radeon ONE all in wonder runs the game almost as well as my friends GF3("I" can't see much difference in 80-90 fps and 100-110 fps). :rolleyes:

As far as FSAA, I still don't think it's a big deal. In racing games it makes it look a little better, but in a first person shooter I don't have time to stare at the walls. :D
 
Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydeaux{RoA}

Phydolike
Jan 11, 2000
538
0
0
Wisconsin, USA
www.bfgn.com
XP does D3D (and possibly OpenGL, though I've no luck with that - poor framerates and horrible visuals) but definitely does not do Glide, and won't. I can't play UT in D3D after getting used to Glide and 4xFSAA, personally, which means I need a WinME partition at the very least.
 
T

Terminal {DTH}

Guest
bugger that! ME is THE most unstable OS ive EVER had the extrmem displeasure to use. if you Must have another windows version go with 98 or 2k. honestly, the more i use 2k- the more i like it. it uses system resorces MUCH more efficantly.
*edit* altho for some odd reason i cant install the service pack2 for it without that COMPLETLY screwing it up beyond redemption. Very strange, but it Still works faster/better then 98. and ME is SO far beneeth 2k (in stability and resorce management) that it isnt even vaugely humorous.*end edit*
 
D

drbutcher

New Member
Aug 15, 2001
2
0
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Terminal {DTH}
yep, its the Geforce2. One guy who posted here said he for the G3 and was disipointed that there was no proformance increse in running UT.
Click to expand...

Unreal Tournament dosent really beat up on your video card. It beats up on your cpu. so the better cpu you have the better FPS and play you get in UT. Dont get me wrong if you have a pos video card it wont run as well but a kick ass cpu combode with a kick ass video card voodoo 5 5500 agp (what i have) or an Ultra is awsome.
 
T

Terminal {DTH}

Guest
true, but only to a point. you Still can only go as fast as your buss speed can handle all the data from your cpu. faster, more powerful cpu will NOT nessarally speed up your game. depending and dependant on you MB capibilities.
 
Rooster

Rooster

Local Legend
Jan 4, 2000
5,287
0
0
Fort Mill, SC
www.legionoflions.com
Terminal wrote:
ME is THE most unstable OS ive EVER had the extrmem displeasure to use. if you Must have another windows version go with 98 or 2k. honestly, the more i use 2k- the more i like it. it uses system resorces MUCH more efficantly
Click to expand...

Windows Millenium is actually the most effecient OS MS has ever written, even moreso than Windows 3.1.

Just because you have problems with it (and perhaps 10% of all other users) does not make it crap for everyone else.

Windows 2000 does NOT use system resources as effeciently as ... well... anything. It is a resource hog. It is bloated to the point of being the epitome of inefficiency. It takes approximately twice the RAM and 40% more CPU power to make a Win2K machine run like a Win9x/ME machine.

Now.. that being said - it's a VERY stable OS. Slow & steady wins the race right? Well, not for me. I'd settle for 95% of the stability, which I've got, and MUCH faster (up to 100% faster in every day apps {ie., starting/saving/printing programs take 1/2 the time on WinME}, but perhaps a 10-15% gain in game performance).

Most folks that have WinME issues did not set it up correctly in the first place (and I don't care how many times you tried it, repetition does not make perfect).
 
E

ElectricHead

New Member
Feb 19, 2000
43
0
0
Visit site
I use a GF3 with 4xAA. This is at 1024x768 32bit. I average 75-90fps(D3D) and IMO the textures look sharper than any of my old 3dfx Glide cards ever did, as well as running at least as smooth as my Glide cards did. With AA off, I average 130 or so with the same setup...and this is with all the goodies(curved surfaces[models], fog, detail textures, ect) turned on.

Now, I dont know what it will do in XP(this is a Win98SE system), but at the moment I have no complaints. The card installed easy and runs fast as hell(230/540). If I can ignore the stupid reg crap that XP will put me thru, I may just upgrade to the OS, since 98 is not exactly, umm...stable......:D





EH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom