What more does UT want of me???

Kokensu · Apr 10, 2000

Sounds cool, I'll try that with the v2's and the geforce, then maybe I can get an idea of how much faster the geforce is at UT , if it is at all. I know the geforce hoses the v2's in quake2. v2's=95fps@640x480 geforce DDR=135fps@640x480. Yeah I'll try that when I get home and give ya a post on it. /~unreal/ubb/html/wink.gif

§Kokensu§

PotLuck · Apr 10, 2000

Nope, ain't crazy. I get VERY little improvement in FPS by going from 1024x768 to 480x640. It even runs good at the higher res but text is just too small on my 15" monitor.

Cleaner's UT FAQ. Get the most out of UT!
http://www.unreality.org/cleaned/

Haades`FW · Apr 10, 2000

Shadow:

This must be because we ask more of the game than you, I have a 450 amd k6-2, 128mb ram, v2 12mb, and as you saw earlier, this suck

The cpu can't handle action into the game.. sorry, but I hate going below 30fps into some action

But if I play no bots, local game, this is all fine since the cpu doesn't have to rush

Haades`FW

Lithium · Apr 10, 2000

Did you do a full install? I forgot to do that the first time I installed UT, and nearly everything (even a player joining) seemed to make my cd-rom spin up and my game stop for a second. The full install has helped a lot.

Lith

Kokensu · Apr 10, 2000

It's most likely just the CPU as far as gameplay goes. RAM doesn't really help UT much. Both my friend and I have P3 450s and our game runs almost exactly the same. He has 256MB and I have 128MB. The voodoo3 2000 is plenty fast enough if you have the right processor. My other friend has a P2 400 and a v3 2000 and his runs almost as good as mine. Im using 2 voodoo2's by the way and I average around 50-60 fps at 1024x768.
As far as load up time goes, the game just takes a while to load. It's got alot of stuff to do. Same thing with the GUI. It's not that efficient. The menus load rather slowly on every system I've seen from a k62-450 to an athlon 700. As far as starting a new game though, I know if you have alot of maps in your map directory this menu will take a while cause it has to load all the maps. I have about 1GB of maps in my map directory and it takes me about 10 seconds to load the start new game menu! Oh well, guess that's my fault.. /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

§Kokensu§

Rooster · Apr 10, 2000

Kok - you honestly get 50-60fps on a P3-450? at 1024x768, on 2 V2's?

How are you testing? what are your other settings?

I'm calling you out on this one.

My system:
P3-650E
256MB PC100 CAS2 RAM
V3 3000 AGP
UT:
1024x768x16
High World
High Model
Decals: On
Dynamic Lighting: On
44.1k Sample rate (sound)
32 Voices

I can average 50fps throughout an entire game - on nearly every map.

With my Celeron 400:
30fps average

With a Pentium III-450
38fps average

If you're telling me that your P3-450 will outperform all of my systems (in one computer - at different times) - you've got something else going on (tweaks no one else knows about?)

I would believe you if you said 800x600 - cause then I get around 70fps on average (w/650E).

Map Reviewer for Capture

[This message has been edited by Rooster (edited 04-10-2000).]

Wolf Blackstar · Apr 10, 2000

I, too suffer from the curse of the K6-2. It just doesn't cut the mustard.

-Wolf Blackstar

"A chainsaw! find some meat!"
PuF: Bring on the pain!

JuDDa · Apr 10, 2000

I did the Intro timedemo Rooster and got 49.71avg fps on a Athlon 600mhz,128mb and a TNT2 but bear in mind that its running at AGP x1 & not x2 (bloody detonator drivers disabled it to x1 & can't get it to go back to x2..if anyone knows how to get it back to x2 let me know).
Does that seem ok to u Rooster,apart from the AGP problem that is.?
Cheers

JuDDa

Rooster · Apr 10, 2000

JuDDa, what settings do you have for UT? You can see mine above.

Here's my stats on the intro flyby sequence:

1024x768xhigh/high
Min 34
Max 76
Avg 46.55
-------------------
800x600xhigh/high
Min 36
Max 76
Avg 53.65
-------------------
1024x768xmed/med
Min 34
Max 76
Avg 47.82

I'd be willing to bet I'd see a bigger improvement actually in game with the medium textures (probably because of the skins - I wouldnt turn down world detail - it's just too pretty to give it up).

Map Reviewer for Capture

[This message has been edited by Rooster (edited 04-10-2000).]

Kokensu · Apr 10, 2000

Well guess you were right Roosta. I'm home now and I figured I'd try that demo like you said before I start working on some homework. Here's what I got with all the settings turned all the way up:

Voodoo2's
1024x768 = 37fps avg.
800x600 = 38fps avg.
640x480 = who cares(looks crappy on a 19" monitor /~unreal/ubb/html/wink.gif )

Geforce DDR
1024x768 = 30fps avg.
800x600 = 35fps avg.

Now that's pretty crappy. I hope they get some better Geforce drivers available soon. I know that card is faster in openGL and in D3D. Just not faster in D3D than a 3dfx is in glide apparently. Im using the 5.13 drivers with it by the way.

If you're getting the fps that you said Rooster then your game must fly, cause mine already runs as smooth as glass with the voodoo2's. When I get that RAID array going I'll post the results and see if it helps the game at all. I doubt it will but hopefully it will increase some other performance aspects. Peace.... /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

§Kokensu§

JuDDa · Apr 10, 2000

I'll just go and test it again ,i think my settings r the same as yours in UT but i'll run it under the same resolutions as u to see the difference.

Hehehe...had to get this in im only on 22 posts,23 now.

JuDDa

The_Inflictor · Apr 10, 2000

I need some improvement on what I've got at the moment.

I keep on bitchin' /~unreal/ubb/html/frown.gif but my my Athlon 550 & G400 are seriously pants at the moment and a set of V2's are the only cost effective remedies.

Sorry to rant, but I am a bit of a speed freak /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

"...you ever stole a win off the jaws of defeat?
When it's there for the taking you'll find me,
I'll be dancing all over its teeth." - McNamara & McNamara

JuDDa · Apr 10, 2000

Right,all my settings r the same apart from sample rate mines at 22k and i couldn't find voices or do u mean channels,if u do mines at 16.
My rig is an Athlon 600mhz,128mb & a TNT2 m64/vanta (with it runnin at AGP x1).

1024*768*16
High/High
Avg 39.35 fps
Min 18.45
Max 66.37

800*600*16
High/High
Avg 49.67 fps
Min 25.81
Max 94.52

1024*768*16
Med/Med
Avg 41.42 fps
Min 21.91
Max 66.69

Do the results seem ok to u..?? (bear in mind the AGP at x1 when it should be x2).
My settings r pretty much at default apart from controls..etc..And i haven't even messed with the preferences.
I have a soundblaster pci128 comin through desktop speakers and subwoofer,would it do me anygood to push the sample rate up to 44.1k ..?

JuDDa · Apr 10, 2000

How much improvement would i see if it was at AGP x2.??
Never run these tests when i first got this Rig & before i installed v3.68 detonators so i never saw the fps at AGP x2.

Clayeth · Apr 10, 2000

The bottom line in all of this is that with the right setup you can have an OK gaming system on a K6-2. But you'll get better performance out of something else, Celeron, Athlon, or P2/P3

Rooster · Apr 10, 2000

The AGP really doesnt matter as long as all the textures can get loaded into the cards memory. The X in the x2 or x4 is only the bandwidth of the transfer between the cards memory and the system memory.

Don't sweat the x1, x2 stuff. What you would see is about 1/2 the precache time - where it loads the textures from memory to the video card.

Yeah, those (fps) look good. Just about what I'd expect.

Thanks all.

Hopefully others will look here to see how their system should run (we get at least 2 of these questions a week). /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

Map Reviewer for Capture

Lillkillen · Apr 11, 2000

I can tell you this: AMD K6-2 sucks bigtime!!!
I recorded a demo with my old system (K6-2 450) and I got 27fps. I changed the CPU to a Celeron466, used the exact system otherwise (128M, Voodoo3 3000), played the same demo and now I got 39 fps!!!
I always thought K6-2 was a pretty good CPU, but now I've got the proof for myself. It really sucks...

Lillkillen

Rooster · Apr 11, 2000

One more thing. Your motherboard probably had just as much to do with it as your CPU. The Super7 chips are not exactly known for their speediness. I don't know what chipset you used for your Celeron (BX or i810/i820) - but they are typically faster.

Map Reviewer for Capture

Rooster · Apr 11, 2000

Let's see some other benchmarks from you guys out there!

Map Reviewer for Capture

JuDDa · Apr 11, 2000

Cheers for the advice/info Rooster. /~unreal/ubb/html/smile.gif

JuDDa

What more does UT want of me???

Fire in Ma Belly!

New Member

Haades`FW

Guest

New Member

Fire in Ma Belly!

Local Legend

That other Wing Commander guy

New Member

Local Legend

Fire in Ma Belly!

New Member

Honest and unmerciful

New Member

New Member

Classic

Local Legend

New Member

Local Legend

Local Legend

New Member