UT2004 on G5/Radeon 9600 Performance problems

Discussion in 'Games' started by oingoboingo, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. oingoboingo macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #1
    I've been playing the UT2004 demo for a few days now on my 1.6GHz G5, with 1.25GB of RAM and a Radeon 9600. I have noticed that others on these forums have been getting good performance, even on the 'Onslaught' game type. However, I'm still struggling to achieve a playable frame rate. I've tried resolutions starting at 1600x1200, and I've been dropping them down to try and find a level of acceptable performance, but without any luck.

    I've even been attempting to play at 800x600 (32 bit colour, 'Low' model/texture detail, Trilinear filtering disabled), and I'm still only getting around 10-15 fps when playing Onslaught over the net (ie: not against bots). Does this sound normal? Included below is the output from the video card config section of the System Profiler. Do I have some weird type of driver issue going on here?

    I'm having trouble believing that some people are seeing frame rates of above 30fps with GeForce FX5200 equipped G5s, and I'm getting less than half of that with a Radeon 9600. I can do a full reboot and it doesn't solve the problem. Nothing else except the Finder is running while I'm playing. The servers I'm connecting to are nearby and I'm getting pings of 50-60ms over my 512K ADSL connection. My G5 didn't have any type of problem running UT2003.

    Just one thought...are people running the demo from the mounted disk image that you download, or have you all copied it from there to a 'real' part of the disk. Does running things from mounted disk images slow anything down? I'll try that next.

    Any help or advice appreciated. Are there other G5 1.6GHz/Radeon 9600 owners out there? How are you finding Onslaught mode performance?


    ATY,RV350:

    Type: display
    Bus: AGP
    Slot: SLOT-1
    VRAM (Total): 64 MB
    Vendor: ATI (0x1002)
    Device ID: 0x4150
    Revision ID: 0x0000
    ROM Revision: 113-A13601-126

    Display:

    Type: display
    Display Type: CRT
    VRAM (In Use): 64 MB
    Resolution: 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz
    Depth: 32-bit Color
    Main Display: Yes
    Mirror: Off
    Online: Yes

    ATY,Simone_B:

    Status: No display connected
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    open the disc image and drag it to your drive. let us know if it helped.
     
  3. oingoboingo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #3
    Thanks, I just tried that. I also dropped my video settings even further (800x600 in 16 bit colour, uncheck *all* of the extra options, like shadows, decals, foliage, etc, placed all other settings at 'Low'), and I'm still only getting 10-15fps in Onslaught mode. Something must be severely messed up here. My FPS scores (I just type 'stat fps' at the console to get these figures) don't seem to really improve no matter what resolution or detail settings I'm running at. BTW, it's not just the FPS counter mis-reporting stats...the game is terribly choppy and almost unplayable.

    Normally this kind of thing would indicate the CPU being a bottleneck, but I would have a really hard time believing that a 1.6GHz G5 would be a bottleneck. If I have time this weekend I might do a fresh install of Panther (I did an upgrade install from Jaguar, so I don't know if a full format-and-reinstall type job might help).

    Thanks for the advice though.
    Mat.
     
  4. oingoboingo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #4
    More strangeness

    OK, something else for the gurus to explain. On a whim I tried raising the resolution to 1280x960 and going back to 32-bit colour. UT2004 in Onslaught mode now runs at a reasonably playable 20-30fps. The ATI Radeon 9600 drivers (or UT) most be optimised for higher resolutions and colour depths. Otherwise I can't explain this one...I almost doubled my frame rate from going *up* from 800x600x16 to 1280x960x32. Strange. Anyway, the demo is playable now, so I'm back to getting hy head repeatedly cut off by 11-year old Manta and Scorpion drivers who are inifinitely better than me at this game (don't you hate that?)
     
  5. Edot macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Location:
    NJ
    #5
    FPS

    How are you determining the FPS? Are you reading a number put out by the program? Or can you noticeably tell a difference of about half? There may be a bug in the calculation of FPS.
     
  6. oingoboingo thread starter macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #6
    Re: FPS

    I am getting an idea of the FPS range by displaying the onscreen FPS counter (by typing 'stat fps' in the console window), and then watching it as the game progresses. I know this isn't a great benchmarking method, but it does give an approximate idea of the speed at which the game is running.

    As I mentioned previously, I don't think there is a bug in the FPS counting routine. There is a noticeable and marked improvement in the smoothness of gameplay when bumping the resolution up from 800x600. Alternatively, the game was almost unplayable at 800x600, which reflects the FPS ranges given by the FPS counter.

    I'm really not sure what's going on there, but I'm happy enough to have a UT2004 demo which runs at a playable speed at 1280x960x32.
     
  7. jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #7
    run top in the terminal and see if anything is killing your CPU or memory.
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    Drivers , its a nvidea game if you will. it shows it right when you start so you think its going to be set up for ATI ? Just like Halo and all those nvidea problems.
     
  9. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #9
    Are you running folding? If so even though it is set at nice+20 for some reason it kills frame rates. Also I have read several reports of people getting better results at the higher resolutions. Some people are thinking this is because that's the native resolution of either the video card or the monitor. I'm not sure why this is but there are a lot of people mirroring your results.
     
  10. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #10
    Forgot to ask him if his energy settings are set to max, that can make a difference on g5s right?
     
  11. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #11
    Definitely. To get maximum performance from a G5 you need to set the performance setting in the energy settings to max.
     
  12. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #12
    I dont think thats the issue. I have it on auto and my crappy azz nvidia 5200 can push 30fps on 1024x768. and about 45-55 on 800x600.

    He may have a serious problem that is hard to uncover. Like my first video card ati 9600 that would not turn on with a comp whenever it felt like but all tests showed it to be fine. Apple was nice about replacing it though.
    Try Ut2003, cuz ut2k4 is still a demo.
    if ut2003 has same problem, reinstall the system and see how it does then. if it doesnt work, id suggest show it to apple. see what they can do.
     
  13. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #13
    I agree with you rezet, i have had a few problems with the demo on my 1.4. sort of like a public beta. rezet is that a 1.6 or 1.8 you got? fx5200 drops big time at 1024x 768 from the benches i have seen and you just confirmed it. 9600 is suppose to hold that resolution a lot better.
     
  14. mishi macrumors regular

    mishi

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #14
    that's strange

    That is really strange. i've tried the 2004 demo on my komp (PB 17' 1.33 ghz 9600 64mb 1 gig ram) and i typed the stat fps into the console and it counted at about 30-35, i dont think this is true but the game is easy playable and it is almost as good as my brothers toshiba P-20 3.2 Ghz HT, but he does have a nvidia card, so i dont think it would be a driver issue, i think u sould talk 2 apple about it
     
  15. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #15
    My wife'sAL15 1.25GHz with 9600-64MB and 512MB of RAM gets right around 30fps as well. It is quite playable on it.
     
  16. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #16
    I highly recommend you go back to default settings, play around, check the fps with "stat fps" in the console window (using the ~ key), and tweaking from there.

    I found the default settings for certain games perform much better than just jumping to the lowest possible settings.
     
  17. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #17
    Agreed. The best way to do this is to move the application support folder and the .plist file in the preference folder for UT2004.
     
  18. thatwendigo macrumors 6502a

    thatwendigo

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Sum, Ergo Sum.
    #18
    If you're playing the demo, as I think I saw you say, oingo, then make sure that you have the audio bug taken care of. I don't know if it affects G5 systems, but there's a serious flaw in the demo code that screws framerate to roughyl half what it should be.

    macosxhints says:
    This is a fix found on the Bugtraq site for the Unureal Tourname 2004 Demo. There seems to be a huge performance issue with the audio system in the UT2004 Demo that absolutely kills frame rates on single processor machines. To turn off audio on the demo, edit the UT2004.ini file located in you user's Library -> Application Support -> Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo -> System folder. Change the UseSound argument from True to False. ​
     
  19. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #19
    Retail Unreal 2004

    After playing the demo for over 2 months I purchased the retail version. It is much better and smoother than the demo. Also it doesn't have that annoying hum sound during the game.

    They have this one vehicle that reminds me of a big school bus that has guns all around it. It has some great maps and it seems to have all the maps and games from Unreal 2003. I cranked up all the settings on maximum on my G5 with 9600 for my monitor and it still plays very smooth.

    At 39.95, it's a great buy.
     
  20. MacBandit macrumors 604

    MacBandit

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Location:
    Springfield, OR (Home of the Simpsons)
    #20
    True the final version has a lot of optimizations that the demo doesn't have and probably will never receive.
     
  21. lordmac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    #21
    update

    Last time i was browsing macgamefiles.com I saw there was an update for the demo. perhaps this update will help with ati video cards i couldn't tell you because i dont have a ati card in my mac so it runs the same. hope it helps.
     
  22. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    well igot around 15fps on my dual cube (radeon 7500) very respectable

    ahh playability

    (on that mission when you get the missiles in the dessert
     

Share This Page