Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo Released
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I fit the minimum requirements fairly well. I played with my 733 g4 and my Radeon 9000 Pro. I'm pretty sure the 733 is the bottleneck, but the game was playable at the default setting, and the graphics were still pretty nice. When I upped the resolution, everything went well when I was alone, but when gunfire was everywhere and people were jumping all over the place, it dropped pretty badly. (It also dropped with the lower res. but what can ya do? Sorry but I have no exact fps numbers)
Looks like a well written game (optimized), especially compared to the old UT. Should run extremely well on high end PowerMacs.
Edit: oh and I have 1.25 gigs of ram
Looks like a well written game (optimized), especially compared to the old UT. Should run extremely well on high end PowerMacs.
Edit: oh and I have 1.25 gigs of ram
eh..
well im not sure what some of you peoples idea of "playable" is, but after playing this on my 1ghz,1gb ram 15" PB... it felt pretty sluggish at 800x600 with default details. im probably just way to picky, because if i feel even a little bit of mouse lag or chopiness, it bothers me.
well im not sure what some of you peoples idea of "playable" is, but after playing this on my 1ghz,1gb ram 15" PB... it felt pretty sluggish at 800x600 with default details. im probably just way to picky, because if i feel even a little bit of mouse lag or chopiness, it bothers me.
Re: eh..
What video card are you running? The 64mb, or the 32mb? This will make a HUGE difference.
edit...
I am another that is curious about the 12" PB scores...if anyone has any info, that would be great.
What video card are you running? The 64mb, or the 32mb? This will make a HUGE difference.
edit...
I am another that is curious about the 12" PB scores...if anyone has any info, that would be great.
Zenith
macrumors 6502
It runs with decent speed on my QS 733 with OEM GeForce 2 MX. I can't get the exact fps because I can't bring down the console (norwegian keyboard), but I think it averages on about 15 fps. I'm sure the 733 is the bottleneck here... It doesn't matter which resolution or complex graphics I run. Is UT2k3 aware of multiprocessors? It seems like it's running great on all duals, even dual 450's. The 733 lacks L3 cache, so maybe that got something to do with it.
pimentoLoaf
macrumors 68010
The demo is a minor thing. If the actual program is otherwise identical to the PC one, you're gonna be amazed.
The PC version also includes Maya 4 PLE with a special plug-in that allows the UT2003 editor to use stuff without worrying about Maya watermarks. Haven't tried that yet.
The PC version also includes Maya 4 PLE with a special plug-in that allows the UT2003 editor to use stuff without worrying about Maya watermarks. Haven't tried that yet.
MacBandit
macrumors 604
One liner posts like this are innapropriate.
Please make a difference by posting your actual fram rates and what graphics card you have along with the machine info. This way people can reference there machine against yours.
Check frame rates by bringing down the console with the '~' key and then type 'stat fps'.
MacBandit
macrumors 604
Re: eh..
I agree. I find it playable but it isn't particularly good. Some people don't notice the jumping or lag though because it happens so fast. I just know that games like QuakeIIIArena are fluid on my Dual/GHz/DDR with a gig of ram and the G4MX were as this game is far from fluid but still playable. Asking someone how the game plays on there machine is the same as asking them how some bit rate of such and such song sounded. It's all open to interpretation by each person and some people are picky and other people have no standards.
All in all I would say that the engine behind UT2003 hasn't been optimized much just like the original UT. The frame rates are pretty much locked in by the game engine rather then the hardware it's playing on. With UT you could have the fastest Mac on the planet and the slowest one side by side and the difference in frame rates would usually be no more then %50. This is the complete opposite with QuakeIII which was a very well coded game in which Macs could compete with PCs for frame rates. With QuakeIII my machine can get near 200FPS with low resolutions. Even with high resolutions it holds around 30FPS. Now compare that to any UT game. With a high end machine and the best graphics card one can get the best FPS you get with low resolution are only 30% faster then the best FPS you get with maximum resolution.
I agree. I find it playable but it isn't particularly good. Some people don't notice the jumping or lag though because it happens so fast. I just know that games like QuakeIIIArena are fluid on my Dual/GHz/DDR with a gig of ram and the G4MX were as this game is far from fluid but still playable. Asking someone how the game plays on there machine is the same as asking them how some bit rate of such and such song sounded. It's all open to interpretation by each person and some people are picky and other people have no standards.
All in all I would say that the engine behind UT2003 hasn't been optimized much just like the original UT. The frame rates are pretty much locked in by the game engine rather then the hardware it's playing on. With UT you could have the fastest Mac on the planet and the slowest one side by side and the difference in frame rates would usually be no more then %50. This is the complete opposite with QuakeIII which was a very well coded game in which Macs could compete with PCs for frame rates. With QuakeIII my machine can get near 200FPS with low resolutions. Even with high resolutions it holds around 30FPS. Now compare that to any UT game. With a high end machine and the best graphics card one can get the best FPS you get with low resolution are only 30% faster then the best FPS you get with maximum resolution.
It runs pretty nice on my MDD 867, Radeon 9000, 1gig RAM. About 25-30 fps on average. Is definately faster than the AMD XP1700 w/ Radeon 7000 I use at work.
I doubt I will purchase it though. As a standalone game UT is better, but after the mods come out I am sure the Doom 3 engine is going to rock.
My Mac beats the crap out of PC's with twice the Mhz in Quake 3, because it was actualy coded with Macs in mind, not just as an afterthought. I expect Doom 3 will have similar enhancements.
I doubt I will purchase it though. As a standalone game UT is better, but after the mods come out I am sure the Doom 3 engine is going to rock.
My Mac beats the crap out of PC's with twice the Mhz in Quake 3, because it was actualy coded with Macs in mind, not just as an afterthought. I expect Doom 3 will have similar enhancements.
Playable to me means that you can actually run around without the game feeling sluggish. It also means you can fight with others and actually aim at the person, not skip all over the place. Frame rate wise, thats probably around 20-30. But, obviously, whats ideal is probably something around 70-150 fps.
I have an old machine, so I dont expect much. I just wish my 733 wern't as much of a bottleneck to my Radeon 9000 Pro.
I have an old machine, so I dont expect much. I just wish my 733 wern't as much of a bottleneck to my Radeon 9000 Pro.
Looks like my PC still has a use then...
12" Powerbook 640MB - too slow to play effectively - 15-20 fps with everything on minumum @ 800x600 on 10.2.6. Just too slow compared to my PC.
And that is only on these 'simple' demo levels - the full game has some amazingly complex open levels with rotating planets in the sky and all manner of s**t going on at once that even my fast PC slows down to 10fps even though it gets 60fps in these demo levels. It really is the only reason to buy a PC 🙂 So the performance on the demo levels does not bode well for the full game.
Guess we have to wait for the 970! But at least its here - nearly.
12" Powerbook 640MB - too slow to play effectively - 15-20 fps with everything on minumum @ 800x600 on 10.2.6. Just too slow compared to my PC.
And that is only on these 'simple' demo levels - the full game has some amazingly complex open levels with rotating planets in the sky and all manner of s**t going on at once that even my fast PC slows down to 10fps even though it gets 60fps in these demo levels. It really is the only reason to buy a PC 🙂 So the performance on the demo levels does not bode well for the full game.
Guess we have to wait for the 970! But at least its here - nearly.
MacBandit
macrumors 604
I agree about the playability but I'm surprized that you can't get it playable on your machine with a few tweaks. Are you sure you don't have any back ground tasks running? Also how much ram do you have? You're machine should do fairly well. Though I must say my Dual/GHz/DDR with G4MX doesn't play it fluidly. Think of it as a chanllenge. I played on some game servers last night and even though it wasn't fluid it was still playable and I wasn't any where near last place.
Yeah, I had the same experience with my 12" powerbook. Pretty dissappointed. Funny thing is that you're frame rates are pretty close to mine, but i'm only running 256MB to your 640MB.
Meanwhile, some dood with an ibook 800 is posting 20-30fps times. WTF? Could it be the Radeon under the hood? Or is it the 512k on chip cache? (why oh why is this notebook so cache crippled?)
I blame it primarily on the GeForce 440 go or whatever the F. it's called. The one thing I've noticed in these posts is pretty consistent link between poorer framerates and NVidia cards.
Two guys to be exact, i'll post a screen cap after class ok? However judging from your RAM and superior graphics card it doesn't make sense
MacBandit
macrumors 604
Well for one the G3 in the iBook actually outperforms a G4 at the same MHz at CPU intensive tasks which UT was and I assume UT2003 is also because of the poor frame rates. Also I thin you're correct that the GeForce 440 is not on the same level as the ATI in the iBook.
It is incorrect though to blame all poor frame rates on NVidia cards as one of the fastest cards available for the Mac is the NVidia Ge4Ti. It's just that of all the graphics cards that Apple has used they have for the most part used slower NVidia cards as compared to the ATI cards they have used.
Hmm, I've heard this before, but don't buy it.
Well, I'm not blaming it all on the Nvidia cards, but browse through every page of this discussion, and you'll see a correlation. Note that I did not say cause.
I take issue with this idea that the G3 800 is better at cpu-intensive stuff than the G4 867. The benchmarks at barefeats, macspeedzone, et al, do not show this. It shows the two (ibook and 12" pbook) as neck in neck on many tasks, with ibook slightly ahead on some, and 12" pbook on others. It is "comparable" on non-altivec cpu, single-task stuff.
After looking at many benchmarks and reader reports (here and at img and xlr8) I think it's fair to narrow the reasons for the 12"'s underperformance to: a) cache size and b) graphics card.
*I can't remember who it was, but someone with a Radeon 7500 tibook 667mhz was pulling really good frame rates for a system that's supposed to be under spec. That's a G4 that's slower than the ibook, with a boost in terms of having L3, and exactly the same graphics card as the ibook. Now, I wouldn't this say that this represents a g3 outperforming a g4, would you?
BTW, I encourage everyone to read up on how to run the UT benchmark, over at www.xlr8yourmac.com and contribute your results to their database.
Well, I'm not blaming it all on the Nvidia cards, but browse through every page of this discussion, and you'll see a correlation. Note that I did not say cause.
I take issue with this idea that the G3 800 is better at cpu-intensive stuff than the G4 867. The benchmarks at barefeats, macspeedzone, et al, do not show this. It shows the two (ibook and 12" pbook) as neck in neck on many tasks, with ibook slightly ahead on some, and 12" pbook on others. It is "comparable" on non-altivec cpu, single-task stuff.
After looking at many benchmarks and reader reports (here and at img and xlr8) I think it's fair to narrow the reasons for the 12"'s underperformance to: a) cache size and b) graphics card.
*I can't remember who it was, but someone with a Radeon 7500 tibook 667mhz was pulling really good frame rates for a system that's supposed to be under spec. That's a G4 that's slower than the ibook, with a boost in terms of having L3, and exactly the same graphics card as the ibook. Now, I wouldn't this say that this represents a g3 outperforming a g4, would you?
BTW, I encourage everyone to read up on how to run the UT benchmark, over at www.xlr8yourmac.com and contribute your results to their database.
From my past experience graphics cards are what make up fps rates anyways.
I tried to snapshot, but got a bunch of lines instead, seems like you'll have to believe me unless you can find another method, other then grab
I tried to snapshot, but got a bunch of lines instead, seems like you'll have to believe me unless you can find another method, other then grab
Here r some screenshots
Dual 1.25 GHz, 2GB RAM, Gf4t1, 1280*1024, 32 bit, high/highest ...
http://homepage.mac.com/miserlou/PhotoAlbum7.html
Dual 1.25 GHz, 2GB RAM, Gf4t1, 1280*1024, 32 bit, high/highest ...
http://homepage.mac.com/miserlou/PhotoAlbum7.html
may I ask how u obtained the screen shots? I tried apple + shift + 3 and it got a bunch of scrappy lines and everytime I pressed it it would lower my fps by about 5.
If you've got a 667MHz Powerbook G4 with 16MB Radeon then forget it. You'll be tempted to download this, but don't bother wasting your time. Don't say I didn't warn you.
And trust me, you'll still download it 😛
And trust me, you'll still download it 😛