Unreal Tournament 2003 Mac OS X

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: well

Originally posted by Abstract



Sorry, I remembered wrong. This person said 80 fps on the 1st page of this thread. To me, this also sounds fairly low. Imagine what Doom is going to be like.

Two things, Unreal Tournament is not dual processor aware. Unless they added it recently and this was a prerelease version that according to the developers will not be out for another month or two. Think about it. That's at least another month of debugging and optimizing. That means the code they are using could possibly be sped up a lot. Also another good think to look at is the FPS for Unreal Tournament the original very few PCs or Macs ever achieved over 50FPS because of poor coding. I would expect very little different in the quality of ther hardware optimizations with UT2k3.

[edit]I just went hunting around the net for PC scores with UT2k3 and found that the absolute best hardware on the planet as of yesterday can just barely break 100FPS at high quality 1024x768. That means if the Dual/1.25/DDR PowerMac is getting 80FPS on a prerelease that's pretty impressive. Expect Macs to be nipping at the heels in gaming frame rates of some of the fastest computers on the planet.[/edit]

 

[ExoticFish]

100fps?

MacBandit, the fastest PC's out there can run UT2k3 at like 1280x1024 at over 100 FPS here's a graph from www.tomshardware.com. Running on an Athlon XP 2700+ and a Radeon 9700 Pro at 1024x768 the frame rate is 177 FPS.

 

[MacBandit]

Re: 100fps?

Originally posted by ExoticFish
MacBandit, the fastest PC's out there can run UT2k3 at like 1280x1024 at over 100 FPS here's a graph from www.tomshardware.com. Running on an Athlon XP 2700+ and a Radeon 9700 Pro at 1024x768 the frame rate is 177 FPS.

Definitely beats the tests that I was coming up with. I am definitely humbled but continue to stand by my statement that the DDR PowerMacs will run Ut2k3 with plenty of speed well in excess of 100FPS with an ATI9700Pro once the final release is made.

I even looked at tomshardware but I must have been looking for the wrong thing I was looking for reviews of the ATI9700Pro that showed tests of Ut2k3.

 

[ExoticFish]

I don't want you to think that I was being down on you, not at all! UT2K3 is one reason I upgraded my powerbook! I can't wait to play it as my powerbook is now more powerful than my PC which is only 900MHz.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ExoticFish
I don't want you to think that I was being down on you, not at all! UT2K3 is one reason I upgraded my powerbook! I can't wait to play it as my powerbook is now more powerful than my PC which is only 900MHz.

Not at all I come to these boards looking for a good discussion. Also through these discussions we often share knowledge and sources such as you did. Now I know for sure what sort of FPS we should be shooting for with a Ut2k3. On the other hand as I've said before look at the original Unreal Tournament they haven't shown a vast knowledge of being able to optimize there code for the systems there right for.

 

[ExoticFish]

Originally posted by MacBandit

On the other hand as I've said before look at the original Unreal Tournament they haven't shown a vast knowledge of being able to optimize there code for the systems there right for.

That is an understatement to say the least. Quake 3 has higher system requirements than UT on the PC and for good reason. But under OS X, Quake 3 outperforms UT by a huge margin. My 1 GHz powerbook handles Quake 3 like a bat out of hell, but in UT it doesn't feel like it's running all that great. I get awesome frame rates don't get me wrong, but it's no where near as responsive as Quake 3. I think it has a lot to do with ID Software created Quake 3 for multi-platform where UT has always been an afterthought.

 

[MrMacMan]

Re: Little Orphan Apple

Originally posted by R3z
I imagine apple is working their @ss off to get those IBM processors out the door. Frankly, they're getting beaten like a redheaded stepchild when it comes to CPU growth, and wherever the blame lies, THIS IS A PROBLEM. When we have PC's going at 4ghz and Macs still haven't crossed 1.8, it's going to be a problem. The Mhz myth however true is becoming a bit tired, and Apple needs to find a different way to dispel it, like faster proccessers.

Most of us barely use 20% of our processors (unless you got some pretty impressive porn ), but how many of us look at the speed when buying a new computer? When you have the brand new shiney 1.25ghz Apple sitting next to the 3ghz Dell, it just looks bad. I'd say thats one of the biggest challenges Apple currently has, and I think that might even be why we didnt see the speed increases at this macworld...

First of all, Tom's Hardware got the P4 to 4 GHZ but
A) intel said inless presured by AMD they will not realese anything above 3.6
B) Tom's Hardware got the P4 to 4GHZ by overclocking so much that they need to freeze the chip. (Under-statement of the year)
They needed hardware to cool it to -52 degress CELCIUS. Yeah no misprint -52 DEGREES.
Intel will *NOT* implement this anytime soon.

Many of use game just not FPS, I will get into them when UT2K3 comes out, heck I already joined a clan, for the pre-release.

I'm hoping we get some Decent FPS and that they don't keep batching our game drivers and abality of our processors. Ech.
It aint only the processor and graphics card, it is the game too people.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by ExoticFish


That is an understatement to say the least. Quake 3 has higher system requirements than UT on the PC and for good reason. But under OS X, Quake 3 outperforms UT by a huge margin. My 1 GHz powerbook handles Quake 3 like a bat out of hell, but in UT it doesn't feel like it's running all that great. I get awesome frame rates don't get me wrong, but it's no where near as responsive as Quake 3. I think it has a lot to do with ID Software created Quake 3 for multi-platform where UT has always been an afterthought.

Even on a PC the FPS suck with Unreal Tournament. Look at this . I know that is pretty old but it gives you an idea of how poor the optimization was for either platform.

 

[ExoticFish]

very interesting

hhhmmm... wow, that's interesting to see. I know that one reason Quake 3 runs so good on OS X is because it is duel processor aware where UT is not. That helps, but those FPS for UT look way too low to be true. Now I'm interested in going home and running some benchmarks of my own! =0)

 

[MacBandit]

Re: very interesting

Originally posted by ExoticFish
hhhmmm... wow, that's interesting to see. I know that one reason Quake 3 runs so good on OS X is because it is duel processor aware where UT is not. That helps, but those FPS for UT look way too low to be true. Now I'm interested in going home and running some benchmarks of my own! =0)

I rarely see over 40FPS even with my Dual/GHz/DDR powermac with a G4MX in Unreal Tournament. I know a faster graphics card could help but I don't think it will help much with that poorly written game.

 

[ExoticFish]

sheesh... how do I benchmark UT and Quake 3 to see my results?

 

[trose]

Doom...Bah

Why is everyone so hyped about Doom 3? I never liked the original mindless-bloodfest Doom's and Im sure I wont like this one even if they make it so friggin graphics intensive only the best PC's can play it well. Thats poor business practice and I hope the game sells about as much as it deserves to sell,which isnt much. Why is it that hardware is always trying to play catchup to the new games? Maybe developers need to start making things a bit more compatible.

 

[ExoticFish]

i totally agree that programmers should be more capable of reducing the requirements of their programs and games and such. But the hype of Doom 3 is dear lord have you seen the screen shots????????? I remember when Unreal came out (the first not UT), no machine available could play it the way it was meant to be. People wonder why computers are getting so much faster, all because games are demanding the resources.

 

[mattmack]

Re: Re: very interesting

Originally posted by MacBandit


I rarely see over 40FPS even with my Dual/GHz/DDR powermac with a G4MX in Unreal Tournament. I know a faster graphics card could help but I don't think it will help much with that poorly written game.

I agree and the nvidia card is geared for frame rates in Quake

 

[trose]

Ok,I agree that games do need to come out and look continue looking better,but if they do,they need to be adjustable to appeal to a larger market. Quake 3 is very adjustable,you can make it a ugly blockfest to run on a lowly Beige G3 or pump it up to max settings that still compare favorably with newer games on your brand new G4. From what Ive heard though,Doom isnt gonna allow anything but the top of the line, I may be wrong though,anyone know what the min specs are?

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by trose
Ok,I agree that games do need to come out and look continue looking better,but if they do,they need to be adjustable to appeal to a larger market. Quake 3 is very adjustable,you can make it a ugly blockfest to run on a lowly Beige G3 or pump it up to max settings that still compare favorably with newer games on your brand new G4. From what Ive heard though,Doom isnt gonna allow anything but the top of the line, I may be wrong though,anyone know what the min specs are?

From what I have heard the final version wil allow you to run it at sizes lower then 640x480 and low detail. Though from what I understand even at those setting it will take a pretty decent computer to run it. Meaning pretty much any mac with less then 700MHz will probably be screwed.

The reason everyone is so hyped is the graphics are a total leap ahead. Also it will run on nearly any mid to high end hardware produced in the last couple years as long as the computer has ram it's just a matter of adjusting the settings.

 

[NicoMan]

Re: Yes, you're talking rubbish...

Originally posted by Bengt77
UT2003 is the sequel to UT, and is therefore purely multiplayer. U2, on the other hand, is the sequel to U, which is (mainly) a single player, story-based gaming experience.

Thanks for that. I was sort of missing the point.
I was bowled over by UT but never actually played Unreal...

NicoMan

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Abstract

Someone posted and said that with UT2k3, the PowerMacs were only getting 40 fps, which is low in my opinion. What happens when Doom comes out?

Different engine, different coders, different porting process. Also, keep in mind that the 970, coupled with greater memory bandwidth (the real issue) and a Radeon 9700 or a GeForce FX is going to be JUST FINE for running Doom 3. I have no doubt this will be the best year ever for the Mac. I'm serious. Say all you want about the processor gap right now, but things will turn around there-- it's not all the CPU's fault. It's a lot of parts that when fixed, as a whole, will yield amazing results.

Also, lets not forget that 40 FPS in a heavy firefight is actually very good. Most machines can quote high 100 FPS when nothing is going on. Your eye can't see anything past a *consistent* 60 FPS, so if you peak higher you don't see it. You want the valley to be at about 40 to 60 FPS. If the valley is that high, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[trose]

Actualy,I am really impressed by the Mac's ability to game. If you look at pure hardware specs it looks like the Mac should trounced,but if the game is properly coded to take advantage of Mac specific features,they really kick ass.

Quake 3 is just about the only game I can think of that utilizes MP's and Altivec,on Quake 3 "Fastest" setting,which is basicaly a determiner of CPU power,the Dual 1.25 G4 pumped out 298 FPS,while a P4 2ghz achieved 242 and an Athlon 1.67 pulled 215. Infact,the G4 1ghz achived 248 FPS,thats better than both PC's.

So basicaly Apple isnt talking nonsense when they say that Dual G4's kick arse. Thats even with all the flaws in the current design that hinder the G4 and the system from running at its full capacity. If the 970 can really fix all the shortcomings,Id bet its gonna be one hell of a CPU and im excited to perhaps have the chance to see Mac's once again become the speed champs (Remember the G3 vs P2 or G4 vs early P3's?). Rock on IBM!

 

[MrMacMan]

Well I hope they tweak everything just right so we can get some real FPS!

 

[NicoMan]

Originally posted by MrMacman
Well I hope they tweak everything just right so we can get some real FPS!

Well as long as good FPS are available to consumer machines (read: GeForce MX in iMac wtf is that all about ??)

NicoMan

 

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by ExoticFish
People wonder why computers are getting so much faster, all because games are demanding the resources.

... and it's always been that way. It always will be. In a poll last year by a major research firm, more people said theyl'd like to play video games than watch tv, play a sport, read a book, etc. Video games drive the industry.

Personally, I'm not much interested in the plot of Doom 3, as I never thought the originals were very good. However, the graphics look absolutely amazing... and I can't wait to see it running on my Mac!

 

[trose]

Doom3

The only reason I will be excited to see Doom 3 would be the potential mods. A new Urban Terror or Team Fortress would be awesome. Though I guess the mod developers are still pretty happy with the Quake 3 engine and will probably wait for Quake 4 before remaking mods.

The Quake engines have always been my favorite,all the way since Quake 1. They are very flexible and thats why they have such a huge Mod selection. I never buy a Quake game for Quake itself,its always for the Mods.

 

[mangoman]

To (ahemm..clearing throat), get this back on topic, trose brings up a good point. One of the killer things 'bout UT is the mods. Just when I thought the game was feeling a lil' tired, I'd find some crazy ass map like "Biosphere", or some freakazoid weapons mod that would blow my doors off. UT NEVER GOT OLD. And I've never said that about any other game. Ever.

 

[ExoticFish]

hehehe

to get this thread back off topic, i feel the same about Quake 3. I've never gotten sick of it!