UT2K4 Frame Rates

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Here's my specs...

2.66 Pentium 4.
512 Meg of ram.
ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
Sound off the mother board.

What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?

Thank you.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:50:15 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
wrote:

>Here's my specs...
>
>2.66 Pentium 4.
>512 Meg of ram.
>ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
>Sound off the mother board.
>
>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>
>Thank you.
>
>

I have a similar system (overclocking a P4 2.6 to 3.1ghz
and have a ATI Radeon 9700 Pro) and get 140 - 150 fps
at 1024 x 768 16bit video. Setting video to 16 bit, instead of 24 or
32 really does help frame rates (saves on video ram).

Since any video game looks very good at anything over 60 fps, I don't
think you'll have to worry about frame rates.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Darmok" <cooncatspam@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5v8i01ve7ovcm09bplrlqfgsal4rng3fc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:50:15 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
> wrote:
>
>>Here's my specs...
>>
>>2.66 Pentium 4.
>>512 Meg of ram.
>>ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
>>Sound off the mother board.
>>
>>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>>
>>Thank you.
>>

>
> I have a similar system (overclocking a P4 2.6 to 3.1ghz
> and have a ATI Radeon 9700 Pro) and get 140 - 150 fps
> at 1024 x 768 16bit video. Setting video to 16 bit, instead of 24 or
> 32 really does help frame rates (saves on video ram).
>
> Since any video game looks very good at anything over 60 fps, I don't
> think you'll have to worry about frame rates.

Thanks a lot for responding.
The reason I was asking is this. When I first got the vid card a few
weeks ago, UT2K4 was the first game I tried and I was very
impressed with the performance, but then.
it seemed like my FPS dropped. Now, even in 800X600 with all the details
run as low as they can go, my fps drop into the 20s. I know the map make a
lot
of difference with frame rates. The further off you see the slower it runs,
etc. I've tried
different setting and the OS has even been reinstalled. With this set-up,
should my frame
rates ever get this low?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Darmok" <cooncatspam@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5v8i01ve7ovcm09bplrlqfgsal4rng3fc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:50:15 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
> wrote:
>
>>Here's my specs...
>>
>>2.66 Pentium 4.
>>512 Meg of ram.
>>ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
>>Sound off the mother board.
>>
>>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>>
>>Thank you.
>>

>
> I have a similar system (overclocking a P4 2.6 to 3.1ghz
> and have a ATI Radeon 9700 Pro) and get 140 - 150 fps
> at 1024 x 768 16bit video. Setting video to 16 bit, instead of 24 or
> 32 really does help frame rates (saves on video ram).
>
> Since any video game looks very good at anything over 60 fps, I don't
> think you'll have to worry about frame rates.

Thanks a lot for responding.
The reason I was asking is this. When I first got the vid card a few
weeks ago, UT2K4 was the first game I tried and I was very
impressed with the performance, but then.
it seemed like my FPS dropped. Now, even in 800X600 with all the details
run as low as they can go, my fps drop into the 20s. I know the map make a
lot
of difference with frame rates. The further off you see the slower it runs,
etc. I've tried
different setting and the OS has even been reinstalled. With this set-up,
should my frame
rates ever get this low?
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:51:11 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
wrote:

>"Darmok" <cooncatspam@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d5v8i01ve7ovcm09bplrlqfgsal4rng3fc@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:50:15 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's my specs...
>>>
>>>2.66 Pentium 4.
>>>512 Meg of ram.
>>>ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
>>>Sound off the mother board.
>>>
>>>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>>>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>>
>
>>
>> I have a similar system (overclocking a P4 2.6 to 3.1ghz
>> and have a ATI Radeon 9700 Pro) and get 140 - 150 fps
>> at 1024 x 768 16bit video. Setting video to 16 bit, instead of 24 or
>> 32 really does help frame rates (saves on video ram).
>>
>> Since any video game looks very good at anything over 60 fps, I don't
>> think you'll have to worry about frame rates.
>
>Thanks a lot for responding.
>The reason I was asking is this. When I first got the vid card a few
>weeks ago, UT2K4 was the first game I tried and I was very
>impressed with the performance, but then.
>it seemed like my FPS dropped. Now, even in 800X600 with all the details
>run as low as they can go, my fps drop into the 20s. I know the map make a
>lot
>of difference with frame rates. The further off you see the slower it runs,
>etc. I've tried
>different setting and the OS has even been reinstalled. With this set-up,
>should my frame
>rates ever get this low?
>
>

Something is very wrong. With that card and system, you should be
able to play at high res, with all the bells and whistles on, and
still get great frame rates.

Do you have the latest ATI Radeon Drivers? ATI seems to come out with
new ones about every 6 weeks .. actually, I should check for myself to
see if new ones are available.

How's your DirectX install? Got the latest 9.0b? Do the ATI driver
1st, then do the DirectX. Go to START/RUN and type in "DXDIAG" and
see how happy DirectX is.

There are a zillion settings in the ATI advanced settings area. If
you've tweaked, set everything back to default. Of course, if you are
installing new drivers, they may come up at default anyway.

Good luck
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:04:35 -0400, Darmok
<cooncatspam@rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
>Do you have the latest ATI Radeon Drivers? ATI seems to come out with
>new ones about every 6 weeks .. actually, I should check for myself to
>see if new ones are available.

Whoa! Good thing I checked for myself! I am currently running the
ATI Catalyst version 4.5 on this machine, and I see that the latest is
version 4.8 !!! I'm 3 versions behind, and I could swear it hasn't
been but a couple months since I installed 4.5. Oh well, going to do
the SP2 update this week some time, then will update the Catalyst
drivers after that.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now> writes:
>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?

Turn everything on. Your system should be able to sling frames faster than
any scanrate you're likely to pick without breaking a sweat. I have a
similar setup and play at 1280 x 960 (85 hz) with all the bells and whistles
on, and everything's smooth. I've never turned on the framerate flag though. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Darmok" <cooncatspam@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:7k8ai01kcjn46ehqt5c95ivfi0o05li4qc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:51:11 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
> wrote:
>
>>"Darmok" <cooncatspam@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:d5v8i01ve7ovcm09bplrlqfgsal4rng3fc@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:50:15 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here's my specs...
>>>>
>>>>2.66 Pentium 4.
>>>>512 Meg of ram.
>>>>ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
>>>>Sound off the mother board.
>>>>
>>>>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>>>>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>>>>
>>>>Thank you.
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I have a similar system (overclocking a P4 2.6 to 3.1ghz
>>> and have a ATI Radeon 9700 Pro) and get 140 - 150 fps
>>> at 1024 x 768 16bit video. Setting video to 16 bit, instead of 24 or
>>> 32 really does help frame rates (saves on video ram).
>>>
>>> Since any video game looks very good at anything over 60 fps, I don't
>>> think you'll have to worry about frame rates.
>>
>>Thanks a lot for responding.
>>The reason I was asking is this. When I first got the vid card a few
>>weeks ago, UT2K4 was the first game I tried and I was very
>>impressed with the performance, but then.
>>it seemed like my FPS dropped. Now, even in 800X600 with all the details
>>run as low as they can go, my fps drop into the 20s. I know the map make a
>>lot
>>of difference with frame rates. The further off you see the slower it
>>runs,
>>etc. I've tried
>>different setting and the OS has even been reinstalled. With this set-up,
>>should my frame
>>rates ever get this low?
>>
>>
>
> Something is very wrong. With that card and system, you should be
> able to play at high res, with all the bells and whistles on, and
> still get great frame rates.
>
> Do you have the latest ATI Radeon Drivers? ATI seems to come out with
> new ones about every 6 weeks .. actually, I should check for myself to
> see if new ones are available.
>
> How's your DirectX install? Got the latest 9.0b? Do the ATI driver
> 1st, then do the DirectX. Go to START/RUN and type in "DXDIAG" and
> see how happy DirectX is.
>
> There are a zillion settings in the ATI advanced settings area. If
> you've tweaked, set everything back to default. Of course, if you are
> installing new drivers, they may come up at default anyway.
>
> Good luck

Thanks for that advice. I checked DirectX like you said. Looks like
it's working okay. I'm using DirectX 9.0C. The ATI drivers are up to date.
They were just installed the other day as part of a clean install of
everything.
Thanks again for the help.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now> writes:
>weeks ago, UT2K4 was the first game I tried and I was very
>impressed with the performance, but then.
>it seemed like my FPS dropped. Now, even in 800X600 with all the details

A couple possibilities:'
- Something is hogging CPU cycles. With that card at that resolution,
you're almost certainly CPU bound - the 9800 pro is probably twiddling
its fingers waiting for work to do. Download up a copy of spybot and avg.

- You set the FSAA to some absurdly high value. Just turn it off, and raise
the screen resolution a bit instead. I hate the way FSAA looks. It's like
the Cybil Shepard camera on "Moonlighting".

- Your video settings have gotten whacked. Sometimes just going to the
settings page and twiddling one button will fix that. You might have
to reinstall though. While you're at it, check your radeon drivers -
as much as I like ATI's gear, their drivers tend to be snarky, and given
that you've probably just had lots of system updates forced on you (like
we all have with SP2 out), something might be b0rken.

- You're not up-to-date on your blood sacrifices to Redmond. I've had games
just go wonky like this on me - I played all of the way through KOTOR
with great frame rates, but when I went to replay it, the same scenes
that looked great before turned into a slideshow. Reinstalling would
probably fix it, but I decided it wasn't worth the trouble just for
a few extra sidequests. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Paul Vader" <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:10i9up5rpemo759@news.supernews.com...
> "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now> writes:
>>weeks ago, UT2K4 was the first game I tried and I was very
>>impressed with the performance, but then.
>>it seemed like my FPS dropped. Now, even in 800X600 with all the details
>
> A couple possibilities:'
> - Something is hogging CPU cycles. With that card at that resolution,
> you're almost certainly CPU bound - the 9800 pro is probably twiddling
> its fingers waiting for work to do. Download up a copy of spybot and avg.
>
> - You set the FSAA to some absurdly high value. Just turn it off, and
> raise
> the screen resolution a bit instead. I hate the way FSAA looks. It's like
> the Cybil Shepard camera on "Moonlighting".
>
> - Your video settings have gotten whacked. Sometimes just going to the
> settings page and twiddling one button will fix that. You might have
> to reinstall though. While you're at it, check your radeon drivers -
> as much as I like ATI's gear, their drivers tend to be snarky, and given
> that you've probably just had lots of system updates forced on you (like
> we all have with SP2 out), something might be b0rken.
>
> - You're not up-to-date on your blood sacrifices to Redmond. I've had
> games
> just go wonky like this on me - I played all of the way through KOTOR
> with great frame rates, but when I went to replay it, the same scenes
> that looked great before turned into a slideshow. Reinstalling would
> probably fix it, but I decided it wasn't worth the trouble just for
> a few extra sidequests. *
> --
> * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> like corkscrews.

Thanks for the suggestions.
This is the strangest thing I've ever seen.
I've tried everything. Even wiping out the HD and reinstalling the OS. On
Onslaught maps,
my FPS rarely gets over 60. That's at 600 X 800 and default detail settings.
Seems like
it should do better than that. I got this new vid card a few weeks ago and
the first game
I tried was UT2K4. I could swear it was faster then than it is now.

Thanks again.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:50:15 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
wrote:

>Here's my specs...
>
>2.66 Pentium 4.
>512 Meg of ram.
>ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
>Sound off the mother board.
>
>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>
>Thank you.

UT2004 is CPU bound. You won't get better rates at 800 x 600 than you
will at 1024 x 768. With a very high-end card, you won't see a
difference at 1600 x 1200, either.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:3neci05r6crq7rmh8lu45ulf5gqvoscks8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:50:15 -0400, "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now>
> wrote:
>
>>Here's my specs...
>>
>>2.66 Pentium 4.
>>512 Meg of ram.
>>ATI Radion 9800 Pro Graphics card.
>>Sound off the mother board.
>>
>>What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>>at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>>
>>Thank you.
>
> UT2004 is CPU bound. You won't get better rates at 800 x 600 than you
> will at 1024 x 768. With a very high-end card, you won't see a
> difference at 1600 x 1200, either.
>

Thanks for responding. Yes, I discovered that fact about the frame
rates and resolution. Thanks again.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

have you tried latest motherboard drivers?
"Paul Vader" <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:10i9tq9ohm5qc31@news.supernews.com...
> "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now> writes:
> >What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
> >at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>
> Turn everything on. Your system should be able to sling frames faster than
> any scanrate you're likely to pick without breaking a sweat. I have a
> similar setup and play at 1280 x 960 (85 hz) with all the bells and
whistles
> on, and everything's smooth. I've never turned on the framerate flag
though. *
> --
> * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
> like corkscrews.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Yes I have. Everything is up to date.
Thanks.

"keithdisco" <keithdisco@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:lRpVc.49$E3.11@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> have you tried latest motherboard drivers?
> "Paul Vader" <pv+usenet@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:10i9tq9ohm5qc31@news.supernews.com...
>> "Mitch" <invalid@nospam.now> writes:
>> >What kind of frame rates should I expect with this system
>> >at 800 X 600 and all the other setting set at default?
>>
>> Turn everything on. Your system should be able to sling frames faster
>> than
>> any scanrate you're likely to pick without breaking a sweat. I have a
>> similar setup and play at 1280 x 960 (85 hz) with all the bells and
> whistles
>> on, and everything's smooth. I've never turned on the framerate flag
> though. *
>> --
>> * PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
>> like corkscrews.
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Folk <Folk@folk.com> writes:
>UT2004 is CPU bound. You won't get better rates at 800 x 600 than you
>will at 1024 x 768. With a very high-end card, you won't see a
>difference at 1600 x 1200, either.

Very true. On the other hand, some of the better video cards have no
optimizations for 800x600 or 640x480. It might be worth a try to bump the
resolution up to at least 1024x768. I've seen reports on ars technica and
Tom's hardware where you can clearly see poorer performance at the "legacy
resolutions". Weird, but worth a try. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom