UT3 Performance Review -- HD 2900XT vs. 8800GTS 640 vs. 8800GTX || 2600XT vs. 8600GTS

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-12-2007, 11:18 AM
NickS

UT3 Performance Review -- HD 2900XT vs. 8800GTS 640 vs. 8800GTX || 2600XT vs. 8600GTS

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=464

Great article :)
10-12-2007, 11:20 AM
Kunaak

all I want to see is PhysX in action.

this is the big game Ageias been waiting for.
so lets see if its actually worth it.
10-12-2007, 11:32 AM
Shadowmage

Good review. I love how they show not just average FPS, and also an FPS chart. It's obvious that the progression in performance is as follows: 8800GTS 640MB, 2900XT 512MB, and 8800GTX. The lower resolutions don't count due to the 60FPS cap, so I'm mostly looking at the more insane reses.

RV670 should be perfect for this game, especially if 8800GT only has the 92 shaders instead of the rumored 112.

Also, it seems to me that R600 architecture is very well suited for whatever the UT3 engine is doing. Both Rainbow 6, Bioshock, and UT3, all games that use the UT3 engine, seem to favor R600. Since most of the upcoming blockbuster games use the UT3 engine, that's another huge win for ATI/AMD.
10-12-2007, 11:34 AM
Warboy

Looks like another win for Nvidia. But from what i see, Is there a limit on FPS in UT3?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Good review. I love how they show not just average FPS, and also an FPS chart. It's obvious that the progression in performance is as follows: 8800GTS 640MB, 2900XT 512MB, and 8800GTX. The lower resolutions don't count due to the 60FPS cap, so I'm mostly looking at the more insane reses.

RV670 should be perfect for this game, especially if 8800GT only has the 92 shaders instead of the rumored 112.

Also, it seems to me that R600 architecture is very well suited for whatever the UT3 engine is doing. Both Rainbow 6, Bioshock, and UT3, all games that use the UT3 engine, seem to favor R600. Since most of the upcoming blockbuster games use the UT3 engine, that's another huge win for ATI/AMD.

Also, The Rumored 112 shaders was for the New GTS

PS. I seems either the Beta Demo hates me or something, because its taking forever to install.
10-12-2007, 11:35 AM
RPGWiZaRD

How I wish 8800GT and 2950 Pro/XT was included in that review...

I wonder if you can remove the FPS cap, should be possible in one way or another.
10-12-2007, 11:39 AM
Warboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

How I wish 8800GT and 2950 Pro/XT was included in that review...

I wonder if you can remove the FPS cap, should be possible in one way or another.

Indeed. But we also need to realize that this a "Beta Demo", Demo and beta in the same title made me rofl abit.:rofl:
10-12-2007, 11:54 AM
Shadowmage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warboy

Looks like another win for Nvidia. But from what i see, Is there a limit on FPS in UT3?

Also, The Rumored 112 shaders was for the New GTS

PS. I seems either the Beta Demo hates me or something, because its taking forever to install.

Based on price, this is a win for ATI, since the 2900XT competes with the GTS. Anyways, it doesn't matter that there's a FPS cap. Max FPS is not interesting. Who cares if you get 20000 FPS in certain areas, but only 6FPS when something explodes? Is average FPS an interesting figure in such cases? Obviously not. The key FPS figure should be min FPS, and the average FPS number needs to be biased to make min FPS count more than max FPS.

There was another rumor about 112 shaders for G92. That's what I was referring to.
10-12-2007, 12:05 PM
Warboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Based on price, this is a win for ATI, since the 2900XT competes with the GTS. Anyways, it doesn't matter that there's a FPS cap. Max FPS is not interesting. Who cares if you get 20000 FPS in certain areas, but only 6FPS when something explodes? Is average FPS an interesting figure in such cases? Obviously not. The key FPS figure should be min FPS, and the average FPS number needs to be biased to make min FPS count more than max FPS.

There was another rumor about 112 shaders for G92. That's what I was referring to.

The 8800GTS and the 2800 are almost the same price. So I wouldn't mark it as a win for ATI.
10-12-2007, 12:09 PM
afireinside

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Based on price, this is a win for ATI, since the 2900XT competes with the GTS. Anyways, it doesn't matter that there's a FPS cap. Max FPS is not interesting. Who cares if you get 20000 FPS in certain areas, but only 6FPS when something explodes? Is average FPS an interesting figure in such cases? Obviously not. The key FPS figure should be min FPS, and the average FPS number needs to be biased to make min FPS count more than max FPS.

There was another rumor about 112 shaders for G92. That's what I was referring to.

QFT. Min FPS is most important. I love reviews that actually include it.
10-12-2007, 12:57 PM
perkam

That review should be titled "HD 2x00 Redeemed" :p

Perkam
10-12-2007, 01:05 PM
Jodiuh

Thanks for heads up! AA working for NV?
10-12-2007, 01:05 PM
nr2134

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warboy

The 8800GTS and the 2800 are almost the same price. So I wouldn't mark it as a win for ATI.

The 2900 performs close to the GTX so the win does go to ATI, but I can tell you will draw your own conclusion anyways.
10-12-2007, 01:09 PM
DilTech

Guys...for the record...

They aren't using a supported driver for the NVidia side. 163.71 is the minimum driver as per epics statement.
http://forums.epicgames.com/showpost...79&postcount=4

That statement is from epic themselves.

Not saying it'd turn the tables, just pointing this out. What made it catch my eye is because on a much lower system I can't get the framerate to drop below 62 on my GTX, yet they did.
10-12-2007, 01:18 PM
JoeBar

Wait till AA is turned on.

ATI will certainly fall back... ;)
10-12-2007, 01:37 PM
mascaras

good article

:up:
10-12-2007, 01:43 PM
Warboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBar

Wait till AA is turned on.

ATI will certainly fall back... ;)

Indeed ^_^
10-12-2007, 01:49 PM
mascaras

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBar

Wait till AA is turned on.

ATI will certainly fall back... ;)

dont know why , with hd2900xt @ 1680x1050 with all max and AA ON i have almost all time 62FPS loked >>> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...2&postcount=47

:up:
10-12-2007, 02:08 PM
ghost101

I thought the Unreal 3 engine didnt have AA?
10-12-2007, 02:10 PM
zerazax

I run it maxed at 2560 x 1600 just fine! 40-50 average fps, never below 35
10-12-2007, 02:14 PM
Caparroz

Is it just me or this thing looks like crap? IQ is on max, 1600x1050 but it looks so 2005...:shrug:
10-12-2007, 02:17 PM
Warboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caparroz

Is it just me or this thing looks like crap? IQ is on max, 1600x1050 but it looks so 2005...:shrug:

I blame that on Gears of War using a Pre-Build of UT3 Eng.
10-12-2007, 02:41 PM
Soulburner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caparroz

Is it just me or this thing looks like crap? IQ is on max, 1600x1050 but it looks so 2005...:shrug:

Oh so now next-gen games look like crap? Some people need to have their head examined.

I guess some kids just don't appreciate games anymore and how much work goes into them. If you can't enjoy a game for what it is, and are fixated on the graphics and scrutinizing them against the other offerings on the market, then you will never be happy.
10-12-2007, 02:50 PM
Sparky

Gameplay > graphics

If graphics are WOW but gameplay totally sucks then what's the point?

If gameplay is WOW and graphics suck well it is still fun. That is why I still have that stupid little worms armageddon game on my PC, graphics are totally outdated (2D anyone?!) but because it is so stupidly fun I still play it from time to time ;)
10-12-2007, 03:09 PM
Caparroz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulburner

Oh so now next-gen games look like crap? Some people need to have their head examined.

I guess some kids just don't appreciate games anymore and how much work goes into them. If you can't enjoy a game for what it is, and are fixated on the graphics and scrutinizing them against the other offerings on the market, then you will never be happy.

I don't like FPS games. I really can't stand their dullness, with a very few exceptions. And if I got it right UT3 is, essentially, the same old UT gameplay with some new modes and weapons. But that's just this "kid" opinion...

I grabbed this demo for the sole purpose of checking U3 Engine out. I didn't know that this was a childish thing... I'm sorry if I spoiled your favorite game.

Besides that, being a sim race junkie, gameplay is the most important thing to me by far. My favorite game is still Grand Prix Legends, a 10 year old game.

Don't need to start calling people stupid kids...:rolleyes:
10-12-2007, 03:31 PM
Jodiuh

AA doesn't matter...at all. Not only does it look great wo/ it, but you're moving @ UT99 speeds!

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page