Note on UT2004 performance

C

coolpurplefan

Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
547
Since I upgraded from a Geforce 6600 (non-GT) to an X1650 XT, I wanted to see what kind of frame rates I would get in Assault. Well, I can still get around 50 or even under 50 fps when the game starts. That's on Holy Crap settings of course.

I just realized how CPU dependant the game really is. I can still play Tokara Forest and Plunge a lot better though. So, I still got an upgrade. :D

So, with a single core AMD 4000+, it's still not enough. :eek:

BTW, I found a solution for installing the game. You have to delete the UT2004.ini file if you get a message saying wrong key. I bought the game and nearly crapped my pants. Then I read a message saying there was some kind of corrupted .ini file.
 
coolpurplefan said:
Since I upgraded from a Geforce 6600 (non-GT) to an X1650 XT, I wanted to see what kind of frame rates I would get in Assault. Well, I can still get around 50 or even under 50 fps when the game starts. That's on Holy Crap settings of course.

I just realized how CPU dependant the game really is. I can still play Tokara Forest and Plunge a lot better though. So, I still got an upgrade. :D

So, with a single core AMD 4000+, it's still not enough. :eek:

BTW, I found a solution for installing the game. You have to delete the UT2004.ini file if you get a message saying wrong key. I bought the game and nearly crapped my pants. Then I read a message saying there was some kind of corrupted .ini file.
Click to expand...

UT 2004 is not multi threaded nor are 99% of the games out today. Doesn't matter if you have single core or dual-core. If you have a fast single core processor, you should be able to play anything today with great speeds.
 
I doubt that 99% of games right now a single threaded. I know that the majority are but I can name several games that are multithreaded right now. Quake 4, Sup Com. Black and White 2. Oblivion, etc
 
I thought that the thread was fine..
Goes to show that sometimes you need to invest a little in your cpu instead of a super graphics card..

This post goes out to all of you asking where you can find a pci-e socket A motherboard for your 2 GTX's. :rolleyes:
 
Marvelous said:
UT 2004 is not multi threaded nor are 99% of the games out today. Doesn't matter if you have single core or dual-core. If you have a fast single core processor, you should be able to play anything today with great speeds.
Click to expand...

What he^ said plus please note to pair a decently performing video card with your cpu.
 
kuyaglen said:
What he^ said plus please note to pair a decently performing video card with your cpu.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this statement and I am getting tired of seeing similar phrases like this one all over the forums. The fact is that while you won't get the most out of a super-high end GPU with a lower end processor, a high end GPU will always be faster with any given CPU than a lower end GPU would be. So while a Socket 939 Athlon X2 3800+ running DDR 1 memory isn't the best choice to be paired with an 8800Ultra, it's still going to be faster than running a single 8800GTS or 7900GTO in the same system. So while it's a bit silly to pair high end cards with lower end CPUs you do not need to "match" CPUs and video cards.
 
I said descently not uber.

{edit}

What I find tiring in forum posts is how someone says their system runs at an obligatory framerate without describing resolution and in-game and control panel settings.
 
In this case, in regard to UT2004 performance, I think that the video card is the bottleneck and not the processor. An Athlon X2 4000+ is still not that bad, but an X1650XT isn't that great. I think a video card upgrade to something higher end would better serve the OP than a processor upgrade.
 
There really isn't enough info to go on seeing as the OP didn't mention the resolution he's playing at. The X1650XT is somewhat better than the 6600. I would think all things being equal that the framerates would be significantly better.
 
kuyaglen said:
I What I find tiring in forum posts is how someone says their system runs at an obligatory framerate without describing resolution and in-game and control panel settings.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Without knowing, it's really hard to make a good recommendation.

kirbyrj said:
There really isn't enough info to go on seeing as the OP didn't mention the resolution he's playing at. The X1650XT is somewhat better than the 6600. I would think all things being equal that the framerates would be significantly better.
Click to expand...

True.
 
Having used an Opty 165 @ 2.8ghz w/ an 8800GTS I did notice some portions where it did chug along. Then when I went with a E6320 @ 3Ghz I did notice gameplay was much smoother and overall experience was much better.

On a related note, does anyone take performance hits on certain maps in UT2K4 w/ an 8800? I have some really bad dips and it makes it unbearable to play, especially in CTF.
 
YoNeX said:
Having used an Opty 165 @ 2.8ghz w/ an 8800GTS I did notice some portions where it did chug along. Then when I went with a E6320 @ 3Ghz I did notice gameplay was much smoother and overall experience was much better.

On a related note, does anyone take performance hits on certain maps in UT2K4 w/ an 8800? I have some really bad dips and it makes it unbearable to play, especially in CTF.
Click to expand...

I did have this problem on Windows XP, but not with Windows Vista.
 
YoNeX said:
Having used an Opty 165 @ 2.8ghz w/ an 8800GTS I did notice some portions where it did chug along. Then when I went with a E6320 @ 3Ghz I did notice gameplay was much smoother and overall experience was much better.

On a related note, does anyone take performance hits on certain maps in UT2K4 w/ an 8800? I have some really bad dips and it makes it unbearable to play, especially in CTF.
Click to expand...

I'll have to load it back up and check it out. I'm still running WinXP.
 
Uberbob102000 said:
I doubt that 99% of games right now a single threaded. I know that the majority are but I can name several games that are multithreaded right now. Quake 4, Sup Com. Black and White 2. Oblivion, etc
Click to expand...

I don't think Oblivion or black and white 2 is multithreaded.,
 
Dan_D said:
I can't agree with this statement and I am getting tired of seeing similar phrases like this one all over the forums. The fact is that while you won't get the most out of a super-high end GPU with a lower end processor, a high end GPU will always be faster with any given CPU than a lower end GPU would be. So while a Socket 939 Athlon X2 3800+ running DDR 1 memory isn't the best choice to be paired with an 8800Ultra, it's still going to be faster than running a single 8800GTS or 7900GTO in the same system. So while it's a bit silly to pair high end cards with lower end CPUs you do not need to "match" CPUs and video cards.
Click to expand...

I think you are putting words in his mouth to a point.
 
Actually 1650xt comes pretty close to 7600gt speeds and should be leaps and bounds ahead of 6600 non gt.
 
Dan_D said:
I did have this problem on Windows XP, but not with Windows Vista.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! UT2004 runs better on Vista???

Well, some interesting info here. It's nice to see a C2D works well with it at 3GHz.

By the way, I play at 1600x1200 on Holy Crap settings.

You can certainly look at CPU benchmarks on tom's hardware. It's like 114 fps for a E6600 and 88 fps for a San Diego 4000+. That 30% improvement doesn't seem like much if your starting point is 50 fps or less.

I've seen various benchmarks, and I can tell you with an X1650 XT, I doubt the card is a bottleneck. I just ran BF2 on my backup machine offline with 1GB of RAM and a Geforce 6600 and the same speed processor. I was getting like 20 to 30 fps without the same quality settings. Higher quality settings on my main rig and I get 60 to 90 fps. (With the occasional dip under 60 fps.)
 
I can't imagine that Tom's Hardware's CPU benchmarks take into consideration the 1600x1200 video. 50fps sounds about right for a 6600 and 16x12 with the settings all turned up.
 
coolpurplefan said:
Holy crap! UT2004 runs better on Vista???

Well, some interesting info here. It's nice to see a C2D works well with it at 3GHz.

By the way, I play at 1600x1200 on Holy Crap settings.

You can certainly look at CPU benchmarks on tom's hardware. It's like 114 fps for a E6600 and 88 fps for a San Diego 4000+. That 30% improvement doesn't seem like much if your starting point is 50 fps or less.

I've seen various benchmarks, and I can tell you with an X1650 XT, I doubt the card is a bottleneck. I just ran BF2 on my backup machine offline with 1GB of RAM and a Geforce 6600 and the same speed processor. I was getting like 20 to 30 fps without the same quality settings. Higher quality settings on my main rig and I get 60 to 90 fps. (With the occasional dip under 60 fps.)
Click to expand...

It runs better on the 8800's and Windows Vista than it does on the 8800's in XP that's for sure. At least that's always been my experience.
 
Dan_D said:
It runs better on the 8800's and Windows Vista than it does on the 8800's in XP that's for sure. At least that's always been my experience.
Click to expand...

Sigh, but I don't want to convert over to Vista.
 
what are you people talking about? holy crap settings? huh? i been playin ut2004 for about two years and have yet to see that on my video settings.:confused:
 
I am pushing 90fps on my machine (Look at the sig) running Vista Ultimate 64 and playing the 64-bit version of the game. It sounds like your processor is the bottleneck.
 
Rambo said:
what are you people talking about? holy crap settings? huh? i been playin ut2004 for about two years and have yet to see that on my video settings.:confused:
Click to expand...


It's the shadows in the game. You can do either do "BLOB" pr "FULL" that will give you the "Holy Sh*t" when you pick that selection.
 
The Cobra said:
Rambo said:
what are you people talking about? holy crap settings? huh? i been playin ut2004 for about two years and have yet to see that on my video settings.:confused:
Click to expand...
It's the shadows in the game. You can do either do "BLOB" pr "FULL" that will give you the "Holy Sh*t" when you pick that selection.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the shadows. Argh. If you turn up all graphics quality settings to whatever their maximum is, the announcer will say "Holy Sh*t!" This phrase has become like a shortened slang for "all graphics settings at maximum" when talking about UT2004.
 
Sorry about the confusion. Holy Crap settings=highest settings.

ut2004set.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top