UT3 DX9 Performance

unless this test is skewed then ATI cards really do well in it, cuz the 2600XT usually gets its ass handed to it by the 8600gts
 
MrLonghair said:
People are going to see the 2900 beating the GTSs and then complain that the tests don't have any AA in them - let's face it, outside of [H] style users not many people run AA, a lot of the hardcore gamers just want the best FPS, you need the best FPS possible in this!
Click to expand...

Since they are releasing games that require forcing AA if posible to use at all, yes I bet most aren't using AA... :rolleyes:
You ever see that picture titled, "Where's Waldo?"
When you first look at it, he's hidden. Once you've found him, you can't look at that picture and not see him.
Same with AA. Once you've used it, it's stands out like a sore thumb minus it.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
unless this test is skewed then ATI cards really do well in it, cuz the 2600XT usually gets its ass handed to it by the 8600gts
Click to expand...

It isnt skewed, there isnt any AA turned, and the only filtering is a low level of AF. The 2900xt gets it's ass handed to it by the 8800gts when you turn on the Quality settings.
 
I'm amazed at how well it runs on my setup! I'm running it at 1280x800 and I usually hit 50-60+ frames. At 1680x1050 I get between 30-50 though.
 
I log for the night to go do silly things in real life and bam, three pages of "that benchmark is bad because there was no AA in use", "it's biased towards ATI", just as I expected :rolleyes:

Start a poll asking people if they use max details, native resolution and AA/AF in their competitive online FPS games like UT3, Crysis, Quakes & Battlefields, see what the majority chooses.



Anyway, the game runs 15-20 FPS better after I deactivated bloom and depth of field in the engine config, under /my docs/my games, never gone below 35 FPS in action ever, usually 45-60 and that's with maximum detail. Not bad from my zilch-budget machine of a X2 3800+ and a 2600XT.

It still feels just like UT2003 and UT2004. It's just like the predecessors, but with faster action, a new engine and hoverboards. I'll be playing Crysis MP instead of this :/
 
MrLonghair said:
I log for the night to go do silly things in real life and bam, three pages of "that benchmark is bad because there was no AA in use", "it's biased towards ATI", just as I expected :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The reviewer is obviously biased towards the 2900 vs the 8800gts, read my above quotes for proof.

Start a poll asking people if they use max details, native resolution and AA/AF in their competitive online FPS games like UT3, Crysis, Quakes & Battlefields, see what the majority chooses.
Click to expand...

Make sure you add on "Only vote if you paid $400 - $700 for your cards". I doubt that anyone pays that much for medium settings or doesn't know what AA/AF are.
 
MrLonghair said:
I log for the night to go do silly things in real life and bam, three pages of "that benchmark is bad because there was no AA in use", "it's biased towards ATI", just as I expected :rolleyes:

Start a poll asking people if they use max details, native resolution and AA/AF in their competitive online FPS games like UT3, Crysis, Quakes & Battlefields, see what the majority chooses.



Anyway, the game runs 15-20 FPS better after I deactivated bloom and depth of field in the engine config, under /my docs/my games, never gone below 35 FPS in action ever, usually 45-60 and that's with maximum detail. Not bad from my zilch-budget machine of a X2 3800+ and a 2600XT.

It still feels just like UT2003 and UT2004. It's just like the predecessors, but with faster action, a new engine and hoverboards. I'll be playing Crysis MP instead of this :/
Click to expand...

I put it all at the highest it can go @ native res. If it doesnt work, then I need a new video card. Why not have good fps and good eye candy too?

Of course people are going to point out if the reviewer is biased. You cant trust a reviewer if they prefer one brand over the other. I personally dont care whether its amd/intel or ati/nvidia. If i had the cards I would review them and give you non biased result because i dont care which one wins.
 
When I asked you if increasing the frame rate cap from 60 to say 100 increase the min frame rates? You couldn't prove me an answer. You answered my question with a question, avoiding it until I asked a 2nd time. Regarding your bias compliants, the author's results clearly show how each video card performs. This makes your request to compliment the 8800 GTS moot and one sided. Here this is what you said:
Its slower by 4ish fps in one test, and is "a bit slower than the 2900xt".
Its faster by 10ish fps in another test, and nothing is mentioned, just that all cards performed well.
Its slower by 5ish fps and "And once again, AMD's HD 2900 XT takes the win over NVIDIA's 640MB GTS card.
Click to expand...
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031531016&postcount=12

Now, I could understand if you provided some data to show otherwise however you do not. Therefore you offer no intelligent information suggesting why the author was suppose to compliment the other video card in the examples you provided. Also, 1.2 frame rate increase isn't a decisive win (something I mentioned before).

I also notice how you go from saying that max DOES matter regarding 60 FPS cap
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031530980&postcount=10

to

the min being important because you believe that's were stuttering occurs. Which by the way isn't always true.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031531070&postcount=21

Which clearly shows a double standard without logical explanation :D. You clearly go out your way to prove that a GTS is better where the majority of people who post here don't really care. I believe through your own posts you prove who's the fanboy. ;)
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
When I asked you if ncreasing the frame rate cap from 60 to say 100 increase the min frame rates? You couldn't prove me an answer. As a matter of fact you answered my question with a question, avoiding it until I asked a 2nd time. Regarding your bias compliants, the author's results clearly show 4 FPS or better which is better then 1.2 frame rates. This makes your request to compliment the 8800 GTS moot and one sided. Here this is what you said:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031531016&postcount=12

Now, I could understand if you provided some data to show otherwise however you do not. Therefore you offer no intelligent information suggesting why the author was suppose to compliment the other video card in the examples you provided.

I also notice how you go from saying that max DOES matter regarding 60 FPS cap
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031530980&postcount=10

to

the min being important because you believe that's were stuttering occurs. Which by the way isn't always true.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031531070&postcount=21

Which clearly shows a double standard without logical explanation :D. You clearly go out your way to prove that a GTS is better where the majority of people who post here don't really care. I believe through your own posts you prove who's the fanboy. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow you really are slow aren't you. I was pointing out different facts. Just because having a max cap doesn't mean that minimum is where stuttering occurs. None of my points are "double standards" because they can all be true at the same time.

Here, let me make it simple for you.

1) When the 2900xt had a lead of only 4, and 5fps, it was noted that the 2900 was faster than the 8800gts.
2) When the 8800gts was 10fps faster, nothing specific was mentioned.

That shows that the reviewer is biased towards the 2900xt because even though there is less of a difference, he still points it out.

3) Minimum FPS is where your computer is having trouble, and where any slow downs will occur. Thats why its at the bottom.

4) I never stated that Min was effected by Max. I stated that Max would effect your AVG, so artificially limiting it completely effects your average score.
Code: 
Min: 30 | 30 | 30
Max: 60 | 90 | 120
Avg: 45 | 60 | 75

See how averages work? You add the min and max and divide by 2 (or however many data points). So the MAX has a significant effect on the Avg, which again, is what I said.

Also, the max DOES matter because you are comparing min -> max to get the avg, and if the max is capped @ 60, that effects your avg.
Click to expand...

5) I never stated that the 8800gts was better than the 2900xt in this game. I stated that the reviewer was biased in his commentary of the results, and that was causing people to make in correct conclusions such as the OP.

6) You are the one trying to twist my words which is why I ignored your question as you were trying to put words in my mouth.

7) Just because Min is what causing slowdowns does not mean that having a Max of 100 will no longer effect your average, which shows absolutely no "double standard".
 
Jmackay, you go from one subject to another without any explanation that's why I quoted you regarding the max post then the min post. Which relates to why you cannot answer my question that I asked earlier. And, I think you are the one that's slow because:
-You did state that GTS is better then the 2900XT found here http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031531103&postcount=27
...I show that the 2900 is slower than the 8800gts / 8800gtx not faster, ...
Click to expand...

vs
5) I never stated that the 8800gts was better than the 2900xt in this game...
Click to expand...
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031533407&postcount=51

-Averages do not always provide an accurate description of how well a video card will perform in certain scenes.

Everything else I've already explained in my previous post. But be my guest and retract what you said.

:D
 
Eastcoasthandle said:
Jmackay, you go from one subject to another without any explanation that's why I quoted you regarding the max post then the min post. Which relates to why you cannot answer my question that I asked earlier. And, I think you are the one that's slow because:
-You did state that GTS is better then the 2900XT found here http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031531103&postcount=27


-Averages do not always provide an accurate description of how well a video card will perform in certain scenes.

Everything else I've already explained in my previous post. But be my guest and retract what you said.

:D
Click to expand...

In those tests it IS SLOWER

Those are the facts. Nice way to try and sneak out of answering the rest of my post.
 
jmackay, seriously? the reviewer stated the 2900xt was faster because it was faster on average, which is what he was using, the one time the 8800gts was 10fps faster was only in miniumum fps, still lost in average fps, thats probably why he didn't mention it, specially since minimum being 35fps in that case which is not a low number that would cause stuttering, if you don't like his review don't read it and wait for the [h] one
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
jmackay, seriously? the reviewer stated the 2900xt was faster because it was faster on average, which is what he was using, the one time the 8800gts was 10fps faster was only in miniumum fps, still lost in average fps, thats probably why he didn't mention it, specially since minimum being 35fps in that case which is not a low number that would cause stuttering, if you don't like his review don't read it and wait for the [h] one
Click to expand...

I forgot, you are so right

Code: 
     Min / Max / Avg
GTX  47 / 63 / 61.1
GTS  44 / 63 / 59.1
2900 34 / 63 / 55.8

Oh wait, no you are wrong, its faster in both min and avg.

The Shangri La DM map is a bit harder on the graphics system; the frame rates were consistently lower across all of our tested cards. At 1600x1200 these three cards don't even blink at it though.
Click to expand...

So 8800gts is up by 10 fps min, 3.3 avg and nothing mentioned.

But when the 8800gts looses later by 4.7 fps avg while its minimum is 1 fps faster:
AMD's HD 2900 XT takes the win over NVIDIA's 640MB GTS card
Click to expand...

Also when the 8800gts looses by 5.5 fps avg, and its min was 3 fps faster:
The 8800 GTS 640MB card is a bit slower, 12% behind the HD 2900 XT.
Click to expand...

If you don't think thats bias I give up.
 
jmackay said:
Also for my example of the reviewer not saying anything when the 8800gts is faster..

Its slower by 4ish fps in one test, and is "a bit slower than the 2900xt".
Its faster by 10ish fps in another test, and nothing is mentioned, just that all cards performed well.
Its slower by 5ish fps and "And once again, AMD's HD 2900 XT takes the win over NVIDIA's 640MB GTS card. ".

When each card is performing very well (similar to the 8800gts's 10fps lead above):
"All three of these cards have no problems producing great results at 1600x1200 though the 8800 GTS 640MB card is at the back of pack".

Its clear bias.
Click to expand...



I wouldnt call that bias,merely idle commentary if anything. :eek:
 
jmackay said:
:rolleyes:

So if it was the other way around and the reviewer only pointed out when the nvidia cards did better it wouldn't be biased either?
Click to expand...



I am curious why you care about this one site ? Most people seem to be in agreement that the 2900 is a wash,so who cares at this point,if some obscure tech site is on ATI's dillznick ? ? It doesnt seem so to me,but that is MY opinion,one I am fully within my rights to hold. :) jmackey,I think you forget who you are talking to.Not many others on this site,have 'bashed' AMD/ATI has as much as I have of late. :D

Besides my opinion of PC Per went out the window ages ago,thier overall review methodology is straight trash.I trust the [H] and Anand,and thats about it. ;)
 
HD 2900 < 8800 GTS 640/8800 GTX/8800 Ultra on a price/performance/power usage scale.

That's a fact. Get over it. Stop whining, and just wait for the next gen like me! ;)
 
The people taking that review seriously are retarded. This is a beta demo, and doesn't have shit turned on graphics wise. It's completely useless to compare graphics cards using this DEMO.
 
It ran fine on my Asus X800 VIVO modded to an X800 XT at 525/540 with an Opteron 175 @2.4GHz and 2GB RAM. Resolution was set at 1280x1024 and I thought it looked and played fine. I have yet to try it at 1600x1200, which is what I play UT2004 at with my Sony 21" CRT.

Honestly, if it doesn't have some form of Onslaught, I doubt I'd ever buy it. Team based games with an actual goal (NOT MMORPG's, which I hate) are more my style. Deathmatch, even TEAM deathmatch really don't interest me. Poop.
 
Manny Calavera said:
I am curious why you care about this one site ? Most people seem to be in agreement that the 2900 is a wash,so who cares at this point,if some obscure tech site is on ATI's dillznick ? ? It doesnt seem so to me,but that is MY opinion,one I am fully within my rights to hold. :) jmackey,I think you forget who you are talking to.Not many others on this site,have 'bashed' AMD/ATI has as much as I have of late. :D

Besides my opinion of PC Per went out the window ages ago,thier overall review methodology is straight trash.I trust the [H] and Anand,and thats about it. ;)
Click to expand...

I only chose to comment because people were reading the #s wrong and thus getting the wrong conclusion, which was helped by the biased reviewer.

I never said that the #s in the review were wrong, or that the 8800gts should have won everything or even that it was the better card. I merely pointed out facts from the review which others either choose to deny or read wrong or whatever they did to read them in correctly.

I also pointed out that using a capped Max will effect your Avg and that Min fps is very important as thats where stuttering will/does occur and not at Max/Usually Avg (who wants to play with settings that cause stuttering most of the time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top