tell me your UT FPS

[marcel74]

I am so sad.

Last week I recommended my brother to go to buy a GeForce256 DDR because I thought he would be able to play todays games at playable frame rates (I think that would require about 80FPS). As soon there is a fight/shootout in any game (eg UnrealT) the frame rate drops to under 35 and i think that it really sucks! The same happends while playing with my G400MAX.

What ever GFX settings i disable in the UnrealT INI file my fram rate still drops to under what I can handle.

Is there anyone out there who can tell me the secrets. I keep on reading on all the websites that your frame rates are WAY GR8 and high and that with the new GeForce you'll get 90FPS with a rez of 1152, 32 bit color @ the toughest scenes ...

I play my games at 640x480 32 color because I think todays machines don't handle more.

Am I right? Does anyone feel like me?

My computer specs:
Intel 450/100, 128RAM, 2xQuantum CR IDE-disk, G400MAX, SBLive! ...

[bigluker]

Wow. You have some high standards there. To me "playable" is around 20 fps, and "fun" is around 30 fps, and "whoa this is COOL" is 40 fps. Anything over 50 fps to me is unnoticably better. Then again, ive never SEEN 80 fps. My refresh rate is only 60!!

Also, how the hell can you stand 640x480. It's so...yucky! 800x600 is okay, but 1024x768 is where it's at. Looks so nice, you can see so far, and it's so clear. High framerates dont look very impressive unless the environment looks real. Otherwise it's just fast moving pixels. And with the G400, the higher res you go the better your performance; my 3dmark99/2000 scores are higher at high resolutions, same with Final Reality. Fogcity, however.... Well, it's better to a point anyway. I dont think 1600x1200 is going to run very well, youd need a monster fill rate to go that high.

My UT framerates are good, as long as my skin detail is low. When skin detail is high and there is a lot of bots/players on the screen framerate goes to poo. Down to like 10-15 fps. With low skin detail it's up there at 20-25 with a lot of crap on screen.

[This message has been edited by bigluker (edited 18 January 2000).]

[Muad'Dib]

Dude, unless you got some funky eyes, it won't make much difference whether your playing at 40 fps or 80. Your eyes can only see something like 30 fps (correct me if I'm wrong) so who cares above that? Be happy with it cause I'm only getting 15 fps right now (and THAT sucks for games).

[Scytale]

The 'secret' is to run UT in 16 bit color. Even 1280x960 will be doable.

[jediphoenix]

Well running offline using 1280x1024 16 bit all high quality I get between 38fps and 34 which i dont think is bad with my system.

K6-2 450 128 megs sdram, Matrox G400 32 SH OEM not overclocked (but does have the 5 ns sgram)

------------------
<A HREF="http://jediphoenix.iscool.net/
" TARGET=_blank>http://jediphoenix.iscool.net/
</A>

[xippo@work]

I average about 45 fps in 1024x768, 32 bit everything. I use this when playing single player. When on LAN or modem, I play in 800x600 and 16bit for more fps.

And you at least want over 40 fps in first person shooters. I try to run at least 50 fps or up. And yes you can see over 30fps (a person a see up to about 75 fps), and yes it makes a big difference when playing to have high fps.

If you like your games pretty then play slow with all graphics on, if you want to win - you will need all the fps you can get.

Just my 2 cents.

[Beezer]

Winning isn't everything.....

[exG-man]

Marcel,
It looks like you've been lied to by either another gamer or the media. I have done TONS of testing in real world situations, not the hyperbole the companies are feeding you. Having tested a two MAX's against Creative, Asus, Leadfast and Guillemot SDR cards and Guillemot and Creative DDR cards I can tell you this much: The Matrox Max will surpass the SDR cards in EVERY instance. That is including Q3. Here's the catch...you HAVE to have a fast cpu (450 P3 or >) and the difference is most dramatic at higher resolution where the 360 mhz ramdac of the Max can "spread it's wings". Also, the Max uses SGRAM, not SDRAM which is common in most SDR cards. With the DDR cards....Yes they are fast, but from my tests are extremely tempermental. They hate more games than they like. And the Prophet DDR died in the middle of testing. That's $320 she's out until Guillemot sends it back to her fixed. Guillemot said they would not send her a replacement, that they would repair her card. One more thing...NONE of the nVidia cards look nearly as good as the Max. Unreal Tourney is a very tough game to render with any speed. If anybody says they're getting over 50 fps with ANY card in UT, I would be inclined to say they're lying (unless it's one of those 1 ghz systems). I live in no-man's land so when we commute an hour and a half to test systems we make a day out of it and REALLY test them.

Be happy at 35 fps on any card with the res @ 10x7 and 32 bit depth on UT. Read as many reviews as you can and you'll find one consistent truth: A Max with 5.41 drivers is a VERY fast card with visuals that are THE best in the industry, bar none. I have several friends with DDR systems and they are all barely satisfied, because of poor compatibility or poor performance in comparison to what they were led to believe the cards would do.

You might look into oc'ing your 450. What mobo do you have? Are you enabling the 32 bit z-buffer? If so, try it without it enabled. You could also try Matrox Tweak Utility. Be forewarned however...go easy on the ocing until you get the hang of it. You don't want to cook anything. I have gotten great advice from some of the sage MURCers in these forums. It seems like everyday I learn something new.
My specs:Abit Be-6, P3 500 @ 560, 256 mb pc-100, 32 mb Max @ 221, 2x V21000 SLI @ 92, 2x Maxtor udma-66 (20gig, 13.5gig), Sblive X-gamer, FPS2000 digital, yada yada yada

Xippo,
Wow! That's some performance you've got. What're the specs on your system? It sounds awesome!

[Wannabe]

Wow,
this is what I call an answer...



[This message has been edited by Wannabe (edited 18 January 2000).]

[Jonathan Beilin]

The human eye can perceive 24 distinct frames per second. However, anything above that creates motion blur. Movies look smooth at 24 frames per second due to the nature of the medium.

Just my 2.4 yen...

------------------
-Jonathan Beilin
http://www.crosswinds.net/~blotus
Home Rig:
Abit BX6 R2 @ 124 Mhz FSB
Pentium 2 400@496Mhz
128MB PC100 SDRAM
Matrox Millennium G400 MAX 32MB OC'd 15%
MS Intellimouse
Hansol 19" monitor
Diamond MX300
Creative FPS1000
And a Kenwood True 52X

[xippo@work]

Wow! Nice responce exG-man.

I'll double check my settings for UT to make sure I'm giving accurate numbers. I play on a P3@620, G400 non Max not o/c, 390MB memory.

cheers!

[DentyCracker]

er, that would be 384 MB xippo. Marcel74 does the picture become jerky. If it does that would mean the framerate has dropped below 25 or so. Otherwise TV in england would always be jerky at 25fps, and we know that is not the case.

[NauTiLUS]

I'm playing at 800*600*32 with TriLinear filtering in D3D. I can't run timedemo because it crashes every time ( but with simple fps displaying feature I've got about 40-90 fps with 9 bot at Adept and in CTF.
My specs goes below:

------------------
NauTiLUS master of .ASP programming )

My system looks like:
ABIT Bh6 MOBO
Intel PIII500@560 MHz
128 MB Kingston PC133 SDRAM
Matrox G400SH 32MB
Adaptec 2940 SCSI HBA
Creative SB Live! with 5 Creative speakers
2*4.3GB ATAPI HDD
1*2GB SCSI-2 HDD
HP 4/8 GB DAT SCSI-2
Windows 98 Lite
Windows NT 4.0 Server SP4

[Greebe]

Just got UT and must say I'm impressed! 1600x1200 16 is 'O so fine and 1280x960 32 is as smooth as a babies bottem!

Throw some more horsepower at it, for it runs great on an Athlon850.

G400Max rules!

[nehalmistry]

yes, i have heard that anything above 24FPS cannot be processed by the human eye. Incorrect though, i can see a difference from 30 to 40 fps in most games, including UT. I dont know who came up with the 24fps crap. its all false. ITS ALL FALSE. NOOOOO.