UT or Q3.........................performance wise..

[Maggi]

On your system you're right that Q3 runs faster, simply because UT is so RAM hungry that 64MB are way too less ...

128MB are the minimum to get UT running fluidly and probably not without tweaking your configs.

[DuRaNgO[MU]]

using all high quality settings (except compression disk#2 of UT) UT runs faster
jim

------------------
Abit BE6
P-3 620 (5*124)
128mb ram
14.6 gb Maxtor ata66
G400 vanilla 32mb @ 168/210
384k DSL
Windows 98se
DX7a
3dMark2000 = 2956

[Travis L. Knodel]

UT KILLS Quake 3 Arena when I'm running Win98SE and one processor at 550. I think I'm getting somewhere between 20-30 fps higher in UT.

Travis L. Knodel
Celeron 366@550
Matrox G400 SH 16megger
192 MBs of PC100 RAM

------------------
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Travis L. Knodel
ICQ 5570732

Abit BP6
Dual Celeron 366@523 Mhz
Matrox G400 16MB SH
IBM ATA66 15.2 GB HD w/ 2MB cache
WD UDMA33 4.3 GB POS HD
Acer 40X CD Rom
Memorex 1622 2x2x6 CD-RW
Internal NEC Zip100
Netgear 10/100 Ethernet
Diamond Monster Sound MX300
Altec Lansing ACS 295
Proview 17" Monitor
224 MBs generic PC100 RAM

[Wombat]

You're running UT in DX mode, I hope? OpenGL is slow for the UT engine.

[blades]

UT or Q3.........................performance wise..

Not comparing in game play but w/ performance
I personally find q3 faster ( didnt bechmarked it yet, but will soon ) i can run q3 w/ all the features on high and everything is smooth but on UT i have to put stuff in low to make it playable..is it cause of turbogl?? isnt there like a *turbo direct x* ?
I might post FPS later on if the thread goes on (and if i get time to benchmark it)...

oh yeah all you guys w/ a celeron 366>550, g400 dh 32mb card, 64mb of ram..or anyone w/ close specs to this, post your fps for Q3 and UT