UT2K4 Performance Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

I have two systems:

Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro

The home computer is OK, but...

The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.

Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
controlled by the card is useless.

I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
times but not FPS.

Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
in the work machine to play games.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
<brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have two systems:
>
>Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
>Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>
>The home computer is OK, but...
>
>The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
>set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
>alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>
>Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
>controlled by the card is useless.
>
>I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
>times but not FPS.
>
>Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
>totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
>in the work machine to play games.

You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Yeah, actually after a shitload of debugging and testing I found out its
Onslaught and/or big maps, not UT2K4 itself, which is the problem.

Playing Onslaught on say, ArticWhatever, I get about 17-18 FPS, while on
Face3 Capture the Flag I get >30 FPS.





"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:s3la80pagv03sivqbd71f59hvs0j59dt4r@4ax.com...
> On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
> <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have two systems:
> >
> >Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
> >Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
> >
> >The home computer is OK, but...
> >
> >The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how
low I
> >set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS.
When I
> >alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
> >
> >Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
> >controlled by the card is useless.
> >
> >I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
> >times but not FPS.
> >
> >Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> >totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon
card
> >in the work machine to play games.
>
> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.
>
>

 

[Meltdown]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Seth Brundle enlightened us with:
> The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how
> low I set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24
> FPS.

That's pretty bad...

> When I alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU
> time.

So? Of course the game is fully using your CPU. Or should it throttle
back and not optimally use it's power?

> Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound

Why is that obvious?

> and changing video settings controlled by the card is useless.

Why???

> Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and
> Radeon card in the work machine to play games.

It should play better than this. What OS are you using? What other
programs are running? You don't give any info about your system.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

> > When I alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU
> > time.
> So? Of course the game is fully using your CPU. Or should it throttle
> back and not optimally use it's power?

It should use whatever is necessary unless it is running a demo, in which
case it will run as fast as it can.
At a certain point it would need to run the game faster then it is being
played in order to utilize extra CPU.
For example, it only uses 59% CPU on the P4 3.2GHz system as it has all the
CPU it needs at the current settings and video performance.

> > Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound
> > and changing video settings controlled by the card is useless.
> Why is that obvious?

Because I have throttled down the video resolution and all settings to their
lowest level with virtually no gain in performance.

> It should play better than this. What OS are you using? What other
> programs are running? You don't give any info about your system.

Yeah, I did give some info, you clipped it out:
AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro

OS is Windows XP Pro, I have been shutting down all unnecessary programs
running in the background.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message news:<s3la80pagv03sivqbd71f59hvs0j59dt4r@4ax.com>...
> On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
> <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I have two systems:
> >
> >Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
> >Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
> >
> >The home computer is OK, but...
> >
> >The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
> >set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
> >alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
> >
> >Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
> >controlled by the card is useless.
> >
> >I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
> >times but not FPS.
> >
> >Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> >totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
> >in the work machine to play games.
>
> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.

24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768, everything maxed out and
only a GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.

 

[Randy]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"Seth Brundle" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40853bab$0$65126$45beb828@newscene.com...
> I have two systems:
>
> Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
> Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>
> The home computer is OK, but...
>
> The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low
I
> set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When
I
> alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>
> Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
> controlled by the card is useless.
>
> I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
> times but not FPS.
>
> Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
> totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon
card
> in the work machine to play games.
>
>
>
>
Don't feel bad. I have an Athlon XP at 1.6 gig. 512 DDR. A nvidia 5200 fx
ultra with 128mg ddr on it
I'm running XP.

Last night I was playing a guy with 3 times my lag. I had 38 and he had
over 200. He was totally kicking my ass. I was getting packet loss up the
ass.
When I play bots, my game is very jerky and at times I can be in another
room with the screen and actions of me still from the room I just left.
Then it all catches up with me.
When I'm online, I can be walking under a platform and the next thing I know
I've fallen off the edge of something because of at least a 5 sec delay. I
have to stop the game, then start it back up to play again.

I even have 2 80 gig drives running in a RAID config.

I have totally taken the game off because it is unplayable on my system. I
refuse at this point to build another system just to play a game. Tonight,
the game goes to work with me and I will give it to whom ever wants it.

I've waited since UT to buy the latest Unreal because of performance issues
with the game. There are still things they haven't figured out yet.

I'm not looking for flames here, I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It's a
beautiful game and I hope that they get their communications issues ironed
out.
Until then, I'll wait until late this year when I build my next system or
when the game sells for 10 dollars in the bargain bin. Which is what
happened to 2003.

That's why I didn't buy it. I figured there were problems with it...so I
waited for 2004. Go figure.

Good luck to all with the online gaming.

 

[Meltdown]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Seth Brundle enlightened us with:
> It should use whatever is necessary unless it is running a demo, in
> which case it will run as fast as it can. At a certain point it would
> need to run the game faster then it is being played in order to
> utilize extra CPU. For example, it only uses 59% CPU on the P4 3.2GHz
> system as it has all the CPU it needs at the current settings and
> video performance.

Maybe it's different in windows, but when I run a program on Linux it
uses whatever CPU it can get. Then again, maybe that's because I "only"
have an AthlonXP 2000+.

> Because I have throttled down the video resolution and all settings to
> their lowest level with virtually no gain in performance.

Ok.

> Yeah, I did give some info, you clipped it out:

Sure you gave /some/ info, but only about your hardware, not your
software.

> OS is Windows XP Pro, I have been shutting down all unnecessary
> programs running in the background.

There are some decent XP tweaking guides out there. Have you followed
some? Perhaps you can squeeze a few FPS more out of the box. Can't help
you further, since I don't use windoze.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:12:10 -0500, Seth Brundle wrote:

>> It should play better than this. What OS are you using? What other
>> programs are running? You don't give any info about your system.

> Yeah, I did give some info, you clipped it out:
> AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
> OS is Windows XP Pro, I have been shutting down all unnecessary programs
> running in the background.

I agree, it should be running better than that on that hardware. Here's
what I recommend: Dump Windows and the Radeon. Use Linux and an Nvidia.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2004 16:14:48 -0700, comeand@kissmyfatarse.com (Mattias
Honrendgard) wrote:

>Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message news:<s3la80pagv03sivqbd71f59hvs0j59dt4r@4ax.com>...
>> On 20 Apr 2004 10:06:08 -0500, "Seth Brundle"
>> <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have two systems:
>> >
>> >Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
>> >Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>> >
>> >The home computer is OK, but...
>> >
>> >The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low I
>> >set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When I
>> >alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>> >
>> >Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
>> >controlled by the card is useless.
>> >
>> >I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
>> >times but not FPS.
>> >
>> >Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
>> >totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon card
>> >in the work machine to play games.
>>
>> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
>> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
>> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
>> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
>> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
>> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
>> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.
>
>24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768, everything maxed out and
>only a GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.

I wish I could say the same. I'm currently averaging 40's to 50's
with slowdowns to the upper 20's to 30's in really fierce action, but
I've got a few graphical settings turned off/down and with my system
specs I feel like that shouldn't be necessary. Not that I'm cutting
edge or anything, but I'm far beyond recommended system specs.

P4 2.53
GF4 Ti4400
512 Memory

I get excellent results with most standard benchmarks and because my
system is well tuned, I get results that are usually slightly higher
than similarly configured systems.

DM performance is not a problem... it's the new game modes with large
maps and vehicles that are a problem. Hell, I can't break 80 FPS on
any Onslaught map if I'm just staring at a blank wall.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:19:43 -0500, "Randy" <randy1640@cox.net> wrote:

>
>"Seth Brundle" <brundlefly76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:40853bab$0$65126$45beb828@newscene.com...
>> I have two systems:
>>
>> Home: Intel 3.2c 800MHz 1GHz DDR Radeon 9700 Pro
>> Work: AMD XP 2400+, 512MB DDR Radeon 9600 Pro
>>
>> The home computer is OK, but...
>>
>> The work computer simply cannot average 30 FPS in UT2K4, no matter how low
>I
>> set the graphics - 800x600 with everything lowest, still like 24 FPS. When
>I
>> alt-tab and check task manager, UT is averaging like 95% CPU time.
>>
>> Obviously, my performance is CPU-bound and changing video settings
>> controlled by the card is useless.
>>
>> I also tried disabling preload player skins which of course helped load
>> times but not FPS.
>>
>> Is this the best I can expect for UT2K4 for this machine? If so, I am
>> totally bummed because I just modestly upgraded the MB, CPU, and Radeon
>card
>> in the work machine to play games.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Don't feel bad. I have an Athlon XP at 1.6 gig. 512 DDR. A nvidia 5200 fx
>ultra with 128mg ddr on it
>I'm running XP.
>
>Last night I was playing a guy with 3 times my lag. I had 38 and he had
>over 200. He was totally kicking my ass. I was getting packet loss up the
>ass.
>When I play bots, my game is very jerky and at times I can be in another
>room with the screen and actions of me still from the room I just left.
>Then it all catches up with me.
>When I'm online, I can be walking under a platform and the next thing I know
>I've fallen off the edge of something because of at least a 5 sec delay. I
>have to stop the game, then start it back up to play again.
>
>I even have 2 80 gig drives running in a RAID config.
>
>I have totally taken the game off because it is unplayable on my system. I
>refuse at this point to build another system just to play a game. Tonight,
>the game goes to work with me and I will give it to whom ever wants it.
>
>I've waited since UT to buy the latest Unreal because of performance issues
>with the game. There are still things they haven't figured out yet.
>
>I'm not looking for flames here, I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It's a
>beautiful game and I hope that they get their communications issues ironed
>out.
>Until then, I'll wait until late this year when I build my next system or
>when the game sells for 10 dollars in the bargain bin. Which is what
>happened to 2003.
>
>That's why I didn't buy it. I figured there were problems with it...so I
>waited for 2004. Go figure.
>
>Good luck to all with the online gaming.

Ah, you ought to at least wait and see if the first patch gives us
some performance relief.

I'll tell you though, you've got to expect some jumping around with
only 128 MB of memory. It's all the disk swapping that's causing the
game to freeze like that.

 

[Jon]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Athlon XP2000+
512 M DDR Ram
Nvidia GeForce 4 440 mmx 64M DDR
Windows xp pro and Linux Fedora core 1 (Dual Boot)

I have the same problem, I have tried everything in both windows and
Linux and get about the same performance from both, about 18 - 22 FPS
in Onslaught. I expected to get better than that. I too have set
everything as low as it will go but with very little gain in
performance. I'm thinking of trying a new graphics card in the hope of
some improvement but don't want to go spending a fortune if it won't
run much faster. I would really appreciate any help or tips that work

Welshman

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:40:48 +0100, Jon <nospam@here.com> wrote:

>Athlon XP2000+
>512 M DDR Ram
>Nvidia GeForce 4 440 mmx 64M DDR
>Windows xp pro and Linux Fedora core 1 (Dual Boot)
>
>I have the same problem, I have tried everything in both windows and
>Linux and get about the same performance from both, about 18 - 22 FPS
>in Onslaught. I expected to get better than that. I too have set
>everything as low as it will go but with very little gain in
>performance. I'm thinking of trying a new graphics card in the hope of
>some improvement but don't want to go spending a fortune if it won't
>run much faster. I would really appreciate any help or tips that work

In Onslaught, I used stat fps and got 30-40 fps with everything maxed
up to the full including an anisotropy level of 4.
--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

XP Home
L7S7A2 motherboard
Powercolor 9800 SE 8 pipelines with Omega drivers
1 GB RAM
10 GB + 80 GB HDs
CD+DVD/CDRW drives

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

> >> You're not alone. There are tons of people playing Onslaught with mid
> >> 20's framerates. The Unreal engine has always been CPU bound to a
> >> large degree and your own experiment has shown you what type of
> >> computing power you need to run the game at anywhere near decent
> >> framerates. At this point we can only hope for performance
> >> improvements from the first patch, since there is nothing you can do
> >> from a game settings standpoint to make the game playable.
> >
> >24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768, everything maxed out and
> >only a GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.
>
> I wish I could say the same. I'm currently averaging 40's to 50's
> with slowdowns to the upper 20's to 30's in really fierce action, but
> I've got a few graphical settings turned off/down and with my system
> specs I feel like that shouldn't be necessary. Not that I'm cutting
> edge or anything, but I'm far beyond recommended system specs.
>
> P4 2.53
> GF4 Ti4400
> 512 Memory
>
> I get excellent results with most standard benchmarks and because my
> system is well tuned, I get results that are usually slightly higher
> than similarly configured systems.
>
> DM performance is not a problem... it's the new game modes with large
> maps and vehicles that are a problem. Hell, I can't break 80 FPS on
> any Onslaught map if I'm just staring at a blank wall.

Sounds like our systems are pretty similar then. I'm running a 2500
Athlon XP (barton core), not overclocked. 1 Gb of PC3000 DDR.
Slackware Linux 9.0. "Blank wall" I get 120-200 FPS.

I just had a go at putting everything on "normal" instead of "highest"
and I only got about 5fps increase. The thing is though, even at an
average of 24fps it is smooth and responsive. Mind you, I was running
a GeForce3 ti200 to start with, and had "jerkyness" (especially on the
arctic ONS). As I recall I did "stat fps" then and got *the same
results* (about 20fps average). Thats why I got the 128Mb FX 5600.
(Yeah, I know, I *love* Unreal!). Oh.. the other change was I went
from AGP 4x to 8x with my new card.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:51:18 -0500, Dan C
<youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:

>I agree, it should be running better than that on that hardware. Here's
>what I recommend: Dump Windows and the Radeon. Use Linux and an Nvidia.

Moron.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Meltdown]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Andrew enlightened us with:
> Moron.

Why is that? The advise *will* get you a better performance. It might
not be your advice of choise, but it *will* work.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.

 

[Randy]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
news:djeb80dv8r1qe86l97jt8q704pel12vlpc@4ax.com...
> >>
> >Don't feel bad. I have an Athlon XP at 1.6 gig. 512 DDR. A nvidia 5200
fx
> >ultra with 128mg ddr on it
> >I'm running XP.
> I'll tell you though, you've got to expect some jumping around with
> only 128 MB of memory. It's all the disk swapping that's causing the
> game to freeze like that.
>


My mistake. I have 768 meg DDR on the mother board. 128mg DDR on the
VIDEO CARD.

I also have 2048 min and 4096 max disk swapping set aside for windows.

I have 2 - 80 gig 7200 rpm disks in a raid config as hard drives.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:40:32 +0100, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:51:18 -0500, Dan C
><youmustbejoking@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>I agree, it should be running better than that on that hardware. Here's
>>what I recommend: Dump Windows and the Radeon. Use Linux and an Nvidia.
>h
>Moron.

It may be a motherboard issue. I know mine has a memory bottleneck.
There is a fix available to me but I'm just too lazy to sort it out.

--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

XP Home
L7S7A2 motherboard
Powercolor 9800 SE 8 pipelines with Omega drivers
1 GB RAM
10 GB + 80 GB HDs
CD+DVD/CDRW drives

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2004 08:06:11 GMT, MeltDown
<meltdownUSE@YOURunrealtower.imagination.org> wrote:

>Why is that? The advise *will* get you a better performance. It might
>not be your advice of choise, but it *will* work.

In my experience, Linux gaming is on par with the speed of Windows
gaming, and may be fine if all you want to play is the handful of
available Linux games, but it is stupid to say installing Linux will
miraculously speed up a machine.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Meltdown]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Andrew enlightened us with:
> In my experience, Linux gaming is on par with the speed of Windows
> gaming

In my experience, UT (the original) went up 20 FPS when I switched to
Linux.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

# MeltDown

> Andrew enlightened us with:
>> In my experience, Linux gaming is on par with the speed of Windows
>> gaming
>
> In my experience, UT (the original) went up 20 FPS when I switched to
> Linux.
>
> MeltDown

I've heard the speed improves yet further if you compile the o/s yourself
from kernel upwards.

--
Toby
asktoby.com
BSOD VST & ME

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2004 08:46:44 GMT, MeltDown
<meltdownUSE@YOURunrealtower.imagination.org> wrote:

>In my experience, UT (the original) went up 20 FPS when I switched to
>Linux.

This isn't a thread about UT.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble nrc@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:14:48 -0700, Mattias Honrendgard wrote:

>
> 24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768,
>everything maxed out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and only a

> GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.

You've got to be kidding..

--

Bora Ugurlu

mailto:boraugurlu@yahoo.de

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Bora Ugurlu <boraugurlu@yahoo.de> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.21.09.50.58.328000@yahoo.de>...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:14:48 -0700, Mattias Honrendgard wrote:
>
> >
> > 24 Fps is fine though? In run in 1024x768,
> >everything maxed out
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > and only a
>
> > GeForceFX 5600. Smooth as a babies bottom.
>
> You've got to be kidding..

You mean I should go to 1600x1200? I need to switch "world detail" to
"normal" then though to get the same responsiveness

 

[Meltdown]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament2003 (More info?)

Toby Newman enlightened us with:
> I've heard the speed improves yet further if you compile the o/s
> yourself from kernel upwards.

Which is exactly what I do. Well, I compiled the kernel almost last
when I installed, but that's not the point ;-)

I'm using Gentoo with all software compiled heavily optimized for my
CPU.

MeltDown
--
!For all your UT99/2k3/2k4 questions visit UnrealTower's FAQ section:
! http://www.unrealtower.org/faq
!Home of the FAQs for agut and agut2003.