Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Benchmarking with UT2004 Demo?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Engine
  • Benchmark
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 15, 2004 3:36:49 PM

Does anyone know if/how to benchmark with UT2004 Demo? Are there differences between the UT2003 engine and 2004?

More about : benchmarking ut2004 demo

February 15, 2004 3:40:44 PM

I don't think any of the UT games is a good game to use as a benchmark personally. My Geforce2 GTS plays each on its highest settings without a problem. That includes UT2004 demo which I play at full settings and with 32bots and only occasionally noticed a very minor slow down.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
February 15, 2004 4:11:16 PM

i think that must be inaccurate vimp, probably at 640x480 :p 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2004 4:30:14 PM

Good question. There is not benchmark in the system folder like ut2003. You can bring up the console and type "stat fps" to see your framerates while you play. Framerates seem incredibly high, but as with ut2003 I am sure it will become a benchmarked game.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 15, 2004 4:34:08 PM

Perhaps when the game is released, but as it stand I see little point in it - texture detail is only 50% of the real game's details, and it really isnt much different from UT2003

XP2000, 256ddr 2100ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro
February 16, 2004 5:26:11 AM

Compnoob, I never play any games in 640x480. I play UT03 and the UT04 demo in 800x640 with 32bit color in full screen mode with all graphical settings on maximum. I havn't checked my fps in UT04 but in UT03, the full game not the demo, I play on same res and color depth and put it on maximum settings and I average 30fps and occasionally get a low of 20fps which is still fairly smooth and very playable. In UT04 demo I havn't checcked my fps yet but I'm betting I get an even higher average fps since its maximum settings arn't as high as UT03's full game settings.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
February 16, 2004 8:51:03 AM

I think your idea of playable is different to mine. My LCD has a native resolution of 1280x1024 so I like to play at that and I need fps to be above about 50, so I set the details accordingly.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7454540" target="_new">Yay, I Finally broke the 12k barrier!!</A>
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2004 11:54:32 AM

UT2004 demo will give you the same fps as UT2003 I bet. Very high, compared to many games out there. Yes, the full version may be different, but the demo still looks good. I haven't had much gaming time this week, and I have just been playing that demo at 1024x768 max with 2X/8X for now, but the average fps is near 100 on a R9800 Pro.

I'd drop the max settings if I were averaging 30fps and dropping to 20fps. Everyones different, but I hate seeing ANY hesitation and do not find sub 30 fps enjoyable at all. I'd rather lose a little details and average 40-50fps, minimizing the chances of the lows dropping into the 20's. Just MO

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 16, 2004 12:58:00 PM

How do I fix the impossible to read menus? Its all very blurry.

XP2000, 256ddr 2100ram, GF4 MX440, XP Pro
February 16, 2004 1:05:01 PM

They're always blurry...cranking up antialiasing might help, but doubtful. Cranking resolutions do nothing, I run at 1600x1200 and it's still nasty looking. I'd imagine the full version will have cleaner looking menus.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
February 16, 2004 2:24:02 PM

while I admit, I'm not a huge fan of unreal T. but My 9800pro on a P4 3.0 runs full settings at 1280x1024 on a sony 19" LCD.......looks really nice, no lag but I find the game play a bit repetitive and boring.

EC


<font color=red> Quantum Computers! - very interesting </font color=red>
February 16, 2004 5:54:43 PM

Here's how to benchmark the UT2K4 demo.
First, download <A HREF="http://webpages.charter.net/smithcm/ut2004/ut2004_bench..." target="_new">this</A> file, and unzip it to your C:/UT2004/Benchmark folder. Let it overwrite files as necessary.
After you've unzipped it, look in C:/UT2004/Benchmark and you will see a strange looking folder that say's "Benchmark all". Double clicking that will launch the benchmark.
<b>YOU MUST GO INTO THE GAME BEFORE YOU BENCHMARK AND TURN ALL OF THE SETTING TO THEIR HIGHEST DETAILS, OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT GET AN ACCURATE MEASUREMENT TO COMPARE TO OTHERS WITH!</b>
After your benchmark is completed, go back into the UT004/Benchmark folder, and click on the file named "lowframerate.log" and your score's will be displayed there. Average fps will be the ones in the middle. Here's mine, Max detail, No AA or AF.

dm-rankin
25.548897 / <b>54.555683</b> / 95.445442 fps
Score = 54.622540

as-convoy
15.814389 / <b>34.990032</b> / 65.241776 fps
Score = 35.033905

ons-torlan
2.629423 / <b>201.842697</b> / 1.#INF00 fps
Score = 199.440979

br-colossus
4.729132 / <b>225.159164</b> / 1.#INF00 fps
Score = 222.043503

dm-rankin
28.960491 / <b>60.448544</b> / 137.681412 fps
Score = 60.537834

as-convoy
16.041159 / <b>36.186356</b> / 67.503639 fps
Score = 36.233978

ons-torlan
11.744162 / <b>57.242756</b> / 96.670418 fps
Score = 57.324745

br-colossus
21.663151 / <b>83.901756</b> / 171.865173 fps
Score = 83.979309

ctf-bridgeoffate
25.329420 / <b>83.517838</b> / 204.422638 fps
Score = 83.646950

This benchmark is EXTREMELY CPU/Memory dependent, so having a fast, all around system will produce the best scores. My XP2100+/DDR266 combo is obviously choking my score. The "flyby" benchmarks <b>do not</b> work as of yet, I'm sure someone will fix them before too long.
Let's see your scores you numbnuts!

<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1819095" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
February 16, 2004 7:30:02 PM

I unzipped the file you linked to the folder you specified and it did not create any folder or anything else called "Benchmark all".

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2004 8:46:19 PM

What resolution did you run it at? 1024x768x32? Can you also post a screen of your settings menu from within the game. This will help show people what you mean by settings at max. Should be obvious I know, but for anyone in doubt it might help. I used highest settings on all, everything checked, and fog distance set all the way up.

Somethings wrong, I am getting the almost same results with AA/AF off or with the ATI slider set to max quality, which is 4X/16X?


1024x768x32 no AA/AF

dm-rankin
30.062040 / 70.282944 / 192.380600 fps
Score = 70.358009

as-convoy
14.930321 / 44.932476 / 84.745888 fps
Score = 44.991669

ons-torlan
6.957833 / 64.156303 / 117.808990 fps
Score = 64.240959

br-colossus
24.886301 / 107.991692 / 208.418457 fps
Score = 108.109894

ctf-bridgeoffate
28.890591 / 104.660042 / 248.193710 fps
Score = 104.827507


1024x768x32 4x/16X ATI max quality (!?)

dm-rankin
35.408875 / 70.058174 / 184.391357 fps
Score = 70.138687

as-convoy
17.860136 / 45.416901 / 84.665215 fps
Score = 45.475441

ons-torlan
6.827567 / 64.167023 / 120.507362 fps
Score = 64.252831

br-colossus
24.887451 / 108.108398 / 200.239655 fps
Score = 108.217705

ctf-bridgeoffate
28.999302 / 105.056747 / 248.095581 fps
Score = 105.227722




ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 16, 2004 9:35:30 PM

Quote:
What resolution did you run it at? 1024x768x32?

Actually I was running at 1280/1024, so I need to rebenchmark:) 
Quote:
Can you also post a screen of your settings menu from within the game. This will help show people what you mean by settings at max.

<A HREF="http://downloads.garyandnicole.net/UT2004 2004-02-16 17-19-14-74.jpg" target="_new">Here</A> is max detail.

<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1819095" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2004 10:21:37 PM

Thanks, now no one has an excuse for posting results from the wrong settings. Oddly, I get almost identical results at 800x600, 1024x768, and 1280x1024. 3 out of 5 were higher at 1280 than 1024. Can't figure these results out. I was pretty excited that you posted instructions for this. But my results don't seem to make sense.

1280x1024x32 no AA/AF
dm-rankin
35.626358 / 77.332207 / 166.692062 fps
Score = 77.430565

as-convoy
14.373200 / 47.296135 / 83.839737 fps
Score = 47.356777

ons-torlan
11.027723 / 69.463448 / 128.429260 fps
Score = 69.562134

br-colossus
19.614182 / 100.493759 / 208.293518 fps
Score = 100.578934

ctf-bridgeoffate
31.142088 / 103.571053 / 206.643982 fps
Score = 103.734810


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 16, 2004 10:21:42 PM

I find it very odd that you think 30fps is not playable. Quite honestly I can not see a differencee between 30fps and 100fps. When it goes to 20fps the occasional time, I can see a difference, but that difference is minor and the game is still very playable. I'm sure I would see a very slight difference between 30fps and 100fps if I were to study the screen while the fps switchs from one to the other but considering how slight that difference is I can't believe anyone on earth would find 30fps in UT04 to be unplayable or even the least bit hindering for that matter.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2004 10:29:32 PM

The problem is, an AVERAGE of 30fps is very different than a low of 30fps. A low of 30fps isn't bad, but if you average 30, that means for all the indoor tight spots where you are alone and getting 40+ fps, there are open outdoor areas with other players where you are getting half that much. I'm more concerned with minimum than average, but I just feel the average has to be 40+ to keep the minimum playable.

I can say any system I have benchmarked with fraps that average 30fps in a game, is full of hesitation and visual slowdowns. Maybe I am just picky, but I prefer much higher than 30fps. You can not claim a game runs SMOOTH if you average 30fps. And I like em' smooth.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2004 10:44:35 PM

I have to agree with you. I like to see my average fps being at least 50-60 fps, or better yet 70 or more. I just feel that when I have played games that don't seem to be running smooth, and then enable fraps or in game fps counters, when it mostly sits in the 40's or below , it can be seen by the eye. Especially when the lows drop to below 30.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 16, 2004 10:47:01 PM

I'd have to disagree with you on this. The map I play most and the one I used fraps on is the huge outdoor Onslaught map with 31 bots playing. I used FRAPS to benchmark well over 1000 frames of regular playing and my average was 33.7fps with a min of 27fps and a max of 47fps. The game ran very smooth with no slow downs at all. I would dare anyone that is able to watch me play to notice thee slightest slow down or hesitation at all. So far in the many many hours I've been playing the demo on maximum settings at 800x640 res I have only taken notice of one slow down that lasted about 1-1.5 seconds and that was when a huge number of bots all happened to be in close proximity to me in a huge fire fight. It still didn't effect my game though snce it was such a brief slow down.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2004 11:17:04 PM

Glad it keeps you happy. I won't argue with you as I am not there watching you play. UT2004/03 are pretty amazing games that way, but if you play MOHAA and average low 30fps, gameplay is gonna blow when the shotties and smgs come near ya. As a matter of fact, you lose a good 10fps every time ya pull the trigger in that game. Of course also remember your max settings on a GF2 aren't the same as someone else with a true DX8 card or newer. I remember when UT2003 first came out, a friend with a radeon 32DDR was blow away when he saw the visual difference on my system. Same system as his, built them at the same time, but I had uprgraded to a radeon 8500. I think he said "whoa... you got grass, looks much better on your system" He then went and purchased a radeon 8500le and got the extra eye candy for himself.

But even though you disagree with us, the millions of people who upgraded from GF2, GF3, Radeon cards don't dissagree. I mean if a GF2 getting 20-30fps showed no vissual slow downs at all, why the need for this forum, Radeon 9X cards, or FX cards. I am not trying to be a jerk, honestly. But the FX5200 and GF4-mx440 would be kings and lots of us would have more money for other uses. Maybe I should ebay my new 9800 pro and pop in my old GF2 Ti.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
February 17, 2004 5:05:21 AM

I understand what your saying Pauldh and quite frankly I am more or less bragging about my results because I am really pleased with just how well my card does play todays latest games. However UT03 and UT04 are unique games in my opinion because they don't show significant differences at lower frame rates when compared to other games. This is even shown in my results which only showed a low of 27fps even though my average was 33fps which shows that UT dosn't fluctuate in performance like most games where you can average even higher frame rates but then when anything happens on your screen your fps shoot down dramaticly as happens in some games I know. As far as losing out on visuals UT03 and 04 are unique here as well because these UT games some how use special effects that are shown almost identically on DX9 cards as they are on my DX7 card where as most newer games these days don't work that way. And these are the very reasons why I said in my original post that I don't feel the UT games are good to use as benchmarks since they work so well on older cards and don't make much if any use of DirectX effects that arn't available on DX7 cards. The water effects for instance look the exact same on my card as they do in the screenshots I look at on gamesites, infact the whole screenshot looks identical to what I see on my comp. The only things I miss out on in UT are AA and AF visual quality since my card dosn't do those things.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 512mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
February 17, 2004 2:24:19 PM

You make a good argument about UT not being the best game to benchmark. But please let me clarify something here right now! You may think that there isn't much of a visual difference when you look at screenshots of UT2004 and compare it to your DX7 GeForce 2, but I promise you there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE. I wanted to test what you said so I took some screenshots of UT2003 (I didn't use 2004 cause the demo has low res textures) running on my notebook (P4 2.4B, R7500 with 32Megs of DDR) and screenshots of the game from my desktop PC (2100XP, R9500Pro) and compared them. While they looked very similar when comparing the screenshots, seeing them in action was a very different story. My DX7 notebook wasn't nearly as crisp and there was a lack of polish to the entire game. Textures were more bland and the bright explosions and lustre of the effects were much more dull. But it looked fantastic on my desktop, just like it's supposed to, everything was really great looking.
So, I don't mean to be rude or disappoint you, but if you think you aren't missing out on visual quality on your DX7 card, you're sadly mistaken.
BTW: To make sure I was right about what I saw, I ran a LAN game with only my two computers and looked at the same scenes side by side at the same time. Same everything so there could be no discrepencies.
February 17, 2004 8:46:44 PM

Well acually splenda20 I wouldn't be disapointed at all if what your saying is the case. I am merely speaking based on what I have percieved to be the case. However I have ordered a new video card which I should recieve in the next couple days and I would be very pleased if I found that my perceptions were all wrong and that there is a big difference. However I'm not very hopefull.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1024mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
February 17, 2004 8:51:44 PM

Mazel Tov
You definately will notice the difference!!! What card did you decide on?
February 17, 2004 9:06:13 PM

I ordered a MSI 5900XT.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1024mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
February 19, 2004 8:48:16 AM

hogfather wrote:
Quote:
How do I fix the impossible to read menus? Its all very blurry.

Vapor wrote:
Quote:
They're always blurry...cranking up antialiasing might help, but doubtful. Cranking resolutions do nothing, I run at 1600x1200 and it's still nasty looking. I'd imagine the full version will have cleaner looking menus.

I didn't give these comments a second thought at first because I didn't notice any blurring in the menus at all. However shortly there after all of a sudden I played the game and the text in the menus was almost unreadable. So natrually I thought this must be what you were talking about and that perhaps its a random bug with the game or something. But it just so happens that I had changed my videocard settngs from the desktop for performance/quality from a medium blend (default) to pure performance because I was gonna do a benchmark and wanted better performance. But I forgot to change the setting back afterword and it was after that that I noticed the text in UT04 was all of a sudden very blurry. So having come to finnally realize the cause (took me a couple days to figure it out), I went and changed my settings to pure quality and now UT04 is very crisp and clear again. I'd like to point out that I was noticing the same blurry problem the last couple days in other games as well but to a lesser degree then UT04.

<font color=blue>_____________________________________</font color=blue>
Vancouver, Canada
Asus A7N8X-X, Athelon XP 2500+ Barton,
Samsung 1024mb DDR400, Creative Geforce2 GTS,
SoundBlaster Live! Value.
February 19, 2004 12:04:04 PM

I've had mine on full quality :frown: .

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
!