UT3 performance

[Asus]

Anandtech has a review showing fly-by performance (not playing an actual game with AI).

Looks like there is a nice bump up with more L2 cache, not so much for higher FSB. L2 cache seems to give a bigger boost than pure GHz speed too.

1 core vs 2 cores vs 4 cores

And GPU comparison.
8800 Ultra> 8800GTX > 2900XT > 8800GTS > 1950XTX > 7900 GTX
It isn't an even stair case either. Some big jumps between 8800GTS->8800GTX/2900XT and 7900GTX->1950XTX.

 

[3ssence]

Nice find Asus. That is indeed quite a jump from the 8800GTS to the 2900XT and 8800GTX !

;(

From peoples banter in many a forum i'd gotten the impression that the game benefits greatly from a multi-core system, and this shows that there is a significant benefit over single core systems. I would imagine there is an even greater difference when it comes to minimum framerates.

I'm running an 8800GTS on an Athlon 64 @ 2.75 and whilst i see a framerate of 70-80 fps for the most part at 1600 x 1200 (all settings high and 8 x af) i do get the odd dip in a heavy firefight or a particularly intense scene into the low 30's. Which i'm pretty sure the peeps on multi-core systems are not experiencing.

Ignoring that though, the game looks great and scales really well on varying ages of hardware. Quite looking forward to the full release.

 

[-Psy-]

This engine is mighty impressive. It ran really well on my old rig (X1900GT, 4400+, 1GB) and runs great on my new rig (8800GTS, E6320, 2GB). It's heavily optimised and scalable.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

The only reason why its smooth, is that it has no AA yet

 

[3ssence]

Don't agree with that. Most cards from recent years don't take quite that large a hit from aa anyway, and given those performance reviews, cards such as the 7xxx series etc and upwards should be able to run the game at a decent resolution with high settings. And besides, will they actually implement aa into the full game given that other games on the UT3 engine don't support aa ?

 

[Asus]

top to bottom (current) GPU performance

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Disturbing thing is, my 7950 gets about that framerate but at EVERY resolution 1680x1050 and below. What. The. Shit. This better be optimized by game release, at least to the degree of getting better frames at lower resolution. I get 50 fps avg with settings on lowest and same resolutions, that's 50 fps at 1680x1050 and 640x480...

 

[Asus]

You can sorta see that happen in their graph with the 8800 Ultra/GTX between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. What if you thought about it the other way around. Efficient enough to run similar FPS at higher res. D:
I've seen this type of thing with games before. Although it's usually with the lower resolutions (640x480 through 1024x768).

 

[3ssence]

That most likely means that you are experiencing a cpu limitation of some sort. Is your cpu overclocked ? If not, then i wouldn't mind betting you'd see an incremental increase in fps whilst overclocking until eventually your game became gpu limited.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

No, seems to be a widespread problem on the epic forums concerning the 7xxx series. I know for sure my cpu wouldn't bottleneck this noticeabley for my standards (60 fps max, vsync) and I know I saw some other chart where the 5000+ X2 capped out at 92.