🚀 go-pugleaf

Robo29 ha scritto:
> My current system is:
> - 1800 Duron
> - 768 Megs DDR Ram (512 pc3200 and 256 pc2700)
> - Ati 9600XT 128 Megs DDR AGP Vid Card
> - Win XP Pro SP1
> 
> I know the beginner systems now blow the lid off my current setup, and since
> I only play UT99 I do not need the Top of the Line system either.  Basically
> I was wondering what the ideal system for running UT at max settings without
> dropping any FPS would be.  I am undecided between a Sempron 64 bit or a P4
> 64 bit, or for the long run, would a Core 2 duo or an Athlon 64 X2 be the
> wiser decision.  Then again if I was to get the newer cpu's I would need a
> new Vid card since it's all about pci-x.
> So I have 2 choices.....Keep my 9600XT and get a Sempron or P4 based system
> or go for the core 2 or X2 based system and get a 7600 GT Vid Card.
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> TIA
> Robo29
> 
> 
Sorry for my english! I advice you to attend plus time for buy new PC. 
For CPU you can buy now but for graphic card you wait: you can see new 
solution, plus optimize for game and UT.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:11:12 GMT, "Robo29" <hard@work.ca> wrote:

>My current system is:
>- 1800 Duron
>- 768 Megs DDR Ram (512 pc3200 and 256 pc2700)
>- Ati 9600XT 128 Megs DDR AGP Vid Card
>- Win XP Pro SP1
>
>I know the beginner systems now blow the lid off my current setup, and since
>I only play UT99 I do not need the Top of the Line system either.  Basically
>I was wondering what the ideal system for running UT at max settings without
>dropping any FPS would be.  I am undecided between a Sempron 64 bit or a P4
>64 bit, or for the long run, would a Core 2 duo or an Athlon 64 X2 be the
>wiser decision.  Then again if I was to get the newer cpu's I would need a
>new Vid card since it's all about pci-x.
>So I have 2 choices.....Keep my 9600XT and get a Sempron or P4 based system
>or go for the core 2 or X2 based system and get a 7600 GT Vid Card.
>Any input would be greatly appreciated.
>TIA
>Robo29
>

One of the best sites on the net for hardware reviews is Tech Report.
They periodically do a system guide and spec out systems from low to
high end. They just came out with a new article in March, so the
hardware is pretty fresh. 

http://techreport.com/etc/2007q1/mar-system-guide/index.x?pg=1

The "grand experiment" sounds like it might be the best fit for you,
although the "sweet spot" system might give you some ideas as well.

> One of the best sites on the net for hardware reviews is Tech Report.
> They periodically do a system guide and spec out systems from low to
> high end. They just came out with a new article in March, so the
> hardware is pretty fresh.
>
> http://techreport.com/etc/2007q1/mar-system-guide/index.x?pg=1
>
> The "grand experiment" sounds like it might be the best fit for you,
> although the "sweet spot" system might give you some ideas as well.

Thanks Ciccio & Folk....awesome site.  Added it to the Favs for future use
:) , yes indeed, I am in desperate need of a new system....I 've had this 20
Gig Maxtor HD for ....uumm...whoa...over 7 years :D  Still works great
though but now I just need way more room :)  Think I may have an idea of
what I want now
-AMD Athlon 64 3800+ X2 Dual Core CPU, Socket AM2
-1 Gig of DDR2 Ram, 250 Gig SATA HDD
-GeForce FX 7300GS 256MB DDR2 PCI-E Video
Card (would like a 7600 GT but I am on a bit of a budget)
-Acer 19 Inch 1916WAB Widescreen LCD Flat Panel, 700:1 5ms
...but you never know, once at the store, I may just spend more than I had
originally planned :)
I'd love to get the "Grand Experiment"..that'd be too sweet but I don't shop
online and converted to Canadian Dollars with shipping.....it's a tad bit
over my $1500 budget...which is too bad because i keep thinking of it as I
type...lmao.
Anyhoos thanks again :)
Robo29

"Robo29" <hard@work.ca> wrote in message 
news:pxXSh.52142$6m4.50180@pd7urf1no...
>> One of the best sites on the net for hardware reviews is Tech Report.
>> They periodically do a system guide and spec out systems from low to
>> high end. They just came out with a new article in March, so the
>> hardware is pretty fresh.
>>
>> http://techreport.com/etc/2007q1/mar-system-guide/index.x?pg=1
>>
>> The "grand experiment" sounds like it might be the best fit for you,
>> although the "sweet spot" system might give you some ideas as well.
>
> Thanks Ciccio & Folk....awesome site.  Added it to the Favs for future use
> :) , yes indeed, I am in desperate need of a new system....I 've had this 
> 20
> Gig Maxtor HD for ....uumm...whoa...over 7 years :D  Still works great
> though but now I just need way more room :)  Think I may have an idea of
> what I want now
> -AMD Athlon 64 3800+ X2 Dual Core CPU, Socket AM2
> -1 Gig of DDR2 Ram, 250 Gig SATA HDD
> -GeForce FX 7300GS 256MB DDR2 PCI-E Video
> Card (would like a 7600 GT but I am on a bit of a budget)
> -Acer 19 Inch 1916WAB Widescreen LCD Flat Panel, 700:1 5ms
> ...but you never know, once at the store, I may just spend more than I had
> originally planned :)
> I'd love to get the "Grand Experiment"..that'd be too sweet but I don't 
> shop
> online and converted to Canadian Dollars with shipping.....it's a tad bit
> over my $1500 budget...which is too bad because i keep thinking of it as I
> type...lmao.
> Anyhoos thanks again :)
> Robo29
>
>
Hi Robo,

Where in Canada are you ?

I'm from Montreal, I could point to a couple of stores in the area where you 
could get a good deal. I just buy the parts, and build my own boxes, but 
some local supplyers do sell complete boxes. at a good prices.

Later
Noxx 

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:15:49 GMT, "Robo29" <hard@work.ca> wrote:

>> One of the best sites on the net for hardware reviews is Tech Report.
>> They periodically do a system guide and spec out systems from low to
>> high end. They just came out with a new article in March, so the
>> hardware is pretty fresh.
>>
>> http://techreport.com/etc/2007q1/mar-system-guide/index.x?pg=1
>>
>> The "grand experiment" sounds like it might be the best fit for you,
>> although the "sweet spot" system might give you some ideas as well.
>
>Thanks Ciccio & Folk....awesome site.  Added it to the Favs for future use
>:) , yes indeed, I am in desperate need of a new system....I 've had this 20
>Gig Maxtor HD for ....uumm...whoa...over 7 years :D  Still works great
>though but now I just need way more room :)  Think I may have an idea of
>what I want now
>-AMD Athlon 64 3800+ X2 Dual Core CPU, Socket AM2
>-1 Gig of DDR2 Ram, 250 Gig SATA HDD
>-GeForce FX 7300GS 256MB DDR2 PCI-E Video
>Card (would like a 7600 GT but I am on a bit of a budget)
>-Acer 19 Inch 1916WAB Widescreen LCD Flat Panel, 700:1 5ms
>...but you never know, once at the store, I may just spend more than I had
>originally planned :)
>I'd love to get the "Grand Experiment"..that'd be too sweet but I don't shop
>online and converted to Canadian Dollars with shipping.....it's a tad bit
>over my $1500 budget...which is too bad because i keep thinking of it as I
>type...lmao.
>Anyhoos thanks again :)
>Robo29
>

I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.  

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:4v5q13h9guah8b63puf58p6jt9t7lhno93@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:15:49 GMT, "Robo29" <hard@work.ca> wrote:
>
>>> One of the best sites on the net for hardware reviews is Tech Report.
>>> They periodically do a system guide and spec out systems from low to
>>> high end. They just came out with a new article in March, so the
>>> hardware is pretty fresh.
>>>
>>> http://techreport.com/etc/2007q1/mar-system-guide/index.x?pg=1
>>>
>>> The "grand experiment" sounds like it might be the best fit for you,
>>> although the "sweet spot" system might give you some ideas as well.
>>
>>Thanks Ciccio & Folk....awesome site.  Added it to the Favs for future use
>>:) , yes indeed, I am in desperate need of a new system....I 've had this 
>>20
>>Gig Maxtor HD for ....uumm...whoa...over 7 years :D  Still works great
>>though but now I just need way more room :)  Think I may have an idea of
>>what I want now
>>-AMD Athlon 64 3800+ X2 Dual Core CPU, Socket AM2
>>-1 Gig of DDR2 Ram, 250 Gig SATA HDD
>>-GeForce FX 7300GS 256MB DDR2 PCI-E Video
>>Card (would like a 7600 GT but I am on a bit of a budget)
>>-Acer 19 Inch 1916WAB Widescreen LCD Flat Panel, 700:1 5ms
>>...but you never know, once at the store, I may just spend more than I had
>>originally planned :)
>>I'd love to get the "Grand Experiment"..that'd be too sweet but I don't 
>>shop
>>online and converted to Canadian Dollars with shipping.....it's a tad bit
>>over my $1500 budget...which is too bad because i keep thinking of it as I
>>type...lmao.
>>Anyhoos thanks again :)
>>Robo29
>>
>
> I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
> given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.

Not to mention I just read yesterday that AMD is really tightening their 
belt company-wide because they are getting killed by Intel. 

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:18:24 -0400, Folk wrote:

> I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
> given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.

There's nothing to think "long and hard" about.  The C2D is simply an
outstanding processor, and beats the pants off anything AMD has at the
moment, at least on the same price curve.  It really is nice.  I'd
recommend the E6600.

I'm a former die-hard AMD user, FWIW.  The C2D rocks.

-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

> Hi Robo,
>
> Where in Canada are you ?
>
> I'm from Montreal, I could point to a couple of stores in the area where
you
> could get a good deal. I just buy the parts, and build my own boxes, but
> some local supplyers do sell complete boxes. at a good prices.
>
> Later
> Noxx
>
> Hey fellow Canadian

I'm on the West Coast of Canada in British Columbia (Vancouver Island) I've
built my last 3 systems (old yes but it was a good learning process) and
since I haven't been keeping up with the new specs and intel vs amd Soap
Opera I'm a bit leary building a new one....never used SATA or hooked up
pci-e and I'd hate to screw something up during the build. :D   Nah
seriously though...I thought of building my own but finding the time to
build one with 3 little ones is kinda tough.  As it is I only get about 5
hours a week to play UT (which is why it is still the only game I play)
Later Noxx

Robo29

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:01:37 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
>> given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.
>
>Not to mention I just read yesterday that AMD is really tightening their 
>belt company-wide because they are getting killed by Intel. 

Heh.  They have a long history of getting killed by Intel and a
relatively short period of superiority.

My last 4 boxes have been Intel, AMD, Intel, AMD.  That was P2, K2, P4
and now AMD64 (3500+).  I plan to replace my current system this Fall
(or whenever the UT3 demo hits) and unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of
their hat I'm going to go Intel this time.  I'm certainly not a
fanboy... I'll use whatever is king at the time I'm building, but TBH
I'm glad it's going to be Intel this time around.  Although my current
Nforce 3 based system is the most stable I've ever owned (built two
years ago and nary a problem) it's still true that the industry
designs toward Intel based platforms. 

Robo29 wrote:
> My current system is:
> - 1800 Duron
> - 768 Megs DDR Ram (512 pc3200 and 256 pc2700)
> - Ati 9600XT 128 Megs DDR AGP Vid Card
> - Win XP Pro SP1
> 
> I know the beginner systems now blow the lid off my current setup, and since
> I only play UT99 I do not need the Top of the Line system either.  Basically
> I was wondering what the ideal system for running UT at max settings without
> dropping any FPS would be.  

What you have now is fine except you could do with more horse power gfx 
card wise - however this more or less means, just as you mention, you 
need a PCI-X slot board which again means new CPU and new ram.... and 
also a new PSU since more power is needed so you may as well get a new 
case :-)



I am undecided between a Sempron 64 bit or a P4
> 64 bit, or for the long run, would a Core 2 duo or an Athlon 64 X2 be the
> wiser decision.  Then again if I was to get the newer cpu's I would need a
> new Vid card since it's all about pci-x.
> So I have 2 choices.....Keep my 9600XT and get a Sempron or P4 based system
> or go for the core 2 or X2 based system and get a 7600 GT Vid Card.
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I think ATI makes the better gfx cards and the next series coming up 
looks to be THE solution so I'd wait a couple of months if possible. But 
regardless if you go ATI(AMD) or NVIDIA then gfx card is still more 
important than CPU when gaming.

As for any other recomendations. Get 2 GB ram, don't get VISTA and 
consider getting a 10.000 rpm hard disc as the primary drive. Also 
unless you have 21" screen allready go get one - you can buy an used 
High End CRT screen, SONY/EIZO/LaCie, for $100 and for anything but wide 
screen stuff it's still the best for gaming.

Kind regards
Bruno (Still loving UT @ 2048*1536 on my SONY F-520 and UT loves my 
X1900XTX)

"Robo29" <hard@work.ca> wrote in message 
news:4lvSh.48022$aG1.19521@pd7urf3no...
> My current system is:
> - 1800 Duron
> - 768 Megs DDR Ram (512 pc3200 and 256 pc2700)
> - Ati 9600XT 128 Megs DDR AGP Vid Card
> - Win XP Pro SP1
>
> I know the beginner systems now blow the lid off my current setup, and 
> since
> I only play UT99 I do not need the Top of the Line system either. 
> Basically
> I was wondering what the ideal system for running UT at max settings 
> without
> dropping any FPS would be.  I am undecided between a Sempron 64 bit or a 
> P4
> 64 bit, or for the long run, would a Core 2 duo or an Athlon 64 X2 be the
> wiser decision.  Then again if I was to get the newer cpu's I would need a
> new Vid card since it's all about pci-x.
> So I have 2 choices.....Keep my 9600XT and get a Sempron or P4 based 
> system
> or go for the core 2 or X2 based system and get a 7600 GT Vid Card.
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> TIA
> Robo29
>
If you are running a 9600xt then you could just upgrade the processor which 
is likely to be the bottleneck in your system ( you should junk the 256Mb 
chip and put another PC3200 512Mb  in  for the faster processors to avoid 
problems ) if your board will take an XP 2800+  or 3200+ then it will fly by 
comparison if for example you are running  32 bit 1024x768 UT2k4 it should 
be maxing out at 100+fps  pity I cant' find the benchmarks  for UT'99  it 
will cost you bobbins and then you can hang back until  UT3 releases before 
spending the big money.

Nick-Dastardly (Derek)
"Nuttley keep the motor running"

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:36:24 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
wrote:

> But regardless if you go ATI(AMD) or NVIDIA then gfx card is still more 
>important than CPU when gaming.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Wrong answer.

I've benchmarked both UT99 and UT2004 extensively.  I can say beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the CPU is the bottleneck in virtually all
cases.  The only time graphics would be a problem is if you were using
integrated graphics.  The OP's 9600XT is *plenty* of vid card for
UT99, but his Duron is certainly holding him back.  If he would shove
in the fastest processor his current mobo would allow, he would see
his framerates soar.

This is not a generalized truth that applies to all gaming, but it's
absolutely the case for the current and past Unreal engine based
games.  We'll have to see whether UT3 breaks that rule.

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:3pq123p1dq9fr5tlj1q4cksl81t87isiq2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:36:24 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
> wrote:
>
>> But regardless if you go ATI(AMD) or NVIDIA then gfx card is still more
>>important than CPU when gaming.
>
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Wrong answer.
>
> I've benchmarked both UT99 and UT2004 extensively.  I can say beyond a
> shadow of a doubt that the CPU is the bottleneck in virtually all
> cases.  The only time graphics would be a problem is if you were using
> integrated graphics.  The OP's 9600XT is *plenty* of vid card for
> UT99, but his Duron is certainly holding him back.  If he would shove
> in the fastest processor his current mobo would allow, he would see
> his framerates soar.
>
> This is not a generalized truth that applies to all gaming, but it's
> absolutely the case for the current and past Unreal engine based
> games.  We'll have to see whether UT3 breaks that rule.

I'll back you up on that Folk. I ran UT on only a dual core processor with 
no vid card installed just to see how it would do. I could get mid 40's 
framerate on middle of the road graphic settings (UT2004). The physics were 
choppy as the processor was really being stressed but it was playable. 

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:27:48 -0700, goPostal wrote:

>> This is not a generalized truth that applies to all gaming, but it's
>> absolutely the case for the current and past Unreal engine based
>> games.  We'll have to see whether UT3 breaks that rule.
 
> I'll back you up on that Folk. I ran UT on only a dual core processor with 
> no vid card installed just to see how it would do. I could get mid 40's 
> framerate on middle of the road graphic settings (UT2004). The physics were 
> choppy as the processor was really being stressed but it was playable.

How'd you get mid 40's framerate with no video?  Hard to see how you could
even see the game, with no video card.

It is true that the CPU is the main chokepoint on the Unreal engine.  It's
called being "CPU-bound".  Some other games/engines are vidcard-bound.

-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

> I've benchmarked both UT99 and UT2004 extensively.  I can say beyond a
> shadow of a doubt that the CPU is the bottleneck in virtually all
> cases.  The only time graphics would be a problem is if you were using
> integrated graphics.  The OP's 9600XT is *plenty* of vid card for
> UT99, but his Duron is certainly holding him back.  If he would shove
> in the fastest processor his current mobo would allow, he would see
> his framerates soar.

My Mobo (ECS KM400-M2) can handle up to Barton XP 2800+...and the max ram is 
pc2700 (2 Gigs) which I have a 512 pc3200 and a 256 pc2700 in there....so I 
may just get a 1 Gig stick of 2700 and sell the 512 to be sure there are no 
conflictions.
Robo29 

> My Mobo (ECS KM400-M2) can handle up to Barton XP 2800+...and the max ram 
> is pc2700 (2 Gigs) which I have a 512 pc3200 and a 256 pc2700 in 
> there....so I may just get a 1 Gig stick of 2700 and sell the 512 to be 
> sure there are no conflictions.
> Robo29
Oooops....I meant a 3000+  I just looked up the cpu support on the site
http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Support/CPU_Support_Model.aspx?detailid=365&MenuID=69&LanID=0
Robo29 

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:50:48 GMT, "Robo29" <hard@work.ca> wrote:

>> My Mobo (ECS KM400-M2) can handle up to Barton XP 2800+...and the max ram 
>> is pc2700 (2 Gigs) which I have a 512 pc3200 and a 256 pc2700 in 
>> there....so I may just get a 1 Gig stick of 2700 and sell the 512 to be 
>> sure there are no conflictions.
>> Robo29
>Oooops....I meant a 3000+  I just looked up the cpu support on the site
>http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Support/CPU_Support_Model.aspx?detailid=365&MenuID=69&LanID=0
>Robo29 
>

You'll be surprised what that will do compared to your 1800 Duron.

Folk wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:36:24 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
> wrote:
> 
>> But regardless if you go ATI(AMD) or NVIDIA then gfx card is still more 
>> important than CPU when gaming.
> 
> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Wrong answer.
>
Not so unless you play in low resolution with low graphics quality 
settings in the driver control panel.



> I've benchmarked both UT99 and UT2004 extensively.  I can say beyond a
> shadow of a doubt that the CPU is the bottleneck in virtually all
> cases.  The only time graphics would be a problem is if you were using
> integrated graphics.  The OP's 9600XT is *plenty* of vid card for
> UT99, but his Duron is certainly holding him back.  If he would shove
> in the fastest processor his current mobo would allow, he would see
> his framerates soar.
> 
As for UT2004 I can't say but the original poster focuses on UT so I did 
as well. Unless you go really slow in the CPU department or settle for a 
low resolutions the bottleneck is the GFX power of the PC.

Oh and the 9600 XT is not plenty unless we talk low resolutions, okay 
but NOT plenty!

It's very easy to see if the gfx card is the bottle neck or not. Just 
run a timedemo in 640*480 with low quality settings in the gfx driver 
and that score will tell you what the CPU + memory speed of the system 
allows for (unless you gfx card is very slow then it's all ready a 
bottleneck). Next increase resolution plus driver quality settings and 
run the timedemo again. If the frame rate scores are aprox. the same 
then it's not the gfx card which holds UT back if the scores are lower 
then the gfx card is next to upgrade.

Kind regards
Bruno

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:20:27 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:36:24 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> But regardless if you go ATI(AMD) or NVIDIA then gfx card is still more 
>>> important than CPU when gaming.
>> 
>> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Wrong answer.
>>
>Not so unless you play in low resolution with low graphics quality 
>settings in the driver control panel.
>
>
>
>> I've benchmarked both UT99 and UT2004 extensively.  I can say beyond a
>> shadow of a doubt that the CPU is the bottleneck in virtually all
>> cases.  The only time graphics would be a problem is if you were using
>> integrated graphics.  The OP's 9600XT is *plenty* of vid card for
>> UT99, but his Duron is certainly holding him back.  If he would shove
>> in the fastest processor his current mobo would allow, he would see
>> his framerates soar.
>> 
>As for UT2004 I can't say but the original poster focuses on UT so I did 
>as well. Unless you go really slow in the CPU department or settle for a 
>low resolutions the bottleneck is the GFX power of the PC.

Like I said, I've benchmarked both games extensively.

>Oh and the 9600 XT is not plenty unless we talk low resolutions, okay 
>but NOT plenty!

It's plenty for UT99.  The hot card when UT99 came out was something
like a Geforce 2 and it ran the game fairly well.  The 9600 XT is head
and shoulders above that.  It's *plenty* of card for UT99.

>It's very easy to see if the gfx card is the bottle neck or not. Just 
>run a timedemo in 640*480 with low quality settings in the gfx driver 
>and that score will tell you what the CPU + memory speed of the system 
>allows for (unless you gfx card is very slow then it's all ready a 
>bottleneck). Next increase resolution plus driver quality settings and 
>run the timedemo again. If the frame rate scores are aprox. the same 
>then it's not the gfx card which holds UT back if the scores are lower 
>then the gfx card is next to upgrade.

I'm sure the OP would see no difference using your test method.

Two systems ago (Aug of 2004) I was running a P4 at 2.53 (an
overclocked 1.6... those things would overclock like mad) and a Ti4400
vid card.  I bought a copy of Doom and my Ti4400 was puking all over
the place, so I bought a 6800 GT (still using it in my current
rig!!!).  My Doom framerates jumped nicely and the stutters were
completely eliminated.  At the time, that was a two generation jump in
vid cards.  

So what did that upgrade do to my UT99 framerates?  Zip.  Nada.
Absolutely no difference whatsoever!  The only difference was that I
could now pull the same framerates at 1600 x 1200 as I did at 1024 x
768 due to the pixel pushing power of the 6800 GT.  But at the same
time I could underclock/overclock my processor and watch my UT99
framerates go up and down almost exactly the same percentage as the
CPU core clock.  That, my friend, is a perfect example of a CPU bound
game.

As an aside, hardware enthusiast sites quit using UT99 as a vid card
benchmark for the same reason and instead used it for CPU benchmarks. 

It was a bit difficult to find a benchmark with such old data, but I
managed to dig this up at Firing Squad:

http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?current_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=1478

Scroll down to the UT2004 section (UT99 was the same in this regard)
and notice how the X800 Pro had virtually the same framerates at 800 x
600, 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 1024.  Also notice how the framerate
increase was linear from a 2100+ up through the 3400+.  Also notice
the comment at the bottom of the graphs:

"We’re CPU-bound with the X800 PRO at 800x600 and 1024x768 on the
3400+, and CPU-bound at all resolutions with the same graphics card
and an AMD Athlon XP processor. "

Unless your vid card is pure crap, a processor upgrade for Unreal
engine based games is *always* the best bang for the buck.  Doom was a
*completely* different story and really needed a better vid card to
play well.  

I thought frame rate limits were also goverened by your monitor refresh in 
UT?

Its a false limit I know but thats the number people quote.

Messa


"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:mc0823pp7hc5bn3oo8nmsdgdav9i4kck4h@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:20:27 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
> wrote:
>
>>Folk wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:36:24 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But regardless if you go ATI(AMD) or NVIDIA then gfx card is still more
>>>> important than CPU when gaming.
>>>
>>> Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Wrong answer.
>>>
>>Not so unless you play in low resolution with low graphics quality
>>settings in the driver control panel.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I've benchmarked both UT99 and UT2004 extensively.  I can say beyond a
>>> shadow of a doubt that the CPU is the bottleneck in virtually all
>>> cases.  The only time graphics would be a problem is if you were using
>>> integrated graphics.  The OP's 9600XT is *plenty* of vid card for
>>> UT99, but his Duron is certainly holding him back.  If he would shove
>>> in the fastest processor his current mobo would allow, he would see
>>> his framerates soar.
>>>
>>As for UT2004 I can't say but the original poster focuses on UT so I did
>>as well. Unless you go really slow in the CPU department or settle for a
>>low resolutions the bottleneck is the GFX power of the PC.
>
> Like I said, I've benchmarked both games extensively.
>
>>Oh and the 9600 XT is not plenty unless we talk low resolutions, okay
>>but NOT plenty!
>
> It's plenty for UT99.  The hot card when UT99 came out was something
> like a Geforce 2 and it ran the game fairly well.  The 9600 XT is head
> and shoulders above that.  It's *plenty* of card for UT99.
>
>>It's very easy to see if the gfx card is the bottle neck or not. Just
>>run a timedemo in 640*480 with low quality settings in the gfx driver
>>and that score will tell you what the CPU + memory speed of the system
>>allows for (unless you gfx card is very slow then it's all ready a
>>bottleneck). Next increase resolution plus driver quality settings and
>>run the timedemo again. If the frame rate scores are aprox. the same
>>then it's not the gfx card which holds UT back if the scores are lower
>>then the gfx card is next to upgrade.
>
> I'm sure the OP would see no difference using your test method.
>
> Two systems ago (Aug of 2004) I was running a P4 at 2.53 (an
> overclocked 1.6... those things would overclock like mad) and a Ti4400
> vid card.  I bought a copy of Doom and my Ti4400 was puking all over
> the place, so I bought a 6800 GT (still using it in my current
> rig!!!).  My Doom framerates jumped nicely and the stutters were
> completely eliminated.  At the time, that was a two generation jump in
> vid cards.
>
> So what did that upgrade do to my UT99 framerates?  Zip.  Nada.
> Absolutely no difference whatsoever!  The only difference was that I
> could now pull the same framerates at 1600 x 1200 as I did at 1024 x
> 768 due to the pixel pushing power of the 6800 GT.  But at the same
> time I could underclock/overclock my processor and watch my UT99
> framerates go up and down almost exactly the same percentage as the
> CPU core clock.  That, my friend, is a perfect example of a CPU bound
> game.
>
> As an aside, hardware enthusiast sites quit using UT99 as a vid card
> benchmark for the same reason and instead used it for CPU benchmarks.
>
> It was a bit difficult to find a benchmark with such old data, but I
> managed to dig this up at Firing Squad:
>
> http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?current_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=1478
>
> Scroll down to the UT2004 section (UT99 was the same in this regard)
> and notice how the X800 Pro had virtually the same framerates at 800 x
> 600, 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 1024.  Also notice how the framerate
> increase was linear from a 2100+ up through the 3400+.  Also notice
> the comment at the bottom of the graphs:
>
> "We're CPU-bound with the X800 PRO at 800x600 and 1024x768 on the
> 3400+, and CPU-bound at all resolutions with the same graphics card
> and an AMD Athlon XP processor. "
>
> Unless your vid card is pure crap, a processor upgrade for Unreal
> engine based games is *always* the best bang for the buck.  Doom was a
> *completely* different story and really needed a better vid card to
> play well. 

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:03:41 GMT, "Messa" <Me@Sir.com> wrote:

>I thought frame rate limits were also goverened by your monitor refresh in 
>UT?

That's true... if you have v-sync turned on.  For benchmarking
purposes you should always turn v-sync off.

Folk wrote:
> Like I said, I've benchmarked both games extensively.
> 
I'm all ???? as to why we experience such different results. I will try 
and dig up my old benchmark results but I do fear they went away with a 
hard disc that died on me. Still I'm thinking we have been playing UT in 
very different resolutions which perhaps explains why I view UT as 
graphics limited rather than CPU limited.

Fx. I upgraded from a 9700 Pro to a X1900XTX and promise you it did make 
a difference in UT at 2048x1536.

As you I had trouble finding data covering old and new hardware so let's 
go with UT 2004:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page7.html

Note how the CPU used seems to offer aprox. 118 fps and how enabling AA 
and AF makes a huge difference, fx. more than 100% on the 9600 card, 
with only the fastest cards still bringing the 118 fps. Of course UT 
will provide different figures but going high res you'll see a similar 
effect.

Kind regards
Bruno

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:37:00 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>> Like I said, I've benchmarked both games extensively.
>> 
>I'm all ???? as to why we experience such different results. I will try 
>and dig up my old benchmark results but I do fear they went away with a 
>hard disc that died on me. Still I'm thinking we have been playing UT in 
>very different resolutions which perhaps explains why I view UT as 
>graphics limited rather than CPU limited.
>
>Fx. I upgraded from a 9700 Pro to a X1900XTX and promise you it did make 
>a difference in UT at 2048x1536.

Jesus, I guess so.  Most earthlings don't game at 2048 x 1536.  What
kind of monitor are you using?

>As you I had trouble finding data covering old and new hardware so let's 
>go with UT 2004:
>
>http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page7.html
>
>Note how the CPU used seems to offer aprox. 118 fps and how enabling AA 
>and AF makes a huge difference, fx. more than 100% on the 9600 card, 
>with only the fastest cards still bringing the 118 fps. Of course UT 
>will provide different figures but going high res you'll see a similar 
>effect.

The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.  We can see that there are 16
cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
the same results.

In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
AA/AF or resolution settings.  There's certainly nothing wrong with
that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
in UT.  

Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html

Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3.  Now which game engine would
you call CPU limited?

If you're gaming at 2048 x 1536, then you could certainly be vid card
limited, but then who wouldn't be at that resolution?  I would highly
recommend an SLI solution to push that number of pixels.  For average
gamers using a 19" flat panel (1280 x 1024) and not going nuts with AA
or AF, then you're going to be CPU bound using the Unreal engine.

FWIW, UT99 is much friendlier than UT2004 when it comes to vid card
requirements.  Textures are *much* smaller.

Folk wrote:
> Jesus, I guess so.  Most earthlings don't game at 2048 x 1536.  What
> kind of monitor are you using?
> 
It's a 21" Sony F-520 which I bought something like 6 years ago. It does 
2048*1536 at 85 Hz and I'm sad to say they don't make them like that 
anymore. Playing UT in that resolution has some benefits like being able 
to tell friend from foe on a long distance, something which actually has 
gotten me accused of using a zoom cheat while playing Instagib on Face :-)

Before the 21" I gamed using a 17" SONY 17se which was able to do 
1600x1200 so I have allways been pushing graphics cards to the limit


> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.  

I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I 
did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve 
stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for 
UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in 
fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!

I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting 
you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I 
mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very 
affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain 
compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high 
end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many 
people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for 
gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).


> We can see that there are 16
> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
> the same results.
> 
Exactly.


> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
> AA/AF or resolution settings.  There's certainly nothing wrong with
> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
> in UT.

Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high 
but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we 
play to look the best possible.



> 
> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
> 
> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3.  Now which game engine would
> you call CPU limited?
> 
No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's 
much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you 
up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.

I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a 
graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.


> If you're gaming at 2048 x 1536, then you could certainly be vid card
> limited, but then who wouldn't be at that resolution?  I would highly
> recommend an SLI solution to push that number of pixels.  For average
> gamers using a 19" flat panel (1280 x 1024) and not going nuts with AA
> or AF, then you're going to be CPU bound using the Unreal engine.
> 
SLI is not needed as the current high end cards will do just as my 
X1900XTX does - however they are very different than say a 9600 or a 
X800. (and a lot louder with all the cooling that's needed!)


> FWIW, UT99 is much friendlier than UT2004 when it comes to vid card
> requirements.  Textures are *much* smaller.

Certainly, UT2004 is a lot more complex. Textures are bigger, more 
lightning, more polygons, more everything basicly. UT is in sense a Dx6 
games build on an engine from 1997/98 and doesn't even benefit from T&L. 
I still remember a friend of mine swapping his TNTUltra something for a 
Geforce256 only to realize his old card was faster and that he payed a 
huge amount of cash for T&L which was only used in tech demos at the time.

Kind regards
Bruno

Bruno wrote:
> I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I 
> did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve 
> stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for 
> UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in 
> fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
> 
I forgot the link to the statistics:

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

There are some interesting figures.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
wrote:


>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.  
>
>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I 
>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve 
>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for 
>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in 
>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!

Thanks for the link.   I was already familiar with those stats
(they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
The average system is quite modest. 

>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting 
>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I 
>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very 
>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain 
>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high 
>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many 
>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for 
>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).

There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
could get an extra 10 fps.  :)

>> We can see that there are 16
>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>> the same results.
>> 
>Exactly.
>
>
>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>> AA/AF or resolution settings.  There's certainly nothing wrong with
>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>> in UT.
>
>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high 
>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we 
>play to look the best possible.

Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
in UT2004 ONS.  I usually keep it off though.  In a fast paced FPS,
looking at the scenery is not high on my list.  :-)

>> 
>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>> 
>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3.  Now which game engine would
>> you call CPU limited?
>> 
>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's 
>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you 
>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>
>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a 
>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.

I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing.  Are we
geeks or what?

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:q16f23hmap4rr0u31ns68fa8l10ril7gcu@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.
>>
>>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
>>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
>>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
>>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
>>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
>
> Thanks for the link.   I was already familiar with those stats
> (they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
> The average system is quite modest.
>
>>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
>>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
>>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
>>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
>>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
>>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
>>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
>>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).
>
> There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
> their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
> could get an extra 10 fps.  :)
>
>>> We can see that there are 16
>>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>>> the same results.
>>>
>>Exactly.
>>
>>
>>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>>> AA/AF or resolution settings.  There's certainly nothing wrong with
>>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>>> in UT.
>>
>>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
>>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
>>play to look the best possible.
>
> Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
> in UT2004 ONS.  I usually keep it off though.  In a fast paced FPS,
> looking at the scenery is not high on my list.  :-)
>
>>>
>>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>>>
>>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3.  Now which game engine would
>>> you call CPU limited?
>>>
>>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
>>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
>>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>>
>>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
>>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.
>
> I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing.  Are we
> geeks or what?

well if you have increased the fsb frequency by 1 mhz  at a time looking for 
the best perforamce that was still stable I'm afraid so (guilty your honour)

Nick-Dastardly

"quit snikkering Nuttley" 

"Robo29" <hard@work.ca> wrote in message 
news:EBjTh.62482$6m4.49563@pd7urf1no...
>> Hi Robo,
>>
>> Where in Canada are you ?
>>
>> I'm from Montreal, I could point to a couple of stores in the area where
> you
>> could get a good deal. I just buy the parts, and build my own boxes, but
>> some local supplyers do sell complete boxes. at a good prices.
>>
>> Later
>> Noxx
>>
>> Hey fellow Canadian
>
> I'm on the West Coast of Canada in British Columbia (Vancouver Island) 
> I've
> built my last 3 systems (old yes but it was a good learning process) and
> since I haven't been keeping up with the new specs and intel vs amd Soap
> Opera I'm a bit leary building a new one....never used SATA or hooked up
> pci-e and I'd hate to screw something up during the build. :D   Nah
> seriously though...I thought of building my own but finding the time to
> build one with 3 little ones is kinda tough.  As it is I only get about 5
> hours a week to play UT (which is why it is still the only game I play)
> Later Noxx
>
> Robo29
>
>

Hey Robo, this is pretty OT, but whens a good time to tour BC? The fam is 
thinking of taking a trip up the coast through Seattle into Canada but I 
want to stay away from any late snows. Do you guys have the same "rainy 
season" we do farther south? 

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:c3rs135k0kl4or4anqcr98ti0k0t680elk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:01:37 -0700, "goPostal"
> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
>>> given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.
>>
>>Not to mention I just read yesterday that AMD is really tightening their
>>belt company-wide because they are getting killed by Intel.
>
> Heh.  They have a long history of getting killed by Intel and a
> relatively short period of superiority.
>
> My last 4 boxes have been Intel, AMD, Intel, AMD.  That was P2, K2, P4
> and now AMD64 (3500+).  I plan to replace my current system this Fall
> (or whenever the UT3 demo hits) and unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of
> their hat I'm going to go Intel this time.  I'm certainly not a
> fanboy... I'll use whatever is king at the time I'm building, but TBH
> I'm glad it's going to be Intel this time around.  Although my current
> Nforce 3 based system is the most stable I've ever owned (built two
> years ago and nary a problem) it's still true that the industry
> designs toward Intel based platforms.

I'm curous about how you feel on Vista. I'm dual booting but it seems I 
hardly use Vista at all. It never seems to take long before I run into some 
problem or another that I just don't have in XP. Pretty layout but they 
could have used another year of beta testing. 

"Derek" <del.wattsnospambaby@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
news:RsSVh.2690$mk4.1792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
> news:q16f23hmap4rr0u31ns68fa8l10ril7gcu@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>>>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.
>>>
>>>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
>>>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
>>>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
>>>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
>>>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
>>
>> Thanks for the link.   I was already familiar with those stats
>> (they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
>> The average system is quite modest.
>>
>>>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
>>>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
>>>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
>>>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
>>>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
>>>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
>>>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
>>>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).
>>
>> There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
>> their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
>> could get an extra 10 fps.  :)
>>
>>>> We can see that there are 16
>>>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>>>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>>>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>>>> the same results.
>>>>
>>>Exactly.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>>>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>>>> AA/AF or resolution settings.  There's certainly nothing wrong with
>>>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>>>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>>>> in UT.
>>>
>>>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
>>>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
>>>play to look the best possible.
>>
>> Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
>> in UT2004 ONS.  I usually keep it off though.  In a fast paced FPS,
>> looking at the scenery is not high on my list.  :-)
>>
>>>>
>>>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>>>>
>>>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3.  Now which game engine would
>>>> you call CPU limited?
>>>>
>>>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
>>>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
>>>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>>>
>>>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
>>>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.
>>
>> I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing.  Are we
>> geeks or what?
>
> well if you have increased the fsb frequency by 1 mhz  at a time looking 
> for the best perforamce that was still stable I'm afraid so (guilty your 
> honour)
>
> Nick-Dastardly
>
> "quit snikkering Nuttley"
>

I bet you guys look like that kid from the movie "Powder".
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/films/powder.jpg

Go outside and get some sun  :P 

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:34:04 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>news:c3rs135k0kl4or4anqcr98ti0k0t680elk@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:01:37 -0700, "goPostal"
>> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> I would think long and hard about going with an AMD based system,
>>>> given the current dominance of the Intel's Core 2 Duo.
>>>
>>>Not to mention I just read yesterday that AMD is really tightening their
>>>belt company-wide because they are getting killed by Intel.
>>
>> Heh.  They have a long history of getting killed by Intel and a
>> relatively short period of superiority.
>>
>> My last 4 boxes have been Intel, AMD, Intel, AMD.  That was P2, K2, P4
>> and now AMD64 (3500+).  I plan to replace my current system this Fall
>> (or whenever the UT3 demo hits) and unless AMD pulls a rabbit out of
>> their hat I'm going to go Intel this time.  I'm certainly not a
>> fanboy... I'll use whatever is king at the time I'm building, but TBH
>> I'm glad it's going to be Intel this time around.  Although my current
>> Nforce 3 based system is the most stable I've ever owned (built two
>> years ago and nary a problem) it's still true that the industry
>> designs toward Intel based platforms.
>
>I'm curous about how you feel on Vista. I'm dual booting but it seems I 
>hardly use Vista at all. It never seems to take long before I run into some 
>problem or another that I just don't have in XP. Pretty layout but they 
>could have used another year of beta testing. 

Unless there's some killer app that *has* to have Vista, I'll be
sticking with XP for the foreseeable future.  

Microsoft has to be really disappointed with Vista's reception.  Every
review I've seen can be boiled down to:  "meh... it's not worth the
hassle".

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:56:49 GMT, "Derek"
<del.wattsnospambaby@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>well if you have increased the fsb frequency by 1 mhz  at a time looking for 
>the best perforamce that was still stable I'm afraid so (guilty your honour)

You say that as if it's unusual.  :-)

"goPostal" <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Wl3Wh.13$ku5.6@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "Derek" <del.wattsnospambaby@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
> news:RsSVh.2690$mk4.1792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>> news:q16f23hmap4rr0u31ns68fa8l10ril7gcu@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:36:42 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The first graph is representative of the setup for a typical UT99
>>>>> gamer.... 1024 x 768 with no AA or AF.
>>>>
>>>>I thought a typical UT gamer would use way higher resolutions however I
>>>>did dig up some data for those playing CS, Half Life and other Valve
>>>>stuff and I stand corrected (providing those figures are similar for
>>>>UT). It seems less than 10% is using a resolution above 1280x1024 and in
>>>>fact about 44% is using 1024x768 or lower!
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link.   I was already familiar with those stats
>>> (they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
>>> The average system is quite modest.
>>>
>>>>I'm very surprised of this. I know that some years ago a screen letting
>>>>you go 1600x1200 cost a pretty penny, in fact the two monitors I
>>>>mentioned above cost me $3000+, but it has since then become very
>>>>affordable - even if you insist on using a TFT monitor it's a bargain
>>>>compared to back in time. These days one can get a 2nd hand super high
>>>>end monitor like my old Sony for like $100 or so, simply because so many
>>>>people have abandoned CRT's despite them still being the best thing for
>>>>gaming (and photo work if you like the colours to be correct).
>>>
>>> There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
>>> their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
>>> could get an extra 10 fps.  :)
>>>
>>>>> We can see that there are 16
>>>>> cards that have the same framerate (given a 3% margin of error).
>>>>> Obviously we are CPU bound at that resolution, since those 16 cards
>>>>> represent a varying amount of pixel pushing power yet they all yield
>>>>> the same results.
>>>>>
>>>>Exactly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In order to "separate the pack" for a vid card shootout, you need to
>>>>> raise the visual stakes, and they do that by using artificially high
>>>>> AA/AF or resolution settings.  There's certainly nothing wrong with
>>>>> that, but if you do all your gaming at "normal" resolutions and AA/AF
>>>>> levels, then any one of those 16 cards are just as good as the other
>>>>> in UT.
>>>>
>>>>Now here's the thing. The AA/AF settings aren't really artificially high
>>>>but more like what should be the norm, after all we deserve the games we
>>>>play to look the best possible.
>>>
>>> Turning on decent AA/AF levels on my system makes a modest difference
>>> in UT2004 ONS.  I usually keep it off though.  In a fast paced FPS,
>>> looking at the scenery is not high on my list.  :-)
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now look at the results from the same article when benching Doom 3....
>>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/10/04/vga_charts_iv/page9.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Now instead of 16 cards, we have only 3.  Now which game engine would
>>>>> you call CPU limited?
>>>>>
>>>>No question Doom 3 is a very different beast. However just because it's
>>>>much harder on the gfx card does not mean UT is not demanding once you
>>>>up the resolution and gfx quality settings, the level is just different.
>>>>
>>>>I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a
>>>>graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.
>>>
>>> I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing.  Are we
>>> geeks or what?
>>
>> well if you have increased the fsb frequency by 1 mhz  at a time looking 
>> for the best perforamce that was still stable I'm afraid so (guilty your 
>> honour)
>>
>> Nick-Dastardly
>>
>> "quit snikkering Nuttley"
>>
>
> I bet you guys look like that kid from the movie "Powder".
> http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/films/powder.jpg
>
> Go outside and get some sun  :P

ROFL wish I looked that good , it's much worse than you might at first 
suppose there is a proper photo of me posted on the web (though the server 
is down at the moment )http://www.lobsternet.org/afl/  yep I am also a 
petrolhead.

Nick-Dastardly
no you don't get a medal 

> Hey Robo, this is pretty OT, but whens a good time to tour BC? The fam
> is thinking of taking a trip up the coast through Seattle into Canada
> but I want to stay away from any late snows. Do you guys have the same
> "rainy season" we do farther south? 
> 
> 

Im on the BC coast also.. and i can say that late may early (not that we 
have had a lot of rain yet) june will be the end of the rainy season for 
BC.(thats when i insure my bike so it better be) but the rain has really 
droped off the last few years with global ( or at least bc)warming. come 
july it will be a roaster (for us). today was bright and sunny and warm
(now if only all the lakes were not glacer fed). have seen no snow here 
since a freak snow fall in febuary. in the interior they have had it 
warmer than the coast. real high elevations may see a snow fall, but not 
real likly after today.

nut

<nut@nut.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns991891F7681ABnutnutcom@199.185.223.74...
>
>> Hey Robo, this is pretty OT, but whens a good time to tour BC? The fam
>> is thinking of taking a trip up the coast through Seattle into Canada
>> but I want to stay away from any late snows. Do you guys have the same
>> "rainy season" we do farther south?
>>
>>
>
> Im on the BC coast also.. and i can say that late may early (not that we
> have had a lot of rain yet) june will be the end of the rainy season for
> BC.(thats when i insure my bike so it better be) but the rain has really
> droped off the last few years with global ( or at least bc)warming. come
> july it will be a roaster (for us). today was bright and sunny and warm
> (now if only all the lakes were not glacer fed). have seen no snow here
> since a freak snow fall in febuary. in the interior they have had it
> warmer than the coast. real high elevations may see a snow fall, but not
> real likly after today.
>
> nut

Many thanks nut. I'm just curious but what is the average water temp for 
you? Ours stays about 13.5C year round (ish). I love to surf and I thought 
of taking my gear with me when we go and renting a stick somewhere up there. 
Is there any kind of community for it around you?
We get the benefit of having very mild winters right on the coast even 
though we are pretty close to the 45th parallel. I've only seen snow once 
stay on the ground so I get to ride my bike year round (however wipers on 
the helmet would be really nice :) What do you ride? 

 
> Many thanks nut. I'm just curious but what is the average water temp
> for you? Ours stays about 13.5C year round (ish). I love to surf and I
> thought of taking my gear with me when we go and renting a stick
> somewhere up there. Is there any kind of community for it around you?
> We get the benefit of having very mild winters right on the coast even
> though we are pretty close to the 45th parallel. I've only seen snow
> once stay on the ground so I get to ride my bike year round (however
> wipers on the helmet would be really nice :) What do you ride? 
> 
i dont know all that much about surfin, as it is mainly an vancouver 
island thang. (but they do it on the mainland once in a while also). but 
i know that the water is cold. froma check on the net it looks like water 
temp is 8°C (48°F) mostly year round. the lakes at the coast cannot be 
much better. but if oyur here in july most interor lake are quite warm
(and some you can surf on on a stormy day).

my bike is an enduro. a 2000 kawasaki KLR650. my bike #6 and i wish i had 
bought it when i first looked at in back in 87.. i usually get about 8k 
to 10k a year on it(km's). nothing beats a day on the bike.. unless its a 
day on a bike with a girl..

nut

<nut@nut.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9919689FB90D2nutnutcom@199.185.223.74...
>
>> Many thanks nut. I'm just curious but what is the average water temp
>> for you? Ours stays about 13.5C year round (ish). I love to surf and I
>> thought of taking my gear with me when we go and renting a stick
>> somewhere up there. Is there any kind of community for it around you?
>> We get the benefit of having very mild winters right on the coast even
>> though we are pretty close to the 45th parallel. I've only seen snow
>> once stay on the ground so I get to ride my bike year round (however
>> wipers on the helmet would be really nice :) What do you ride?
>>
> i dont know all that much about surfin, as it is mainly an vancouver
> island thang. (but they do it on the mainland once in a while also). but
> i know that the water is cold. froma check on the net it looks like water
> temp is 8°C (48°F) mostly year round. the lakes at the coast cannot be
> much better. but if oyur here in july most interor lake are quite warm
> (and some you can surf on on a stormy day).
>

That's not much worse. I use good gear and a couple of hours straight in the 
water is not uncomfortable. I think I'll pick up a hood though  :)

> my bike is an enduro. a 2000 kawasaki KLR650. my bike #6 and i wish i had
> bought it when i first looked at in back in 87.. i usually get about 8k
> to 10k a year on it(km's). nothing beats a day on the bike.. unless its a
> day on a bike with a girl..
>
> nut

I have a small 250 Suzuki for around town. I've owned much bigger bikes but 
it's great for my needs now. To me, the escapism of taking a ride through 
the country is not unlike playing UT. You get to focus on something fun and 
let the world just kind of fall away.

I've yet to get my ball-and-chain to take a ride. She doesn't care for the 
sensations of speed and wind.   Freaky.  ;) 

Folk wrote:

> Thanks for the link.   I was already familiar with those stats
> (they're quite fascinating) since I've used them for reference before.
> The average system is quite modest. 
> 
Very much so - no question that we can feel a little spoiled :-)


> 
> There's a considerable percentage of hardcore PC gamers that would run
> their games in wire frame at 8 bit 640 x 480 if they thought they
> could get an extra 10 fps.  :)
> 
Tell me about it - at lan parties I've seen people play with the 
weirdest colour settings to optimize their advantage. I must say that I 
do draw the line at manipulating the textures as in my book it's cheating.

I remember when UT2003 came out - the grass on the maps would sometimes 
obscure view like when running over a hill. If you played with low 
details settings there was no grass - ugly but more effective. Same 
thing with smoke and other effects. I all ways played with all details 
but I guess some would say having a big screen was an advantage so it 
sort of leveled out.

>> I shall try and do some testing in the weekend. Perhaps I can make a 
>> graph showing what's the limit in my system - just for the fun of it.
> 
> I've wasted entire weekends doing just that sort of thing.  Are we
> geeks or what?

I must admit to not getting round to benchmarking this weekend. It sort 
of went into a outdoor action thing instead as the weather turned out 
better than expected.

However I do still thing the label "geek" fits fine :-)

That is of course if my love of riding mountain bikes plus owning a 
Miata does not disqualify me!?

Kind regards
Bruno


PS. I once read somewhere that the difference between boys and men are 
the price of their toys.

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:34:05 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
wrote:

>However I do still thing the label "geek" fits fine :-)
>
>That is of course if my love of riding mountain bikes plus owning a 
>Miata does not disqualify me!?

If you've tried to overclock them, then it's OK.

Folk wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:34:05 +0200, Bruno <dont.use@this.address.ever>
> wrote:
> 
>> However I do still thing the label "geek" fits fine :-)
>>
>> That is of course if my love of riding mountain bikes plus owning a 
>> Miata does not disqualify me!?
> 
> If you've tried to overclock them, then it's OK.

LOL - you tell me.

I'm fitting a optimized intake system* to the Miata and it all ready has 
an custom exhaust plus light wheels. I have considered some sort of 
force feeding, Turbo or Compressor, however we have pretty strict laws 
about those things so it's complicated and requires a lot expensive 
paper work so for now I'll stick with the small stuff.

As for my Mountain bike just about every thing has been upgraded/modded 
on it. It started life back in 1998 as a stock Specialized FSR Elite and 
now it has disc brakes, longer suspension travel at both ends, lighter 
everything (thx to carbon fiber, magnesium and titanium parts)... come 
to think of it running a top end PC is actually rather cheap :-)


Kind regards
Bruno


*http://www.five-speed.dk/Gallerisub/2006Juni3/Picture-032.jpg once I'm 
done the engine bay will look aprox. like this.

"goPostal" <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:303Xh.36$os3.6@newsfe12.lga...

| I have a small 250 Suzuki for around town. I've owned much bigger
bikes but
| it's great for my needs now. To me, the escapism of taking a ride
through
| the country is not unlike playing UT. You get to focus on something
fun and
| let the world just kind of fall away.
|
| I've yet to get my ball-and-chain to take a ride. She doesn't care
for the
| sensations of speed and wind.   Freaky.  ;)
|


Oddly(?), my wife loves riding with me (I have a Suzuki Intruder 700,
had it since '86) and she misses it.  Me thinks she likes the 2
cylinder harmonics.  Since we have a child now, the short rides
together around town are no longer, I get to ride alone now ('cept
when the neighbor watches the kid for us).  You're right tho, once you
get a helping of the speed/wind thrill, it's hard to give it up.  I
went without a bike from '75-'86, and I missed it every time the
weather was good and I saw some bikers.  Had 2 bikes in high school (a
100 Kaw and a 380 Suzuki), and once the bug bites, one never loses the
urge to ride.
-- 
Kyle

> You're right tho, once you
> get a helping of the speed/wind thrill, it's hard to give it up.  I
> went without a bike from '75-'86, and I missed it every time the
> weather was good and I saw some bikers.  Had 2 bikes in high school (a
> 100 Kaw and a 380 Suzuki), and once the bug bites, one never loses the
> urge to ride.

I have to agree with you there. i have had 6 bikes(croch rockets and 
crusers).  my last one in the 90s was a 88 honda 750 (god i dont remember 
the name!), i droped the bike at 85 kph(after hard breaking). slammed a 
curb at 110 kph and broke the wheel.  and sucide passed a semi, untill i 
hit gravel on the road side(kept on wheels) . then i rode the bike home 
and put it up for sale. then spent 6 years bikeless untill i had the 
speed bug somewhat out of my system. now i have had the same bike for 5 
years and im thinking i may want one of the koren suzuki clones that i 
saw at the bike show last time. 6000$ for a new croch rocket? thats just 
hard to say no to.
bikes ive had.
77 250 harley davidson
?? cusdom hardly honda motor thang
82 500 honda xr
86 honda interceptor 750
88 honda "something" 750 (with a digial dash that was always breaking)
2000 kawasaki KLR650 (which i will never sell)
???????????????????????? whatever is next...

nut

<nut@nut.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns991D6720AE8B0nutnutcom@199.185.223.78...
>> You're right tho, once you
>> get a helping of the speed/wind thrill, it's hard to give it up.  I
>> went without a bike from '75-'86, and I missed it every time the
>> weather was good and I saw some bikers.  Had 2 bikes in high school (a
>> 100 Kaw and a 380 Suzuki), and once the bug bites, one never loses the
>> urge to ride.
>
> I have to agree with you there. i have had 6 bikes(croch rockets and
> crusers).  my last one in the 90s was a 88 honda 750 (god i dont remember
> the name!), i droped the bike at 85 kph(after hard breaking). slammed a
> curb at 110 kph and broke the wheel.  and sucide passed a semi, untill i
> hit gravel on the road side(kept on wheels) . then i rode the bike home
> and put it up for sale. then spent 6 years bikeless untill i had the
> speed bug somewhat out of my system. now i have had the same bike for 5
> years and im thinking i may want one of the koren suzuki clones that i
> saw at the bike show last time. 6000$ for a new croch rocket? thats just
> hard to say no to.
> bikes ive had.
> 77 250 harley davidson
> ?? cusdom hardly honda motor thang
> 82 500 honda xr
> 86 honda interceptor 750
> 88 honda "something" 750 (with a digial dash that was always breaking)
> 2000 kawasaki KLR650 (which i will never sell)
> ???????????????????????? whatever is next...
>
> nut

I sold my last bike right before I got married. It was a 1000 Kaw that would 
really go straight line. I put a lot of money into juicing it up and it 
would run right with a buddies ZX-11 (at least until the first curve :) 
I've ridden the GSX-R's and the ZX series but I don't really care for the 
seating. Too much pressure on the wrists. I'm not a very aggresive rider 
either so the added ground clearance in curves is wasted on me. Love the 
straight line acceleration on them though. Very light and nimble in traffic.
I was watching "Metric Revolution" on TV last night (it's a bike build-off) 
and they had a 'busa that was stretched out a bit, but was tricked out with 
twin (yes twin) turbos and twin (yes again) nitrous. Dyno'd out at 500 HP. 
How in the world are you ever going to put that much power to the ground 
through one wheel? That's not a motorcycle, it's a donorcycle.