🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Jan 2003 20:01:55 -0800, lld...@yahoo.com (LL Deja) wrote:

>I just got my Radeon 9700 (non-pro) and expected to be able to fly in
>Unreal Tournament 2003, but in DM-Antalus with 8 bots and the
>following settings (1024x768 32bit and most of the bells and whistles
>turned on to High), I am getting an average of 39 FPS.  Is this
>normal?  I am using all the default settings that came with the driver
>installation.
>
>I have the driver date 12/18/2002 (not sure what driver version) from
>the ATI website.
>
>I have Athlon 1800+, 512MB, and Epox 8KHA+.  My CPU might not be top
>of the line, but 39 FPS just plain sucks.  Any help would be
>appreciated.  I have also found my Unreal Tournament (non-2003)
>framerate to have not improved much either at 1024x768.

Well, I just installed a Ti4200, 2 days ago, and I am sort of making
my mind up as to it was really worth it,, I updated from a Gainward
GF4 MX-440 that I had before...

Oh,, according to all the Ti pundits, there should be a world of
difference because GF4 MX's are crap, but, I am not so sure that the
MX-440 I had was all that bad afterall... Visually there is not that
much difference between the 2 cards. As a matter of fact, I would say
there's very little to be seen at all in UT2003. As for frame rates, I
would say that this was the biggest let-down af all... What a joke..
This was under WinXP Pro...

I have 2 operating systems - Win98SE and XP Pro,, each on a removable
HDD. I simply choose which one I want to run, plug it in and boot it
up... They both have UT2003 installed and there is a big difference in
the way they both run. Up until now, with the MX-440,, Win XP Pro made
UT2003 look good texture-wise but ran just like a wet week => slow as
hell (but acceptable) - like a lot of other games in it... Win98SE
looked visually not quite as attractive but I could set things higher
and it ran much faster... It is most noticeable when the action got
tough. Win98SE just doesn't slow down as much as in XP... That's a
fact,, not a biased opinion...!!!!

My system...
AMD XP2000+
Asus A7M266 m/b
512 mb PC2100 RAM
Gainward GF4 MX-440 (now a Leadtek GF4 Ti4200 - 128mb)..
SB Live
etc etc...

Since I dropped in the new Ti4200,, I was not that impressed with what
I saw, over the MX card..
Now,, admittedly, up until now I have played UT2003 mostly in the
Win98SE environment,, and that the first time I played it with the new
Ti card, was under XP Pro, which I know to be lesser in performance,,
but nevertheless, I should have noticed a good deal of a performance
hike upwards, according to the Ti-xxxx lovers of the newsgroups. There
was f**k all to be seen and I was all but pissed off at what I didn't
see...
I honestly thought that under XP Pro, the Ti4200 card would have
helped the gaming department along quite some. It appears to me that
even though I am looking for "any" excuse to actually like XP Pro,
that it may always be a dog...
I fired up UT2003 under Win98SE this afternoon and what a difference..
Now this is what I call a better outlook. It was quite noticeable. It
ran faster, and never slowed down one bit. I still have to say that
the texturing looks a bit watered down compared to XP Pro though..
Why,, I'll never know,, as all the settings are higher in 98SE...

I have never bee one for benchmarks BUT I decided to run the ones
provided in UT2003 under the ..\Benchmarks\ folder...

The log file with the results revealed the following.. This is with
the Ti4200 and nVidia 41.09 drivers in both O/S's...

Win98SE
=======
dm-antalus
15.696627 / 53.848038 / 118.841019 fps
Score = 53.894920

WinXP Pro
=========
dm-antalus
7.887990 / 47.581390 / 93.240173 fps
Score = 47.602287

What the hell that all means is unknown to me but there is a marked
difference between the 2 O/S's... I wont post the rest of them but
they are all similar... What the above does not portray is just how
visually poor it looks under XP...

I don't know how they compare to others, but I think I can recall
seeing better...

I will now play and try the console command and see what horrific
results appear...

I don't know anything about the Radeon cards but don't feel alone if
you don't get what you are expecting...