🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:05:20 +1300, Bruce Tyler <top@bottom.au> wrote:

>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...


Played UT2003 and this time I used the console command "stat fps"
(this was from XP Pro)...
I played the same map as above = Antalus (sounds like = And Tell Us)
Settings were 1024x768 and nominal (not maxed out)...  Got immediate
frame rates from 40 to over 90 and average from 37 to over 70...

I will try Win98SE the same asap... Got so much to do during the
day...