Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MindFad · Jan 14, 2003, 11:02 PM

I'm mjust curious to see how it was running if you were there and had a chance to play it. If you did, what card was in the machine, and how did it run? I'm excited about the Mac Radeon 9700. It's a lot more powerful than my GeForce 3, and I'm interested in getting it when it comes out. For my dual-800. I'm hoping for a very large leap over the GF3. We'll see.

Leonard · Jan 15, 2003, 08:07 AM

Do you mean Unreal Tournament 2003 or Unreal 2003? Unreal Tournament 2003 is the multi-player game. Unreal 2003 (or is it Unreal 2) is the single player game.

It would be interesting to hear how UT2003 did play on the Macs there.

MindFad · Jan 15, 2003, 11:57 AM

Well, are they both coming to the Mac? If both, then how'd they run. If just tourney, let's hear it.

stitzlein · Jan 15, 2003, 03:32 PM

i played ut2k3 on the dual ghz 1.25 +geforce 4 ti. it was kind of fun, but it was running at about 25 fps

MindFad · Jan 15, 2003, 03:46 PM

SteevAK · Jan 15, 2003, 05:21 PM

Boy, that does suck. Let's hope that it gets optimized to heck and back.

Judge_Fire · Jan 16, 2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by stitzlein:
i played ut2k3 on the dual ghz 1.25 +geforce 4 ti. it was kind of fun, but it was running at about 25 fps

What screen was it, at what size?

J

stitzlein · Jan 16, 2003, 09:11 AM

1600*1024 on a cinema display. i have no idea of the detail level, etc.

Thinine · Jan 17, 2003, 07:56 AM

That's actually pretty good then. My friend has a P4 2.8GHz and a GF4Ti and he gets some slowdown at anything over 1280.

daydreamer · Jan 19, 2003, 04:46 AM

yeah , pretty good for that res.

stitzlein · Jan 19, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by daydreamer:
yeah , pretty good for that res.

not for a machine that costs almost $4k

MindFad · Jan 19, 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by stitzlein:
not for a machine that costs almost $4k

Yeah, but we knew that already. Rolleyes, exit left. �>

It's not that great, but it's a good if it's not an average framerate if that's what it is at 1600x1200, and since it hasn't been optimized yet. I'm still looking forward to it.

OwlBoy · Jan 19, 2003, 02:02 PM

yes, if thats unoptimised, on such a friggen high res, then thats good.

(I wonder how Wolfenstien does on that res / setup. would be neat to compair...)

-Owl

MindFad · Jan 19, 2003, 06:21 PM

GK · Jan 20, 2003, 10:20 PM

I played the PC demo of UT 2003 on my setup at work and ran the benchmark test that comes with the demo.

System: Dual Athlon XP 1900+, 1Gig RAM, GeForce 2MX 64 MB, 2x 100GB 7200rpm RAID.

The PC is not used for graphics intense applications, therefore the Graphics card is low end.

Res 800x600
Flyby [no players]: 43.8 FPS
Botmatch: 30.7 FPS

Res 1280 x 960
Flyby: 18.21 FPS
Botmatch: 13.95 FPS

The graphics really look impressive especially at 1280x960. Our Geforce is pretty weak, but with a Radeon 9700, UT2300 would fly on this setup. Based on these results, UT2003 will barely be playable on current iMacs, and a Powermac with the latest Radeon or NVidia would certainly help. My trusty TiPB400 has now chance of playing it even at the lowest settings,

, so I am waiting for the towers to be updated in order to enjoy this game.

GK

mac freak · Jan 20, 2003, 10:58 PM

I've played UT2003 on a 3.06 GHz P4 with a Radeon 9700 Pro, and it's astonishingly pretty: 1600x1200 all maxed out, with a fly-by benchmark score of 105 FPS (206 FPS at 1024x768).
The botmatch benchmark at 1600x1200 rang in at 70.

Hopefully they can optimize the Mac version accordingly