[yukon]

I just checked out the benchmarks for the preview Mac GeForce3. Quake3 got some amazing results! Wow, huge frame rates on high resolutions, even after the radeon etc. dropped off. But, unforutnatly, check out the "unreal" scores on InnerMac.com. At 1024x768, and all other resolutions, there is "no advantage over a card that is $250 cheaper".

Ouch. The explination is that "the game itself is CPU bound which means that the full potential of the GeForce3 is not being utilized.". BUT WHY? Is there a lack of optimization? Does UT use graphics only a CPU can produce? Why is ut cpu bound, when quake3 is not (did Graeme of ID do something special)?
I dont want <30fps...

What can be done?

[joe]

I'm not a 3D programmer, but it follows what John Carmack mentioned in a recent interview. According to him, graphics cards improve regularly by a very significant rate. And what would take a very skilled programmer to accomplish on lesser hardware, can be equaled in a year or so with the latest graphics cards.

I don't think he was talking about any game developer or game in particular. But I read the same preview as you did. And as you noticed, Quake3 gets these over the top frame rates (slowest was 67fps even at 1600*200*32 high quality) on a GeForce3 Mac, where as the UT benchmarks are quite a bit lower (fastest was 30fps @ 640*480*32). It seems like UT isn't fully utilizing the 3D hardware of the GeForce3 at this point. Or, it may be driver related to some extent. After all, the preview pointed out the lack of water support in certain games. I hope the situation improves after the GeForce has been out a bit. Right now, any serious UT gamer would be hard pressed to pay the extra $ for a GeForce3 vs a Radeon. If you're a Q3 gamer though, this card is a must have right off the bat........joe

My guess would be that the Quake3 version was actually done by the guys at ID, and optimized for the Mac platform. While UT was a port of a Winblows version, and most of the code probably wasn't written as well as it should have been. If the company who writes the software isn't going to support the Mac version directly, the don't give them your $'s.

Support ID Mac titles, buy Q3Arena or wait for Doom III.

[xyber233]

What I really want is a 64mb radeon. I currently have no interest in the Geforce3 because it costs too much.

------------------

[yukon]

well, all I can say, as a primarily UT player, YIKES! I guess it's probably westlake's fault. Its not much to ask, that the game use the video hardware supplied to it. Optimizations would be nice, but they do little for the effort necessary. Is there some way to tell UT to use a card, or to ask westlake to help? I mean, if I had a geforce3, didn't already have UT, and I found out I would get >80fps in most cases, I would buy the program. Anyone with a geforce3 should buy quake3, if just to show off to your friends! =)

guess we all just have to worry about tribes2's programmers...

p.s. steve and avie at apple tell us that MacOS X will be getting an amazing speed boost with the optimization of the finder...might be nace to have quake3, UT, and tribes2 all in a faster/better memory environment.

[Arty50]

Sorry to tell you guys, but UT/Deus Ex/etc. are CPU bound. This is true on the PC side also. The UT engine doesn't send as much data to the Graphics Card (GPU) as say Quake 3 does. In other words it relies more heavily on the CPU to do the work than Quake 3. And so running UT on a 533 w/ a GeForce 3 ends up being like trying to shoot water from a firehose through a pinhole. Sadly, it's just the way the game was made from the start. Westlake actually did a great job with the port (and subsequent updates), it's the basic innerworkings of the game that are causing this.

[Blakhawkg3]

Originally posted by Arty50:
Sorry to tell you guys, but UT/Deus Ex/etc. are CPU bound. This is true on the PC side also.

yup, anything based on the unreal engine is more cpu bound than anything.....thats why benchmarks between different video cards don't usually use unreal games on the pc side....they know that the results will be based on the processor speed

the cards under this card on the mac side are the gf2 mx and the radeon

pc users have the geforce 2 ultra 64 mb ddr; benchmarks between the gf2 ultra 64 and the gf3 show that their performance is the same at all resolutions

i think the gf3 has some special programmable gpu or something that allows certain effects to be rendered faster, but games on the pc side using these will not be out before christmas, so games using these effects on the mac side probably won't be out before february

[yukon]

Originally posted by Blakhawkg3:
yup, anything based on the unreal engine is more cpu bound than anything...

i think the gf3 has some special programmable gpu or something that allows certain effects to be rendered faster, but games on the pc side using these will not be out before christmas, so games using these effects on the mac side probably won't be out before february

I heard that they will be overhauling the unreal engine for the next Unreal game (not sure about release dates). They were talking about retrofitting UT with the newer engine (I forgot the point of doing this, maybe carbonization, soundblaster, or even geforce3). Lets hope they try to use the video card this time .

About the Geforce3's special nfiniteFX Engine, it's a fast programmable specialFX, um, thing. A while ago, I read an (huge, 21page) article at Tom's Hardware explaining this but I seem to have forgotten all of it (mind like a steel sieve). N'Vidia's site has some dumbed down info on it though. Unfortunatly, we aren't even sure if it will be enabled in the Mac drivers. Even if so, it will take a while for it to be incorporated into games .

<edit- i kant spel>

[This message has been edited by yukon (edited 05-23-2001).]