[Vash]

Wow this game is completely unplayable.... Set everything to "lowest" except resolution of 1024x768x32. On a Dual 1ghz, 1.5gb Ram, Geforce4Ti I got average of 15-20 FPS with no bots, or anything of the sort just an empty level. There has got to be something wrong with this game....Oh, and the menu gives me 25 FPS!?!? But on a 1ghz 15" powerbook what do u know, everything set to HIGHEST gives the same FPS of 15-25. I guess the OS X update didn't fix the Geforce cards problems at all....

[GnOm]

Originally posted by atomiclotusbox:
933 mhz
1 gig ram
GeForce 4 Ti

I average 15 fps on outdoor maps. Slightly higher indoor.

I have the exact same config and get about 25frames outside and 30-35 inside in DM @1680x1050 and everything (eye candy wise) turned on/up, but shouldn't this machine be more powerful?
I also have stalls from time to time but that may be some background process, I haven't looked too close yet.


cheers.

[GnOm]

Originally posted by Leonard:
Apparently MacOS X.2.6 has some fixes for Geforce cards.

yupp but only 2MX and 4MX, there's still no seperate 4Ti driver (one that would use all the capabilities of the 4Ti instead of the generic one included in the GeForce 3 driver).


cheers.

[xyber233]

Lol, and this is with the performance enhancements with 10.2.6. I wonder what it was like before.

[GnOm]

Originally posted by xyber233:
...I wonder what it was like before.

http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/finger/fi...l?user=icculus




cheers.

[xyber233]

LOL

There are Altivec optimizations if you've got a G4 CPU, but this isn't
required (game runs on G3s for you poor bastards that are in iBook land).

[nelliott]

Lol - runs like ass on an iBook 700, 384MB.

Get about 2fps max with everything on lowest settings.

[BurpetheadX]

Unplayble on G4 single 533, Radeon 8500, 640 RAM. Brought it down to lowest of low, 640x480, lowest advanced settings, 16 bit color. Can still not play.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by xyber233:
Lol, and this is with the performance enhancements with 10.2.6. I wonder what it was like before.

I think it was just extra texture compression OGL extensions that were added with 10.2.6. Not really much of a performance thing as it was to make the game look good. Still, it runs like ass most of the time, especially with lots of players. *drools for 970 goodness*

[Colonel_Panic]

I just tried setting everything as high as it goes in a 5 bot match and I was getting about 30 FPS on 1024X768:32

Dual 533 1.5GB of RAM and a radeon 8500.

[reader50]

G4 350 Sawtooth, 1.3 GB RAM (222), Radeon 8500 (64 MB).

10-20 FPS in DM Antalus with minimal settings and one bot. I plan to do further tweaking to see if the fps can be moved up further. Using higher texture settings on the 8500 does not seem to hurt much if at all.

Does anyone like all the new bots & models wearing fatsuits?

[Guy Incognito 2]

Originally posted by reader50:

Does anyone like all the new bots & models wearing fatsuits?

It certainly models the North American trend, fatso!

But in all seriousness, anyone remember the Doom 3 thread about people hoping to play it on their TiBook? Fat chance!

You can all kiss Doom 3 good bye unless you buy yourself a shiny 970 this Summer. Doom 3 special fxs are out to make UT2k3 look like Pong.

[atomiclotusbox]

Originally posted by GnOm:
I have the exact same config and get about 25frames outside and 30-35 inside in DM @1680x1050 and everything (eye candy wise) turned on/up, but shouldn't this machine be more powerful?
I also have stalls from time to time but that may be some background process, I haven't looked too close yet.


cheers.

I just unplugged my gamepad pro from the keyboard and I'm up in the 40s now. Much better. I'd forgotten it was even plugged in.

The game just got a lot better.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito 2:
It certainly models the North American trend, fatso!

But in all seriousness, anyone remember the Doom 3 thread about people hoping to play it on their TiBook? Fat chance!

You can all kiss Doom 3 good bye unless you buy yourself a shiny 970 this Summer. Doom 3 special fxs are out to make UT2k3 look like Pong.

DOOM 3 will probably be mostly in doorsy gameplay. The modeling in UT2K3 and DOOM 3 are fairly similar, with D3 more complex in the character department. It's the stencil shading, bump-mapping, and high-res textures that you'll have to worry about. It'll probbaly have 800MHz G4 and 32MB vid/256MB system for the bare minimum to play D3 (with almost every effect off, I bet). But yeah, don't expect it took look very great unless you've got a healthy PC gaming rig.

A 970 and a 9800 Pro on an AGP 8x bus would be nice, but we'll probably not even see that from ATI for another god damn year.

[Tom Rudderham]

Remember when UT2K3 was announced for the Mac? And everyone was like "OH MY GOD I WON'T BE ABLE TO PLAY IT! I'LL NEED A G5 OR SOMETHING!!!"
It's the same now with Doom 3. It'll play on the Mac's with GPU's that support programmable shaders (i.e. Radeon 9000, Geforce 3 up) just fine.
After playing the unoptimised alpha last year on the PC I think your all worrying too much again.

[xyber233]

Actually, the indoor map is playable but still...whenever I see the Nvidia, the way it's meant to be played, I start crying.

[mac freak]

It's not very playable on my iMac/700/GF2MX... like 15-20 FPS in Asbestos and 5-10 in Antalus. I haven't tested it yet on my DP450/Radeon.

Doubtless, it won't compare to the 100-210 FPS I get on my gaming rig (yes, the flyby test registers 212 FPS at 1024x768 and 101 FPS at 1600x1200, all settings at highest [NOTE: the demo doens't include the "highest" settings for anything, so you guys ain't seen nothin' until you get the full version]).

Hopefully my PPC970 rig (that I'll buy within a few months of the chip's release) will beat the crap out of that damn PC. Windows sucks, but it's just a superior gaming platform in today's world.

10.3 should help, too.

[mrchin]

Oh this thing is lovely! I was a bit disappointed by the framerates, but that was based on seeing the actual numbers. Playing wise, it seems just fine.

Quicksilver 867
1.5 gigs RAM
nVidia Geforce 4 Ti
Mac OS X v10.2.6
Plenty of HD space

I've got it at 1024x768 and everything maxed out and am getting 21 fps in an outdoor level with grass. I was expecting more but haven't tested indoors. It's fine for me but I hope another nVidia driver/UT final update makes things faster.

I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to play online with dialup and had no lag whatsoever. I was right in there dying and killin' a few. Ping was at around 250-300 but it felt flawless. Shocking, considering I've always used broadband before and can't get it anymore in the new digs.

[mac freak]

Well, I got around to testing my DP450/Radeon (that's original Radeon, folks), and...

It performs WAY BETTER than the iMac G4/700 I mentioned before. 25-45 FPS in Asbestos, and 15-35 FPS in Antalus at 800x600/med-low. Maybe I should test 1024x768

Think it's DP-aware? Seems like it, since this machine is technically below the minimum spec, yet is twice as playable as my iMac, which meets the minimum spec. Or maybe the game is just THAT MUCH MORE OPTIMIZED for ATI video hardware.

[juanvaldes]

Dual 1Ghz GF4Ti

flyby:
dm-antalus
22.065382 / 67.594559 / 250.715668 fps
Score = 62.567799

dm-asbestos
27.310406 / 77.899055 / 309.374146 fps
Score = 67.751488

ctf-citadel
11.764766 / 43.530415 / 146.797668 fps
Score = 43.368099

bots:
dm-antalus
5.920952 / 17.450045 / 40.719936 fps
Score = 17.455908

br-anubis
8.675407 / 29.305422 / 59.871246 fps
Score = 29.328011

dm-asbestos
6.268982 / 24.294029 / 60.887951 fps
Score = 24.300903

ctf-citadel
6.383301 / 17.821392 / 45.038631 fps
Score = 17.840124

not bad with Civ paused in the background

and if it uses my setting this was 1280x1024 and max.

[mrchin]

Pretty impressive valdes.
My 867 single with 4 Ti gave me these results

flyby antalus
23.423239 / 55.958393 / 280.713470 fps
Score = 53.672134

flyby asbestos
11.047026 / 68.385818 / 272.271057 fps
Score = 61.912975

flyby citadel
10.768301 / 37.094185 / 121.268982 fps
Score = 37.124615

botmatch antalus
2.630372 / 10.893662 / 26.530113 fps
Score = 10.896626

botmatch anubis
2.879168 / 19.216700 / 52.008656 fps
Score = 19.228725

botmatch asbestos
5.220582 / 17.062840 / 38.024780 fps
Score = 17.066824

botmatch citadel
3.598423 / 11.307407 / 22.176586 fps
Score = 11.317442

It would seem that maybe the duallies do give more performance than if it were a single 1GHz system. Also, is yours an old dual Gig or new MDD.

[xyber233]

Originally posted by mac freak:
Well, I got around to testing my DP450/Radeon (that's original Radeon, folks), and...

It performs WAY BETTER than the iMac G4/700 I mentioned before. 25-45 FPS in Asbestos, and 15-35 FPS in Antalus at 800x600/med-low. Maybe I should test 1024x768

Wow, that is sad. My imac gets owned by your computer with the original radeon.

[mac freak]

Indeed -- nVidia cards seem to be yielding poor performance. DP systems seem to be giving a sizable boost...

Anyway, anyone here with a DP1420 and a Radeon 9700 Pro? I wanna hear YOUR numbers!

[scaught]

g4 733 quicksilver
896MB ram
GeForce2 MX

800x600
everything on "normal"
whatever the normal amount of bots is
the "indoor level"

about 18-20 FPS. pretty playable. looks nice. too bad i totally suck at these shooter games. its probably that a pro mouse isnt the best choice.

[Eug]

TiBook 1 GHz 768 MB Radeon 9000 64 MB.
X.2.6

1024x768x32 with most detail settings turned down somewhat, and a lot of the special effects turned off.
How do I get 1280x854? It's not an option.

Asbestos Flyby:
39.892265 / 86.156982 / 281.877655 fps -- Score = 71.905479

Asbestos Botmatch
9.576930 / 22.854504 / 60.625660 fps -- Score = 22.860483

Well, at least it's better than I expected. With Asbestos (indoor) it can be sort-of playable for brief periods, with fps rates in the 20-40 fps range (unless I'm in a small room) dipping down to 15-20 fps (with a couple of bots).

With Antalus (outdoor) it's pretty much a lost cause if you ask me.

Anyways, it's kinda moot since I already bought the game for my PC. The PC is nothing stellar but adequate on most maps. Barely... Celeron 1.4 GHz with Radeon 9100. I suck at the game though, anyway.

I think what would make this game really really playable would be a Pentium 4 2.4 with Radeon 9500 Pro. Ouch!

Anybody try a Dual G4 1.42 with Radeon 9700 Pro yet?

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by mrchin:
It would seem that maybe the duallies do give more performance than if it were a single 1GHz system. Also, is yours an old dual Gig or new MDD.

Even if the game can't the OS will put itself and other processes on the spare CPU which will result in better performance.

[adamberti]

Anyone else have problems just getting the game to run? It kept crashing on me when I opened it, just as the nVidia thing starts to play. I isolated that to having a second monitor plugged in - this is all on a 1GHz TiBook. So I can start a level - but I cant look or move. All that I can do is jump, change weapons or chat/talk. So I sit there and get my ass kicked.

I have tested and found out with all graphic settings deafault and bumping the rez to 1024x768x32, the textures go all weird and 'animated' so I have to go back to 800x600x32. Anyone else seeing this?

Anyone have any suggestions for making this thing work?

[juanvaldes]

Sorry zero crashes over here.

[eevyl]

So reading this post I think there are a numbers of facts:

1. UT 2003 eats CPU power like there is no tomorrow. Dual machines get much better result, no matter what GPU they have. There is nothing we single CPU owners can do or expect about it.

2. It is more optimized for ATI cards. Or maybe OpenGL in Mac OS X is more optimized. Either way we can hope better performance in the future, with improvements in the UT 2003 code or in the OpenGL drivers of Mac OS X.

3. It seems to be clearly optimized for the Altivec code of G4. So G3 owners can expect really bad framerates... Just wonder how this will run in a 970 machine (it has two Altivec compatible units )

Well, I can play it in my PB G4 12" without turning the options to lowest afterall, I didn't buy this machine just for the games, but I am happy I can play it just fine

[Tom Rudderham]

Originally posted by Eug:
TiBook 1 GHz 768 MB Radeon 9000 64 MB.
X.2.6

1024x768x32 with most detail settings turned down somewhat, and a lot of the special effects turned off.
How do I get 1280x854? It's not an option.

Eug, you have a Radeon 9000, you can turn all the details to max in the demo and not see a difference in speed! The only thing you want to set to medium is the physics, as that's powered by the CPU.
And to get full screen you'll need to edit the UT2003.ini file in a program such as Word.
The retail version however will include widescreen options from the in-game menu.

[nforcer]

iMac G4/700.

On average on Asbestos with 4 bots, everything turned down to the lowest setting, announcer off, and hid off, I get a pathetic ~16 FPS average. Yes I quit all other apps and background processes before starting. Turning up the texture settings has little effect which is nice (- ~2-3 FPS), but it's still pretty much unplayable.

I didn't expect a speed demon, but I did expect a smoother framerate for turning everything to lowest/off. By comparison, Quake 3 runs about 10 fps faster with twice as many bots on the highest detail setting on most maps on this system, and the detail amount in a lot of the levels is somewhat comparable to that of those in the UT 2003 demo.

Oh well :/

[OSXrocks]

LOLl no matter what settings I use (highest or lowest) I get around 16 fps in the indoor level on my eMac 800 (32mb gforce2mx)

[Betox]

... remember that this is a BETA 1.0

I'm happy with the game play, it's not perfect but it runs better than some games in there final version.

[Eug]

Eug, you have a Radeon 9000, you can turn all the details to max in the demo and not see a difference in speed! The only thing you want to set to medium is the physics, as that's powered by the CPU.
And to get full screen you'll need to edit the UT2003.ini file in a program such as Word.
The retail version however will include widescreen options from the in-game menu.

You're right that we are very CPU-limited. I was just trying everything to see if I could make the game more playable, but unfortunately I cannot. Plus, Hornet has already demonstrated that turning down some of the options has improved speeds a bit.

As everyone predicted in the previous Doom III laptop thread, current Mac laptops are not truly up to the task of the most recent FPS games. However, it really isn't a big deal for me because I never had any intention of getting UT2003 for my TiBook.

Oh and thanks for the tip about the resolutions.

In any case, its FINALLY here, and screams on my [15"] Powerbook 1ghz

I guess Hornet and I have differing opinions. I guess I could say that the 15" TiBook is somewhat playable on certain indoor maps, but it certain doesn't play like I would want a 3D game to play.

Quake 3 runs about 10 fps faster with twice as many bots on the highest detail setting on most maps on this system, and the detail amount in a lot of the levels is somewhat comparable to that of those in the UT 2003 demo.

Quake III is a much older engine and much less complex. I get awesome frame rates on my desktop system, but with UT2003 on that same Celeron 1.4 Radeon 9100 system, the frame rates are only just acceptable. By the way, A Radeon 9100 is simply a Radeon 8500 or Radeon 8500 LE with minor modifications. Both are significantly faster than a Radeon 9000. Here are some Quake III benches from xlr8yourmac:

2. It is more optimized for ATI cards. Or maybe OpenGL in Mac OS X is more optimized. Either way we can hope better performance in the future, with improvements in the UT 2003 code or in the OpenGL drivers of Mac OS X.

Heh, the funny thing is that the Radeon 9000 in the 15" TiBook performs poorly in the OpenGL test of Xbench, at least compared to the 17" PowerBook. (On the PC side, the Geforce4Go 440 is comparable to the Radeon 9000 Mobility in speed, and certainly not significantly faster like the Xbench test would suggest. Indeed, many tests on the PC side would suggest the Radeon 9000 Mobility is faster.) The other ironic thing is the nVidia startup splash screen in this game.

Has anyone done a mammoth bench of the 17" AluBook like Hornet has with the 15" TiBook 1 GHz? (It'd have to be with the same settings. eg. just at the default settings with a fresh .ini file.) It would be interesting to see what the real world results in are in a controlled environment. AssassyN & parsec_kadets, are you guys up to the 1 GHz PB UT2003 challenge? I can try to replicate Hornet's results on my own TiBook (say at the default settings), if anyone is interested.

remember that this is a BETA 1.0

Good point. Perhaps some further engine and driver optimizations will speed up the game a little bit.

[Eug]

Added scores at 3 resolutions (800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x854) on two seperate configs (default and mine) on all three map flyby's!

Hornet, do you have your botmatch numbers?

Here again are your flyby numbers:

Asbestos (flyby):
26.294235 / 75.376930 / 257.924316 fps
Score = 67.044167

Antalus (flyby):
25.508516 / 56.155087 / 205.284271 fps
Score = 55.346733

These are parsec_kadet's 17" AluBook flyby and botmatch numbers:

dm-asbestos flyby
20.305553 / 72.035637 / 219.273560 fps
Score = 66.451302

dm-asbestos bot match
9.962537 / 22.011293 / 51.365086 fps
Score = 22.022234

dm-antalus flyby
30.639149 / 52.907124 / 137.881973 fps
Score = 52.649086

dm-antalus bot match
3.636814 / 14.622275 / 35.105438 fps
Score = 14.626101

I will post my results later.

[G-mac]

The demo running on my sad PB G4/550 with 512 MB RAM was pathetic. I say "was" because I trashed the demo after trying one deathmatch. I could practically count the frames individually with half the features turned off and all settings on "lowest."

[Eug]

Originally posted by G-mac:
The demo running on my sad PB G4/550 with 512 MB RAM was pathetic. I say "was" because I trashed the demo after trying one deathmatch. I could practically count the frames individually with half the features turned off and all settings on "lowest."

Yeah, not only is that PowerBook far too CPU-limited for this game, the 16 MB Radeon Mobility is pretty slow too.

Really, the only PowerBooks with anything resembling playability would be current PowerBooks, and possibly a TiBook 800 just barely. Anyone test a TiBook 800? How about an iBook 800/900?

[::maroma::]

FWIW, I have tested UT2k3 in my main user account and a clean "gaming" account that I use for... you guessed it... gaming. My frame rates in the gaming account were MUCH higher than in my main account. It's definitely worth a shot if you want some extra speed. I won't be playing this game in my main account from now on.

[xyber233]

Can anyone with a 12" Powerbook do a full benchmark test? Thx.

[parsec_kadets]

Originally posted by Eug:
These are parsec_kadet's 17" AluBook flyby and botmatch numbers:

dm-asbestos flyby
20.305553 / 72.035637 / 219.273560 fps
Score = 66.451302

dm-asbestos bot match
9.962537 / 22.011293 / 51.365086 fps
Score = 22.022234

dm-antalus flyby
30.639149 / 52.907124 / 137.881973 fps
Score = 52.649086

dm-antalus bot match
3.636814 / 14.622275 / 35.105438 fps
Score = 14.626101

I will post my results later.

Thanks Eug. I also ran one more map, and here are those results:

ctf-citadel flyby
13.139502 / 43.811012 / 128.532944 fps
Score = 43.725632

ctf-citadel bot match
4.579889 / 14.460853 / 28.516518 fps
Score = 14.474043

These were done on a 17" PB with 1024MB of RAM and default settings in the game. Not the greatest results. What confuses me the most though is that tuning down the settings doesn't get you much of an increase in performance.

[GnOm]

Originally posted by Eug:
How about an iBook 800?

November 2002 iBook 800 (the one with Radeon7500, 32MB), standard settings -> unplayable, if you don't move and no action takes place you'll get about 20fps in Antalos (or whatever that outdoor DM Level is called), if you start moving and/or bots are in your sight it drops below 10 frames. Every option unchecked and graphics turned down it's still almost unplayable, some lucky shots probably but no real aiming.
Going back from it to Q3 makes you feel you get 500+ fps.



cheers.

[xyber233]

I thought this was a little interesting since it has both the 440 and the radeon 9000. Heh, it seems to even beat out our top of the line desktop. I hope something is done fast. This is a tad sad.

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/show...ml?i=1733&p=12

[Eug]

These were done on a 17" PB with 1024MB of RAM and default settings in the game. Not the greatest results. What confuses me the most though is that tuning down the settings doesn't get you much of an increase in performance.

Yeah, our computers are pretty CPU limited with this game, esp. with the CPU-intensive bot matches. I haven't tried online gaming yet with this, but I suspect with a simple map and a few real-life opponents (no bots), it might actually play a bit better. Here's hoping to some further optimizations. (On my TiBook, I think OS X.2.6 is still using Radeon 8500 drivers. I wonder if a more specific Radeon 9000 driver might yield slightly better results with this game.)

BTW, on my desktop machine, I get the same effect. My 1400 MHz is still limiting for this game and turning down the details only yields mild (but not insignificant) improvements.

By the way, as an aside, for the taste of what is to come... If you look at AnandTech's Opteron article, UT2003 just eats CPU performance for breakfast. They test a Geforce4 MX 440 (which is the desktop version of what is in the 17" PowerBook):

UT2003 botmatch 640x480x32:
Opteron 244 (1.8 GHz): 43.4 fps
Intel Pentium 4 3.0C : 39.5 fps
Athlon XP 3000+ (2.167 GHz): 36.3 fps
Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8 GHz): 34.7 fps

Thus with a faster bus and a much faster CPU, one can get a 25% speed increase, with the same crappy video card. (I'd estimate that the Opteron 244's cousin, the non-SMP-able 1.8 GHz 144, has SPEC scores that would be in the range of a 2.2 GHz PPC970.)

[Eug]

BTW, here are the UT 2003 cheats.

[xyber233]

Well, I just played asbestos online. I averaged around 18 fps so it was playable and pretty fun. Too bad thats really the only map I can play without extreme slowdown.

[daydreamer]

I think Doom 3 will do fine indeed with a decent card with vertex/pixel shaders. The graphic chipset market is so overloaded that not all the potential is being taken out of the cards. If I see what my GF2mx still does in UT2003, heh, IM IMPRESSED RYAN.

It will give Greame some competition to make D3 a great port to.

[theolein]

I've played the demo on my Dell 1.8GHz laptop with the 64MB GeForce440Go. It plays just fine. Even though I've just gotten a used 667MHz TiPB, I think that the PC architecture is simply better for these games, as they're obviously optimized for DirectX. On top of this, there was a comparison of Apple's OpenGL with MS' and MS's is a lot faster. There might well also be other penalties due to the lack of true DDR RAM on the Mac.

If a game were written with full utilisation of altivec there would be a big difference, but at the moment it really is just easier to get a cheap PC just for gaming.

[Eug]

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4/Vger/Altivec @ 1000 MHz
ATI Radeon 9000 OpenGL Engine

TiBook 1 GHz 768 MB
800x600x32 - Default settings

Botmatch:

Antalus: 6.286523 / 13.391009 / 29.702297 fps -- Score = 13.394384
Anubis: 8.140694 / 25.299198 / 48.490162 fps -- Score = 25.318287
Asbestos: 9.321253 / 20.773193 / 52.379433 fps -- Score = 20.782753
Citadel: 6.518285 / 15.386239 / 37.244717 fps -- Score = 15.400462

Flyby:

Antalus: 28.126791 / 56.481575 / 204.537125 fps -- Score = 55.660641
Asbestos: 26.224796 / 75.737877 / 264.464020 fps -- Score = 67.318748
Citadel: 12.371514 / 41.712952 / 128.557678 fps -- Score = 41.624916


Comparative results from my 15" TiBook and parsec_kadets' 17" AluBook:

Code:
			17" AluBook 1.0 GHz vs. 15" TiBook 1.0 GHz
			==========================================

			17" GeForce4Go 440	15" Radeon 9000 M

Flyby - Antalus			 52.6			 55.7
Flyby - Asbestos		 66.5			 67.3
Flyby - Citadel			 43.7			 41.6
Flyby - Total			162.8			164.6

Botmatch - Antalus		 14.6			 13.4
Botmatch - Asbestos		 22.0			 20.8
Botmatch - Citadel		 14.5			 15.4
Botmatch - Total		 51.1			 49.6

Total				213.9			214.2

[reader50]

Updated tweaking on an unsupported system, minimal settings.

PM G4 350 1.3 GB

0 bots
15-30 fps Antalus
20-35 fps Asbestos

1-3 bots
10-20 fps Antalus

6-9 bots
5-10 fps Antalus

Code:
UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-02-16_18.56]
MacOS 10.2.6
PowerPC G4 @ 350 MHz
ATI Radeon 8500 OpenGL Engine

Flyby:

___Map_______Min___/____Avg____/____Max___
Antalus___9.677220 / 46.696812 / 174.177383 fps
Anubis*___8.649311 / 33.437279 / 118.965736 fps
Asbestos__8.588927 / 39.498440 / 124.715607 fps
Citadel___6.405786 / 35.030212 / 151.988007 fps

Botmatch:

___Map_______Min___/____Avg___/____Max___
Antalus___3.035748 / 8.118163 / 20.153267 fps
Anubis____3.715555 / 9.673097 / 28.062592 fps
Asbestos__2.337605 / 8.372874 / 17.126202 fps
Citadel___2.806896 / 8.502485 / 22.044054 fps

* The Anubis flyby script is not present. I duplicated the Antalus flyby script and modified it to BR-Anubis. Then flew around manually until the time limit. Lost about 15 seconds waiting for it to fly itself, which explains the higher score. At a guess, it would bench fairly close to Antalus.

Zero bots isn't very entertaining, and even three bots is not too useful. Looks like even on minimum settings, it needs a G4 500+ to be playable in single-player.

[Eug]

So our tests basically say that this game is terribly CPU limited on the vast majority of our Macs. The 17" vs 15" is a good example.