Unreal Tournament 2003

Everyone knows Unreal Tournament 2003 as a benchmark, and everyone has optimized the stuffing out of it. People play it like a religion, and we'll do the same from the testing side.

ATI's hardware takes the lead in the flyby benchmark but not by much.

The XT just pulls ahead to a greater percentage lead when AA/AF are enabled. Of course, NV38 moves ahead of everything else in the pack, but the XT is the clear leader.

Splinter Cell X2
Comments Locked

263 Comments

View All Comments

  • Jeff7181 - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    I think Anand is too worried about creating benchmarks that compare to benchmarks done by other review sites. Which is why they had "trouble" benchmarking certain games.

    I agree, Morrowind would be a good game to benchmark with... I've used it recently to show the differences of AA and AF along with FS2004.

    I think what needs to be done in some games like Morrowind is just play the game for 15 minutes... then tell us what the minimum frame rate was, the average, and the high. Who cares if it's not replicated EXACTLY each time... after 15 minutes, the average along with the lows and highs should paint a pretty accurate picture.

    Also, in my opinion, FS2004 is THE BEST software to use in comparing the differences between AA and AF between video cards. All you have to do is disable weather and ATC, and save a flight, then load the flight every time you want to take a screen shot. Also pressing Shift+Z twice puts your frame rates on the screen, so there's no need to use FRAPS.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    How about testing old games up to 2048x1536?
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    I suggest adding Tiger Woods 2004 to the suite. Turning up the eye candy is more demanding than one may think, so it would be a good test. But my main motivation is that there appear to be serious driver-related image quality issues with ATI (!) cards (e.g. water reflections).
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    What I would also like to see, is the test results from ATI and Nvidia against DCC packages, such as 3DStudioMax and Maya. I would like to know if these high end gaming cards can also handle some animation rendering too. Maybe they can't, but its one man's dream...
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    Good job.

    You should benchmark it with MORROWIND as well, or maybe under GOTHIC 2.

  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    And I have a voodoo2 and it sucks on Dx9, what's your point.?
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    Sony PS2 and X box Never have a graphics card issue (coz they purley game consoles idiot) yeah I know that, but also the game programers write the games for that particular game console.
    My question is why does Nvidia or Ati have to constantly adapt their drivers to PC games instead of the Games be compatible with the Graphics cards?

    yours sincerly...
    Noise
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link


    I have ATI 9000 card and I can say that ATI sucks in OpenGL.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    #163, I believe that FarCry/64-bit/improved graphics is 100% marketing BS.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link

    It's a good suite for testing, but one game that I'd really like to see is Far Cry performance on an Athlon 64...

    From what I've read the game will use the 64-bit architecture for something graphics-related, and it would be interesting to see how the graphics cards handle this.

    If it can't be done now, it may be one to remember for the future...

    Also, how well do the 64-bit drivers of both companies perform?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now