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

  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    I think I remember that Tron 2.0 asked me to install DX9 so it probably uses some DX9 functions and it's an existing game so why not try to build a benchmark on it? Anyway since we're dealing with unreleased Det50 drivers here... (I rather prefer the THG way of dealing with that)

    BTW, I think there's a massive misunderstanding on whether a game is DX8/8.1/9; it can be all at the same time. You can use DX8 pixel shaders and DX9 pixel shaders at the same time.

    It's just that as soon as you start using DX9 functions you lose compatibility with DX8/8.1 compatible cards. It's up to the developer to replace these convenient DX9 specifics by DX8/8.1 compatible pixel shaders for instance. So DX9 is really an extension to DX8.1 and DX8.1 is an extension to DX8 and so on

    Oh and Doom III is OpenGL for God's sake!!!!!!!!!
  • appu - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    It would be a good idea to include at least FIFA
    2003 (and if possible, NFS HP2 or PU) mainly for
    the same reason why C&C was benched. These are
    really popular games and people would like to know
    how they "feel" running with these new cards and
    drivers. Also, FIFA 2004 is reportedly coming up
    with even more impressive graphic quality and AI
    (the latter could be a reason to CPU bench it,
    perhaps?).
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    #59 - halflife2 will be a very important benchmark, but its not out yet.. although a benchmarking tool was promised around this time
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    Well done guys, defintely going down the right track, testing cards with REAL games that people actually play.

    Still needs a little refining - HL2 can't be ignored as a valid benchmark!

    Keep up the good work.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    im in the same boat as you here #57, very excited about the 9600XT although i think that its more a case of not available than lack of want for a review on AT's part.
    Can't wait to see how they go =)
  • zxyth - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    I'm was hoping to see benchmarks for the 9600XT. $500 for a new card is rather high for someone on a budget. I've been interested in the 9600 Pro cards for a while and I'm disappointed none of the 9600's were shown. Not everyone can afford the high end cards and I for one would like to see more coverage of the cards that many more people are like to have or buy. It's great to see the flagship cards and what they can do, but don't forget some of us just can't go that route. And we'd like to see benchmarks for the cards that we have or want to purchase.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    #52 I guess we are both whiners then. I keep whining about Anandtechs review and you about my comments. Peace, I'm getting tired.
  • Evan Lieb - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    A 2.8GHz Prescott CPU was used. Anand probably didn't say anything just to tease you. ;)

    Take care,

    Evan
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    Prescott will come out at 3.2 and 3.4 GHz later this year.
    Lower versions 3.0/2.8...will follow afterwards.
    So its for sure no Prescott here.
    And if, I wonder why there is no test/word at all about it.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    Correction, I meant #41.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now