Unreal Tournament 2003 Benchmark

Just to keep the DX8 performance page a little cleaner, we decided to give UT2K3 its own page. There is still a good bit of DX7 in UT2K3 code as well, so it's not completely unprecedented.

Anyway, Under the flyby (which is traditionally GPU limited with faster processors), we see the Celeron 335 once again putting in numbers at the top of the heap. The Athlon XP and Celeron D processors are fairly well matched here.

But looking at the Botmatch benchmark numbers tells a different story. We see the Athlon processors sitting well above the Celeron Ds. Of course, the Prescott core processors still hold their own and maintain a position well above the Northwood Celerons. The 20x100 Celeron D has a 14% performance advantage over the 2.0GHz Celeron in Botmatch.

Since Botmatch is more like actual game play, we would expect that the Athlon processors would perform better when actually playing UT2K3.

Unreal Tournament 2003 Flyby

Unreal Tournament 2003 Botmatch

DirectX 8 Gaming Performance OpenGL Gaming Performance


View All Comments

  • DerekWilson - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Sorry for all the L2 cache size problems -- and thanks for the support AtaStrumf :-)

    Still, no excuse. I accept responsibility and appologize for the mistake.
  • dankim333 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Possible Ad Campaign:

    NEW! Intel Celeron D: Now with 23% less suck!
  • AtaStrumf - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    I guess they're rewriting the article now :) Quite a big mistake with the L2 Cache, but hay, shit happens, no need to shout and yell about it to make yourself feel so much smarter mino. Reply
  • robg1701 - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Ah good, I see im not the only one to notice the 'slight' page long error about the old celerons having 256k cache ;) Reply
  • mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    #18 the hell some mispronouncements.
    "with sum BIG mistakes..." should be:

    "with such BIG mistakes in every second sentence form Anand !"
  • mino - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAASE repair(or better-> REWRITE) that review, since(apartt from benchmark results) I didn't saw an article with sum BIG mistakes in every second sentence!

    Boys , I'm sorry for U but that Idiot who wrote that old Celeron does have 256k L2 is to be fired uppon !

    Not to mention that 2.8Cel D should be compared to AXP2800+ or Semrpon2800+.

    About 2500+ slower than 2200+: YES, it is a mistake undoubtedly there some where.
  • ZobarStyl - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    Man what a week for Intel; they release all this new high-end stuff that isn't worth jack yet (and is o/c locked), then come out with some actually decent Cellys for the low end. Shoring up the low end but letting the high-end kinda simmer/slack off? Doesn't seem like Intel's style. Also, I wonder if it's almost too late to save the day, as the northwood-based Celerons were horrible and that will hurt that product's image for a while to come (don't forget there are still people who won't buy an AMD processor because of the old THG video =) ) Reply
  • Dasterdly - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    I agree with araczynski, first thing I looked for was a comparison from the prescot/northwood. Reply
  • araczynski - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    throw in perspective by including a couple prescot/northwood scores on the graphs. Reply
  • tfranzese - Thursday, June 24, 2004 - link

    If only Intel were pricing these lower than competing AMD parts I might actaully build a system off these, but they'll have to work on that. Not to mention, as others have, the Sempron should be here soon and show improvements to an aging line. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now