First Unreal 3 (R6:Vegas) Benchmarks

but most games that suffer performance drops are clearly gpu limited as lowering thing slike texture detail and resolution eliminates fps problems. im no expert but i dont believe resolution, shader, or texture detail affects how many calls u need, plz correct me if im wrong. thats why i dont think its a dx 9 issue, and more of a code issue.

 

Depending on the resolution AA and AF games are CPU or GPU limited. In the case you are GPU limited the API makes no big difference. If the CPU is the limiting factor more details mean general more work there too.

 

Inefficient coding can result in GPU limitation where there shouldn`t be any, no?I think that coding for Xenos is quite different from coding in an optimal way for PC-Centric GPUs, even ATIs ones. And look at NWN2 and R6-do they look so astounding?Do they even give the impression that devs tried to do complex rendering in them?I`d say no, I`d say that NWN2 is crappily coded and R6 is crappily ported, but that`s just MHO.

 

Setting shadows on very low make the game completly fluid on my 8800 GTX.

 

perfect example of what i mean, in dark messiah i could be in a room with nothing happening and get 125 fps, i equip a certain spell where the gloves glow and my fps drops down to 50. pretty ridiculous.

 

8800 GTX + C2 3200

 

PS2 version ?





Noooo , is a PC version - 8800 gtx SLI , all settings maximun

 

Permit me to barf.









I'll play it anyway...

 

The game is very good .... in coop mode , with Team speak . In singleplayer is very arcade. The framerate is very bad in sites without no explanation, like in small corridors. All the game has an effect of noise, horrible. In the PC version someday we will have HDR+AA, and maybe with some mod , the horrible noise cleared and textures of greater resolution

 

Agreed. Co-op mode is a blast. The SP campaign is ok, but co-op over Live (I have the 360 version) with 3 friends is a lot of fun. I especially like how the enemies talk trash during firefights.

The only thing I am disappointed with is the graphics. This game has a sort of fuzzy, blurry look to it that makes it look like ass in my opinion. GRAW had a similar blurry look, so I guess it is an artistic thing. I thought GRAW looked better overall.

 

"X:\x\Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas\KellerGame\Config\PC\KellerEngine.ini"

bUsePostProcessEffects=False

Gets rid of the blurr.

 

Games often use small corridors (often L or U shaped) to preload an upcoming area. Not saying that's what's happening with every FPS drop in small places, but a lot of them I bet.

 

So..i'm a little confused. Are both the PC and Xpox versions of Vegas using UE2.5, or UE3.0, or is the Xpox using 2.5 and the PC 3.0?

 

Funny how long ago Sweeny said "G70 for sure" over the R520 when asked which he would rather have for U3. Yet benchmarks dont seem to back this agenda filled statement up now.

 

It's not so clear. Ubisoft acquired Unreal tech long time ago. nature of license is that publisher can upgrade engine of they own, and also can receive additional updates from Epic. Price scheme is also complicated, but that doesn't matter now. What matters is that R6:Vegas, just like SCDA is NOT using engine that was used for GoW, or UT2007 which we call UE3! It's a mix of Ubisoft studios work based on earlier Unreal engine, and additions from Epic's early Warfare engine.

 

actaully his comments were well before the bug in the r520 was resolved, which means the clock speeds of the r520 would have been at or below 500 mhz, which would have been a x1800xl level core. So his statement at the time was correct.

 

Bug? There was a bug in the U3 engine with the R520?

Whatever makes you feel better. Its pretty obvious he sides with NV. Either admit it or not, doesnt matter.

 

bug in the silicon library of the r520 Fallguy, remember the clock issues of the r520 and why it was delayed

Now take the launch of the x1800xl and you find out that comment was 4 months before that.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50895

05-20-05


Launch date of the x1800xl was Oct 2005.

x1800xt was launched 1 month later, the bug was fixed just a month or so before the x1800xl launch

 

Highly doubt Sweeny's comment had anything to do with the R520 delay. Its not even worded in a fashion that would suggest a specific card model, nor do I even believe that would be related anyhow.

 

hmm the sample r520 that Sweeny would be talking about wouldn't have been the full blown 625 mhz r520 cores we saw on the x1800xt, there was just no way at the time he made those comments. I wasn't saying ATi delayed the release of the r520 because of his comments, the delay was because of manufacturing issues, which was later found out to be a problem in one of the libraries. The issue cause the r520 to not reach the desired clock rate of 625 mhz but a maximum (rumor) of 500 mhz.