System specs for running Unreal Tournament 2007 at max everything?

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: n7
I think that with a 7800GTX, we'll be able to get close to maxed settings @ 1600x1200, but yeah...it's all speculation at this point.

That's not even possible with current games that are out (FEAR, CoD2) and you expect it to be possible with Unreal Engine 3?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: n7
I think that with a 7800GTX, we'll be able to get close to maxed settings @ 1600x1200, but yeah...it's all speculation at this point.

That's not even possible with current games that are out (FEAR, CoD2) and you expect it to be possible with Unreal Engine 3?

um, both the FEAR and CoD2 engines are horribly unoptimized.
giant engines such as the UE3 engine have such a large market outside of the one game they are made famous with, that they have to be optimized. Epic does an awesome job at this and the engines are typically very scaleable, in that many systems can run it and look very nice.
There are also many tricks in the engine that provide for increases image quality even at lower settings.

 

[moonboy403]

well....with everything maxed out
i'd expect nothing short of a pair of 512 gtx?

 

[Randum]

unreal 2k4 is a great game and has run on a variety of systems, im not upgrading my rig until the game is out and the benches are posted on a review site. i will buy it and run it on my x850 the day it comes out and see what happens...
yes fear is not well done, i think its a sloppy engine to be honest, i dont know much about it in detail but it "feels dif" than anything on the source engine...and source just looks so damn good...

 

[destrekor]

i agree, source just feels so right
ive been just messin around in lost coast, and its soo nice
gotta hunker down and actually play the level lol

 

[LostTime77]

Just to clear up stuff. The people were playing UT 2K7 in the movies on some sites where it showed trailers. They were using dual core systems and either a single 7800GTX or dual, 256mb version and they were playing on super high settings. I suspect a new g80 or r600/r580 core could do the trick with definately a dual core processor with 2 GB of ram. UT2K7 is dual core optimized , or so they tell me, and should run very good on even a x2 3800+. Most or all of the demos shown by official companies and viewers are usually put on the maxium possible settings to show off what the engine really can do.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
I'm not going to upgrade my video card until right around when the game comes out...

(Actually my 6800GT should be able to "play" UT2007, but ideally I want to use a resolution higher than 800x600 )

You mean just like how my R9200 128-bit "plays" UT2004? Ugh.

 

[Conky]

Well, if history is any lesson at all... Whatever system you have when UT2007 comes out will not be enough to run it properly.

It's stupid to build systems for future games... build it for something you like to play now.

 

[yhelothar]

Well when the UE3 preview first came out, they were running it 30fps @ 1024x768 on a 6800 Ultra. So 7800GTX 512MB on SLI would give about 3x more power. So you could probably run it at 1280x960 with 2xAA/8xAF at 60fps with that setup.

 

[biostud]

Agiea PPU and r580/G71 or SLI/Crossfire solutions, but I'm pretty sure it will run well on lower hardware as well.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
I'm not going to upgrade my video card until right around when the game comes out...

(Actually my 6800GT should be able to "play" UT2007, but ideally I want to use a resolution higher than 800x600 )

You mean just like how my R9200 128-bit "plays" UT2004? Ugh.

Can't be bad compared to when I used to run UT2004 with a TNT2!!! I ran it at 800x600 on low settings - some levels ran alright, so I just stuck with them

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
I'm not going to upgrade my video card until right around when the game comes out...

(Actually my 6800GT should be able to "play" UT2007, but ideally I want to use a resolution higher than 800x600 )

You mean just like how my R9200 128-bit "plays" UT2004? Ugh.

If your 9200 is really 128 bit, then it could run ut2k4 at 1024 holy sh*t settings with more than 40fps 95% of the time. 9000 Pro and 9100 both do that easy.

 

[TSS]

if you wanna get 60+ fps @ 1600x1200 4aa 8af you'd need a R600/G80. but even the current generation should run that at 25+ fps.

it would be best to compare it to the quake 4 engine, should be around that with frames only looking much nicer. like its been sed before epic's real good with engines. ut2004 demo even gets smooth gameplay at 1280 x 960 with medium settings on my TI4600. IMO looks better than Q4 on my box (can get that to run around 40 fps with 640 x 480 and everything low )

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: n7
I think that with a 7800GTX, we'll be able to get close to maxed settings @ 1600x1200, but yeah...it's all speculation at this point.

That's not even possible with current games that are out (FEAR, CoD2) and you expect it to be possible with Unreal Engine 3?

I don't have FEAR, but CoD2 is completely maxed on my system and it runs GREAT!

 

[Regs]

I agree with most of the members here by saying FEAR was poorly optimized for \todays/ hardware.

 

[Leper Messiah]

considering 2k4 ran 800x600 medium detail on a PIII 616, 640MB SDRAM and a 64MB GF2MX400, I think a 7800GT should do rather well. Its epic. They pwn when it comes to engines.

 

[Steelski]

i was running tournament 2003 with my radeon 64ddr with high settings at 10x7 no problems. ran smooth like butter even now i could do it.

 

[JimmyH]

UT2k7 vid

That looks pretty sweet. Have no idea what it was running on but looked about 30-40fps to me. At end when Malcolm went into hallway you could really see the fps skyrocket. That part where he flew out of the scorpion was either some slo-mo Matrix style stuff or chug city Malcom speaking German; talking to a robot that has same voice as a original Cylon toaster, uugghhh...

 

[Dribble]

ut2004 is cpu bound on most modern machines so if it's anything like that then sure you'll need very fast graphics but you'll also need and extremely fast cpu - single core machines just won't cut it.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Rule 1 of PC upgrading: Never buy stuff for unreleased software.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: Dribble
ut2004 is cpu bound on most modern machines so if it's anything like that then sure you'll need very fast graphics but you'll also need and extremely fast cpu - single core machines just won't cut it.

Yeah UT2004 is CPU at about 90fps or something like that - hardly that bad!!! If this next one limits stuff to only 60fps that wouldn't be bad either! I doubt very much all single cores 'won't cut it' - I'm pretty sure my A64 3200+ will have no problems with it.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Dribble
ut2004 is cpu bound on most modern machines so if it's anything like that then sure you'll need very fast graphics but you'll also need and extremely fast cpu - single core machines just won't cut it.

Last I checked a faster single core cpu ran any game faster than a slower dual core because the games arent programmed to use dual cores yet. Even if UT2007 is developed for multi-core systems (which I heard it would) most games are GPU bound anyways when the IQ settings are turned up, and therefore any modern single core cpu should have no problems running that game.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Dribble
ut2004 is cpu bound on most modern machines so if it's anything like that then sure you'll need very fast graphics but you'll also need and extremely fast cpu - single core machines just won't cut it.

Last I checked a faster single core cpu ran any game faster than a slower dual core because the games arent programmed to use dual cores yet. Even if UT2007 is developed for multi-core systems (which I heard it would) most games are GPU bound anyways when the IQ settings are turned up, and therefore any modern single core cpu should have no problems running that game.

Actually it's the opposite. Most games are CPU bound. Play RTS games with 1,000 moving units on screen? CPU bound. Physics and particle effects? CPU bound. AI? CPU bound. Memory addressing? CPU Bound.

But I wont disagree with you of course that higher speed single cores are still higher performers in games than dual core.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: Regs
Actually it's the opposite. Most games are CPU bound. Play RTS games with 1,000 moving units on screen? CPU bound. Physics and particle effects? CPU bound. AI? CPU bound. Memory addressing? CPU Bound.

In the case of RTS games with lots of units on the screen, aren't those limited by the vertex shaders as well?

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Most games are not CPU-bound at all, even in RTSs. Try turning the camera to a low polygon/effects area in any FPS and the performance will increase noticeably over a camera pointed at a high unit/poly count area. Yes, the CPU is handling more mesh geometry data, but that is not the bottleneck.

Other than that, take a look at any CPU scaling benchmarks and you'll see that only at very low resolutions or with SLI is one CPU-bound.