# Unreal Tournament 3 PC System Requirements



## malware (Oct 3, 2007)

Developer Epic Games and publisher Midway have issued a set of minimum and recommended system specs for the PC version of Unreal Tournament 3.






*Minimum System Requirements*
Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista 
2.0+ GHz Single Core Processor 
512MB of System RAM 
NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ Video Card 
8GB of Free Hard Drive Space

*Recommended System Requirements*
2.4+ GHz Dual Core Processor 
1GB of System RAM 
NVIDIA 7800GTX+ or ATI x1300+ Video Card 
8GB of Free Hard Drive Space

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Bonerheimer_c (Oct 3, 2007)

Isn't there a pretty large difference between a 7800gtx and an x1300?  Why would ATI's minimum recommended card be so much slower?


----------



## freaksavior (Oct 3, 2007)

hmmm....i don't think so....

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=310&card2=328


----------



## v-zero (Oct 3, 2007)

Looks like some very acceptable requirements...


----------



## ktr (Oct 3, 2007)

Very reasonable requirements for such a game!


----------



## erocker (Oct 3, 2007)

With the exception of the 7800gtx, I would say the rest of the recommended system requirements are a bit off.  Unless you want to play at low settings.


----------



## ktr (Oct 3, 2007)

I just checked out epic forums, and these specs are not official.


----------



## mab1376 (Oct 3, 2007)

they either meant x1800 on the ATI side or 7300gt on the nvidia side.

either way my 8800GTS KO ACS3 should be fine 

i think i'll be picking up a physx card just for this game too


----------



## AsphyxiA (Oct 3, 2007)

the specs do seem right, the unreal engine always seems to run decently on "crap" hardware.  I remember running 2k4 on my 2.4 celery with 256mb of ram with my ATI 7200 with 64mb of ram.  ran  fine w/ a 1024X768 res.  on medium settings


----------



## nflesher87 (Oct 3, 2007)

mab1376 said:


> they either meant x1800 on the ATI side or 7300gt on the nvidia side.
> 
> either way my 8800GTS KO ACS3 should be fine
> 
> i think i'll be picking up a physx card just for this game too



haha I was going to point that out too I thought that was pretty funny how they paired the 7800GTX with the X1300 haha

is it me or does that look like it could be the War of the Worlds video game? lol not sure if they made one or not but still looks like it could be it...


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Oct 3, 2007)

AsphyxiA said:


> the specs do seem right, the unreal engine always seems to run decently on "crap" hardware.  I remember running 2k4 on my 2.4 celery with 256mb of ram with my ATI 7200 with 64mb of ram.  ran  fine w/ a 1024X768 res.  on medium settings



Yeah, Unreal 2004 ran at everything maxed on my Athlon 3000+ with a 9600. I think the Unreal engines are generally very well programmed.


----------



## Random Murderer (Oct 3, 2007)

freaksavior said:


> hmmm....i don't think so....
> 
> http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=310&card2=328



http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards...1acb754dc8c809d4ab1c2d52&card1=310&card2=349#


----------



## a111087 (Oct 3, 2007)

Bioshock used Unreal3 engine, and it run surprisingly smooth on my pc, check my system
<--


----------



## ktr (Oct 3, 2007)

Random Murderer said:


> http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards...1acb754dc8c809d4ab1c2d52&card1=310&card2=349#



overall the x1300 is about 3-4 folds slower than the 7800gtx.

I been seeing this problem lately with system specs. They always have a higher end video card and a lower end ati card...wtf. 

But again, 'these' specs are un-official, and more or less a rumor started from on tech site, and copied and pasted on others.


----------



## devguy (Oct 3, 2007)

a111087 said:


> Bioshock used Unreal3 engine, and it run surprisingly smooth on my pc, check my system
> <--



Yeah, it's a lot of BS that MOH:Airborne and Bioshock (both based off UE3) won't let you use an x800, but here is Unreal Tournament 3 that will let you use it...


----------



## ktr (Oct 3, 2007)

devguy said:


> Yeah, it's a lot of BS that MOH:Airborne and Bioshock (both based off UE3) won't let you use an x800, but here is Unreal Tournament 3 that will let you use it...



o yea, that is quite interesting finding. 

For both BS and MOH:A required a sm3.0 card. These specs are defiantly bullshit.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 3, 2007)

WOW. That is some heavy hitting hardware. I got the min specs, but the gpu is not on the recommended side.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 3, 2007)

devguy said:


> Yeah, it's a lot of BS that MOH:Airborne and Bioshock (both based off UE3) won't let you use an x800, but here is Unreal Tournament 3 that will let you use it...



I'm sure that comes down to the actual game developer using the engine and weather they include an SM2.0 rendering path or not.  I'm sure the engine itself supports SM2.0 as RoboBlitz was based off of it and worked just fine on SM2.0 cards.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 3, 2007)

TBH, I expected a lot lot more from something thats going to be a kick ass game.

Ive seen some of the HQ trailers & they look totally insane f**king murderous pixel raping haven  If the game looks crisp on such sh*t settings then it defo is B.S or the games designers/programmers have created a miracle game

ah well, more propaganda for the gaming world


----------



## a111087 (Oct 3, 2007)

FreedomEclipse said:


> TBH, I expected a lot lot more from something thats going to be a kick ass game.
> 
> Ive seen some of the HQ trailers & they look totally insane f**king murderous pixel raping haven  If the game looks crisp on such sh*t settings then it defo is B.S or the games designers/programmers have created a miracle game
> 
> ah well, more propaganda for the gaming world



well, a good engine is optimized and doesn't need high end system to have a good graphics


----------



## retri (Oct 3, 2007)

It's nice to know that a company can still design a quality game with out making the user break the bank on upgrading just to play.


----------



## MicroUnC (Oct 3, 2007)

cant wait for this title


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 3, 2007)

a111087 said:


> well, a good engine is optimized and doesn't need high end system to have a good graphics



so are you are accusing game makers that create a game that needs a lot of high spec hardware to run of doing a half arsed job of their gaming engine?


----------



## ktr (Oct 3, 2007)

FreedomEclipse said:


> so are you are accusing game makers that create a game that needs a lot of high spec hardware to run of doing a half arsed job of their gaming engine?



yes...


----------



## a111087 (Oct 3, 2007)

FreedomEclipse said:


> so are you are accusing game makers that create a game that needs a lot of high spec hardware to run of doing a half arsed job of their gaming engine?



well... yeah! if they don't take time to work on their engine then it is their fault! Unreal3 engine is good because devs took time to work on it.  Remember Vampires: Bloodlines? The game was on HL2 engine but had worse graphics than HL2 and required MUCH faster system!


----------



## Frick (Oct 3, 2007)

FreedomEclipse said:


> so are you are accusing game makers that create a game that needs a lot of high spec hardware to run of doing a half arsed job of their gaming engine?



I think a11111etc is right. If you need a totally high-end system to make a game look good, something's strange. However, now when the Dx10-shift is coming up, I assume there will be a gap of some sort that'll make it harder for the lower-end systems to keep up.

EDIT: Remember though, that a1111etc's graphic card nowadays must be labeled low-end and therefore he might have troubles with this game, so he/she might speak out of jealousy.


----------



## OnBoard (Oct 3, 2007)

"Minimum System Requirements
    * NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ Video Card"

That is silly, I had a 9600pro and the games didn't ran good even when it was new! 

Those Recommended specks seem more like the real minium.


----------



## a111087 (Oct 3, 2007)

Thank you Frick, but 7600gt is really good on Bioshock (low res, med/high settings, perf mode on drivers)
however, I will not refuse from 8800Ultra

Edit: 7600 is coming close to low end, but not quite there


----------



## hat (Oct 3, 2007)

If by new you mean new in box, and by games you mean Oblivion, then sure


----------



## kakazza (Oct 3, 2007)

Taken from the Epic chat on EnterTheGame in #beyondunreal a week ago or so:

[26-09-2007 03:27:08] <@EventServices> <de`pain> Question - Will UT3 have an online FPS cap? If so, will we be able to breach this cap by editing the .ini files?
[26-09-2007 03:27:27] <@[Epic]Checker> programmer question.
[26-09-2007 03:27:53] <@[Epic]IctusBrucks> i dont believe we cap the frame rate
[26-09-2007 03:28:56] <@[Epic]IctusBrucks> well I've seen UT3 running at 300+ fps just last night on a new system
[26-09-2007 03:29:24] <@*MarkRein[Epic]*> Yikes 300+ fps? That's insane!!
[26-09-2007 03:29:50] <@[Epic]IctusBrucks> that was on one of the new dell 720s  it wasn't a full benchmark, just looking around
[26-09-2007 03:29:53] <@[Epic]IctusBrucks> but still, it was fast 


Probably this "720":
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_720h2c


----------



## DaJMasta (Oct 3, 2007)

Oh epic, I love how your engines scale.



I'm glad the specs came out this way, even though the x1300 remark is a little ridiculous (methinks that should be an 8 not a 3).  My guess is the minimum specs resolution is SM2, 640x480, low detail everything and some choppyness but still playable.... so it doesn't seem unreasonable to think a 9600 pro could pull that off at the low end.


----------



## Nothgrin (Oct 3, 2007)

Being a game programmer myself I see that the requirements are possible but not impossible. First off if an engine is built from the ground up with a certain gpu manufacturer in mind say ATI, DirectX and OpenGL both have ATI only operations. and Nvidia has their own set of operations too. IF the engine is built with ATI optimizations the same operations may take longer on an NVidia card thus requiring a better GPU to handle the same data. 

Secondly this is Epic. They made the engine themselves. They must have the most updated and optimized UT3 engine there is. Other companies have to learn to use the UT3 engine SDK and get familiar with it while Epic can pick it up and go. They have the ability to look deep into the development code of the engine that they can pick things apart and use what they need. Thus requiring less secifications than another company.


----------



## Basard (Oct 4, 2007)

OnBoard said:


> "Minimum System Requirements
> * NVIDIA 6200+ or ATI Radeon 9600+ Video Card"
> 
> That is silly, I had a 9600pro and the games didn't ran good even when it was new!
> ...



... 9600 owned nvidia like athlon owned pentium 3..... 9600 was godly...


----------



## Random Murderer (Oct 4, 2007)

Basard said:


> ... 9600 owned nvidia like athlon owned pentium 3..... 9600 was godly...



QFT!!!


----------



## OnBoard (Oct 4, 2007)

Don't know what you've been smoking. 9500 was faster than 9600, the card that replaced it, 9700np was miles ahead of 9600pro. It wasn't until 9600xt came, that 9600 series finally got to 9500 level. Sure it beat fx series, but those were nvidias worst cards ever. You can't say that 9600 series was fast just because it beat top fx cards in source engine. 9500, 9700 & 9800 cards and their pro versions were great, 9600 (RV350) was bad, 9600xt (RV360) just ok. All GeForce FX "sucked"  Hopefully I'm not offending any previous FX owners, just that 9600 series was anything but godly.


----------



## Random Murderer (Oct 4, 2007)

OnBoard said:


> Don't know what you've been smoking. 9500 was faster than 9600, the card that replaced it, 9700np was miles ahead of 9600pro. It wasn't until 9600xt came, that 9600 series finally got to 9500 level. Sure it beat fx series, but those were nvidias worst cards ever. You can't say that 9600 series was fast just because it beat top fx cards in source engine. 9500, 9700 & 9800 cards and their pro versions were great, 9600 (RV350) was bad, 9600xt (RV360) just ok. All GeForce FX "sucked"  Hopefully I'm not offending any previous FX owners, just that 9600 series was anything but godly.



you know what beats ALL those cards you just mentioned?

a hammer.


----------



## a111087 (Oct 4, 2007)

i had FX 5200 128mb AGP


----------



## Ravenas (Oct 4, 2007)

8Gb? This game takes up more HD space than WoW...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2007)

if i recall, UT2004 ran good on lower settings which was a GF2, 1.0 GHz CPU, 512 MB ram. I think the guys that dev UT are the best at the game of optimization, in compare to freaking Creators of Doom3, FEAR, etc.


----------



## Random Murderer (Oct 4, 2007)

eidairaman1 said:


> if i recall, UT2004 ran good on lower settings which was a GF2, 1.0 GHz CPU, 512 MB ram. I think the guys that dev UT are the best at the game of optimization, in compare to freaking Creators of Doom3, FEAR, etc.



hell, i used to run ut2k4 on an old hp with a 1.2 GHz Athlon, 256 MB of RAM, and a 16 MB Riva TNT 2.


----------



## JC316 (Oct 4, 2007)

eidairaman1 said:


> if i recall, UT2004 ran good on lower settings which was a GF2, 1.0 GHz CPU, 512 MB ram. I think the guys that dev UT are the best at the game of optimization, in compare to freaking Creators of Doom3, FEAR, etc.



Oh yeah. I could run UT2k4 on some old shit fairly well. I mean, GF4 MX 420 old.

I would like to see more devs making games that will run on the lesser hardware.


----------



## Random Murderer (Oct 4, 2007)

JC316 said:


> Oh yeah. I could run UT2k4 on some old shit fairly well. I mean, GF4 MX 420 old.
> 
> I would like to see more devs making games that will run on the lesser hardware.



yea, and ut2k4 STILL looks damn good when you crank up the graphics to this day...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 4, 2007)

Need for Speed Underground 1 and 2 were the same way, would run on just about any hardware, that changed when MW and higher came out.


----------



## Basard (Oct 4, 2007)

ATI was king of the hill back when the 9xxx were out... I'm just sayin that even though the Pro might have sucked, it was still better than nvidia. And now ATI kinda sucks, so yeah, rub it in my face now, thats what your sposed to do.


----------



## OnBoard (Oct 4, 2007)

Yeah, I was just a bit dissapointed, as many of my friends had Radeon 9700np:s back then and those or 9500np were no where to be found anymore, so I had to get a 9600pro. Well I got them back eventually, just few weeks back the last 9700np owner upgraded to a x1950pro


----------



## mixa (Oct 6, 2007)

Many games are gonna use this engine very soon so if somehow it`s optimized for AMD/ATI cards .... well you know if you`re framerate maniac you better go get quad SLI to keep yourself satisfied


----------



## mab1376 (Oct 6, 2007)

i remember my 9600, i got the core up to 500MHz with the zalman heatpipe cooler. used to rock desert combat for bf1942 on that

UT3 should run fine on all 7000 and 8000 series nvidia cards and x1k and x2k ati cards

obviously higher end cards will be capable of more features being enabled (FSAA, AF, etc)


----------

