Wednesday, October 3rd 2007

Unreal Tournament 3 PC System Requirements

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
Source: Shacknews
Add your own comment

46 Comments on Unreal Tournament 3 PC System Requirements

#26
OnBoard
"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.
Posted on Reply
#27
a111087
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
Posted on Reply
#28
hat
Enthusiast
If by new you mean new in box, and by games you mean Oblivion, then sure :D
Posted on Reply
#29
kakazza
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":
www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_720h2c
Posted on Reply
#30
DaJMasta
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.
Posted on Reply
#31
Nothgrin
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.
Posted on Reply
#32
Basard
OnBoard"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.
... 9600 owned nvidia like athlon owned pentium 3..... 9600 was godly...
Posted on Reply
#33
Random Murderer
The Anti-Midas
Basard... 9600 owned nvidia like athlon owned pentium 3..... 9600 was godly...
QFT!!!
Posted on Reply
#34
OnBoard
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.
Posted on Reply
#35
Random Murderer
The Anti-Midas
OnBoardDon'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.
Posted on Reply
#37
Ravenas
8Gb? This game takes up more HD space than WoW... :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#38
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
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.
Posted on Reply
#39
Random Murderer
The Anti-Midas
eidairaman1if 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.
Posted on Reply
#40
JC316
Knows what makes you tick
eidairaman1if 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.
Posted on Reply
#41
Random Murderer
The Anti-Midas
JC316Oh 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...
Posted on Reply
#42
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
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.
Posted on Reply
#43
Basard
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. :D
Posted on Reply
#44
OnBoard
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 :)
Posted on Reply
#45
mixa
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 ;)
Posted on Reply
#46
mab1376
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)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 25th, 2024 04:23 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts