Unreal Tournament 3 PC System Requirements

[Frick]

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]

"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]

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]

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

 

[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":
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_720h2c

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Basard]

"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...

 

[Random Murderer]

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

QFT!!!

 

[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.

 

[Random Murderer]

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]

i had FX 5200 128mb AGP

 

[Ravenas]

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

 

[eidairaman1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)