I have not tried them, but these are the instructions that I found:
To run benchmarkmarks with the Mac UT2003 Demo:
Find your Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo application.
Right/Control-Click on the app and select Show Package Content. Locate the Benchmark folder.
Open Terminal and type:
"cd " without the quotes. Note the space.
Drag and drop the Benchmark folder onto the terminal window and hit enter. Your pwd (present working directory) should now be the Benchmark folder inside Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo.app
To run a benchmark, just execute the script. Example:
./botmatch-asbestos.sh (for botmatch results)
You can find the results in your user folder - /Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo.
On the PC version, framerates are shown during a game by hitting the tilde key and then typing "stat fps" (no quotes).
Well, that seems to work on the Mac version as well ( ), so I can tell you that...
On a stock G5 1.8 with iTunes running in the background, various other apps open, all Unreal options set to highest (as far as I could tell) and processor speed set to automatic I could get as high as 32 (or so) fps (avg.) while running around and around 20 fps (avg.) when things got busy and I was being shot at.
With nothing but the Unreal demo running and processor speed set to highest I could get up to 37 fps (avg.) when running around and between 27-30 fps (avg.) when being shot at.
Having never played the game before (though it has proven to be a nice way to interupt my work today) everything looked quite smooth to me, though how my numbers compare?
Is that really it? There's something very, very wrong with games on the G5. This is not all the G5 can muster. Is the G5 really that different that things have to be specifically optimized for it? This is getting a bit scary. Time to e-mail Ryan Gordon.
Ok. Something is not righ here. I get 25-30FPS in Quake on my 333Mhz Beige G3 with a voodoo 5500. I was expecting near 3-digit framerates. My friend just built a PC (2Ghz, 9800 Pro, 512MB ram) and gets 170FPS in Quake. However, Counter-strike has a frame rate cap or something that prevents it from reaching over 45(?) FPS.
There is a frame rate cap for netplay on the PC version:
bCapFramerate=false
That turns it off.
Mac version? I don't know because, to be honest, I really don't like UT2003 and I'm more excited about how fast the original UT will run on a G5 once Ryan Gorden finishes the port.
UT2k3 is one of the most demanding and cpu intensive games out there right now. On the PC side it really takes a Radeon 9700 pro and a very fast processor to play it competitively on-line (at least an Athlon XP 2600+ or a 2.6Ghz P4).
When it came to pumping out polygons for games, the G4 seemed to approximately match Athlon XPs of the same clock cycle. I was hoping that the G5 would do better per clock cycle, but so far it is looking about the same.
Right now it looks like the Dual 2 GHz might be the only Mac to have enough power to play UT2k3 on par with the high end PCs. Of course, panther might give us a big boost to the performance, and come to think about it, UT2k3 might also get a nice boost if they recompile and optimize it for the G5.
As previously stated by others, UT2k3 is heavily GPU intensive. Given that a G5 should be sufficient CPU power for the game, the framerate that Gabid gave for 1280x1024, highest settings on a 5200FX seems somewhere in the ballpark, depending on which map the framerate was from.
For reference, links below are from a review from Anandtech last year on a variety of GPUs for Antalus and Asbestos maps, at 1280x1024.
If you compare the flyby and botmatch scores you can see that when you have a Radeon 9700pro (or above), that the CPU seems to become the limiting factor. You can also compare some of the same cards form the old andytech article listed in the post above that used an Athlon 2100 and the newer anandtech review that uses a 3GHz P4.
I've been doing a little research -- it seems that people are saying that drawing polygons is a integer calculation that will not benefit from AltiVic, or the floating point power of the G5, so it will probably preform in games like UT2k3 about as well as a P4 (or maybe Athlon XP) at the same clock frequency.
Looking at the G5 frame-rates posted so far it seems to be holding true. I really want to see how a 2GHz G5 running panther with a Radeon 9800pro handles UT2k3.
Comments
To run benchmarkmarks with the Mac UT2003 Demo:
Find your Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo application.
Right/Control-Click on the app and select Show Package Content. Locate the Benchmark folder.
Open Terminal and type:
"cd " without the quotes. Note the space.
Drag and drop the Benchmark folder onto the terminal window and hit enter. Your pwd (present working directory) should now be the Benchmark folder inside Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo.app
To run a benchmark, just execute the script. Example:
./botmatch-asbestos.sh (for botmatch results)
You can find the results in your user folder - /Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo.
Originally posted by Res
Does anyone have a 1.6 or 1.8 G5 that they can test UT2K3 on?
I have a 1.8, and I have a friend with UT 2003, so I think it might be arranged...
Originally posted by Ebby
I intend to when my Dual G5 arrives. Bu 'till then, how do you actually find the frame rate? Is it like Quake or CS?
On the PC version, framerates are shown during a game by hitting the tilde key and then typing "stat fps" (no quotes).
Originally posted by MCQ
On the PC version, framerates are shown during a game by hitting the tilde key and then typing "stat fps" (no quotes).
Well, that seems to work on the Mac version as well (
On a stock G5 1.8 with iTunes running in the background, various other apps open, all Unreal options set to highest (as far as I could tell) and processor speed set to automatic I could get as high as 32 (or so) fps (avg.) while running around and around 20 fps (avg.) when things got busy and I was being shot at.
With nothing but the Unreal demo running and processor speed set to highest I could get up to 37 fps (avg.) when running around and between 27-30 fps (avg.) when being shot at.
Having never played the game before (though it has proven to be a nice way to interupt my work today) everything looked quite smooth to me, though how my numbers compare?
Originally posted by Steve
Those numbers are actually pretty crappy, relative to the PC. What video card and resolution were you running?
The default GeForce FX 5200 Ultra at 1280 x 1024 resolution.
Could there be a framerate cap in UT2K3?
bCapFramerate=false
That turns it off.
Mac version? I don't know because, to be honest, I really don't like UT2003 and I'm more excited about how fast the original UT will run on a G5 once Ryan Gorden finishes the port.
/die hard UT'er since Nov '99
When it came to pumping out polygons for games, the G4 seemed to approximately match Athlon XPs of the same clock cycle. I was hoping that the G5 would do better per clock cycle, but so far it is looking about the same.
Right now it looks like the Dual 2 GHz might be the only Mac to have enough power to play UT2k3 on par with the high end PCs. Of course, panther might give us a big boost to the performance, and come to think about it, UT2k3 might also get a nice boost if they recompile and optimize it for the G5.
For reference, links below are from a review from Anandtech last year on a variety of GPUs for Antalus and Asbestos maps, at 1280x1024.
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=9
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=14
Flyby: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvi.../index.php?p=8
Botmatch: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvi.../index.php?p=9
Flyby: (FX 5200 Ultra, Radeon 9500Pro and others ) http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1797&p=6
Top of the line Radeons: http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...211_2237581__4
If you compare the flyby and botmatch scores you can see that when you have a Radeon 9700pro (or above), that the CPU seems to become the limiting factor. You can also compare some of the same cards form the old andytech article listed in the post above that used an Athlon 2100 and the newer anandtech review that uses a 3GHz P4.
Looking at the G5 frame-rates posted so far it seems to be holding true. I really want to see how a 2GHz G5 running panther with a Radeon 9800pro handles UT2k3.
everything to the max, 1280x1024
on the asbestos bot match benchmark.
and I have a 1.6 G5 with 1.25 GB RAM and the stock 5200...
and my prosessor speed was set to highest.