Why can not the ATI 9700 Pro to play unreal 2003 on 1600×1200 with 6x FSAA and 16x AF at playable framerates? [stock speeds] [fastest processor]
Q: This is at stock speeds and overclocked speeds the stock cooling on the fastest processor, etc
Re:this reminds me of Special Ed from Crank Yankers. everyone, please chant with me "yay! i've got mail! yay!". thank you.
Re:guyOO7 i thought maybe it could now sense all of the driver updates with performence increase.
Re:i am also wondering what made u think it could in the first place?
Re:NV30 will not push past 60 FPS on this either
Re:I believe you mean 128 tap anisotropic, which is the same as 16x.
Full marks for effort though. 
Re:And riddle me this Batman: why can't a GeForce 4 use anisotropic filtering without taking ridiculous performance hits in games? You can often lose half of your performance if you just enable the 2x (!) setting while any Radeon card can do 16x fast anisotropic with a minimal performance hit.
Even 128x anisotropic with a minimal performance hit 
Re:I get the feeling that this question is more of a weak attempted troll against the Radeon 9700 Pro rather than a genuine question but I'll press on anyway:
Why can't the ATI 9700 pro play unreal 2003 at 1600×1200 with 6x FSAA and 16x AF at playable frame rates?
Because UT2003 is one of the most CPU and GPU intensive games on the market and when you combine it with the high detail levels you're suggesting it kills any video card, and it'll most likely kill a GeForce FX as well.
Besides, where did you get the idea that the 9700 Pro should be playable at those settings in UT2003? It sounds like a pre-conceived notion to me with arbitrary values used on your part.
And riddle me this Batman: why can't a GeForce 4 use anisotropic filtering without taking ridiculous performance hits in games? You can often lose half of your performance if you just enable the 2x (!) setting while any Radeon card can do 16x fast anisotropic with a minimal performance hit.
It's a rhetorical question so you don't have to answer, but it illustrates a much more sensible kind of question that one might ask.
I just thought you should beable to play at extreme resolutions with everything on maximum.
That's such a relative comment that it's not quantifiable. Every time a new game more demannding than the last is released the goal posts of your comment are shifted.
Ummm, the fastest processor you own? Because if you tell me you are trying to run this on a P4 3.06ghz cpu, then there is definately an issue. You should be able to play UT2K3 at 4X FSAA and 8X Anis Filtering without any problems on a P4 2.4ghz or XP 2200+.
Not at 1600 x 1200 it won't. UT2003 will slow down even at 1600 x 1200 with just 16x anisotropic filtering so I use 1280 x 960 because it definitely makes the larger (GPU bound) maps zippier. Also at those settings the CPU isn't the one being strained unless you're playing a very large botmatch game.
Yep true. I am thinking at least a 3.5 to 4 ghz processor should let it be playable at 1600×1200 with 6x FSAA and 16x AF. I agree the 1280×1024 even with 6x FSAA and 16x AF is really good on the ATI 9700 pro. I guess most people don't play at 1600×1200.
Again, while UT2003 is an extremely CPU limited game the settings you are describing are GPU limited. A faster CPU will help the botmatches but it won't help the flybuys or any other situations in the game where you're GPU limited (eg Tokara forest, Inferno etc).
Re:"Why can't the ATI 9700 pro play unreal 2003 at 1600×1200 with 6x FSAA and 16x AF at playable frame rates?"
Because it's not fast enough. Duh.
You've taken the cake for the stupidest question I've seen all month. Take the FSAA off and you're talking about some serious stress on any video card out there. With it on it just becomes a retarded question. I'd think by the number of posts under your name that you'd have an idea of how annoying a troll is by now. Retard.
Edit: Yes I meant to be an @ss in the above reply.
Re:Perhaps we're bus limited as well.
Catalyst 3.0 drivers = 25% performance increase. Best of all, NO MORE D3D STUTTER!
Cheers!
Re:guy well i don't think because if they have some results of a p4 overclocked and stable at 3.5 ghz or athlon xp overclocked plus a ati 9700 pro maybe at stock speeds should beable to provide playable frame rates in unreal 2003 at 1600×1200 with 6x FSAA and 16x AF. If it doesn't then overclocking the ATI 9700 pro should provide it easily. The ATI 9700 pro is still very cpu limited.
Re:Because you have to wait for NV30!
Cheers!
Re:Yep true. I am thinking at least a 3.5 to 4 ghz processor should let it be playable at 1600×1200 with 6x FSAA and 16x AF. I agree the 1280×1024 even with 6x FSAA and 16x AF is really good on the ATI 9700 pro. I guess most people don't play at 1600×1200.
Re:Well in Ati's defense, it was with a 2.8 Ghz P4, if this with a 3.06 HT P4 we'd see better performance.
And it does run very well at 1280×1024…
Wait until next year with the 800 Mhz bus P4's coupled with this card, or whatever the high end card will be then. You'll be happy then bud.
Re:I use a reference quality 21" monitor and would never need that much to get a beautiful picture. In fact I still prefer use 1024×768 just because it makes the monitor seem even bigger.
Note to self: write to Sony and ask when the 32" monitors will be available.
Re:All I can say is:
I WANT!!!
I'd settle for these framerates. LOL!
Re:1600×1200 numbers for the ATI 9700 pro with 6x FSAA and 16x AF at stock speeds and overclocked. Yes when its extremely overclocked with all kind of changes unreal 2003 is playable but just using the stock cooling to overclock its still not. ()
Re:I still want to know what the average/minumum frame rate is….oh wait, i mean the minimum/average frame rate is…..oh crap…I mean the minimum/maximum/average/lowest…. crap… :confused:
Re:I just thought you should beable to play at extreme resolutions with everything on maximum. But then again playing at 4x FSAA and 16x which is playable at 1600×1200 on the ATI 9700 pro is just as good sense there isn't a huge difference between 4x and 6x FSAA.
Re:Wow, imtim83, you went a long time without bashing the KING of graphics cards! Where have you been? Your nVidia-loving nature just decide to kick in this morning again? Just had to ask such a pointless question? Did nVidia's CEO put you up to the task?
Edit: Got PROOF to a benchmark that shows it CANNOT do this?
Re:Originally posted by: imtim83
This is at stock speeds and overclocked speeds by the stock cooling on the fastest processor, etc
Ummm, the fastest processor you own? Because if you tell me you are trying to run this on a P4 3.06ghz cpu, then there is definately an issue. You should be able to play UT2K3 at 4X FSAA and 8X Anis Filtering without any problems on a P4 2.4ghz or XP 2200+.
Re:Intim…perhaps u could share with us what your minimum frame rate is so we can anylize this further… i/expressions/rolleye.gif
Re:And 2FPS is <technically> playable
Re:What made you think it would be able to in the first place?
Re:Originally posted by: guy
Why the hell can't it make me breakfast?!
Construct a heatsink large enough, it's possible you can make eggs. Overclock to increase the temp. Watch out for grease jumping at you!
As for the original question, that's REALLY taxing the system — be happy with what it can do now.
Re:Why the hell can't it make me breakfast?!
Re:That's an extreme amount to ask 6x and 16x ? LOL.. You'd be better off getting higher quality textures or just taking your screen slightly out of focus so it looks blurry and smooth…
Related posts
Tags: fastest processor, stock speeds