View Full Version : G400 UT scores

2nd October 1999, 15:09
I ran a couple quick Unreal Tournament benchmarks with a vanilla G400 and the new UT demo. Performance is very smooth for me and looks great except for one or two minor visual glitches wich I'd expect will get fixed in the final.

Celeron 366 @ 550 mhz, Abit BE6, 128 megs.
SB Live, vanilla G400 @ 143.

World Texture Detail - medium
Skin Detail - medium
Detail Textures - box checked
Sound quality - high
Surround sound - true
3d Hardware - false
Hud - off
Four bots

D3D scores - Average fps:

1024 x 768 - 16-bit - 59 fps avg
1024 x 768 - 32-bit - 52 fps avg

Only a 7 fps drop with 32-bit is better than I expected. I think the G400 D3D performance is good.

Anyone else have some UT benchmarks for comparison?

3rd October 1999, 06:02

I'm not much of a benchmarker... but here's some tests I did.

I have a BH6, Celeron 450, 256mb RAM, Voodoo2 12mb SLI, and Vanilla G400 32mb overclocked with matrox tweaker to 110%

This is the turbine demo
3dsound hardware yes
8 Voices
All details and textures set to high

G400 D3D 16 bit 1024x768 Hud on
AVG 23
High 27

G400 D3D 32bit 1024 Hud on
AVG 14
High 22

G400 D3D 32bit 1024 Hud off
AVG 18
High 50

G400 Opengl 16bit 1024 Hud on
Avg 22.7
High 65

G400 Opengl 32bit 1024 Hud on
Avg 21.1
High 60

G400 Opengl 32bit 1024 Hud off
Avg 27
High 70

Voodoo2 Glide 16bit 1024 Hud on
Avg 45
High 93

Voodoo2 Glide 14bit 1024 Hud off
Avg 45
High 75

Well, i have to say by my scores that the beta opengl perfomance is noticably better then D3D performance on the G400. I find this odd since the D3D performance is supposed to be much better than Opengl on g400. Anyone have any ideas? Could it just be because UT has such bad D3D support?

And I also must say that I am blown away by the Voodoo's performance. I guess UT is still heavily Glide optimized. And even at 16bit, I personally can't tell much differance between the V2's and the G400. Don't get me wrong... I love my G400, but for Unreal, 3dfx still seems to have a clinch.

Too bad I'm a half life junkie. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Abit BH6, Celeron 450, Matrox G400 32mb, 256mb ram, IBM 10GB, DVD 5x, MX300

3rd October 1999, 20:20
Something is wrong. It's well known that D3D performance is much better than OpenGL with UT. For example my D3D score at 1024 x 768 32 bit with the settings I stated above was 52 fps avg. My OpenGL score is 20 fps lower. There is something wrong with your GL scores being higher than D3D, but I'm not sure what it is.

4th October 1999, 00:38
I shall try the opengl for UT and Unreal.
But I have always used my voodoo's for this game since I dont seem to notice a terrible difference from D3D G400 quality once I discovered turning the brightness down on the voodoo's or upping the brightness on the G400 produced similar quality on my 20" sony monitor.
I definitely cannot use my G400 at all for numerous unreal downloadable maps at http://www.planetunreal.com/nalicity/
I dont know why but there are some massive slowdowns in only SOME areas and this warrants the use of the voodoos.
Is anyone an Unreal supporter like me? could you please indicate if you get similar slowdowns on your G400/max using such awesome maps like DMNODDY?

4th October 1999, 11:18
I don't own Unreal, but I stick with my V2 for UT. To me it seems kind of pointless to drop the detail levels down to get acceptable framerates on my G400, while the V2 runs much faster with detail cranked. Visual quality on the V2 is the best of any glide game I have seen.
I think I just need a faster processor to pair with my G400.

Cel 266@448 on Asus P2b (1009), 128MB, OEM G400/16, Quantum Obsidian S12, Fujitsu 5.25gb, MX300, Dlink 530, Grey Cat, Orange Cat (still MIA)
Reports of Sig5.2x being 40% more interesting than Sig5.13 were greatly exaggerated...

4th October 1999, 15:06
Yup, OpenGl looks just fine but very slow.
I actually see no difference during play between high and medium detail settings but my G400 sure likes the medium settings.
Any unreal users out there who use different maps?