Unreal Tournament 3 Performance Preview - AMD and NVIDIA Compared

The build up to Unreal Tournament 3, which was previously known as Unreal Tournament 2007, has been a long, twisted story. Shown for the first time at E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) in May of 2004, Unreal Engine 3, which is the gaming engine that powers UT3, was far and away the most impressive graphical display anyone had seen in real time rendering. The game engine was designed for DirectX 9 GPUs specifically and adds support for HDR and per-pixel lighting, dynamic shadowing and even AGEIA PhysX technology.

With such a lengthy time to market, it should come as no surprise that UT3 may not be as jaw-droppingly impressive graphical as we predicted when we saw the tech demos in 2004 and 2005. Based mainly on DX9, the engine has been updated somewhat to include DX10 in SOME areas, but those are still unknown to us as the demo that is set to be released this week is only using DX9 code paths. The fact that the game was originally known as Unreal Tournament 2007, but then renamed to UT3 (signifying the Engine version), is another indicator that perhaps Epic had planned on getting it all wrapped well before this November. After all, do you want a game called "2007" just a month before the year 2008?

Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Charlie26884490d ago

SWEET at my usual res (1680 x 1050) I will be able to play at max flawlessly :D

now download the demo to test it XD

bym051d4490d ago

Wonder if I'll be able to hit 1280x1024 with my Radeon x800XT...

Torch4490d ago (Edited 4490d ago )

I just got in from picking up my new quad core Duo system, complete with a splendid 8800 GTS (320MB) card.

Man, it's been YEARS since I've had a capable computer with enough sizzle to effortlessly spit out the latest games...Seeing these benchmarks gives me a smile from cheek-to-cheek!

Now, some advice, if you're so kind: To Vista, or not to Vista???

I've got a legit Home Ultimate version which I picked up for a steal...up to now it's been XP, with minimal problems.

Any current Vista users out there who have some advice as to which OS I should install? I'm a junkie for leading-edge, but I hear so-so about Vista, especially when it comes to current DX10 performance.

Dual-boot, perhaps???

jaja14344490d ago

Vista is ok... Its not as bad as most people make it out to be, though it is indeed a resource hog. But if you already have XP I really see no reason to "upgrade" to Vista unless you really want to.

Torch4490d ago

To be honest, the main reason I want to upgrade to Vista is because I already bought it months ago (CN$40, non-OEM, sealed!).

But I'm just trying to get a feel for how people have been finding it.

Thanks for your prompt reply though...bubbles for your time & effort!

Charlie26884490d ago

You should download the Vista Update advisor to check if you are 110% ready to upgrade cuz there are a LOT of people that think Vista is a walk in the park later to find out something in your PC does not work in Vista also before updating to Vista look if there is Vista drivers for ALL of your stuff

I would have recommended you to pick up the 8800GTS 640MB (if you could had afford it) since that would allow you to max res since the latest games need a min of 512MB of video to run at high res (but 320 is ok if you dont have a big monitor)

And also if you are making it a pure gaming PC the Dual Core 6850 would have better performance over the Quad core (both are around the same price)

Torch4490d ago (Edited 4490d ago )

Yeah, I've done the Update adviser already, with minimal reported conflicts (although I'm sure that I'll still come across a slew of hiccups, as I always do when migrating OS's...but that's part of the fun, in a frustrating, annoying sort of way).

I think I'll be quite content with the 320 version, because I'd be running in my monitor's native resolution of only 1680 x 1050 (as with yours)...besides, in the worst case scenario, there's always my beloved PS3 I can turn to for the rest of my gaming needs.

I considered the 6850 chip, but because I'll be doing a good deal of HD video editing, I'll benefit much more from the quad than I would the duo...although not too many programs/games are utilizing multi-thread processing yet, many video editing apps are a whole different ballgame, and utilize all four cores beautifully.

Besides, I'm willing to bet that we're gonna be seeing a lot more apps utilizing 4+ cores in the very near future, not to mention the fact that both chips, the Quad 6600 (G0 stepping, by the way) and 6850 duo, both overclock miraculously!

Thanks for your great feedback...Bubbles+!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4490d ago
SageFrancis4490d ago

Ok I have a 6800 GS and I was running at 1400x900 and the graphics looked the same as they do in those screenshots.

I thought it was odd shipping the demo with no AA though. Hopefully in the next few months I'll be building a whole new rig capable of playing Crysis on "very high"