what kind of system do you need to run Unreal Tournament 3 when it released?

http://unreal.freakygaming.com/pc/action/unreal_tournament_3/system_requirements.html

those are some high specs and my laptop meets most all of them but the graphics has me worried.

My Sager9260 has a single nvidia gtx 7950 512mb. will this handle the game on high settings with reasonable frame rates? Currently i can run fear on max with the exeption of res...(cant be on 1600 dammit or it will begin to slow a bit!) but anyways can it run?

 

It should run pretty well, not sure how well because they aren't sure what the requirements were. I don't think your CPU is 2.8 Ghz though

 

The UT engines have always been great at working on lower hardware. You don't need some crazy gaming rig to enjoy the UT games, which is why they're such a huge selling point.

 

They sure didn't sound like they run on lower hardware

 

kinda...

i mean, unreal 2k4 now doesnt have heavy hardware requirements, but back in the day- when the first unreal 2 engine games came out, they were considered system hogs and you had to have the latest hardware to run them with all the "eye candy" as i remember...

the fact that unreal 2k4 remained popular is no doubt related to the fun nature of the game.

 

when they say 3ghz cpu- they MEAN a p4 3.0 ghz or an athlon 3000+ or higher.

your core 2 duo is sort of in another league.

 

"Graphics: Geforce 6 series" Would that mean... I HAVE A CHANCE!!!!!!!!

 

What? The minimum is a Geforce 6 series card? Hell yeah! I can play some UT3 on my laptop! XD

It's really nice how the top developers make sure their game runs good not just on the newer systems, but also the older one -- a product of excellent programming.

 

By the looks of the system specs the game is going to be increadably prosseor heavy. Most likely that their saying you should have at least 3 ghz of prossesing power. the fact that its devided into 2 cores however should not be a problem. If the game can run on high end gfx cards(not highest end) then anyone with a decent prosseor should be find with the 8600 GT or 7600GT. Rendering might take place more with the prosseor (seeing as how they are overpowered these days) and less with the video card, or rather the video card will be used for textures and meshes while the prossor could be used for animation and physiscs. Ive looked at other Unreal engines in the past (#2 is ungodly) which ended up using alot of graphical power while the prosseor was left to physics.

The Unreal guys are briliant and no doupt they could make an engine do what every they want.

 

if I can play games like UT2004, and CS 1.6 with no lag on my POS dell dimension 8200 desktop, I think that the developers of these companies do a great job with optimizing games for slower PCs.

 

Yea, UT2k4 was one of the few games I could run on my AMD 3000+ and 6600gt maxed out.

 

Ya thats why the UT 2004 engine costs $750,000 per licence.

 

Those are the same exact requirements for the game Titan Quest, which is by no means a powerhouse in terms of graphics.

If it requires a 6 series gpu, then a very high end 7 series with a much more powerful cpu will do just fine.

 

anything above 20 FPS is considered playable right?

 

Vs. Computer, yes.
But online Vs. human, above 60FPS is recommended.

 

over 60 fps pffft-

people will argue about this for forever, but basically it comes down to this. as long as you dont dip below about 30 fps- you aren't even going to notice, whether you are playing against a computer, a person, or a sea gull.

i feel really comfortable if i can stay about 40 fps, or even 35. once it hits 30 you might begin to notice a little slowdown if you decide to do something like - spin around as fast as humanly possible.

if you surpass 60, than your monitor will most likely not be able to keep up with your computers ability to produce frames. thats not a bad thing- its just that your monitor will only display the 60 frames per second. you can happily call your hardware "overkill" for that game.

 

What framerate is acceptable is largely dependent on the game. In fast-paced first-person shooters, there is a huge difference between 60 FPS and 30 FPS. In a slower-paced RPG (like Oblivion) or a real-time strategy game, lower FPS (20-30) is acceptable.

TweakGuides has a neat little program called FPS Compare, where you can see the same scene in 60 FPS and 30 FPS, side by side.

Try pressing "m" to toggle off the splitscreen, then press spacebar to switch back and forth between 30 and 60. Try the same thing with the alternate scene too (press F2). It's pretty amazing how big of an improvement 60 FPS can be.

Edit: You can also change which framerates are compared. So you can compare say, 60 FPS and 100 FPS, and see that there is no difference.

 

lol
just remember one thing, the monitor cannot "display" doesn't mean you cannot feel it.

 

How can you "feel" it...?

Your eyes can't even see over 60 frames per second.

Over 40 for an FPS is recommended. Over 30 you can still play comfortably.

 

with these new cards like the 8400m gs, 8600m gs, or 8600m gt, all you have to do is turn down your settings to achieve a good frame rate to play at. In the 8600m gs thread, when was AA and AS was at max then turned off fps shot up to 100+ from 40 fps. For me it's gameplay> graphics. It's great that with some cards you can get both =p

 

in my notebook i just lower the resolution from lets say 1600 to 1400 and my FPS sky rockey without turning of anything else or lowering AA or AS. I love it in FEAR and PREY hehe

 

Ok just for the record.

Your Eyes can see at roughly 70-80 fps. BUT this is a compleatly inacturate way of describing the way our eyes see. Its more like a stream of "change" that our eyes see. I.e. we see what changes and then our eyes update that to our brain.

Think of a video stream that only sends the pixels that changed rather than a new image all together.
(source: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5BC7AA17-E7F2-99DF-35916CCE3AA1FB06&sc=I100322)

Depending on what your playing 30 fps is usualy fine. Ive played halo 1 at 25 fps and it seemed fine to me, But at the point where it starts to dip below 20 is where you should draw the line and lower the settings. I personaly think that a game should be played on higher res with lower framerates if it means better visuals. Whats the point of playing at increadble framerates if it means that you cant enjoy all the eye candy that the devs took so long to create?
Games aren't competitive preformance where losing means something bad happens to you personaly (unless you play at tournaments) but rather something to be enjoyed in all thier glory.

You wouldn't lower the word count on a book just so that it reads faster.

Heres the basic formula:
if FPS < 20 -> lower resolution, If fps still <20 lower the AA/AF, If FPS STILL < 20 then lower the poly count or textures. If after all lowest settings FPS < 20 get a new video card.

 

Your eyes don't see in "frames per second". Here is an interesting article about how we see and why certain images look more fluid than others.

As for how many frames per second are necessary in games: it depends largely on the individual and on the game. Some people are more sensitive to lower frames per second than others, which is why you get such varied responses when asked "how many FPS is enough?" There is no absolute answer.

 

Correct. And also depends on the genre of the game plus how you are going to play the game.

RPG/RTS usually requires lower FPS. I can accept Supreme Commander with only 1x FPS, however I CANNOT accept playing single-player UT2004/TDU anything lower than 30FPS.
If I play a FPS online ladder match, I CANNOT accpt anywhere lower than 60FPS.

P.S. Generally, the faster the game pace, the higher FPS you need.

 

ok but i think we can all agree that lcd monitors work by simply changing the pixel colors as fast as it can. Once you reach the point where you are maxing out the capability of the monitor to show new frames, you have "enough" fps- or at least - its not going to get any better.

this is also true on CRT monitors. if its projecting an image at 85 hz, it doesnt matter if you can render 200 fps. its going to display 85.