Is T:V more demanding on the CPU or GPU?

Yeah I saw that. There are no exact numbers on that though. Not to mention there is a lot of different types of hardware and configurations. I was thinking something more like switching out a processor or a video card in the same system and getting some exact numbers.

What type of "exact number" do you want? Those are average FPS during a full pub on different maps.

As for Swtiching out the processors and cards...thats exactly what I did to the extent possible. The 1700XP and 3000XP are the exact same system with a new processor. Obviously the a64 required a new mobo and RAM. So thats how I tested.

Sure its not the most "exact" of processing but then again I wasnt expecting to publish an article, I was looking for what worked best for me and my money. Overall the best FPS/money decision for me was the A64 and 9800 Pro. For someone else that can justify $600+(CD) for an x800 of 6800GT more power to em.

yall are debating stats from another game engine entirely, it should be noted.



I'm quoting myself cuz folks are saying "for a fact" just the opposite.

If it helps any, my opinion is based on people asking the same question to Epic Games folks (the guys who made Unreal Engine) and that's the story.

I think different engines might tax rigs differently, but right now... CPUs dont seem to be the primary bottlenecks for new games. Obviously an really old CPU will be one, but 2.8ghz vs 3.2 vs dual 64... it wont matter as much as a good GPU and some proper RAM.

Half the challenge seems to be texture/shader tricks, and that's why raw ram and gpu/gpu-ram power is making the big difference in rendering.

Raw CPU processing isnt really the critical issue these days, outside the fact that sound systems might bottleneck.

Put it more bluntly... in T:V, the raw processing needs of the CPU are not massive. The client physics and processes arent that much more complex than other *cough* tribes games. What is choking folks is the raw rendering and shaders... perhaps along with complex 3d sound.

I might be wrong about TV... but im gonna presume since it IS the unreal engine... the guys behind the engine sorta know best.


:fro:


before you say... again... that you "know for a fact" that CPU is the answer, please read what i just re-quoted yet again.

the makers of the engine themselves... have been very clear on this matter. MAYBE they know more than you or i?

I have an AMD 2600+, Ti4400, and 768MB of RAM. I run the game on ~medium settings (ultra-high fogging) at 1024x768... seems to be pretty smooth for me :shrug:

thanks

btw - I saw your water cooled pics - very nice - is there an english version of the aqua web page?

Thanks, but no there isnt. You can use a translator though. The only US reseller of Aqua parts is based out of Cali, and a great guy. www.snt-systems.com They are pricey, but I like them.

im looking for a new cpu and gpu that will run tv at 1024 X 1280 flawlessly ............. should i be waiting for a bit or is there something out right now that will give that to me.

:fro:


before you say... again... that you "know for a fact" that CPU is the answer, please read what i just re-quoted yet again.

the makers of the engine themselves... have been very clear on this matter. MAYBE they know more than you or i?

I replaced my gf4 4400 with a 9800 pro and saw ZERO performance difference in ut2k4. I replaced my 2100+ with a 3000+ 64 bit and saw a big performance difference.

It's not always the video card. UT is VERY cpu intensive, despite what the developers say.

I replaced my gf4 4400 with a 9800 pro and saw ZERO performance difference in ut2k4. I replaced my 2100+ with a 3000+ 64 bit and saw a big performance difference.

It's not always the video card. UT is VERY cpu intensive, despite what the developers say.

Exactly, look at the dedicated server itself just look at that beast. If that's not any indication then I don't know what is.

ATI and nVidia put a lot of money into developers like Epic, so it shouldn't be very surprising when they incite you to purchase a new video card.

Exactly, look at the dedicated server itself just look at that beast. If that's not any indication then I don't know what is.

ATI and nVidia put a lot of money into developers like Epic, so it shouldn't be very surprising when they incite you to purchase a new video card.

Exactly. Just look at the add for ati on the front of vengeance. The UT engine has historically run better on nvidia hardware, but ati paied off whoever it took to put an ati add there (similar to how nvidia paid off epic to make the game run well on nvidia). Ati might be better for vengeance since they made a lot of changes, but no one knows because no one is doing good benchmarks on it.

I replaced my gf4 4400 with a 9800 pro and saw ZERO performance difference in ut2k4. I replaced my 2100+ with a 3000+ 64 bit and saw a big performance difference.

It's not always the video card. UT is VERY cpu intensive, despite what the developers say.

2100 operates at 1.73 ghz, does it not?

im not saying CPU isnt important.

but come on... nobody is arguing you can play these games on a 1.8ghz rig... as obviously that WOULD be a bottleneck.

i talked with the engine makers themselves on IRC and heard them explain it in really simple terms.

i have a 2.8ghz CPU. i think that's the "bottom" for good performance on top game engines. i think that a 2.8 vs a 3.2 vs an uber-32 bit rig isnt gonna make as much of a difference as the equivalent range among GPUs... or simply having 256 vs 512 vs 1gig of good RAM.

the question is where is the "demand" on the system. if it isnt clear, ive been sorta in deep with "unreal" stuff for 2 years now. i cant say this is the same for Far Cry, however it seems that in general the CPUs are not the primary bottleneck.

the point being that you can get by with an "ok" CPU and do better investing in a nice GPU and 1 gig of RAM.

I replaced my gf4 4400 with a 9800 pro and saw ZERO performance difference in ut2k4. I replaced my 2100+ with a 3000+ 64 bit and saw a big performance difference.

i played ut2k3 with a 2ghz rig and a Gf2-PCI (yes, p-c-i)... so ive seen rock bottom in terms of performance.

1. these games CAN be playable with a 9800 pro, 1gig ram and a 2ghz machine.

2. but if you try playing tv or ut2k4 with a 3.2ghz rig and a GF2 and 256 RAM... i assure you it isnt as playable.

just open a base map and export all the textures and static mesh used.

add up how much raw memory is involved... and you'll see very simply why ram and gpu are essential for performance.... moreso that cpu processing.

rendering, as i understand it, is generally moving more and more into the GPU with the CPU doing less and less.

that might change in the next generation, we'll see.

Involved time means jack. You could've spent the last 100 years playing with your balls. That doesn't make you an expert on sex.

I dont know why you would say UT engines usually run better on NV cards. I believe its just the opposite. Going by reviews from the past years.

Involved time means jack. You could've spent the last 100 years playing with your balls. That doesn't make you an expert on sex.

how about spending lots of time talking with the epic games guys and modding on the engine and actually knowing a little bit about the subject at hand... even capable of quoting the devs on the exact question posed here?

*roll eyes*

no, this isnt about me... it's about the issue. i hate when folks ignore sincere discussion and turn right into personalized flame baiting. i really do...

i personally trust what the engine developers have said cuz it makes sense from what ive generally seen on all the engine games.

i do NOT think it's a rule that will apply to all engines, although it makes sense as a trend that raw CPU power isnt going to be the critical link in game engines... especially when GPUs are growing in such power and the raw rendering processes are moving to components like audio cards and video cards.

likewise, again... RAM is really essential.

i bought a 9800 pro 128 last year even when i had the money to get the 256 ram version. i figured 128 was enough... duh.

i have made maps with 30 megs in SKY BOX textures alone... so when you got hundreds of megs of textures and mesh floating around, and all kinds of complex shaders and alpha maps twisting around... the raw CPU processing on the client side isnt nearly as demanding at the rendering of audio and video stuffs.

im no uber-geek on the technology, but to me that's my techno-babble understanding.

I dont know why you would say UT engines usually run better on NV cards. I believe its just the opposite. Going by reviews from the past years.

1. there is no UT engine. ut is a game

2. i dont think epic or anybody useing the 2.0 version of the engine has really made a claim either way

i think it mostly has depended on aspects of directx and d3d technologies... and what each card makers' drivers were able to do at any given time.

when the 9800s were king... they generally outperformed on the ut2k3 stuff for a variety of reasons. im not even sure if that remains the case today.

(by the way, the benchmarks that used the real benchmark tool AS WELL AS spinter cell were the ones to trust)

i honestly dont follow all the ndivia/ati crap cuz i think it's mostly nonsense, so i cant tell you if recent reports show nvidia advantage... but i do know that nvidia's new cards friggin rock.

2100 operates at 1.73 ghz, does it not?

im not saying CPU isnt important.

but come on... nobody is arguing you can play these games on a 1.8ghz rig... as obviously that WOULD be a bottleneck.

i talked with the engine makers themselves on IRC and heard them explain it in really simple terms.

i have a 2.8ghz CPU. i think that's the "bottom" for good performance on top game engines. i think that a 2.8 vs a 3.2 vs an uber-32 bit rig isnt gonna make as much of a difference as the equivalent range among GPUs... or simply having 256 vs 512 vs 1gig of good RAM.

the question is where is the "demand" on the system. if it isnt clear, ive been sorta in deep with "unreal" stuff for 2 years now. i cant say this is the same for Far Cry, however it seems that in general the CPUs are not the primary bottleneck.

the point being that you can get by with an "ok" CPU and do better investing in a nice GPU and 1 gig of RAM.



i played ut2k3 with a 2ghz rig and a Gf2-PCI (yes, p-c-i)... so ive seen rock bottom in terms of performance.

1. these games CAN be playable with a 9800 pro, 1gig ram and a 2ghz machine.

2. but if you try playing tv or ut2k4 with a 3.2ghz rig and a GF2 and 256 RAM... i assure you it isnt as playable.

just open a base map and export all the textures and static mesh used.

add up how much raw memory is involved... and you'll see very simply why ram and gpu are essential for performance.... moreso that cpu processing.

rendering, as i understand it, is generally moving more and more into the GPU with the CPU doing less and less.

that might change in the next generation, we'll see.

Wow, I'm a tard. After writing a moderate post, I hit preview post instead of submit reply and then went elsewhere. Anyway...

Of course you can't play the latest greatest game with a 3.8 ghz cpu and only a gf 256 and 128 megs of ram. You also can't play the latest greatest game on a GF6/x800 and 1024 megs of ram with a 1ghz cpu. In my case I was cpu bound. My case is one of many that you didn't really mention in your first post. It's not ALWAYS the video card that holds you back.

And yes, more rendering instructions are being moved to the GPU with shader technology. However, those instructions are being replaced with complex physics and collision detection. So, your CPU still has its hands full. Plus it's gotta shovel all of those instructions over to the video card.

Despite what the devs say, UT is a cpu hog. However, T:V is very modified, so what expertise you might have about UT may not always apply here.

Despite what the devs say, UT is a cpu hog. However, T:V is very unmodified, so what expertise you might have about UT probably does apply here.

Fixed.

I've been dabbling in the debugger with T:V since early beta, this game isn't as modified as Irrational would like you to believe ;)

1. there is no UT engine. ut is a game

2. i dont think epic or anybody useing the 2.0 version of the engine has really made a claim either way



1. There is a UT engine, its licensed out for developers.

2. I didnt say Epic did. I was responding to Hobb's post of, "The UT engine has historically run better on nvidia hardware". As I said, it the past few years, ATi cards have run it faster from the various reviews Ive read.

Fixed.

I've been dabbling in the debugger with T:V since early beta, this game isn't as modified as Irrational would like you to believe ;)

They probably didn't modify the core very much. 90% of it is going to be the same. That's what engines are for. They did, however, add glow, a few other shaders, replaced karma with havok, and rewrote a lot of the collision detection and physics.

They probably didn't modify the core very much. 90% of it is going to be the same. That's what engines are for. They did, however, add glow, a few other shaders, replaced karma with havok, and rewrote a lot of the collision detection and physics.

Of course that is what engines are for. Maybe you missed the part where they've been touting this as the Tribes:Vengeance Engine? Like I said, they haven't modified it half as much as they'd like you to believe.

Okies

I scored a Geforce FX5900 Ultra on ebay (edit - wow, I used a g for the b in ebay and it changed it to "estupid" - funnay) for $127

I should be able to get $80+ out of my Ti4600 (with Zalman passive cooler!) so the net cost is going to be around $50-60 for about double the video power.

This should be a good matchup for my XP3000 and I am not over comitting $ to a dead end AGP card.