How to benchmark UT2004

F

fallguy

Guest
From another forum.

Originally posted by cms
If, like me, you looked in the benchmark folder and found nothing yet wanted to benchmark, it's possible to do so. UT2004 is basically the same as UT2003 which has the same benchmark folder although it has some files. I copied the files from the UT2003 bennchmark folder into the UT2004 folder (I also had to copy of the contents of the sub-folder called stuff), modified the bat files so they would point to UT2004 instead of 2003, added the map names into the bat files, and they worked!! Well, mostly anyway: the flyboy benches don't work. When the flyby benches start up, you just sit there. You can use the movement keys to get around but it's worthless for benchmarking. The botmatches work great there. I even made a bat file that starts all maps in botmatch so it's easy to benchmark (just click on that one bat, all the maps will be played/benchmarked).

You can do the above if you want to benchmark or...

I zipped up all the files and made them available for download. Go here to do it:

http://webpages.charter.net/smithcm/ut2004/ut2004_benchmarks.zip

This zip file includes the flyby benches, but as I said above they don't work for whatever reason. To use, find the folder UT2004 was installed to (it installs to C:\UT2004 by default). Go to the subfolder called benchmark and unzip this file to that folder. You might get prompt saying a file/folder is being overwritten, let it overwrite it. The stuff subfolder is empty when you install UT2004. This ZIP file includes the stuff subfolder with some files in it so it needs to be overwritten. That's it. Just double click on a file to start a benchmark. To run all the benchmarks, double click on the file called botmatch-all or something like that. Again, the flyby benches don't work, no idea why. Maybe someone here can figure out why?
Click to expand...

Works fine for me, and pretty useful. You can find your best settings very easily.
 
Game settings I used, highest possible choice in everything. Sound options are the highest as well.

UT2004settings.JPG


No AA/No AF.

Code: 
dm-rankin
41.586037 / 93.317604 / 181.152573 fps
Score = 93.431915

as-convoy
22.303217 / 56.226337 / 111.360321 fps
Score = 56.296806

ons-torlan
24.273390 / 81.621239 / 135.503067 fps
Score = 81.739265

br-colossus
34.053097 / 133.264420 / 244.332947 fps
Score = 133.392395

ctf-bridgeoffate
41.123947 / 131.646072 / 270.936340 fps
Score = 131.829437

2xAA/8xAF.

Code: 
dm-rankin
43.391029 / 83.978737 / 192.338531 fps
Score = 84.077187

as-convoy
22.520294 / 54.094753 / 108.967018 fps
Score = 54.161938

ons-torlan
24.198044 / 55.889057 / 120.259666 fps
Score = 55.963257

br-colossus
34.403339 / 124.083138 / 239.943970 fps
Score = 124.205956

ctf-bridgeoffate
39.578270 / 102.426720 / 256.932709 fps
Score = 102.563248

4xAA/16xAF.

Code: 
dm-rankin
37.133739 / 72.628677 / 193.864471 fps
Score = 72.731873

as-convoy
17.104031 / 47.281433 / 110.374954 fps
Score = 47.339661

ons-torlan
15.256286 / 49.014946 / 122.000816 fps
Score = 49.084663

br-colossus
34.763042 / 109.025406 / 231.072266 fps
Score = 109.134003

ctf-bridgeoffate
40.444370 / 84.674141 / 214.077744 fps
Score = 84.774918

3.9gig P4
1gig HyperX DDR 520@1:1
9800XT+overdrive enabled, 4.2's
IC7 MAX3
36gig Raptor
Audigy ZS

I just had my 5900NU in this system to test it with Farcry, to compare the two quality wise, and famerate wise, then this came out. I dont want to move it over here again to bench it :sigh:
 
Originally posted by fallguy
I just had my 5900NU in this system to test it with Farcry, to compare the two quality wise, and famerate wise, then this came out. I dont want to move it over here again to bench it :sigh: [/B]
Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon. BTW, how was the comparison in Far Cry?
 
Also keep in mind the demo is using texture sizes half the size of what the full version game will provide ;)
 
Originally posted by WuzFast
Aw, c'mon. BTW, how was the comparison in Far Cry?
Click to expand...

Well, I cant post the screenies here, but the 9800XT was far faster than the 5900. However, it wasnt a true 5950U, just a 5900NU@5950 speeds. I dont think the extra 128meg ram would help that much though, as the res I did it in was 1024x768.

Originally posted by cornelious0_0
Thx for the work put in dude, works great. :D
Click to expand...

Its not mine, I just copied and pasted :)


Originally posted by Brent
Also keep in mind the demo is using texture sizes half the size of what the full version game will provide ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, high textures is going to put a hammer on most systems.
 
I have a question for you guys w/ radeon 9800 pros...what resolution/display options are you running and how smooth of a framerate are you getting? Im stuck between running 1028x1024 or 1024x768.

Thanks

btw this is referring to the computer in my sig
 
Originally posted by FragMastahFlem
I'm stuck between running 1028x1024 or 1024x768.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I think you meant 1280x1024.

HAHAHA *slaps sides in amusement

Must...get...life

Yeh, 1280x1024 should be fine, granted your monitor is 19 in. or bigger.
 
Im running the game at 1600X1200 with 2Xaa and 4XAnti on a 9800XT and a FX, ill download that file to Benchmark and post the results. As far as i can see the game purely flys ballz fast, and i like it better then that farcry demo, i thought that the game was ass.
 
Heres first set of scores at 1600X1200 and 2XAA and 2X ANTI on a FX51 at 2402MHZ and a 9800XT with Overdrive enabled
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
AuthenticAMD Unknown processor @ 2402 MHz with 1022MB RAM
RADEON 9800 XT (6404)

dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

34.800728 / 78.665169 / 190.708939 fps rand[5098]
Score = 78.793533
ns-torlan?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

17.429394 / 49.190811 / 119.740257 fps rand[3073]
Score = 49.261696
ctf-bridgeoffate?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

41.151188 / 88.099182 / 305.363556 fps rand[16405]
Score = 88.208000
ons-torlan?spectatoronly=true?numbots=14?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=80 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

11.654798 / 50.347652 / 107.983826 fps rand[30027]
Score = 50.418697
as-convoy?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

21.085340 / 49.937099 / 112.913239 fps rand[12750]
Score = 49.991310
br-colossus?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

34.161861 / 102.063400 / 212.131470 fps rand[26684]
Score = 102.180557
 
Anyone know what that number by the video card is? Marc's says 6404, mine says 6422. Both are XT's.
 
Originally posted by fallguy
Anyone know what that number by the video card is? Marc's says 6404, mine says 6422. Both are XT's.
Click to expand...

It is the driver version. 6422 is Catalyst 4.2

He is not running Catalyst 4.2
 
When i run CAT 4.2s SOF2 keeps stopping and stuttwering. Thats why i changed it back to 3.9s. Good catch though on that.
 
Originally posted by NOTD665


Yeh, 1280x1024 should be fine, granted your monitor is 19 in. or bigger.
Click to expand...

i run games at 1280x1024@85 hz on my 17" samsung 700ift and its nice
 
does anyone know how to run a neverending botmatch? for game stability testing purposes
 
Originally posted by doh-nut
does anyone know how to run a neverending botmatch? for game stability testing purposes
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't believe there's anything in the game itself (or in Unreal2k3) to run a botmatch "timedemo" in a loop, endlessly. I'm sure someone around here could figure out some way to do it but as of now I'm not quite sure. Good question.
 
I can barely read the text in the options. It looks Chinese.

UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-02-10_03.01]
Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
GenuineIntel Unknown processor @ 3011 MHz with 1023MB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (5303)

dm-rankin?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

51.501213 / 130.282135 / 251.915222 fps rand[25073]
Score = 130.455353


as-convoy?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

20.134853 / 56.235313 / 130.959549 fps rand[24612]
Score = 56.319595


ons-torlan?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

10.441042 / 110.185387 / 179.399933 fps rand[11635]
Score = 110.319138



br-colossus?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

28.026039 / 125.861382 / 246.533875 fps rand[22124]
Score = 125.965294


ctf-bridgeoffate?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=..\Benchmark\Stuff\botmatchexec.txt

38.071320 / 145.441513 / 270.501373 fps rand[10476]
Score = 145.681137
 
well i just replaced seconds=77 with seconds=99999 in the batch file.

annnd that didn't work, because i went to watch tv, and when i came back, ut2004 had generated an 'out of virtual memory' crash. i guess taking a long benchmark demo slowly eats away at memory as opposed to just looping a pre recorded demo.

edit: stupid me, i can just do this in the bat file for unlimited looping action:

:start
ut2004.exe blahblah
goto start
 
Originally posted by doh-nut
well i just replaced seconds=77 with seconds=99999 in the batch file.

annnd that didn't work, because i went to watch tv, and when i came back, ut2004 had generated an 'out of virtual memory' crash. i guess taking a long benchmark demo slowly eats away at memory as opposed to just looping a pre recorded demo.

edit: stupid me, i can just do this in the bat file for unlimited looping action:

:start
ut2004.exe blahblah
goto start
Click to expand...

Heh, well, it was worth a shot. ;) :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top