Unreal Tournament 3 CPU & High End GPU Analysis: Next-Gen Gaming Explored
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 17, 2007 3:35 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
FSB Scaling: 1066MHz, 1333MHz
It's not all about on-die cache with UT3; we wanted to see if the L2 cache dependency also extended to needing a fast memory subsystem as well. Intel's Core 2 CPUs still rely on an aging front side bus to make the journey out to main memory, so we toyed with increasing the FSB from 1066MHz up to 1333MHz to see how large of an impact existed on UT3.
Our original investigations into FSB performance showed that the move to 1333MHz wasn't a big deal, yielding low single-digit performance improvements in our usual tests.
Unreal Tournament 3 appears to be no different, even with four cores consuming data at 2.66GHz we're looking at a 3% increase in performance on average. The 1333MHz FSB isn't really necessary, while it would make more of a difference at smaller cache sizes, Intel just doesn't offer CPUs with small caches and 1333MHz FSBs.
Large caches? Absolutely. Faster FSB? Not necessary.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
72 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
See the post right above yours. ;-)CRimer76 - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Isn't this game supposed to use the Ageia crap to improve performance? Would love to see some benchies on that.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Yes, it can use the PhysX hardware to improve performance. However flybys are completely useless for testing PhysX, because there is no physics work going on. Since I cover the PPU side of things, once we have the ability to play with demos we'll have an article up.MadBoris - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Great work showing all the different gradients on vid card, cache, cpu, threading.The game really scales impressively on hardware.
How did Sweeney manage to make the 2900xt shine? hehe
I've got some small reservations using the flyby's, hopefully you guys will have a demo run for next time around. Theoretically, a demo loop should be pretty similar, mainly more CPU intensive, but I'm curious to see.
Good work showing off the games scaling.
Sunrise089 - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Not only does the X1950XT absolutely destroy the 7900GTX (the ATI card REALLY ended up being the better long-term buy), but the HD 2900XT looks absolutely great here. If this sort of performance is indicative of the future (and it may not be - perhaps there is something that will favor nVidia when the release copy of the game arrives with better graphics) then ATI looks much better than it did even last month.PLEASE do a follow up with this game at launch/when the new midrange GPUs launch. It's going to be very interesting to see the price/performance between the new 8800GT, an overclocked HD 2900pro, and the new ATI midrange card (HD 2950pro?)
tmx220 - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
they used an X1950XTX, though it would be about the samethey should have used the XT because it can still be found, and for a decent price
Darth Farter - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Anand,the last 2 game reviews are nice to have 1024x768 CPU comparisons, but I think we're seeing too many pages of 1024x768 of that which probably only 2% of the guys planning on running these games will use.
I'd rather suggest showing at least the scaling if there's an intention of showing CPU limitations to the common 1280x1024, the 1680x1050(1600x1200) and the 1920x1200 to reflect what we're also actually are going to see on screen as user by swapping/Upgrading a CPU/Platform to another model/platform while planning on playing with our obviously high end GFX card at 1920x1200.
an Overall CPU comparison with at only 1024x768 left me severely disappointed though I can understand the time constraints. This regrettably reminds me at Toms with their beside-the-point tactics in articles.
Just my .02 for making Anands a bit better.
Ty
IKeelU - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
I'd really like to see 1280x720. I usually play on my 720p TV and I imagine that resolution would be CPU-bound as well, though probably less so than 1024x768.Roy2001 - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
I am more interest to see Phenom data.hubajube - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
I'm officially done with Anandtech's conclusions on benchmarks. Why are you making these blanket "AMD is not competitive" statements? A 9% difference in fps performance and now AMD is shit?! Not to mention that whopping 9% difference only works out to roughly 5 whole frames per second! ROFLMAO!!!!!Brad: Hey Johnny! Did you see the new UT3 review from Anandtech? They showed the Intel CPU's KILLING AMD by five frames per second!
Johnny: Holy shit Brad!!!!! AMD is going out of business with piss poor performance like that. I'll NEVER buy AMD again.