Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance

Unreal Tournament is a game that is clearly CPU limited. While we see a slight difference in performance between the 6800 Ultra and the SLI 6800U, it is still far less than what we'll find in other games. The 7800GTX receives only a minor increase in performance going to SLI mode, and that's when running 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF. We've heard that the fully object oriented C++ design of the Unreal Engine contributes to the heavier CPU load. Whatever the cause, it's pretty clear that the current Unreal Engine isn't in desperate need of more graphics power. UE3 will add support for multi-threading as well as increased shader effects, though, so don't think that UT2K4 is indicative of future Unreal Engine requirements.

Worth note is that a single 7800GTX is only slightly slower (2%) than 6800U SLI, so if you've been holding off upgrading in anticipation of the G70, you should be able to save money and increase performance! Of course, the performance advantage of the 7800GTX (even in SLI mode) over the 6800U isn't so great in this game that you really need to consider upgrading, as it's only 39% from the single 6800U to the SLI'ed 7800GTX. However, we'll continue to look at how the single 7800GTX compares to the 6800U-SLI and X850XT.

Speaking of the X850XT, Unreal Tournament has often tended to favor NVIDIA cards slightly, and here we see the top ATI card being outperformed by every NVIDIA setup including the 6600GT SLI - at least when AA/AF aren't enabled. Once we enable those, the 6600GT SLI loses ground to the ATI card. Still, even the slowest of these configurations is capable of providing good to great frame rates at 1600x1200 4xAA/8xAF.

Unreal Tournament 2004


Unreal Tournament 2004


Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 Performance Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory Performance
Comments Locked

127 Comments

View All Comments

  • Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    If they're too busy for the article, that's fair enough, the point is they should put it up when they've had time to check it over, rather than rush an article up that isn't ready to be published.

    John
  • IronChefMoto - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Regarding the "shame on Anandtech" comments -- y'all ever think they were too busy sh*tting themselves at the performance of this card to really pay that much attention to the article? ;-)

    IronChefMorimoto
  • Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    The prices I've seen here in the UK for the 7800s here are around 400 pounds, the 6800 Ultras are currently around 300 pounds. So quite an increase over the NV40s but not unacceptable given the performance, I'm sure they'll come down in price once the early adopters have had their fill.

    John
  • yacoub - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    #26 - You must be new to the market, relatively speaking. I remember quite well the days when high-end new videocards were at MOST $400, usually $350 or less when they debuted. It was more than a year or two ago though, so it might have been before your time as a PC gamer.
  • rimshot - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Not sure why the price is so high in North America, here in Aus you can get a 7800GTX for the same price as a 6800GT ($850AU).

  • nitromullet - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    "What no Crossfire benchies? I guess they didn't wany Nvidia to loose on their big launch day."

    Ummm... maybe because CrossFire was paper launched at Computex, and no one (not even AT) has a CrossFire rig to benchmark? nVidia is putting ATI to shame with this launch and the availability of the cards. Don't you think if ATI had anything worth a damn to put out there they would?

    All that aside... I was as freaked out as the rest of you by these benchmarks at first (well moreso than some actually, becuase I just pulled the $600 trigger last night on an eVGA 7800GTX from the egg). However, these graphs are clearly messed up, and some appear to have already been fixed. I guess someone should have cut Derek off at the launch party yesterday.
  • blckgrffn - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Very disapointed at the fit and finish of this article. Anandtech is supposed to have the best one, not a half baked one :( I even liked HardOCP better even with their weird change the levels of everything approach - at least it has a very good discussion of the differences between MS and SS AA and shows some meaningful results at high res as well.

    Shame on Anandtech :(
  • fishbits - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Good release.

    Can we get a couple of screen shots with the transparency AA?

    "Maybe this one of the factors that will lead to the Xbox360/PS3 becoming the new gaming standard as opposed to the Video Card market pushing the envelope."
    Yeah, because the graphics components in consoles don't require anything but three soybeans and a snippet of twine to make. They're ub3r and free! Wait, no, you pay for them too eventually even if not in the initial console purchase price. Actually I think the high initial price of next gen graphics cards is a sign of health for PC gaming. There are some folks not only willing to pay high dollars for bleeding edge performance, they're willing to pay even higher dollars than they were in the past for the top performers. Spurs ATI/Nvidia to keep the horsepower coming, which drives game devs to add better and better graphics, etc.

    "They only reveresed a couple of labels here and there, chill out. It's still VERY OBVIOUS which card is which just by looking at the performance!"
    Eh, I use benchmarks to learn more about a product than what my pre-conceived notions tell me it "ought" to be. I don't use my pre-conceived notions to accept and dismiss scientific benchmarks. If the benches are wrong, it is a big deal. Doesn't require ritual suicide, just fixing and maybe better quality control in the future.
  • Thresher - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    2x6800GT costs almost the same amount as this single card and gives up nothing in performance.

    The price of this thing is ridiculous.
  • rubikcube - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Just wanted to say thanks for starting your benchmarks at 1600x1200. It really makes a difference in the usability of the benchmarks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now