scumble on 20/3/2005 at 13:25
It's clear that my current graphics card can't really cope. I have no idea how I played through the game like this!
I merely ask that some of you report the kind of performace you are getting out of your current systems. I'd also like to make a little T3ed mapping machine page on the wiki for some recommended setups, perhaps. This might be useful to upgrading mappers in the future.
David on 20/3/2005 at 14:05
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2500+
RAM: 1GB PC3200
GPU: nVidia FX5900 128MB
Sound: Soundblaster Audigy 2
That'll happily play at 1280x1024 at 30-35FPS with everything cranked up, bloom on and John P's textures installed.
OrbWeaver on 20/3/2005 at 14:14
CPU: Pentium 4 @ 3.4 MHz
RAM: 1GB PC3200
GPU: ATI Radeon 9800 XT 256 MB
Sound: Soundblaster Audigy 2 Platinum Pro
I play at 1280x1024 with Bloom on and all details set to high. Framerate is probably 25 - 35 although it may dip slightly below 20 in areas with many shadows.
Zillameth on 20/3/2005 at 14:17
I'm afraid there is little point to making such reports, unless we agree on a method to compare performance. I guess someone would need to make a simple test mission everyone could use as a kind of "benchmark".
Anyway, I have Athlon1800+, plus 512MB of 333MHz RAM, plus GF4Ti4200 (128 MB RAM, driver 66.93), plus up-to-date Windows XP, and OMs run with acceptable performance in 800x600 in maximum details (with exception of multisampling, which I set to 1). The only place where I don't get enough FPS is Auldale.
When I work on my custom mission, I use debug exec set to 640x480 and low-res textures. I get between 10 and 30 FPS, depending on where I stand, but I haven't yet tried to optimize anything. I have zones, but I used common sense, rather than knowledge, when I were setting them up, so they probably aren't doing much good.
Currently, my most complex scenes look like (
http://jimp.neostrada.pl/zill/FPS_test.jpg) this one.
There is nothing behind that wall, so only what you see needs to be calculated. There are two moving omnis from torches (quite a long range, mostly to force engine to draw column shadows correctly, but I'm going to change that), two omnis from moonlight (but you can't see them when torches are on, so it's an obvious waste of cycles) and several short range no-shadow omnis by the windows. Some surfaces are already set not to cast shadows.
SneaksieDave on 20/3/2005 at 16:30
I have T3 on a pretty "old" system here:
P4 1.4GHz
768Mb RAM
GF4 TI4600
Game runs fine, few complaints. Although I do worry a bit when I imagine what some might build... good thing we have that silent crouch. :erg:
Edit: Scumble, we don't know what you have?
scumble on 20/3/2005 at 21:15
Current specs:
Athlon XP 3000+
1GB DDR333/PC2700
Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB
FPS is anywhere between 5 and 30 (fps meter in debug mode) - It seems that in general it's about 10fps. I certainly couldn't say it's smooth.
Zillameth on 20/3/2005 at 21:38
Quote Posted by scumble
Current specs:
Athlon XP 3000+
1GB DDR333/PC2700
Radeon 9000 Pro 64MB
My guess is that Thief 3 runs between 10 and 20fps at the lowest settings.
You have a decent machine with a very obsolete graphics card. People who sell configurations like this to gamers should be put in jail. You don't have to buy a cutting edge monster to experience a huge performance improvement. A Radeon 9600Pro would suffice, and you can have one for about 100 euros.
scumble on 20/3/2005 at 21:53
It's been nearly 2 years since I upgraded from a Voodoo 3 3000, and then it was because I couldn't play UT2003. I'm looking to get something a bit more substantial for an upgrade though. The 6600GT's look promising but I can't say I'm entirely sure.
jolynsbass on 20/3/2005 at 22:46
I've getting very decent performance on my :
P4 1.5GHz
512MB DDR266/PC2100 RAM
ATI AIW 9600XT 128MB
Audigy 2 ZS
I can't give exact FPS, but the game is generally very smooth, except in some larger/more open areas, like some spots in town... And I've got all the options up(sliders to the right, except multisampling - so I can have bloom)
I'd wager a guessed range of ~10-30 FPS, with the majority of the time being in the mid-to-high 20's. Oh yeah, at 1024x768 res.
scumble,
The Radeon 9000 Pro(is yours even a Pro card?) is not even a DX9-class card, and suffers from very low geometry rate - Same as my old Radeon AIW 7500, actually, a DX7 card. The rest of your system is definitely fine, just get a newer card, and you don't need to spend ~$400-$500 for a good card. Check places like newegg.com, zipzoomfly.com - just check out reviews of the cards (from many places! - best are independent hardware review sites e.g. tomshardware.com) before you buy.
HamburgerBoy on 20/3/2005 at 23:51
Athlon 1.4Ghz Thunderbird
ATi Radeon 9200 128MB
Mushkin 512MB PC2100
Onboard AC'97 Sound
I get about 15-25 frames per second on lowest settings and 800x600.
