[ut2004] Help? 64 bit linux client and poor fps.

Rick B zajelo3 at cfl.rr.com
Mon Nov 29 11:19:52 EST 2004

Clint Goudie-Nice wrote:

>UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-11-11_10.48]
>x86-64 Linux
> Unknown processor @ 2000 MHz
>GeForce FX 5950 Ultra/AGP/SSE2
>dm-rankin?spectatoronly=1?numbots=12?quickstart=1?attractcam=1 -
>benchmark -seconds=77 -exec=../Benchmark/Stuff/botmatchexec.txt
>9.921779 / 45.683815 / 141.720291 fps         rand[928185910]
>Score = 45.463982
>I scored significantly lower than you... I'll run the same thing tonight
>in windows and send the result.. I'll also go back to the 3323 patch and
>give that a go.
>>You should be getting quite a bit more fps than that with your setup. 
>>I'm using an Athlon 2500 with a 128 Meg GF4 Ti 4600 and here's my 
>>benchmark scores:
>>UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2004-09-07_17.17]
>>x86 Linux
>>AuthenticAMD PentiumPro-class processor @ 1904 MHz
>>GeForce4 Ti 4800/AGP/SSE/3DNOW!
>>-benchmark -seconds=77 -ini=default.ini 
>>24.417984 / 70.467400 / 159.092743 fps         rand[1211459421]
>>Score = 66.260307
>>Try benchmarking and see what you come up with. It's hard to judge what 
>>performance your really getting just by saying that it runs slow on 
>>certain maps in certain conditions. Then as you keep making changes to 
>>your system you can benchmark again to see what difference that 
>>particular change makes. I posted one time to this list complaining 
>>about Valarna running slow on my system, and Ryan commented that it 
>>might be a poorly optimized map. So some maps will run slower than 
>>others. The above bench results are with the 3323 patch, the 3339 patch 
>>benchmarks at:
>>7.345902 / 60.180714 / 197.631500 fps         rand[496427488]
>>Score = 58.062550
>>Needless to say I'll give up some of the eye candy and switch back to 
>>the 3323 patch.
>>                Rick B
You can try renaming your .openalrc file to something like .xxxopenalrc 
and then try the bench again. This will show how much of an improvement 
using straight alsa makes. Like you said before, each tweak will usually 
give a couple fps improvement, but your still scoring way low on the 
benchmark, so something isn't right somewhere. Google around and see if 
you can find bench results with similar hardware as you have. I'm using 
a CCRMA Fedora Core 2 kernel (specifically If you have apt-get installed you 
can get it from this repository: rpm 
http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt fedora/2/i386 planetedge . 
The CCRMA kernels are optimized for professional low latency audio 
recording, and in my experience work better than the ck patched kernels 
for gaming. If your using FC3 you wont be able to use it though, as it's 
only for FC2. Although you never know, FC3 is still way new and might 
have some performance issues that are causing your low frame rates. For 
example, I know that SeLinux is enabled by default on FC3.

                   Rick B

More information about the ut2004 mailing list