Just tried to play Quake 4 the rig will not play it :-(

[lotust]

what if i just sell Q4? lol

 

[0roo0roo]

that would work too. its not really that good... its really just quake 2 again

 

[TanisHalfElven]

for someone like you i'd recoommed an sli capable main board. also try to get as good a graphic card you can thats what really make a difference.

 

[lotust]

thanks again people. It looks like ill be building. I cant see why I would but a name brand PC. most of them dont even have a an PCIe slot.

Looks like ill be buying from newegg. Dam compusa wants 150$ more for the X2 2.0 than newegg :disgust:

 

[ribbon13]

$55 Antec SLK3000B
$55 XClio 450BL
$107 Epox 9NPA+ Ultra
$246 AMD OSA148BNBOX
$175 2x G.Skill F1-3200PHU1-1GBNS
$210 Sapphire 100130VIVOL
$44 NEC ND3550A
$110 Hitachi HDT722525DLA380

And there you have it, PC Surgeon's suggestion was completely pwned.

 

[t3h l337 n3wb]

Ribbon13, why the XClio 450W? Wouldn't the $50 Fortron 450W be better? It has more amps on the +12V rails, and Fortron > Antec in quality.

 

[Mavrick007]

Do you really want to make a new computer right now, or would a new graphics card keep you going for awhile? You have a pretty good machine with lots of ram and Quake 4 would run fine with a new vid card.

I have a very similar machine and I just upgraded my vid card a few months ago (mainly to play BF2 at first cause my TI4400 wouldn't work) and now I can play anything out there. Hehe I just beat Quake 4 this morning after starting it over the weekend. I actually liked it MUCH better than Doom 3.

I just got a 6800nu, but if you look around, you might find the new 6800GS AGP in stock somewhere soon. That's a decent upgrade and will be around $230-250 probably when it hits stores in the States.

 

[Brian48]

Originally posted by: lotust
Hey guys and gals. My PC is an AMD Athlon 2.17ghz 1.5gb of ram. Its a 166fsb (MSI KT3 Ultra2) motherboard with an Geforce ti4200 128mb AGP card.

How much do i have to spend? I allready have a DVDrw so i dont "need" another.


I was thinking a dell XPS PC? I want something silent. I dont need a monitor also. I have a 19" LCD

While it's definitely time for an upgrade, I'm curious as to why you say Q4 won't run on your existing rig. Since you have a 128mb card (ti4200 at that), you should be at least able to run the game at 800x600 using MEDIUM (Yes, MEDIUM, not LOW) settings. It would be slow, but reasonable playable.

 

[0roo0roo]

i once tried doom 3 on a 9000pro ...at 640x480 it was still basically unplayable. i don't think his card would do well on q4 at all

 

[Brian48]

doublepost

 

[Brian48]

Originally posted by: Brian48

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i once tried doom 3 on a 9000pro ...at 640x480 it was still basically unplayable. i don't think his card would do well on q4 at all

Yeah, but a 9000Pro is vastly slower than a ti4200 and no where near the same class. Heck, it's even slower than a R8500. Granted, the ti4200 won't be speed demon, but it SHOULD still be very playable. You can't make that comparison with a lowly 9000Pro.

FYI. I finished Doom3 using the below box and it was very playing at 800x600. His video card is even faster.

Box #4:
Windows 2000 Professional sp4
Antec TruPower 330w
Shuttle AN35N Ultra
Sempron 2400+ (o/c'd 10x200FSB, 2000mhz)
Thermalright SLK-800 w/80mm Thermaltake Whisper Fan
1024mb Kreton PC3200 (2x512mb dual-channel mode)
ATI Radeon 8500 128mb
Creative SBLive Value (CT4830) w/Hoontech DB III Digital
Altec Lansing ACS56 4.1
Seagate 7200rpm ATA100 80g
Toshiba DVD-ROM M1502
BenQ 4816p 48x16x48x
USB devices:
Microsoft Intellimouse Optical
Epson 480SXU printer
Sony 19" 420GS

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Brian48

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i once tried doom 3 on a 9000pro ...at 640x480 it was still basically unplayable. i don't think his card would do well on q4 at all

Yeah, but a 9000Pro is vastly slower than a ti4200 and no where near the same class. Heck, it's even slower than a R8500. You can't make that comparison.

Radeon9000 pro is like 1/4 the speedofa ti4200. A R9000pro is just a R8500 (rebadged to R9100 for 8x AGP) with half the pixel pipelines.

FYI, to the original poster:

You don't even need a new computer to play this. Adding an R9800 will play it at acceptable levels or a GeForce6800 AGP to play it at very decent levels.

 

[0roo0roo]

its not really slower than an 8500, its a toss up between those two most of the time. i just remember one had to make doom 3 so hideous it wasn't worth the effort. and neither is that much slower than a 4200 which is from the same generation. u really might as well load up q2 if you want to play something quake with those cards. won'tlook much different.

 

[Brian48]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its not really slower than an 8500, its a toss up between those two most of the time. i just remember one had to make doom 3 so hideous it wasn't worth the effort. and neither is that much slower than a 4200 which is from the same generation. u really might as well load up q2 if you want to play something quake with those cards. won'tlook much different.

That's completely false. The ti4200 is NOT in the same generation as the older cards. Neither R8500 or 9000Pro is close to it in performance, especially OpenGL. I've had all of them at one time or another.

 

[MinusZero]

When I got Q4, I have a 5200 AGP 256MG Nvidia video card. It ran Q4 at low setting, slighly slow but works. Suprisely, after Kane transformation, the game speed up (I would say 33%) so I can increase the resolution from low to medium and improve a little bit the game image quality.

I got then a 6800 GT OC and the resolution was great.

If you decide to buy a new video card, do not buy BFG Technologies. The tech support sucks. I have to stop playing Q4 because the Video card in down and I have no tech support from them.

 

[0roo0roo]

they are close enough when put into perspective with current cards. we are talking 3yr old obsolete cr@p vs just barely more 3yr old obsolete cr@p. these are quake 3 generation cards for #% sake. and the 8500le did get close to the 4200 in many games. but when you ask them to play todays games, its really not worth spending the 50 dollars for the game if thats the experience you have to settle for.

Radeon9000 pro is like 1/4 the speedofa ti4200. A R9000pro is just a R8500 (rebadged to R9100 for 8x AGP) with half the pixel pipelines.

a quarter of the speed? look up the old benchmarks, its a tier down, but its not anywhere near a quarter speed. more like 25% slower.

 

[Brian48]

And you're completely missing the point of my original reply to the poster. No one is denying that an upgrade is due. My point is that the game should at least run and his ti4200 is adequate enough to make the game somewhat playable. I was using my 128mb R8500 as a point of reference. If I can finish D3 with it, so can he. His post eludes to the fact the game just won't run, which means that something else is wrong here and he should look into fixing it while he is waiting on the upgrade.

 

[0roo0roo]

look. ti4200 performance in doom 3
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/doom3_pt3/page3.asp

tell me thats acceptable?
quake 4 has better graphics, you think it'll do better there?

you claim to run it at 800x600? it gets 26.7fps at that resolution in doom3. he needs to run q4 at 1280x1024 where the t4200 gets 11fps in doom3, it probably gets single digits for q4. the textures in that game at lower settings are already less than clear, scaling the screen to low resolution would jsut reduce it to a murky mess. so its all rather pointless to try and quibble.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its not really slower than an 8500, its a toss up between those two most of the time. i just remember one had to make doom 3 so hideous it wasn't worth the effort. and neither is that much slower than a 4200 which is from the same generation. u really might as well load up q2 if you want to play something quake with those cards. won'tlook much different.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1655&p=2

My mistake, I meant a quarter slower. Anyways, the R9000 is a R8500 with 1 texture unit stripped from every pixel unit, as the above link says. It is significantly slower than either card. The old benchmarks suggest anywhere from half to 3/4 the speed ofa ti4200.

 

[Brian48]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
look. ti4200 performance in doom 3
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/doom3_pt3/page3.asp

tell me thats acceptable?
quake 4 has better graphics, you think it'll do better there?

you claim to run it at 800x600? it gets 26.7fps at that resolution in doom3. he needs to run q4 at 1280x1024 where the t4200 gets 11fps in doom3, it probably gets single digits for q4. the textures in that game at lower settings are already less than clear, scaling the screen to low resolution would jsut reduce it to a murky mess. so its all rather pointless to try and quibble.

When did I ever say it was acceptable and that he should settle for that? Did you even read my last post? It's pretty dumbazz to even suggest 1280x1024 with the ti4200 like you're doing.