thrEEpaGe Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 in response to immortal, i wouldnt buy the game if i only had a 500mhz processor...but what is your video card? (i doubt that it would be good enough to run jo) =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal LuD Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 MSI 845 Ultra AR Mainboard Pentium 4 1.6A NW @ 2.2GHz 1GB of Corsair PC2100 RAM ATi Radeon 8500 SoundBlaster Live X-Gamer At 1600x1200x32, 16x Anistrophic Filtering, with all details maxed except for volumetric shadows, the game runs mostly above 60fps except for the single player Swamp level... I just knock it down to 1280x1024x32 and it runs like a dream. If you have a 500MHz processor, (depends on what kind of processor it is), the game will most likely suck, so you better have a VERY powerful video card to back it up, although it would most likely be useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarScrap Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Okay, I'm running a PII 266 with 64 megs RAM (the old kind, whatever the names are). And a Voodoo 3 (like $50 a year and a half ago). On the lowest possible settings the game runs pretty well, with the exception of the Yavin level with rain, there it is REALLY slow (maybe 2-3 FPS on average). I can play MP, but it is slow in a game with anything above around 6 players, so LS isn't really a viable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3vin Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 both have this in common win 98se Gf2 GTS 32 MB driver 2832 via 4in1 437 192 MB PC 100 RAM vortex 2 driver 2048 one is a duron 600 and other is duron 850 (note: i have only played mp) i use fast setting, then turn res to 1024x768 sound low quality and i reduce music volume to 0 when i stand in the same spots on maps with either system i get the same fps +/- 1 or 2 lower for duron 600 fps w/o opponents range from mid 30s to 90s depending upon location in a map. in tunnels and small rooms is when i see >75. large open areas are about 30 to 50. I run with fps showing (seta cg_drawFPS "1") and see the fps go to 20s regularly when groups of players are on the screen in mp. game remains playable at the low fps. I pretty much use saber/repeater alt attack (grenade launch style) / flachette primary attack (shotgun style) for offense. i dont think any of those require high fps to aim reasonabley. I am still getting used to the engine and am hit or miss with straight shot weapons that might require high fps. though i have hit enough that the weapons to see that they are usable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Skyw@lker Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 P4 1.7Ghz 512 Mb ram Geforce 3 ti200 40gig hard drive and in game i have like 60fps in 1600X1200 with all maxed , but i think i cant go up 60 cause its like stuck to 60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheArch Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Duron 800 on a POS mobo 256 MB PC133 GeForce 3 20GB Wester Digital 7200 RPM HDD all running under the OS-goodness that is Win98SE (*cough*) Runs well at 1024x768 32 bit. I do get some slow downs if things get hairy in an open area (12 FPS) but it ususally hums at around 40-70 fps (playable). This is compared to Medal of Honor (also Q3A-based) which runs like @$$ at similar settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatboyTim Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 My main machine is this: Athlon XP1900+ 512Mb PC2100 DDR RAM GeForce3Ti200 64Mb 60GB IDE (ATA 100) HD SBLIVE! WinXP (Price ~ £900 a couple of months ago.) My old machine is this: PentiumII400 128Mb PC100 SDRAM (upgraded from 64Mb) GeForce2GTS 32Mb (upgraded from original Matrox Millenium) ~26GB HD (upgraded from 6GB) SBLIVE!player (upgraded from soundblaster16) Win98 (Price ~ £1,200 - around 3 1/2 years ago!) I have installed JKII:JO on both machines. In fact, I get a much better framerate on the first one in 1024x768x32 with all the graphics options maximised than I get on the second in 640x480x16 with all the graphics options minimised! However having said that, even on the older machine it is quite playable in single-player. I can even run half-a-dozen bots on it in a multiplayer server (although I do get better performance if I join a local server run by the faster machine!) I also found that turning off the sky gave me a good performance boost. @Oblivion_45 - I'm 28 yrs old and work fulltime in IT. I saved for quite some time to buy the new machine. I was lucky to be able to afford it though, as my fiancee and I bought a house 6 months ago and we're also getting married later this year! FatboyTim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattman Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Well, I don't have any exact numbers, but your video card is going to be your biggest performance bottleneck. Any processor above 500Mhz would probably be able to handle the game pretty well in most cases, providing that the video card is sufficient. However, it's also my understanding that the Q3 engine is more CPU dependant than some other game engines, so your mileage may vary. In the least, you may have to turn polygon levels down. As for the video card, I wouldn't expect any luck on anything below a GeForce1, ATI 7500, or Voodoo3 level, and those will likely struggle. Here's how the work is divided between CPU and vidcard as I understand it (NOTE: this is a simplified list.) CPU: -Any movement, AI, positional data, score keeping, ect. -Basic geometic calculations for world detail (This is very intesnsive process, requiring complex geometric equations to be processed on the fly, some vidcards will help out with this, but it's mostly on the CPU.) -Software mipmapping (if the vidcard can't do it in hardware.) -Sound. This one varies greatly depending on the soundcard you have installed. Higher end soundcards, such as those made by Creative Labs (Soundblaster, Audigy), Turtle Beach (Santa Cruz), Hercules (GTXP, Fortissimo), etc, will take most of the load off the CPU. Onboard sound, integrated into the motherboard (w/ the exception of nforce based boards), however will require quite a bit more CPU time Vidcard: -Some geometric work (maybe, depends on the card.) -Texture management -Resolution -Triagle setup -Any sort of filtering, anti-aliasing, hardware mipmapping, ect, that the card supports. JO is also very memory intensive, I'd consider 128MB to be a bare minimum for any kind of decent gameplay, especially on Win2k, XP machines since the OS requires more memory to opperate. 256MB would be much better, and even more than that if you want to set your textures to "very high". I hope this helps out a little. I'm sure I've left something out somewhere, or possibly got something wrong. Please don't hesitate to correct me, if so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattman Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Originally posted by FatboyTim My old machine is this: PentiumII400 128Mb PC100 SDRAM (upgraded from 64Mb) GeForce2GTS 32Mb (upgraded from original Matrox Millenium) ~26GB HD (upgraded from 6GB) SBLIVE!player (upgraded from soundblaster16) Win98 (Price ~ £1,200 - around 3 1/2 years ago!) I have installed JKII:JO on both machines. In fact, I get a much better framerate on the first one in 1024x768x32 with all the graphics options maximised than I get on the second in 640x480x16 with all the graphics options minimised! Looks like memory (or a lack thereof ) is your biggest performance hit on that setup. However, you might want to try bumping the resolution up to 800x400x16, or even try 1024x768x32 w/ med or high textures (experiment ) , because, if I remember correctly, GF2 cards are not optimized to run in lower resolutions. In any case, that GF2 card should be able to easily run in a higher rez than you're using. Resolution falls completely on the vidcard, so it won't be any hit on the CPU to turn it up. As it is, you're waisting the potential of that GF2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal LuD Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 "it's also my understanding that the Q3 engine is more CPU dependant than some other game engines" Actually the Quake 3 engine seems to be the MOST video card dependent game out there... It's also CPU dependant to an extent. In this game, an 750-800MHz processor with an awsome video card, would probably beat out a 1GHz processor with a less powerful video card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D66 Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 AMD Athelon 1.4 512MB Ram GF3 SB Live Value 40GB HD at ATA100 Win XP Pro All settings maxed Bilinerar Filter (Tri was causing some tearing) 1280x1024 FPS Range from 90 to 50 usualy is around 70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daralathas Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Three Systems Athlon 1Ghz 512MB DDR Savage 2000 Plays super sweet @ 800x600 (TV-OUT locked) all maxed options. Some Z Buffer corruption. Duron 750 256MB PC133 GeForce 2MX Plays sweet - but needs to be toned down to act as a server for 8+ bots. Duron 600 256MB PC100 Voodoo 3 3000 Plays Sweet - can't run as server without textual corruption - or that many bots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattman Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Actually, I've seen the Q3 engine perform very well on older cards, whereas other engines in the same generation would cause the thing to chug. This is due to the fact that the Q3 engine is very well coded to take full advantage of the available vidcard. That's not to say that it isn't video intensive though. It still takes a fairly recent generation card to get it off the ground. As for it being more CPU intensive, I didn't mean in the sense that it trades off vidcard load for CPU load. I meant that Q3 seems to benifit more from a faster CPU than other engines will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porl'' Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Originally posted by thrEEpaGe in response to immortal, i wouldnt buy the game if i only had a 500mhz processor...but what is your video card? (i doubt that it would be good enough to run jo) =/ Unlike pretty much everyone else on this thread, i actually have a PIII 500mhz processor...I checked them minimum specs on the game, saw that i came in above and didn't think twice about pre-ordering it! !! !! ... It runs REALLY smooth!! !! ...and its set pretty high..i dont think im missing out on anything. My computer is : PIII 500mhz 384mb Ram Nvidia TNT 2 32mb card 15" monitor.... It runs really good and only VERY rarely slows down!! ...it evens runs really well on MP with a 56k modem when i find a good server... Go Buy it!! !! ! it works great!! :D Porl-Patine'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FatboyTim Posted April 9, 2002 Share Posted April 9, 2002 Originally posted by Mattman Looks like memory (or a lack thereof ) is your biggest performance hit on that setup. However, you might want to try bumping the resolution up to 800x400x16, or even try 1024x768x32 w/ med or high textures (experiment : D ) , because, if I remember correctly, GF2 cards are not optimized to run in lower resolutions. In any case, that GF2 card should be able to easily run in a higher rez than you're using. Resolution falls completely on the vidcard, so it won't be any hit on the CPU to turn it up. As it is, you're waisting the potential of that GF2. From what I've read, I think the game is actually fairly processor intensive. It might be that my poor old PII400 is struggling to keep up! You're right though, the memory could do with a boost too! Thanks for the tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.