Quake 4 and Dell Inspirion 9300

godtabh

Not sure if this should go the Quake forum but i think this will be answered better here.

Just downloaded the demo for this to see if its any good.

Graphics are crap. Would this be the general case for demos or is it my system

Pentium M 1.73Ghz
ATI X300 128mb
512Mb ram

I have half life 2 and it runs sweet on it but Qauke 4 just looks a little better than Doom 2!

ianmc38

Ignore that! SNIP.

Demos should run perfectly, no reason for them not to.

ianmc38

Also, my friend has a 9300 laptop. Has a 2.26 Centrino and 1GB RAM. Any game i've seen on it is fine, though i havnt seen Quake 4 running on it.

godtabh

ianmc38 wrote:

Also, my friend has a 9300 laptop. Has a 2.26 Centrino and 1GB RAM. Any game i've seen on it is fine, though i havnt seen Quake 4 running on it.

I tried playing around with the settings and put it on HI detail and the game told me that these settings wouldnt work. I tried the optimise settings and the graphics still looked like lego men.

Will play around with it some more

Khannie

Q4 is a serious resource hog. That graphics card is....well....crap......sorry. Also, you don't have enough RAM to play Q4. It's a much more compute intensive game than HL2. You should really be looking at a gig of ram and a x700 or better (or equivalent).

aidan_walsh

Khannie wrote:

Q4 is a serious resource hog. That graphics card is....well....crap......sorry. Also, you don't have enough RAM to play Q4. It's a much more compute intensive game than HL2. You should really be looking at a gig of ram and a x700 or better (or equivalent).

Played the Q4 demo myself, and had to tone things down a bit to get it to run smoothly. Granted, the graphics card is about 2 years old now, but I have a Gig of RAM and a 2GHz processor sitting under there too.

Mind you that said, in 2005 any graphics engine that needs to be restarted after you make the smallest tweaks probably has a few more design flaws. That **** was annoying in 1998, let alone now.

Khannie

aidan_walsh wrote:

Mind you that said, in 2005 any graphics engine that needs to be restarted after you make the smallest tweaks probably has a few more design flaws.

Jeez, that's just shockin'. I thought they would have ironed that out after Doom3. Very unprofessional looking really.

godtabh

Khannie wrote:

Q4 is a serious resource hog. That graphics card is....well....crap......sorry. Also, you don't have enough RAM to play Q4. It's a much more compute intensive game than HL2. You should really be looking at a gig of ram and a x700 or better (or equivalent).

Yeah I know its not the best graphics card but I just figured that if it could play HL2 half decent it would play Q4 at an ok level. Not at a level that of a game that was made 5 years a go.

Alvis

The Quake 4 demo runs good enough for me on my system

Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz HT
1024 MB RAM
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128 mb)

I was very surprised

SirLemonhead

Khannie wrote:

Jeez, that's just shockin'. I thought they would have ironed that out after Doom3. Very unprofessional looking really.

It takes what, 10 seconds or less to load a Doom 3 engine game?

type, I think "vid_restart" into the console does the same thing.

Khannie

MasterOfSolos wrote:

It takes what, 10 seconds or less to load a Doom 3 engine game?

Ah, I know yeah ....but it's not the norm, so it means there's something slipshod about it.

Also, I'm an impatient fecker.

zuma

Yeah as all of the above have said...your computer just isnt good enough to run the game!

I have an AMD64 3500+/1GB RAM/6600GT and it runs fine at 1280x1024@high.

Your "ATI X300 128mb" was NEVER designed to run high end games!
You should have just stuck with the built in graphics card by default and saved yourself a load.

godtabh

zuma wrote:

Yeah as all of the above have said...your computer just isnt good enough to run the game!

I have an AMD64 3500+/1GB RAM/6600GT and it runs fine at 1280x1024@high.

Your "ATI X300 128mb" was NEVER designed to run high end games!
You should have just stuck with the built in graphics card by default and saved yourself a load.

I bought it from the dell outlet store and saved €400 some I'm not complaining. But I think I'll stick to the Xbox for games!

commited

Q4 runs on my 3400,1gb,128mb9700 fine @ 800x600, yours should be about the same if you can live with that

boo4842

run 3dmark03 what score do you get?

I have an x300 card too on a dell 6000

godtabh

commited wrote:

Q4 runs on my 3400,1gb,128mb9700 fine @ 800x600, yours should be about the same if you can live with that

It runs fine at that detail but its all blocky. I was just trying to figure out if its worth getting the game (on special in extra vision for €25) so I downloaded the demo to check it out.

I heard that demos can be poor and that the finished product was usually way better so was just trying to figure out was the demo poor on my computer and that the actual game would be ok.

boo4842 wrote:

run 3dmark03 what score do you get?

I have an x300 card too on a dell 6000

Will download it and see at some stage. Probably at the weekend.

commited

That was just the demo I was talking about dude. Mine can run it fine @ 1024x768, but I prefer the extra fps.

Just make sure all background programs are closed etc - that'll help

Airblazer

boo4842 wrote:

run 3dmark03 what score do you get?

I have an x300 card too on a dell 6000

you'll only get about 400-550 on 3dmark 2005..x300 card isn't worth a ****...
have one myself (company one) and I ran 3d on it..came back with 454 or something close..

godtabh

Airblazer wrote:

you'll only get about 400-550 on 3dmark 2005..x300 card isn't worth a ****...
have one myself (company one) and I ran 3d on it..came back with 454 or something close..

What would be a good score?

I find the card grand for the other games I have

masteroftherealm

Airblazer wrote:

you'll only get about 400-550 on 3dmark 2005..x300 card isn't worth a ****...
have one myself (company one) and I ran 3d on it..came back with 454 or something close..

Heh shows what u get from dell.
My sony vaio with a similar spec gets 585.