Quake Wars gpu Compatibility

I bet one will exist before 2018. (well, maybe without the liquid nitrogen cooling )

 

Well, ok so it is the shader thingy...

Well, on the farcry thing, I play on high with 20 fps, med. 25-30 and low 30-40 but maybe its because my gma950 doesnt render the water... it all there you just dont see any reflexions, waves, you just see right through a thing blue line and when you go under its like a blue fog... sooo maybe its that

I can play on very high inside some building too... but yeah... Im serious maybe its teh missing water

 

Beatsiz you REALLY have to show some hard evidence about your GPU's capabilities. It's pointless making claims about playability when most people (myself included) know the GMA 950 only goes so far playing the latest games. Especially considering how you're not even sure about what type of GPU your PC is using in your signature.

As for game list compatibility I have an Intel 830M chipset and it could play C&C generals even though I thought I didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of even running the game. The price of course was that the fastest speed my game could play was single digit fps with superweapon countdowns 50-60% slower than the actual clock (i.e. for every one second counted down on screen actual time taken was 3-4 seconds).

Essentially game requirements are a fairly good benchmark as to what your system can potentially play, but any exceptions must be prepared for reduced gameplay performance and no eye candy.

 

dude..seriously stop bs-ing..i tried it on my w5a and it DOES NOT WORK..
..show some screens..and dont so "oh i forgot to turn on fraps"..

 

I just got done filming and snapping some shots of me playing farcry... so... 30second clips and bmp pictures... wont really fit on the forums... anyone know where to put them at? heres my results:

Very high lowest 3fps highest 13fps avg 8fps
High lowest 6fps highest 17fps avg 12fps
Medium lowest 8fps highest 15fps avg 12fps (no clue what happened)
Low lowest 9fps highest 37fps avg 23fps (no clue why so low)

It looked more like 5fps to 15fps faster when playing though... The FPS dropped from 34 to 21 when on low and taking either clips or shots
The medium settings and low settings had something wrong this time though

 

Avg 8fps high and avg 12fps medium, with even only 23fps average on low. I think those results speak for themselves.

You act like you're surprised, I'm personally surprised you even managed that high an FPS with a GMA950.

 

I seriously am... Ill go test it with no programs but fraps and Ill try to get the results I usually get

 

I'll definitely need to see those FRAPs screenshots. Something isn't adding up if you are using the laptop in your sig. Running Vista with only 1GB when some of that is being shared with the IGP is already tough. Claiming the results you are when you are running an FSB crippled Core Duo chip with a 533MHz FSB and only 1MB of shared cache is evening harder, since that processor just doesn't have the power to assist the GMA 950.

 

Well what can I say, I dont lie... and how am I going to post my screens... they are bmp and forums dont let me past over 450kb I think

And my internet is screwed up (30kbps download on wireless N DSL connection... 8kbps I guess on upload ... the connexion testing gives me downloads of 600+ and uploads of 300+ using speedtest.net )

 

wow how convienient, wrong file format and its taking too long to upload...bs...

 

Man I am dead serious about my speeds, and try to attach a 3mb bmp please :

This is what my speedtest says

And heres my WTM attached to it, it peaks at 2.5% of 36mbps... and during uploads of videos its impossible... it takes hours and fails in the middle because who knows my connection will stay up for uploading at a blistering 6kbps with a 250mb file that lasts 30seconds ...

Translation test+real life result=BS and deceiving speed for no reason

What I dont get is that my pc can handle HL2, FARCRY, GARRYS MOD... but cant convert and edit video right lol Well... hopefully I am purchasing my new pc soon... Nvidia is getting on my nerves!!! RELEASE A FRIGGIN NEW GPU THAT MANHANDLES CRYSIS

 

My laptop with a mobility radeon 9000IGP Can play half life 2 high settings and get 30fps or so native res, 1280x800. Of course it runs in DX7 MODE! The GMA 950 is more powerful than this integrated, i believe this guy. Most likely he's running farcry in dx7 mode or something aswell. Obviously his FPS's are going to be slower when he's capturing with FRAPS (directed to the guy talking smack about low fpss and thats how low they should be) and dont tell me FRAPS doesnt drop your fps when filming because that would be a blatant lie.

 

He's claiming hardware DX9.0c mode, a blatant lie (as the card does not support that). Also, benchmarking in FRAPS does not affect fps much, if at all. Filming does, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're just asking for the FPS numbers.

 

Well... read on intel site.... gma950 is made for DX9...
And my fps are posted they where just lower than usual... I will try to get some screens up after I convert some (with fraps) and Ill post fraps banchmarkd or whatever its called

 

Let's give Beatsiz a hand shall we? How about someone post a detailed step-by-step guide on how to upload screenshots of an appropriate size and format onto these forums for Beatsiz's convenience. That way if something goes wrong then the bluff is called and the claims made earlier are completely false. If it goes well then we can congratulate Beatsiz for having a system that bests all previous attempts at optimal game performance for that particular configuration.

I don't use FRAPS and don't have a system powerful enough to run games that were released 3 years ago so someone could start the ball rolling.

 

Right, firstly. The GMA950 does obviously support Dx9. But its such a useless solution for gaming, that newer games that have optional Dx9 support such as Call of duty 2, Half Life 2, all run so incredibly slowly that the card can't actually use that path.

Half Life 2, according to Intel, will NOT run in Dx9 mode. It works in Dx7 mode of course, but Dx7 is a long, long way from what you're claiming - running Half Life 2 in a configuration that:

a) Intel, the makers of the card, says does not work
b) The card is too weak to run


I ran Half Life 2 on a GMA950 with a stronger CPU then yours which increases preformance seeing as the card does alot of work through the CPU in lieu of hardware units on the card. I could only run it on Dx7 mode, lowest settings, to acheive playable framerates.

I also ran Far Cry, again, with superior spec's to yours. I could only play lowest settings, and was only getting framerates bordering on playable for the outdoor sections (22-28fps)

Finally, everyone else on this forum, as well as the entire internet, notwithstanding as mentioned above the factors relating to it being Intels own card and subsequently I think they know its limits, running Half Life 2 on a GMA950 encountered the exact same results as I did.

So please, continue to post your crap, and please contact Intel themselves because if what you're saying is true, you would actually hold the world record for GMA gaming.

 

Well, not my fault but in the HL2 settings menu it said dx version: DX9.0c sooo.... idrk

 

1) everyone knows you're BSing

2) save image as jpeg in paint...

3) you have a crap computer = you have crap fps and are lying about it to boost the size of your e-pen1s

 

lol XDD
looks like i can play the game with the card, i wander about it though
i ma going to try it out

 

1) im not

2) Thank you didnt think about that simple thing

3) I think I know I own a crap computer.... And I will probably own a better one than you very soon * watch your back *

I think it goes MEDIUM, LOW, VERY HIGH, HIGH/VERY HIGH not to sure anymore

 

then be TOO sure before you post them. you dont which settings are which, i looked at them all and they all look pretty much the same.

 

WHAT>! omg man look at the guns texture and at the plants and lighting... wow... thought you were better than that

I just didnt really know since the upload messed the order of them

 

I'm playing Quake Wars with everything on highest settings at 1920x1200 resolution EXCEPT vertical sync.

 

GOOD FOR YOU! BLAH!

Im still waiting for Nvidia's new gpu ..... Im not buying a 8600 for sure; 8700 maybe; but 8800 may be my shot

 

I can't really see a difference either, except perhaps on the second one (where the gun texturing looks slightly worse than the others). I suppose it's remotely possible that the card is just rendering the best it can (no matter what settings you put it on) and that the static FPS across settings is due to the CPU bottleneck with IGP's. Still, though, consistent ~16fps outside at 1280x800 and decent settings (as those appeared to be) frankly does not sound possible, especially not with the T2060 + 950. Please take a screen shot of the settings page, so we can see exactly what you have turned on, and our other members with the 950 can attempt to duplicate your results.

 

how are the servers on quake wars? im thinking about getting it but is there any 64 player? someone told me the servers are often found empty?

 

There are some games that artificially seems to limit Intel's IGP from running them, like Titan Quest, and it seems Quake Wars.

Quake Wars use modified Doom 3 engine. Both Doom 3(of course lol) and Quake 4 will not have the problem on the Intel IGPs. This tells there is certain filter on the game that limits from running on the Intel IGPs, because theoretically it should be able to run it.

 

Yes true when I read the log it says something with texture and filterng...

 

Well... I just clicked on top of the settings... you know where it says:
Auto detect very high high medium low and it changes all settings to either one you click

 

The screenshots look almost exactly the same (and they look crap but that might be me). If you could please do a screenshot of the exact same tree/grass etc. under different graphics settings since changing your POV each time makes it more difficult to make an objective comparison of picture quality.

Like odin243 said a screenshot of your settings page preferably with a timestamp so that you can prove you haven't been artificially messing about with settings between shots.

 

did u restart the game after you changed the settings? Most of the settings require you to restart the game after you alternate them.

here are some far cry screens I took on my crappy 7400 laptop. All settings are default high except for the lighting quality (need to be very high to activate SM3.0 path) and AF (default 1=blur like crap).

 

dcp how did you get all those graphics statistics to turn up on the top-right corner of your screen? If you can teach beatsiz to do that when he/she does the screenshots then all of us can finally decide if someone is deliberately being thick or has little idea on how to do proper benchmarking or give accurate information.

 

just bring down the console (type ~) and type \r_displayinfo 1

 

Shame the screenshots can't have timestamps placed on them to prevent fraud.

 

I will try to do that tomorow

His look the same... the second one looks a tad different.... but still

 

His look the same as all the settings are same.

and yes i agree with dcp. Did you restart your game after changing the settings?

Because i see all the screenshots you posted look the same except for the 2nd screenshot where the gun texture look worst than all others.

 

Be on tomorow guys

Yes it made a difference the restart thingy