geforcefx5200

[CheapAlert]

will it not suck at this card

[obsidian]

For the last time, if it runs Q4, it'll run ETQW. It's been said by id Software and quoted many, many times.

[4days]

got the laptop version of that card and it runs doom 3 ok.

[dzjepp]

For the last time, if it runs Q4, it'll run ETQW. It's been said by id Software and quoted many, many times.

:s

That card has horrible pixel shader implementation, it's worse than a gf3 ffs (or a gf4)... unless you're running 640x480, it'll run wank

[Synergy]

I used to have that vid card. It sucked for Doom 3.

[Scourge]

I had an FX5500 and it ran Q4 at around 14 fps on low detail. So, I doubt the 5200 would.

[CheapAlert]

I get a constant 63fps in Quake4 though

r_mode 0 of course

[Canis]

I get a constant 63fps in Quake4 though

r_mode 0 of course

For the last time, if it runs Q4, it'll run ETQW. It's been said by id Software and quoted many, many times.

:icon27:

[hemostick]

The time has come to put the low-end fx cards to sleep, I'm afraid.

[Zombie13]

Buy a new card.

Z

[DiscoDave]

For the last time, if it runs Q4, it'll run ETQW. It's been said by id Software and quoted many, many times.

True but I would say with the size of the maps and the amount of models/players there must be a little bit of extra strain on the amount of RAM required. But correct me if i'm wrong.

[the_corpse]

im runing q4 ok with the 5200

but d3 it lags something terrable

[d3mol!t!on]

It's all good saying "it runs okay", or "it gets so and so FPS", but that means shits unless you quote the major settings used in those games too. Q4 can be set to have basically one over-all map light, and in such a case will run extremely well even on shit cards, so it's no use saying it could run 60FPS with that setting when we don't even know if ET:QW will have that setting.

And as for id Software saying "if it'll run Q4, it will run ET:QW", yes, it should physically run the game still because the engine probably won't have been modified to the extent that better "chipset" technology (you know, stuff other than just more memory and pixel pipelines, etc, since I have no better name for it then "chipset" technology) is required. However, if it could run Q4 at 10FPS with certain settings, who's to say that with as similar settings as can be used with ET:QW, it won't run it at 1FPS? Just because new "chipset" technology might not be needed, the game most likely will require more graphics memory and/or vertex shaders and/or pixel pipes, etc, than Q4, and I think this may well be what id Software meant, because IIRC they said pretty much the same thing when Q4 was on its way after D3, but look how much better a graphics card you need to run that. Anyhow, Q4 did actually drop some chipsets from D3, and by truth too, because a machine we had ran D3 with an MX440, but the image was all messed up even in the menu of Q4 with the same set-up (all other requirements were met for D3 and Q4, may I add). I personally wouldn't be suprised if ET:QW dropped the 3/Ti and 4/Ti series, and maybe even the FX series too, not even to mention ATI's series.

[Foo]

TBH looking on what's been released of ET:QW, an fx5200 is gonna be quite unsatisfactory for the game, if it runs it at all.

[Silicone_Milk]

Was running Quake 4 on an fx5200 at 2-5fps. Don't remember the settings. Also running only 384mb of ram.

Just replaced that card with two 7300GT s and upgraded the ram to 2gb.

Quake 4 runs smooth on highest settings with a resolution of 1024x768 now.

[4days]

there's an unofficial recommended spec here:
http://www.etqw.com/en/game/system/