PDA

View Full Version : Quake 4 much more CPU dependent than F.E.A.R.?


Pages : [1] 2

himura_drew
10-30-05, 11:42 AM
Hi guys!!

Just curious about this, since Quake 4 runs really horrible for me. The sound keeps stuttering and I'm basically getting choppy gameply no matter what settings I run it on or any config file tweaks I use.

At first I thought it was a sound problem (running onboard sound and I thought I might need to spring for an Audigy) and I tried to isolate it by disabling sound just to see if it would stop the stuttering, but it didn't. I didn't have this kind of performance problems with Doom 3 and I was even able to run F.E.A.R. at 1024x768 with mid-high settings plus 2xAA/8xAF.

Should I wait for a patch, or is upgrading my CPU the only way I can get this game to run properly?

Thanks in advance!!

BioHazZarD
10-30-05, 11:54 AM
No idea but for me its quite the opposite Fear runs like **** on medium settings while Q4 i can play on high and the game runs like a dream and the levels are bigger so i dont know but something must be wrong with your setup then.

|MaguS|
10-30-05, 11:59 AM
FEAR is very GPU dependent.

jAkUp
10-30-05, 12:19 PM
quake4 is definetely more CPU dependent, Fear is the most GPU dependent game out there right now. The doom3 engine is pretty CPU dependent overall.

Subtestube
10-30-05, 03:21 PM
Yep - Q4 is CPU dependent. There are some parts of the game that are choppy for me no matter what I do (my dubious old CPU is probably fairly similar to yours - my P4 is running at 2.7 GHz, which should be a similar OC to your 2400 running at 2.1 GHz as well). Multiplayer also gets pretty painful when any number of people above 8 is playing. I'm looking at turning everything down to low, just for MP, where the frame-rate loss is utterly unnacceptable.

alucard_x
10-31-05, 09:16 AM
indeed. in heavy firefights it is very cpu intensive.. unfortunately for us folks who can't buy the latest and greatest every 6 months. even when i set my config to something that looks like complete ass it still chugs at 20fps in some parts.. for instance the middle part of 'speed trap' ctf map

SH64
10-31-05, 09:21 AM
At high res no i'd say its not as CPU dependent as FEAR. its actually more GPU dependent.

Amuro
10-31-05, 09:25 AM
Yeah, it's GPU depentent from 1600x1200 high quality and up. SLI almost doubles the FPS.

himura_drew
10-31-05, 10:39 AM
One thing I can't really figure out is that why my installation of Quake keeps stuttering a lot.

I just bought a friend's old A64 2800+ (S-754 Clawhammer core running at 1.8Ghz) since he's planning to go the PCIE route. I thought it might be a good chance to see if it was really my CPU that's causing the bottleneck. Unfortunately, Quake 4 still keeps stuttering to no end. I'm thining that this game is really borked and Raven really needs to issue a patch here - somethings really broken with the game IMHO.

SH64
10-31-05, 10:42 AM
Now thats a different issue & no i dont think its broken .. most likely the problem is with your settings/config.
for exmaple playing @Ultra Quality on a 256MB card will result in stuttering , or it could be the Omega drivers you are using .. there are difference possible reasons.
EDIT : plus what Capt said in the post below.

CaptNKILL
10-31-05, 10:43 AM
Keep in mind that you are using a 5400rpm 40gig hard drive... that thing has to be horribly slow. Any time the game has to access the hard drive (for any reason) its going to chug.

himura_drew
10-31-05, 10:53 AM
I've tried several driver versions (both Omega and ATI) and it didn't really do anything for the game. I normally run at 1024x768 High Quality (shoadows disabled). I've tried running at maximum lowest detail and still got the same problem.

Hmm.. the hard drive? Never thought of that... Though with a gig of RAM, shouldn't the game not be trying to access the HDD every 5-10 seconds as it should have more than enough memory?

Thanks!

CaptNKILL
10-31-05, 11:08 AM
Yeah, It shouldnt access that often... have you removed everything from your startup? Programs running in the background (especially antivirus, antispyware and firewall programs) can make problems like this too.

himura_drew
11-01-05, 06:42 AM
Yup, I got rid of any programs running in the background.

This is really I guess I'm going to have to wait for a patch. Too bad.. the game looks really fun to play.:(

ynnek
11-01-05, 09:41 AM
indeed. in heavy firefights it is very cpu intensive.. unfortunately for us folks who can't buy the latest and greatest every 6 months. even when i set my config to something that looks like complete ass it still chugs at 20fps in some parts.. for instance the middle part of 'speed trap' ctf map


Same here. I'm not even sure that setting all the details to low is actually improving my min fps during heavy firefights in multiplayer... at least not by much..

However, I'm not getting any stuttering, and single player runs good. Things get a little hectic in sp heavy firefights soetimes, but it seems managable... then agian, it never gets as hectic as online games.

BTW, HD access is vastly slower than memory access... If you are paging out the HD in the middle of any game, you are guaranteed to have stuttering. Money/time would be better spent on eliminating the need to page to your HD...

nrs421
11-02-05, 11:13 AM
i run it on high quality at 1024 *768 and have had no issues....

himura_drew
11-04-05, 04:26 AM
Ok, I think I figured out what the problem was...

After running the game with an overclocked Newcastle 2800+ with the use of the ASUS mobo's "Turbo" setting, turns out my crappy PC3200 RAM was overclocked way past it's threshold (230Mhz.. yeessh).

Reading through a few articles on the 'net and doing overclocking manually through the use of dividers, I was able to keep RAM speed at 200Mhz and got a clock speed of 2.2Ghz. Now the game runs pretty smoothly so far with just a few stutters here and there. I just hope the game stays that way permanently. :)

Bottomline, I guess, CPU speed DOES matter with regards to this game...

SH64
11-10-05, 05:04 PM
Maybe i made mistake. from this (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_6.html) article Quake 4 seems to be more CPU dependent than FEAR!

dante_uk
11-11-05, 07:09 AM
For me the FEAR runs like S**t, Quake4 is just about playable at 1280x1024,
I mostly played it at 1024x768, no stutter, smooth and looks great.

FEAR runs like a complete dog 1024x768 for me. I'm not using softshadows or any of the 'high' settings. I looks okay but I think Quake4 looks better and runs a damn site better.

My CPU is only a P4 2.2ghz so it's by no means the latest great thing around.
My GPU is GF FX5900nu so it's ...
I have 1gb memory.

Don't forget to defrag often. NTFS must be the worst filesystem known to man for becoming fragmented.

My new work laptop came with WinXP preinstalled and a bunch of crap apps, the disk was only 8% used yet looked about 40% fragmented!

Another server at work runs Windows 2003 Server, one it's drives was clean(80gb), we copied about 30gb of data on to it. Again it was badly fragmented. An hour later the defrag finished and it was all blue & white.

jolle
11-17-05, 10:17 PM
Maybe i made mistake. from this (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_6.html) article Quake 4 seems to be more CPU dependent than FEAR!
Also shows that Quake4 is MULTITHREADED, unlike Doom III it uses both cores on Dual Core CPUs..
that was a real suprise IMO, hadnt heard anything about that..

Sazar
11-17-05, 10:31 PM
Fwiw, Quake 4 runs a heck of a lot better on my system than F.E.A.R. :cool:

Not that I particularly care much for either of them but still.

nutcrackr
11-17-05, 10:59 PM
Maybe i made mistake. from this (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_6.html) article Quake 4 seems to be more CPU dependent than FEAR!
That also shows that COD2 runs like **** on all systems, around 10% difference between 1.8ghz athlon and a 2.8ghz althon on a 7800gt - give me a break that's terrible. It's even at 1024x768 with no AA. To make matters worse it's not doing real time shadows all it does is some normal/specular mapping that Halo did years ago. According to that they modified the Quake 3 engine? What a crap piece of coding. BF2 looks pretty good and it's running 500+ fps with the same rig :eek:

MustangSVT
11-17-05, 11:03 PM
I'm glad you solved your problems, but it seems it was more due to that RAM divider thing or whatever.

I don't know how much of a performance a CPU upgrade would provide, but I'm only running an overclocked Athlon XP (Barton @ 2.4GHz) and a 6800GT and Q4 runs very smooth for me. I play at 1280x1024 2xAA and all the details on.

Moot
12-25-05, 11:52 PM
I was hopping I could run quake 4 at 1152x862 High quality and stay pegged at the 60 fps cap. Although during on line play I only 60 fps when Iím standing alone in a small hallway. Most the time itís in the twenties and thirties, which just wonít do. I was planning to upgrade soon anyway so Iím not to disappointed. Although I have an AGP card and was thinking of going with an A8V motherboard, a 3800+ and 2 GB of RAM. Thing is if my issue isnít the CPU then Iíd be screwed over because I canít upgrade my video card. I could just get the A8V-E and PCI-E card but that would add a little more expense than I can afford at this time, and even if I did find the cash I donít wanna give up my quite leadtek card for some leaf blower 7800. Does anyone have a 6800 GT running similar settings on a higher end CPU and have FPS that doesnít drop? Also off topic but has anyone found a 7800 that is as quite a the leadtek 6800 GT and Ultra cards where?

j0j081
12-26-05, 05:23 AM
Quake 4 single player works great on my system but Multiplayer is a slideshow. Pisses me off so I'm back to ut2k4 lol.