also im a total noob on the subject so which detail should i look for, cos number of videoram is not the one makes the difference =) ram speed or something else?

my old hd4770 would do that no problem. well the amd HD6770 would be a good choice since it is more powerful than my hd4770 and around that 100 price range. Check some reviews of the card and see if you like it.

EDIT: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviewdb/Graphics-Cards/ATI/HD-6770/

Quad SLI

I've had two amd (ati) cards and I can't say I'm a massive fan. They do this thing called 'coil squealing' (i think!?) where the card makes a really hight pitched screeching noise on a lot of 2d menus etc. Both my 5770 and 6850 did this, both are made by xfx- maybe that's the reason?
AMD is generally cheaper and you get better bang for buck, so I'd go for something like a 5770 or gts 450- both should run ql easily (assuming you don't have a shite cpu)

i have never had the problems with coil squealing, that would happen on the 1st revision of the old HD4870 iirc, and more recently on the hd6990 which is a shame, and saying that amd is cheaper and budget is not true. nvidia has its saving points too, look at the gtx590 or gtx570, those have weak vrms without hardware overcurrent protection, that is why a lot of those cards blow even with a small oc.

i think i have a shit cpu for todays standards its an athlon x2 64 4000+ so maybe the problems comes from here and not from the graphic card?

I've had the coil whine with all my GPUs since the 8800 days, as soon as my framerate is really high (like 400 and above). So it's not an ATI-only thing, I've had it with all brands.

I think it's just random whether you'll have it or not (and how loud it will be) maybe some people can't hear the frequency either, I dunno.

fair enough :) first time I heard it was with my 5770 and I thought my pc was gonna catch fire!

How much do you want to spend on it, and which one do you prefer Nvidia or AMD?

i dont really know the difference between the two so i guess its doesnt matter for me. maybe ati works better with amd cpu since the same company? about 20k huf im willing to spend, i dont mind if cheeper, more for a 12 year old game would be kinda ridic i guess?

tip: make sure your computer's power supply is gud enough for whatever card you get.

i have a 350w chieftec supply if its enough?

how old is it?

3-4 years i think

#15

What is your processor? Quake live is more CPU hungry, not vga. Tell us more about the computer.

comp is:
athlon x2 64 4000
hd4350
2x2gb ram 800mhz
160gb 7200rpm hdd

Most likely your processor is the reason for the fps drops. You can try little overclock just to confirm it(without buying parts).

We had this conversation in an other thread, and he is trying to game 1200p with a 64bit videocard, it's not his cpu in that resolution for sure, but indeed it could turn out that his cpu also too slow:)

The best would be to log the load of the CPU and the GPU and check if QL is CPU or VGA limited.

I can play q3 maxed on radeon 9800pro with rock solid 125(1280x1024). While quake live is more demanding, that's on cpu side(bloom off). Stop talking bullshit about ql gpu demands rofl. The graphical platform is almost the same as in q3. Or you thing the small diference will make the gpu part times heavier? If I uncap the fps limit in q3 I got around 350 fps with much weaker video than his. I know people that plays it with gf 7600gs caliber video cards with fast cpu - just fine. End of story, go buy gtx580 for ql.

Q3 and QL is night and day tbh, and I'm testing slow card things with a 9400GS a 6200GT and a radeon 9800pro.

He wants to play 1280x800 with lightmaps and postprocess enabled (at least that's what he wanted in the last thread). The 4350 would easliy do 125fps in Q3 but will never do it in QL imo (he needs 120 only anyway since his monitor max refreshrate and the fact that QL is not fps dependent).

I agree on the point about the 2100Mhz Brisbane might not be enough for QL, but I never stated otherwise.

edit: and I recommended a 70€ videocard for him, how is a GTX580 comes to this picture is beyond me.

If all you play is QL then the gtx 580 is for e-penis++, can't beat that.

On topic, even a 8800GTS 512MB will do 125fps at 1080p with all bells and whistles on so QL doesn't need much in terms of graphics cards. Pretty much anything above the entry level cards would do. His PSU could soon become an issue though as by now it is most likely not delivering more than 300w due to age. It should be swapped within a year or so for a decent quality 400-500w PSU.

- dunno why he brought up 580, and also don't understand why you reply with that to me:(

- 3-4 years old 350 with a Brisbane and a 4350 won't age the chiefec that much, perhaps it won't give out 370-380 anymore like the new ones do, but 330-340 is there for sure, which is more than enough for a brisbane and a decent card for 1-2 more years at least.

I must admin my 9800pro is nowhere near to stock tho. It is with xt core and hard modded :). As for the 4350, it's shit card, but small correction: 64 bit, not 60. QL is singlecore, the gpu change won't fix his problem, that's my point.

dunno what that 60 you talking about, , I dont see any 60 in this thread.

The lowest I can test for you atm is dual core 2200Mhz (ofc only one will be used). with resolution 1360x768 (postprocess+lightmaps+subdivision 80+blabla - ironworks center area)

- a gts250 (256bit wide memory bus) down-clocked 250Mhz/800Mhz/350Mhz (!!!!!!) (core/shaders/ram) == is stable 125 fps

- a 9400GS (64bit wide memory bus) overclocked (with 3 huge fans blowing onto it) to 685Mhz/1650Mhz/1200Mhz == it's 76-124fps

You really like to talk about bus width. Just observation.

No, i just think that QL's postprocess feature is sensitive to the performance of the memory controller, because the difference is so huge while it's almost none in Q3 with the same cards.

And (tbh) it doesn't feels really good when someone just bulls you with sentences like:
"Stop talking bullshit about ql gpu demands rofl."

and than dodges out like you just did :(

I am with postprocess off, and not like I can't run 125fps with it. The difference in the tested from you cards are: ~90GB/s for the gtx250 and ~77GB/s for the 9400. Not that big. If you ask me, it can be driver problem. You can test the 9400 to see if there are not concrete spots on the maps where you get that fps drops. Because I read many complains in ql forum before, about fps drops there and there,etc(people with older video cards).

As for the flaming part: Sorry, didn't want to offend you.

no offense taken, I would just ignore you otherwise:)

The cards are over- and downclocked and It's more like this (G86 vs G92+):

2.5Gpixel/sec vs 4.2Gpixels/sec
4.6Gtexel/sec vs 14.5Gtexels/sec
16GB/sec vs 24GB/sec

The difference should be 3-4 fps but its not. Of course it's the errors on the QL maps. I thought this is the obvious reason why we having this conversation.
There are bugs on some of the the QL maps what makes older cards suffer somehow (especially when postprocess and lightmaps are both active) but doesn't affect the more powerfull cards much, not even if you insanely downclock them.

What's even more puzzling is that in the scenario above GPU-Z shows more load (65%) on the downclocked GTS250 than on the 9400 (55%). It's not only that none of the cards are on full load , but the slower card get's the less load on the graphics side(???).

There is something very fishy going on here and perhaps it's more browser related than the game itself.

It's not, I never exp. any fps drops with hd4850 and gtx570. As for the cards load... gg id, gg wp with your browser plugin idea.

omg, the 4850 is a monster! compared to the 4350 in QL terms, of course you wont experience any slowdowns:)

I'm running some test atm, and the shitty 9400 is more than 3 times faster in Q3 than in QL, this is madness:(

We don't understand a thing, id knows better :<. When I wrote:"it's not" I agreed with your statement about the cards diff in terms of speed, Ithink you missunderstand me. As for hd4850 speed... I pretty well know how it compares with 4350, tho it's not even appropriate to do so. I am just sharing exp.

I am sure it's plugin/browser/driver problem, so low on gpu use... you know about dragon age 2 and n-vidia, right? It's like that, but with the difference that id won't fix that.

I could max QL with a athlon 4000+(single core) and geforce 7600gt on 1280x1024, with postprocess and shit on. Not sure how much better that gpu is but I don't think he should be have much problems.

Yes, what I think it's the 128bit wide memory bus on the 7600gt what makes the difference.

I get fps drops on a 7600gt. :@

And read again the part about the resolution he plays on ;)

if you want AMD, and your chieftec PSU is not 7-8 years old, get this card fast.
This will be even good after you change your mainboard+CPU and will run just about every game out there.

edit: if you don't want a used card, your only AMD options around 20K-HUF (~75€) are the 6670 or the 6750 (second is a bit more expensive), just make sure you get the 1GB DDR5 version to make it future-proof.

i get 125fps in every map and possible setting with my 9800gt.

even with 1000 bots on giant tdm maps?

i don't think it's possible to add 1000 bots to a single map

SO U LOSE HAHAHAHAHAHA

sorry, im a bit loony

The 9800GT will put out quakelive 1080p with highest settings and as many bots as you want for sure, but it needs too much power for his PSU and getting a non-dx11 card today just doesn't make any sense.

aye aye, you seem to know your stuff, so im sure your recommendation will be proper. i stopped following vid cards along time ago xD

He wanted an AMD card, so I told him the 5770 is the best he can get for that kind of money, it's not rocket science:)

well to know the relative price, performance, and power consumption of all relevant amd cards is a lot of info to me xd

just dont buy ati

that is utterly stupid of an advice, to be ignored completely :)

sorry for having only bad experience with all ati cards I ever had. Maybe I am a bit biased. ATI driver are shit, especially for laptop.

Both Nvidia and AMD have some bad card/driver releases. You must have had bad luck as I've had more issues with Nvidia than AMD/ATI. One thing that drove me nuts with AMD was that only one of the DVI ports is dual link (needed to run 120hz on the monitor).

For laptop - yes, you are correct. For desktop - no, you are not. I have got 3 ati/amd cards, 1 s3 and 2 n-vidia cards. I had more driver problems with the geforces than with the radeons. Vary on luck what you try to do/play I guess :).

I hear this. I was 'delighted' to discover my brand new 6950 2gb does not support 120hz LCDs due to some bizarre hardware issue, and that this is a problem with certain AMD cards. The best part though, is how they haven't fixed the issue, commented on the issue, or devised any plans to address it in any way (as far as I know). It seems AMD has learned a thing or two about customer support from our friends at id.

Thankfully, with a little bit of help from Powerstrip my Trinitron CRTs do the job far better anyway. Still, it would have been nice to know about this issue with the latest series of cards before forking out for a high end 120hz LCD. :(

The wise man choose by model, not brand.

maybe for random electronic devices, but how do you factor in drivers? nvidia's are less shitty than ati's

Not entirely true nowdays.

You can have my 8800gtx oc'd @635Mhz for a fistful of 80 bucks.

Edit: Or the whole bundle for 250 moniez. http://i.imgur.com/ttz5A.jpg

cpu: q6600
ram: ddr2 3gb
mobo: ga-p35-dq6 and the most awesome zalman cooler to ever exist.

You'd also need at least a 450watt psu.

only 350W there:)

anyone know if modern graphics cards are close to the limit of pcie 2.0?

no single card can do that today, but even if you would have such a card, you would gain about 1 fps with PCI-e 3.0:)

I have an 8800gt 256mb! and i just tried ultra quality preset + 1680x1050 with 15 bots on a couple of tdm maps and my fps never dropped below 125 my cpu is an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0GHz

for 70-75€ you can get a ati 6670/ nvidia gt 440, both with 1gb ddr5 ram.

he prefers amd, but exactly what I told him, a used 5770 or a new 6670 are the best choices in that price segment. (not against nvidia but 440 not worth it imo)

ah ok, i would spent a little more and get a gtx460 or a hd6850, but that's me :)

yes me too:), but he said the only game he play is q3, and tbh even the 6670 is an overshoot for q3 and also for his current CPU.
I just decided not to talk him off from the 70€ price-range because maybe he changes his mind later or finds an other game what he wants to try..
The 5770 would serve him well for a long time, even if he would upgrade the cpu to a triple/quad core, and his PSU could also take it.
But even a new 6670 is more than enough for Q3 for sure, you could play on a 16slot FFA server in fullHD with very high AA+AF without any problem:)

5770 no doubt about it.

450 gts

buy xbox