Will this cut it?

(Nail) #21

really bottom end of spec, probably not very playable outside of LAN

(EvilBaga) #22

I tried playing W:ET on my cousin’s 800MHz Celeron once. Its literally impossible to play anything but Panzer…

Personally, I think my own very outdated 1.66Mhz Sempron is the bare minimum

([ToC]Death) #23

What video card were you using, and how much RAM? How many viruses?

(Plowking) #24

Before i got the computer i have now, i had a intel celeron 2.53Ghz overclocked to 3 Ghz, ATI radeon 9600 pro(256mb ram) and 1 gig of ram and windows xp home edition, it ran W:ET on around about 140 fps, this computer cost me $800 (AUD) which are very cheap now…if u can get the 2.53Ghz celeron for now and the graphics card and 512 Mb of ram, u should be good for a while.

The computer i have now is a intel Quad core Q6600@2.4Ghz(each core), Nvidia 8800GTX(768Mb ram) and 2 gig of ram and windows vista premium runs ET between 700-1000fps, but the game cant handle it so its capped to 450 fps, im not sure wat fps i get on QW, but ill have to find out…

P.S ive tried playin ET on a computer with 20-30 fps, it was too jumpy and i got killed b4 i even got 2 rounds out of the gun…but its up to u mate…

(stealth6) #25

you insulting me!! :stuck_out_tongue: I’ve played this game for like 1000 hours with that kinda crappy fps :stuck_out_tongue:

I just got a better pc and capped the fps at 125 which I can handle on all maps easily, but before then was stuc with crappy pc

I say just try and make do with what you got

(Rudi) #26

The engine dies @ 333 and from research, com_maxfps stops functioning correctly after around 200~ FPS.

(stealth6) #27

The engine dies @ 333 and from research, com_maxfps stops functioning correctly after around 200~ FPS.[/quote]

ah was wondering how he got that much :shock: got quite a good system now and wasnt getting above 250…

(Nail) #28

afaik, locking at 125 is absolutely the best in game, 333 for some TJ maps seems to work though

(-SSF-Sage) #29

I do play with 333 fps. With tweaked settings I can stay there on the most maps. Without tweaked settings on most tj maps. I do play and jump better with 333 fps than 125 so…

(Sauron|EFG) #30

Your FPS doesn’t really matter for trickjumping as long as you stick to ETPro servers with b_fixedphysics 1.

([ToC]Death) #31

Hey all, I have decided to just stick with this PC and try to run CS 1.6. I am trying to save for a high-end DX9 PC (4600+, 2GB RAM, 7900GS, etc…) and then after that, sell the video card and get a 8800GTS 320MB, and 1GB more RAM for Vista.

Anyways, I was just wondering how my performance for basically everything will be affected from jumping from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 (need to do so to use Steam, it doesn’t support Windows 98 anymore). Also wondering if it will play CS 1.6 (tried W:ET, go 45 - 60 FPS indoors on Oasis, 5 - 20 FPS outside).

Edit: I was able to play Quake III on a server with 10~ people (laggy server, about 5 people had over 175 ping) with average 17.5 FPS (rough estimate), it dipped down to 10 FPS on some occasions, and went up to 30 FPS when I was indoors, facing a corner with no action or sound around me. I was using these settings:

1024X768
Maximum highest settings in every category (except AA and AF, don’t know how to turn those on). So, what are my chances with CS 1.6 on Windows 2000 with low settings?

(telepathiclove) #32

Do you already own Windows 2000?

Because if not, you should really get Windows XP instead. Because there are quite a lot of games which no longer run on Windows 2000 :frowning: So XP is the way to go.

I don’t know if ET:QW is one of them or not, but I was using Windows 2000 up until a few months ago, and I had to switch because there was litterally half a dozen games I really wanted to play, which would not run on Windows 2000.

Also, if you do save up to buy a new computer in the future, It might be a good idea to try to get an Intel Core2Duo instead of that 4600+. They are very good chips and even if it works out a bit more expensive than the AMD, it could be worth while due to the big upgrade route it gives you.

([ToC]Death) #33

Did you even bother reading my last post?

(Rudi) #34

I’ve always found Windows 2000 to be more stable and faster so it should give you the same performance thereabouts.

That’s if I understand you correctly…

(Nail) #35

I found 2K to be faster than 98, and I never had a BSOD with 2K ever

([ToC]Death) #36

I am CPU limited, not GPU limited (tried A LOT of video tweaks, none of which make the FPS change at all (not even by 1). What are some CPU tweaks? I get an average of 15FPS, and the lowest it ever goes if 5 FPS (which will happen occasionally). I get up to 70FPS indoors, too.