Ive just upgraded from amd x2 4200+ with nvida gforce 7900gt to quad core 6600 with ati HD4850. And when i use the exakt same config (1280x960@100hz) i get like 900 fps at dm3 looking at quad from ring, when i used to get around 1100fps. Did i miss something, is ati worse for qw than nvida?

In other games like crysis my new machine is like 4x faster than before, and same with 3dmark06. Not that I care that much since i use cl_maxfps 600, but i would be nice to know...

Best regards jOn

do you think ati and nvidia make crysis or qw run best in in the consumer year of 2008?

Well my Quad SLI 9800 GX2 run Crysis much better than my X850 so NV > ATI for Crysis ;-) (but they also BSOD which my ATI never did lol

Sad but true - ATi don't wok well with ezQuake, or anything based on zquake (that's the name of this client i think). If you want to get better fps (but i think you don't because you use 600 fps cap) try FTE, when i had ATi card it worked better than ezQ (with reasonable config of course). And also, new hardware or drivers usually means slightly worse performace with older software.

3dfx ftw!

quake is based on opengl, this amazing standard. unfortunatly, 99% of today's games are based on direct 3d, which has always been slower (although it has better image than opengl 1.0). At least, 10 years ago opengl was WAY faster than microsoft's direct 3d.

Few days ago opengl 3.0 has been launched.. I've seen some stuff with the newer opengl in action, and i was amazed with the improvements. but i doubt it it will be widely used.

/offtopic

as Herb said, today's cards/drivers are designed for newer games, so its normal to have fewer fps.

Thanks to ATi's semi-shitty OpenGL ICD, the performance will be slower in certain OpenGL applications. It can even be slower than the last gen card (or previous to previous gen, GeForce7) in the worst case scenario. Few things you can try:

1) gl_detail 0 , improves performance a lot on older ATi cards at least (so give it a try).

2) gl_ext_texture_compression 1 (shouldn't affect that much)

3) make sure you have gl_ztrick 0 , gl_finish 0 , gl_clear 0

4) try changing gl_maxtmu2 0/1

I wonder if there was anything left...

i have a HD4870 and ezquake performs as expected

i just got a 4850 and for my surprise Ezquake works worse than on my old 8600GT xxx .. i can get equally topped 770 fps @ cl_maxfps 770, but when I test it with that FPS.qwd ( the one with plenty granades at DM2 ) my avarage timedemo outputs 126 for 4850 while with 8600 i managed to get around 370 fps.

There's also r_dynamic 0, huge fps boost

what drivers, settings and resolution are you using?

cl_maxfps is 770 here.. really like it that way on my TFT wide screen..

i'm using the same settings as i had on my XFX 8600GT xXx, except i changed some values to the ones mentioned on that topic in order to get some more fps and still.. its going all around 770-480 fps.... i simply can't belive my 8600 GT was really that better ... ONLY AT QW!


Catalyst 8.9 . Fan Speed at 40% usage all the time providing some 57°,

using all these:

gl_detail 0
gl_ext_texture_compression 1
gl_ztrick 0
gl_finish 0
gl_clear 0
gl_maxtmu2 0
r_dynamic 0

and running qw at 1440 x 900 @ 75hz, as i used to on my old 8600GT xXx without ANY fps problems.

all settings on driver are tunned to performance instead of quallity, as it should be.



Thanks.

currently on version 8.512.0.0 drivers apparently, i havent touched any settings in there.

gl_detail 0
gl_ext_texture_compression 0
gl_ztrick 0
gl_finish 0
gl_clear 0
gl_maxtmu2 0
r_dynamic 1

just ran a 4on4 demo at 1440x700 with uncapped fps, didnt go below 1000, mostly sat at 1400. I normally run 800x600@160hz with maxfps 308.

I am running a e8400 @ 3.6GHz and have 4GB of ram (3.5 lol) if that matters

ati cards have worse opengl performance in general.