Anyone else disapointed with GTA 4?

[jacktesterson]

I am a very CASUAL gamer. I really only play NHL 09 and NBA2K9, with both run at max settings on my display (1366*768 52 inch plama screen) No issues at all.


Now I had previously played about 20% of GTA 4 on a 360, so I wanted to play it on my PC (I had a 360 that I barely used, so decided to sell it).

I installed this game... and the new patch. and its one Buggy SOB.

I have played the game for about 1 hr, and have had 2 random crashes.

If you run the "Autoconfig" for my system, it puts it at 1366*768 on medium details.

If you run the benchmarks at this configuration, I get an average of 21.54 FPS. Sadly, turning down settings including Distance, resolutions, etc, barely improves anything. I gain an extra 1-2 FPS.


Very disapointed in this game. I know I dont run a huge card, but it allows me to run Crysis at playable settings, and looks better than GTA 4. A piss poor port if you ask me.

I dont understand how the manual says my system will run it, the Autoconfig gives me my max res at medium, yet I get an avg of 23 FPS.

Not happy.

PS- to add to this mess, I still have not been able to get my Saitek P2900 wireless or Logitech controller to work properly...the saitek not at all. Only the 360 controller works good from my research.


anyone else experience this?

 

[Spicedaddy]

It's been stable for me, but the fps is very low. The game is CPU limited and needs a quad core to run well. Your video card should be enough for that res.

Try something like:

Texture: Medium
Render: Medium
22
20
20
2


Those seem low, but it'll still look better than PS3 or Xbox360...

 

[TridenT]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
It's been stable for me, but the fps is very low. The game is CPU limited and needs a quad core to run well. Your video card should be enough for that res.

Try something like:

Texture: Medium
Render: Medium
22
20
20
2


Those seem low, but it'll still look better than PS3 or Xbox360...

How many FPS will I see increase from going E7200 to Q6600 or i7 920. You know of any benches?

EDIT:
Statistics
Average FPS: 27.45
Duration: 37.70 sec
CPU Usage: 93%
System memory usage: 66%
Video memory usage: 71%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.621
Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7200 @ 2.53GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli

That's what I get with 4850 512 crossfire... I don't think this game takes advantage of crossfire, or sli. I don't play games at 1440x900 either. My screen is natively 1920x1200. You can imagine how gameplay is for me. This is all on recommended settings too.

 

[Spicedaddy]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
It's been stable for me, but the fps is very low. The game is CPU limited and needs a quad core to run well. Your video card should be enough for that res.

Try something like:

Texture: Medium
Render: Medium
22
20
20
2


Those seem low, but it'll still look better than PS3 or Xbox360...

How many FPS will I see increase from going E7200 to Q6600 or i7 920. You know of any benches?

pcgameshardware.com did a CPU comparison, hardocp did a GPU comparison...

 

[QueBert]

35FPS average on GF's dual core 3ghz, no noticeable slowdown for us at all. 35FPS is more than good enough for me in this type of game.

 

[Billyzeke]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

How many FPS will I see increase from going E7200 to Q6600 or i7 920. You know of any benches?

From my own experience with an E6600 @2.4ghz it ran in the mid to upper 20's fps, @ 3.0ghz I got low to mid 30's fps. After upgrading to the Q6600 @ 3.0ghz I get into upper 50's fps. With the Q6600 at stock speeds (2.4ghz) it ran in the mid to upper 40's. The quad even at stock speeds runs smooth as silk with mass mayhem going on onscreen!

 

[Bman123]

I am gonna say the game is designed for quad core and it is also a piss poor port.It should run good on a good core 2 duo.

I have not bought the game because I have been hearing stories of poor performance.I have a decent rig and will be a little pissed if I could not run the game with good settings and a good framerate.

I really like the gta series also.Maybe I can find a demo for it or something so I can see how it runs on my machine

 

[jacktesterson]

If this thing needs a quad core, it'd be the first time I've come across a situation in my daily use that I needed a quad. Im not going to upgrade when everything else plays fine.


I personally think its Rockstars issues, not ours. No way that game requires that big of a system at 1024*768 @ low settings. Hell an Xbox 360 can do that.

 

[jacktesterson]

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
It's been stable for me, but the fps is very low. The game is CPU limited and needs a quad core to run well. Your video card should be enough for that res.

Try something like:

Texture: Medium
Render: Medium
22
20
20
2


Those seem low, but it'll still look better than PS3 or Xbox360...

How many FPS will I see increase from going E7200 to Q6600 or i7 920. You know of any benches?

pcgameshardware.com did a CPU comparison, hardocp did a GPU comparison...

What I find interesting in PCGameshardware.com's CPU and GPU benchmarks is that the game is dependant on # of Cores followed by Clock speed.


It barely matters whether your running a GTX 280 or a Radeon 4670.... the difference is 4-5 FPS, even at 1080p resolutions... which makes no sense.

The game is completely CPU limited. a quad core ups performance by over 50% in most cases.

 

[dguy6789]

Are there any benchmarks comparing dual, triple, and quad core Phenom? I am interested in seeing if the triple core Phenom outperforms similarly priced Core 2 Duos.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Bigystyle
If this thing needs a quad core, it'd be the first time I've come across a situation in my daily use that I needed a quad. Im not going to upgrade when everything else plays fine.


I personally think its Rockstars issues, not ours. No way that game requires that big of a system at 1024*768 @ low settings. Hell an Xbox 360 can do that.

Why would resolution matter as far as being CPU dependent.

At 1024*768 or 1600*1200, you still have the same amount of activity (pathfinding, AI) going on. The game is not GPU dependent at all.

The graphics are not that amazing, but there honestly is a lot going on in this game.

The game was heavily threaded so it would work on consoles. The developers kept that for the PC rather than rebuilding the game from the ground up (my guess).


It sucks that many people's almost brand new computers aren't able to run this game, but quadcore CPU's have been cheap for a long time. I never saw any compelling reason not to get one when the q6600 (or x3210) came out.

 

[BassBomb]

The game can bring my PS3 to its knees in many cases...

 

[TridenT]

Yikes. I don't want to get a Core i7 processor yet; no money. I don't want to upgrade my processor though, because I'll upgrade to Core i7 later... What to do!!! Suffer.

 

[Udgnim]

no offense, but you should have done a lot more research before getting GTA 4 PC

it does not like AMD dual core CPUs at all

 

[jacktesterson]

No offense, but the box and website for Rockstar both state my PC will run this game fine. I preordered it....

I never knew I didn't have to take there word and research it.

I have a better Processor than min, way better vid card than min required, 4GB ram, etc. Didnt know I was going to get 20 FPS at min resolutions.

http://www.rockstargames.com/IV/#?page=pc

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Bigystyle
No offense, but the box and website for Rockstar both state my PC will run this game fine. I preordered it....

I never knew I didn't have to take there word and research it.

I have a better Processor than min, way better vid card than min required, 4GB ram, etc. Didnt know I was going to get 20 FPS at min resolutions.

http://www.rockstargames.com/IV/#?page=pc

its your cpu thats the problem.....its a good machine, but unfortuantely the way the game is written is incredibly cpu intensive..

 

[dug777]

It boggles my mind how CPU-intensive it is, and TBH it looks pretty shabby, even with all the bells and whistles I can call upon with my Q6600/4GB RAM/4850...

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Bigystyle
I am a very CASUAL gamer. I really only play NHL 09 and NBA2K9, with both run at max settings on my display (1366*768 52 inch plama screen) No issues at all.


Now I had previously played about 20% of GTA 4 on a 360, so I wanted to play it on my PC (I had a 360 that I barely used, so decided to sell it).

I installed this game... and the new patch. and its one Buggy SOB.

I have played the game for about 1 hr, and have had 2 random crashes.

If you run the "Autoconfig" for my system, it puts it at 1366*768 on medium details.

If you run the benchmarks at this configuration, I get an average of 21.54 FPS. Sadly, turning down settings including Distance, resolutions, etc, barely improves anything. I gain an extra 1-2 FPS.


Very disapointed in this game. I know I dont run a huge card, but it allows me to run Crysis at playable settings, and looks better than GTA 4. A piss poor port if you ask me.

I dont understand how the manual says my system will run it, the Autoconfig gives me my max res at medium, yet I get an avg of 23 FPS.

Not happy.

PS- to add to this mess, I still have not been able to get my Saitek P2900 wireless or Logitech controller to work properly...the saitek not at all. Only the 360 controller works good from my research.


anyone else experience this?

Your CPU is the problem. GPU has very little to do with this game other than drawing what's on screen.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: QueBert
35FPS average on GF's dual core 3ghz, no noticeable slowdown for us at all. 35FPS is more than good enough for me in this type of game.

Is that the in game benchmark? The ingame benchmark is very optimistic.

I get an average of 40fps in the benchmark but in the real world mostly hover 17-30fps with my system.

 

[milesl]

I just wish I could finish the game.
I was not expecting stellar performance with my low end pc,so the 25 fps I get is what I expected,but I can't even finish the game.Without putting in any spoilers...the guy I have to kill in one of the last missions keeps killing himself and stopping the mission.I looked it up on google and it seems to be hit or miss some people play the mission 30 times and never get it complete,some people get it on the first run.I gave up after the 10th run.

I am pretty sure this game is running so bad for everyone because it is running from within an emulator that starts up a command box before the game will run.Its probably the cheapest way to make the pc port work so that's what they did.

This is the only gta game that I ever came close to finishing.Some great stuff in there,but there are alot of mission bugs and stupid AI that runs in front of you while your shooting..runs right in to the middle of the enemy crossfire and gets themselves killed ect...
This sort of crap makes you re-do alot of missions that you should not have to do over because of bad AI or crashes or bugs ect..

Anyway I gave up and watched the last cut scenes on youtube.I don't expect them to fix it because It is so bad I don't think they can fix it .

 

[jacktesterson]

Its all good.

I wasn't trying to be smart, I'm just stating Rockstar might have some issues as they are indicating lower end machines can run this thing.... when it can't.

You need a Quad. Doesnt matter if your running a $75 vid card or $300, quad is all thats needed.

Luckily I returned the game. A first for me. It was unplayable... At 20 FPS it stuttered so much while driving it was annoying.


I know I only have a 5000+, but it does everything I do perfect except for this. Oh well!