GTA IV out

[AntisociaL]

Originally posted by: duragezic

Originally posted by: AntisociaL
I have been putting off upgrading my system for awhile because I can still play the new games I have bought this year at 1600x1200 with mid to high quality settings and 2-4xAA.

This game shames my system though, it limits me to 1024x768 and very low settings and still only averages 30 fps.

For reference to people with similar systems, Im playing with an X2 5600+ @3ghz ,8800gts 320mb, and 2gb ram.

Ordering up 2gb ram Monday, Doubt it will help any, but is has been so long since I have priced parts that I was not aware ram is so dirt cheap now.

I was about to go buy it then read this post and just about stopped. Then I thought about it, perhaps your 320MB VRAM is part of the limiting factors.

I ended up buying it. I luckily got the last copy at Target, it is nowhere in sight at Walmart or Circuit City and a CC guy told me it comes out next week 😕.I figure I enjoyed Crysis tons at 1024x768 with my old video card, so if I have to play this game at a less than ideal graphics until I upgrade, that is okay as long as the game is great.

So I'd be playing it now if it didn't require SP3! I never bothered to upgrade before. So I'm doing that now.

Yeah, it is the card's ram that limits the resolution but what sucks is that when I bump it down even further to 800x600, the in game benchmark still says my average fps is 30. But with that being said, I have played for few hours now and I really like it.

The only thing that bothers me is the way the camera swings out to a side view when you take a corner while driving. I have to constantly center the view with the mouse while turning because you can't see whats ahead of you.

 

[duragezic]

Well the default settings for me were 1680x1050 Medium (forgot) /High (render) with decent detail levels. That turned out to be too choppy so I dropped to Medium/Medium and pulled the sliders back a tad. It is still too slow overall IMO so I will drop it back so more. So it looks like the VRAM is pretty crucial.

Yeah that part with the camera is a little annoying. I think I'm going to use my 360 controller next time because I hear you can simply switch between it and keyboard + mouse at anytime. I'll use the controller for driving and the kb + mouse for shooting.

Overall, I am pretty satisfied. Mainly that I had a lot of fun for the past 1.5 hours playing it! I agree the whole Social Club and GFW requirements are a little annoying, I do not have the problems that people are saying. Because I didn't have XP SP3, GFW Live, and the Social Club, the install was a bit longer than usual. But really it was all pretty simple. As far as the game itself, it runs better than what I expected it to run given the comments. The DRM is well, no big deal. It activates in a few seconds and I'm set. I don't see where the problems with it are.

Still, hoping Rockstar supports this game decently with some patches.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: AntisociaL
The only thing that bothers me is the way the camera swings out to a side view when you take a corner while driving. I have to constantly center the view with the mouse while turning because you can't see whats ahead of you.

Instead of using the mouse, I found that tapping the "look behind" key to be MUCH better. When you press then let go of the "look behind" key, it centers the camera. So you just tap the key when you need the camera centered.

 

[Modelworks]

The thing that always gets me with programming, game programming in particular is when game companies blame the hardware . Like saying you need a faster cpu, faster video card, more ram, to be able to play the game. Could it be that they need BETTER programmers ? Bad programming is becoming more and more rampant. Developers have more resources to play with than ever before and they can code sloppy because of it. We sometimes assume that a game is slow because of the hardware because we think that the programmers have done everything possible to make the game as best as humanly possible. That just isn't so. Programming is an art, and some programmers are not up to the task.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
The thing that always gets me with programming, game programming in particular is when game companies blame the hardware . Like saying you need a faster cpu, faster video card, more ram, to be able to play the game. Could it be that they need BETTER programmers ? Bad programming is becoming more and more rampant. Developers have more resources to play with than ever before and they can code sloppy because of it. We sometimes assume that a game is slow because of the hardware because we think that the programmers have done everything possible to make the game as best as humanly possible. That just isn't so. Programming is an art, and some programmers are not up to the task.

It goes both ways though, the current trend for games is that the most demanding titles on the PC are console ports. These devs are working with dedicated hardware and it shows, as they run great on consoles, but horribly on low to mid-range PCs.

Personally I appreciate how these new titles are stressing PCs and using all available resources, but more than anything, I'm glad devs and publishers even bother porting them to the PC to begin with.

For those having lots of problems, especially with super low-end CPUs:
GTA4 - The Most CPU-Bottlenecked Game To-Date
It doesn't just end there, this game apparently will take advantage of all those halo hardware buffers you thought you wouldn't need for 2 years (VRAM, system RAM, extra CPU cores etc).

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: chizow


For those having lots of problems, especially with super low-end CPUs:
GTA4 - The Most CPU-Bottlenecked Game To-Date
It doesn't just end there, this game apparently will take advantage of all those halo hardware buffers you thought you wouldn't need for 2 years (VRAM, system RAM, extra CPU cores etc).

That is part of the problem. They don't know how to code for the pc.
There is no way that the cpu requirements can be so high on a pc compared to the xbox 360 cpu . When a console game runs poorly on a modern pc, there is something wrong. You have far more cpu, gpu, memory than a console.

There is no way it takes a 4Ghz dual core to match the cpu of a 360.
That isn't taking advantage of resources, that is using them up wastefully.

I could understand if the game was doing something majorly different from the console, but it isn't. It is the same game. To say that it takes a quad core to run it is a joke.

What is happening more and more in the pc industry is companies like rockstar using the excuse of "you need more hardware". It isn't we need more hardware. It is they need better programmers. They can't get the game to run right at a certain clock speed, so they take the easy path and just get a faster cpu. In the console world they can't do that so they have to make it work. As a result pc games are getting a bad rap.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
That is part of the problem. They don't know how to code for the pc.
There is no way that the cpu requirements can be so high on a pc compared to the xbox 360 cpu . When a console game runs poorly on a modern pc, there is something wrong. You have far more cpu, gpu, memory than a console.

Its not that they don't know how to code for the pc, they're just not going to dedicate the resources to recode the game just for the pc. I'd much rather devs code for the high-end and port to the PC instead of code for the lowest common denominator as they typically do now.

Comparing the paper specs of a console to those of a high-end PC doesn't make sense as dedicate hardware found on a console is always going to be more efficient and focused than the general purpose hardware found in a PC. This is how its been for as long as the debate has been waged. There's certain things specialized processors excel in compared to desktop CPUs, most notably the recent breakthroughs with GPGPUs and FLOPs.

The difference is even more pronounced with the current crop of consoles. This generation was designed from the ground-up to handle multi-threading well (Cell has 8 "cores" and 360 has 3 CPUs). Efficient RISC processors have always had the edge over general purpose PC CPUs in real-world gaming despite being inferior on paper. Its also no coincidence that console to PC ports typically make the best use of multi-cores as they are heavily threaded.

There is no way it takes a 4Ghz dual core to match the cpu of a 360.
That isn't taking advantage of resources, that is using them up wastefully.

Again, not sure how you come to this conclusion. I believe the 360 has 3 cores at 3GHz so in terms of raw frequency and number of cores its very comparable. And that's before considering any architectural advantages.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Just an FYI for everyone... You have to own the game in order to even save. You have to also have the internet. They make you login into their LIVE service and then you save through that. It's very stupid.

technically not true... only people who can't read directions can't save... 😀

the game plays great on my dual core amd 64x2 4400+ 2.3 ghz, with 4 gb on vista ultimate.
i have a geforce 8800 GT. too bad there isn't a hot coffee mod on this one... you can bang 5 different gfs right?

my friend loaned me his copy until he can get a better graphics card, it doesn't even get to the first cut scene for him.

if the game works for you, you'd have fun. i just beat the first 'street race' mission after 6-7 retries. and i'm doing 'lisabeth's "hospital" mission... sadly, the game crashed on me after i escaped.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: chizow

Comparing the paper specs of a console to those of a high-end PC doesn't make sense as dedicate hardware found on a console is always going to be more efficient and focused than the general purpose hardware found in a PC. This is how its been for as long as the debate has been waged. There's certain things specialized processors excel in compared to desktop CPUs, most notably the recent breakthroughs with GPGPUs and FLOPs.

Sure it does when you are comparing a game that is running on both.
Consoles always follow the cycle of advanced and then obsolete in comparison to pc hardware. The 360 is several years old now, the hardware is dated. None of the recent breakthroughs are in it.

The difference is even more pronounced with the current crop of consoles. This generation was designed from the ground-up to handle multi-threading well (Cell has 8 "cores" and 360 has 3 CPUs). Efficient RISC processors have always had the edge over general purpose PC CPUs in real-world gaming despite being inferior on paper.
Its also no coincidence that console to PC ports typically make the best use of multi-cores as they are heavily threaded.

It is sloppy coding. Anyone who ports code from the console to pc and assigns the same task that were used on the console to cores on the pc is being lazy.

I have a different point of view from most pc gamers because I have used the development kits for 360 and wii first hand and I talk to devs a lot. While the consoles had the hardware advantage when they were released, they don't have that anymore with current pc hardware. One of the reasons I am back on the pc side of things doing work for developers is because I see the potential and don't like the console limitations.

That is always the way it is with consoles. They are state of the art when its released, but quickly become outdated with the pc.

When I see games like GTAIV performing poorly I look at things like, how much texture usage is there really required, how much are they using for the AI, where is the bulk of the cpu cycles being spent, are they culling efficiently, etc.

My issue isn't with ports in general. It is with companies like Rockstar that blame the hardware when their title doesn't perform like it should. It is like me putting a regular driver in a indy race car then blaming the car when they lose the race.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Modelworks
That is part of the problem. They don't know how to code for the pc.
There is no way that the cpu requirements can be so high on a pc compared to the xbox 360 cpu . When a console game runs poorly on a modern pc, there is something wrong. You have far more cpu, gpu, memory than a console.

Its not that they don't know how to code for the pc, they're just not going to dedicate the resources to recode the game just for the pc. I'd much rather devs code for the high-end and port to the PC instead of code for the lowest common denominator as they typically do now.

Comparing the paper specs of a console to those of a high-end PC doesn't make sense as dedicate hardware found on a console is always going to be more efficient and focused than the general purpose hardware found in a PC. This is how its been for as long as the debate has been waged. There's certain things specialized processors excel in compared to desktop CPUs, most notably the recent breakthroughs with GPGPUs and FLOPs.

The difference is even more pronounced with the current crop of consoles. This generation was designed from the ground-up to handle multi-threading well (Cell has 8 "cores" and 360 has 3 CPUs). Efficient RISC processors have always had the edge over general purpose PC CPUs in real-world gaming despite being inferior on paper. Its also no coincidence that console to PC ports typically make the best use of multi-cores as they are heavily threaded.

There is no way it takes a 4Ghz dual core to match the cpu of a 360.
That isn't taking advantage of resources, that is using them up wastefully.

Again, not sure how you come to this conclusion. I believe the 360 has 3 cores at 3GHz so in terms of raw frequency and number of cores its very comparable. And that's before considering any architectural advantages.

Well said.

 

[quadomatic]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: chizow

Comparing the paper specs of a console to those of a high-end PC doesn't make sense as dedicate hardware found on a console is always going to be more efficient and focused than the general purpose hardware found in a PC. This is how its been for as long as the debate has been waged. There's certain things specialized processors excel in compared to desktop CPUs, most notably the recent breakthroughs with GPGPUs and FLOPs.

Sure it does when you are comparing a game that is running on both.
Consoles always follow the cycle of advanced and then obsolete in comparison to pc hardware. The 360 is several years old now, the hardware is dated. None of the recent breakthroughs are in it.

The difference is even more pronounced with the current crop of consoles. This generation was designed from the ground-up to handle multi-threading well (Cell has 8 "cores" and 360 has 3 CPUs). Efficient RISC processors have always had the edge over general purpose PC CPUs in real-world gaming despite being inferior on paper.
Its also no coincidence that console to PC ports typically make the best use of multi-cores as they are heavily threaded.

It is sloppy coding. Anyone who ports code from the console to pc and assigns the same task that were used on the console to cores on the pc is being lazy.

I have a different point of view from most pc gamers because I have used the development kits for 360 and wii first hand and I talk to devs a lot. While the consoles had the hardware advantage when they were released, they don't have that anymore with current pc hardware. One of the reasons I am back on the pc side of things doing work for developers is because I see the potential and don't like the console limitations.

That is always the way it is with consoles. They are state of the art when its released, but quickly become outdated with the pc.

When I see games like GTAIV performing poorly I look at things like, how much texture usage is there really required, how much are they using for the AI, where is the bulk of the cpu cycles being spent, are they culling efficiently, etc.

My issue isn't with ports in general. It is with companies like Rockstar that blame the hardware when their title doesn't perform like it should. It is like me putting a regular driver in a indy race car then blaming the car when they lose the race.

+100000000000

Probably should've given you props for that earlier, since I read it a while ago, but I wasn't sure how to respond. Either way, best way I've heard that explained so far.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
There is no way it takes a 4Ghz dual core to match the cpu of a 360.

I take it you haven't played much of the game on the 360? I've played it a lot, and my e8500@3.8GHz runs it notably better.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It has gotten so bad that steam is offering refunds.
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/n...layer-Process-Revealed

what a disaster...

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It is sloppy coding. Anyone who ports code from the console to pc and assigns the same task that were used on the console to cores on the pc is being lazy.

Lazy? Or trying to meet a deadline?
There is a difference. 😉

 

[bamacre]

It was delayed for a little while.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It is sloppy coding. Anyone who ports code from the console to pc and assigns the same task that were used on the console to cores on the pc is being lazy.

Lazy? Or trying to meet a deadline?
There is a difference. 😉

It spreads evenly across quads, so what Modelworks suggested obviously isn't the issue anyway. The benchmarks look to be system bus limited on quad cores, hence being CPU limited even though CPU useage isn't maxed out.

 

[footballrunner800]

Just a quick tip.. Turn off the clip capture feature and the game will run much smoother.

 

[Pepsei]

wow, what a twist!!! just met FIB for the first time.... damn.... aside from crash to desktop once in awhile.... and slow down during rain, the game runs fine enough that i'm enjoying the story and everything else the game has to offer.

 

[exar333]

Running on 1920x1200 here with max details; running smooth. The game look's pretty decent, but it definitely isn't on-par with Crysis or even FC2. Look's good though and runs smooth. Fun so far.

 

[cyclohexane]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Running on 1920x1200 here with max details; running smooth. The game look's pretty decent, but it definitely isn't on-par with Crysis or even FC2. Look's good though and runs smooth. Fun so far.

ahh...I see you've got an i7 with 6gigs of ram.

 

[Dorkenstein]

Is this worth buying for PC in the expectation that eventually patches/mods will make it better, or should I go for the 360 version?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dorkenstein
Is this worth buying for PC in the expectation that eventually patches/mods will make it better, or should I go for the 360 version?

Depends on your computer's spec's.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Dorkenstein
Is this worth buying for PC in the expectation that eventually patches/mods will make it better, or should I go for the 360 version?

I would wait.
The game is only going to get cheaper. You win both ways. You get the game for cheap and can download the patches immediately.

 

[fustercluck]

Yeah I'd wait on buying it for a while. Though if you really want to play it the first patch should be out by the end of tomorrow. The patch is getting approved my microsoft or some junk :x - Was hoping it'd be out today.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: wankawitz
Though if you really want to play it the first patch should be out by the end of tomorrow.

Where did you hear this?