GTA4

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
GTA4 is quite possibly the worst-coded port ever. My machine:

Athlon 64 3700+ (yes, single core)
2gb RAM
8800GT 512mb OC

My machine runs Crysis pretty well on medium-high settings, and Call of Duty 4 plays smoothly at max. Dead Space also plays smoothly at max. GTA4 stutters like a retarded kid doing public speaking, and it doesn't even look THAT good.

Edit: Saying "your computer doesn't meet the recommended specs" isn't an excuse. NO OTHER GAME uses resources in such a half-assed way. It's the developer's responsibility to make sure the game runs as well, or better, than other games on the market on common hardware.

We all know it's a crappy port but you either need a super high clocked dual or a quad with a lot of VRAM and more than 2GB system RAM. From the reviews I've seen an 9800GT all the way up to a GTX280 doesn't provide a huge difference in performance. It's more about the CPU since there's so much stuff going on.

 

[Billyzeke]

Originally posted by: Canai
GTA4 is shit. Utter shit. I get the magical striped shadows on everything, tried ALL the fixes, reinstalling, drivers, etc... and still looks like shit. No AA. And on top of that if I alt-tab for any reason in multiplayer, I get kicked since my computer is obviously too 'slow' to run the game :roll:

Last time I listen to my friend's game recommendations.

edit:

Originally posted by: Billyzeke
GTA4 is a great game that runs very smoothly (especially since the second patch) if your machine meets the recommended specs. The PC version is far superior to the 360 version graphically if your machine is up to the task.

shens. 3.2GHz C2D, 4GB RAM (on 32bit XP, so not all used), 4870 and the game runs like crap and looks like crap.

Originally posted by: RallyMaster

Originally posted by: us3rnotfound
I got a huge performance boost going from an E8400 at 3 GHz to an Q6700 at 3 GHz. Yes, a quad helps, and the windows sidebar cpu meter showed all 4 cores maxing out while playing GTA4.

A quad does make a difference, at least in my fucking computer.

Roger this, bro.

Originally posted by: Sam25

Originally posted by: Billyzeke
GTA4 is a great game that runs very smoothly (especially since the second patch) if your machine meets the recommended specs. The PC version is far superior to the 360 version graphically if your machine is up to the task.

Then just why did people who's PC's have actually met the system requirements encountered problems in running it? A little explaination perhaps?

When was the last time a game ran smoothly on the "recommended" specifications? 2005? Ever since console ports came about, I've pretty much had to wait a generation for new hardware to run last year's games.

First of all I said Recommended Specs not minimum specs which is a Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz. For the guy who called shens, here is a benchmark from GTA4 on my computer which is not anything spectacular by any means: ASUS P5WDH deluxe with a Q6600 at stock speeds 2.4Ghz, 4GB Crucial Ballistix, 8800 GTS 512, and get an average of over 50 fps. I ran the game before with an E6600 OC'd at 3.0ghz and could only manage an average of around 32 fps with dips into the low 20's it was playable but not enjoyable. The quad makes a huge difference. I have overclocked the quad to 3.0ghz and got the fps into the low 60 fps, but I started having some stability issues in other programs so I went back to stock speeds. The in game benchmark with all the game recommended settings:


Statistics
Average FPS: 52.05
Duration: 37.02 sec
CPU Usage: 80%
System memory usage: 57%
Video memory usage: 99%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Video Driver version: 181.22
Audio Adapter: Speakers (2- Creative SB Audigy 2 ZS (WDM))
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli


I have read a lot of complaints about this game here and on other forums, but I have not had any issues with it and have thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Effing ridiculous, a dual core with a Radeon HD 2900 XT/GeForce 7800GTX (isn't that what the XBOX360/PS3 is?) should be able to play this game just peachy at 720p, and ANY newer system shouldn't struggle. Horrible, horrible port on Rockstar's part. Sounds like the most horrible port since Halo PC, which was originally written for a GeForce3 and freakin' 733 MHz Celeron, in DirectX FFS, and sucked hard on my GeForce 5700/Athlon XP 2500+.

 

[Ichigo]

Well, I've yet to see anyone with a Quad/Tri-core complain, so...

 

[Eric62]

Mine plays fine 99% of the time. I get very minor artifacting once in a great while.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
GTA4 is quite possibly the worst-coded port ever. My machine:

Athlon 64 3700+ (yes, single core)
2gb RAM
8800GT 512mb OC

My machine runs Crysis pretty well on medium-high settings, and Call of Duty 4 plays smoothly at max. Dead Space also plays smoothly at max. GTA4 stutters like a retarded kid doing public speaking, and it doesn't even look THAT good.

Edit: Saying "your computer doesn't meet the recommended specs" isn't an excuse. NO OTHER GAME uses resources in such a half-assed way. It's the developer's responsibility to make sure the game runs as well, or better, than other games on the market on common hardware.

a single core cpu? that doesnt even meet the minimum to run GTA 4 so of course it would run like super shit. that poor 8800gt just aint being utilized in most modern games. heck you would double your framerates in many newer games with a modern dual core cpu like an e8400.

 

[Darklife]

I think the problem with this game is that most of us(and rightly so) put emphasis on our graphics cards rather than the CPU. This would really be an expensive hobby should we have to buy both a powerful graphics card and a QX to go along with it.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
GTA4 is quite possibly the worst-coded port ever. My machine:

Athlon 64 3700+ (yes, single core)
2gb RAM
8800GT 512mb OC

My machine runs Crysis pretty well on medium-high settings, and Call of Duty 4 plays smoothly at max. Dead Space also plays smoothly at max. GTA4 stutters like a retarded kid doing public speaking, and it doesn't even look THAT good.

Edit: Saying "your computer doesn't meet the recommended specs" isn't an excuse. NO OTHER GAME uses resources in such a half-assed way. It's the developer's responsibility to make sure the game runs as well, or better, than other games on the market on common hardware.

a single core cpu? that doesnt even meet the minimum to run GTA 4 so of course it would run like super shit. that poor 8800gt just aint being utilized in most modern games. heck you would double your framerates in many newer games with a modern dual core cpu like an e8400.

Yep, I know. But I don't want to keep pouring money into this machine - it runs the games I like to play just fine. I'll probably just sell the thing once I get a laptop.

 

[Billyzeke]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Well, I've yet to see anyone with a Quad/Tri-core complain, so...

Exactly!

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
GTA4 is quite possibly the worst-coded port ever. My machine:

Athlon 64 3700+ (yes, single core)
2gb RAM
8800GT 512mb OC

My machine runs Crysis pretty well on medium-high settings, and Call of Duty 4 plays smoothly at max. Dead Space also plays smoothly at max. GTA4 stutters like a retarded kid doing public speaking, and it doesn't even look THAT good.

Edit: Saying "your computer doesn't meet the recommended specs" isn't an excuse. NO OTHER GAME uses resources in such a half-assed way. It's the developer's responsibility to make sure the game runs as well, or better, than other games on the market on common hardware.

a single core cpu? that doesnt even meet the minimum to run GTA 4 so of course it would run like super shit. that poor 8800gt just aint being utilized in most modern games. heck you would double your framerates in many newer games with a modern dual core cpu like an e8400.

us3rnotfound has a 8800GT and a Q6700 at 333x9 that runs GTAIV at 60 fps at 1280x1024. It was about 37 with plenty of stuttering when he had a E8400. You folks need to realize that there is more to this game than meets the eye. It might not look like much but there's a ton more going on in this game than most people are willing to give it credit for.

Originally posted by: Billyzeke

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Well, I've yet to see anyone with a Quad/Tri-core complain, so...

Exactly!

Fact.

 

[cbuchach]

I run the game on a Q6600 at 3.3GHz with and 8800GTS 512. I think a quad core with 4GB RAM is the key as when I exit the game it and look at the CPU graph in the sidebar, it definately makes uses of all four cores.

I really have enjoyed the game (but just closed it as I was getting pissed a one of the motorcycle missions. The motorcycles handle for crap, the motorcylces were a lot of fun to drive in San Andreas but are not the same in GTAIV).

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Effing ridiculous, a dual core with a Radeon HD 2900 XT/GeForce 7800GTX (isn't that what the XBOX360/PS3 is?) should be able to play this game just peachy at 720p, and ANY newer system shouldn't struggle. Horrible, horrible port on Rockstar's part. Sounds like the most horrible port since Halo PC, which was originally written for a GeForce3 and freakin' 733 MHz Celeron, in DirectX FFS, and sucked hard on my GeForce 5700/Athlon XP 2500+.

No xbox is a 3.2ghz triple core and ps3 is a 7 processing core technically.

 

[TidusZ]

It runs like butter on my machine, I'm still not gonna defend the programming. It was a shitty port and should run a lot better for what it is. It ran fine on my PS3 so it should run great on my old c2d machine.

As for people defending the game saying theres a lot more going on and being processed than you see, its true. You don't get to see the unoptimized console coding figuring out wtf to do on a pc. Theres a lot going on there it's just not good.

 

[Shadow Conception]

Is this game very dependent on the video card as well? Would I be able to run it smoothly with a Q6700 paired with 4GB RAM and a 256MB Radeon X1950GT?

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
Is this game very dependent on the video card as well? Would I be able to run it smoothly with a Q6700 paired with 4GB RAM and a 256MB Radeon X1950GT?

It is. If you want it to run smoothly with that Q6700, you might want to look into a GTX260 or so. This game is heavily NVIDIA optimized, BTW.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
Is this game very dependent on the video card as well? Would I be able to run it smoothly with a Q6700 paired with 4GB RAM and a 256MB Radeon X1950GT?

It'll run on your x1950gt.

While the game is sort of demanding on a video card, it really just uses a ton of VRAM. If you have 512mb of vram, it should play pretty well.

Don't expect to max out the video settings. You will probably get a better experience than a console though.

 

[Darklife]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
Is this game very dependent on the video card as well? Would I be able to run it smoothly with a Q6700 paired with 4GB RAM and a 256MB Radeon X1950GT?

It is. If you want it to run smoothly with that Q6700, you might want to look into a GTX260 or so. This game is heavily NVIDIA optimized, BTW.

Wha? There's practically no difference between a 9800 GTX and a 280 GTX. The only important factor is that you have 1GB of RAM, that's all. The game is heavily CPU dependant and that makes or brakes the experience for you.

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: Darklife

Originally posted by: RallyMaster

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
Is this game very dependent on the video card as well? Would I be able to run it smoothly with a Q6700 paired with 4GB RAM and a 256MB Radeon X1950GT?

It is. If you want it to run smoothly with that Q6700, you might want to look into a GTX260 or so. This game is heavily NVIDIA optimized, BTW.

Wha? There's practically no difference between a 9800 GTX and a 280 GTX. The only important factor is that you have 1GB of RAM, that's all. The game is heavily CPU dependant and that makes or brakes the experience for you.

Was that experience from a system with a quad or a dual?

 

[Darklife]

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...graphics-cards/?page=2

BAM!

 

[chizow]

As has already been mentioned numerous times, GTA 4 is much more CPU intensive than any other game before it:

GTA 4 with 13 CPUs compared
GTA 4 Core i7 comparisons

What's funny is how people complain there aren't any games that make good use of multi-cores or multi-threads, then once one comes out, everyone who doesn't have the necessary hardware bitches and moans because the game runs like shit on their PC. Minimum and Rec'd specs have typically still understated actual hardware requirements, so the people bitching that don't even meet the minimum really need to stop being the weakest link and upgrade their hardware or gtfo.

Its always going to be that group of hardware minimalists holding back the development of games as devs need to balance performance and hardware. In the case of console to PC ports, the developers are clearly leveraging the strength of consoles to maximize visuals and performance by making full use of their highly parallel RISC CPUs and make up for their disadvantages elsewhere (GPU, cache, system RAM). I'm not complaining of course, as many PC titles going forward are going to be console ports that will look and run better on the PC with the necessary hardware.

People trying to compare the PC to consoles and complaining, you really can't, as the PC version is superior in every way, even on sub-par hardware. If you want to make a more accurate comparison, run at 1280x720 (max resolution supported by the 360), turn view distance, detail distance, car density and shadow density to the absolute minimum settings. You can even leave texture detail, render quality, shadow quality and water quality higher if you have a decent GPU (DX10 or better) as the game isn't GPU limited before its CPU limited. Guaranteed you will get higher than 30FPS on a decent dual core CPU and it will still look and run much better than any of the console versions.

GTA 4 Console vs. PC Image Quality Comparison

Also, FSAA does not work for those wondering, maybe if there's ever a DX10 version released. The game uses deferred rendering and shading along with heavy alpha to coverage sampling for transparencies. The Smooth Shadows tweak I linked earlier actually looks like it increases the level of Alpha Blending, which essentially smooths edges and decreases aliasing on alpha textures, which isn't bad given traditional MSAA and TrAA methods don't work.

Smooth Shadows Off
Smooth Shadows On

Notice the big difference in the trees, fences and shadows. There's also some light edge smoothing throughout the scene.

 

[Dkcode]

Quote from the image comparison:

"PCGH compares screenshots of the PC version ? published by Rockstar Games ? with official screenshots of the console version. Most interesting: Are the texture on the PC really that much better?"

Its not the textures that make the PC versions look better than consoles, its the higher quality filtering, AA modes, AA transparency and higher resolutions. They are looking at at this the wrong way.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Dkcode
Quote from the image comparison:

"PCGH compares screenshots of the PC version ? published by Rockstar Games ? with official screenshots of the console version. Most interesting: Are the texture on the PC really that much better?"

Its not the textures that make the PC versions look better than consoles, its the higher quality filtering, AA modes, AA transparency and higher resolutions. They are looking at at this the wrong way.

Again, GTA4 does not support traditional FSAA, so there's no advantage there. Textures on the PC are also visibly better, which is reinforced by the fact the PC version comes on 2 DVDs with an install folder of 15GB. That's more than what can be fit on a DL-DVD, so its definitely superior to the 360 version. Not sure how much of the 25 or 50GB is used on the PS3 version, but judging from the visuals, the texture quality is closer to the 360 than the PC.

As for filtering, we're talking GF7 and R580-600 class GPUs here on the consoles, so while current GPUs on the PC are certainly superior in quality and performance, its not that big of a leap. Running at much lower resolutions certainly compensates for the lack of raw rendering performance on the consoles. Also, console GPUs are capable of the same post-processing and filtering techniques, the PC version with newer hardware just performs them faster while looking better.

 

[Dkcode]

I am speaking as a whole, not just GTAIV. My friend could not tell the difference on my monitor running FEAR on 360, and PC at the same resolution. Despite textures and lighting, the PC whipped the 360 on texture filtering quality and colour saturation (digital video link would have helped over the 360 component i imagine).

The PC rendering is much clearer, although having a decent monitor backed by a higher resolution helps.

I must admit the texture filtering on PS3 is pretty good, very comparable to the GF7 at high quality (RSX is based on the same tech).

Texture filtering on 360 is shocking though, textures on the group look blurry and aliased and i am not just talking about one game here.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I'm thinking about buying it. You guys think my pc would have a hard time playing it?

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
I'm thinking about buying it. You guys think my pc would have a hard time playing it?

You should be able to run it at decent settings. Your quad helps out a lot. You won't be able to put textures to max cus that basically needs a videocard with 1GB ram.