GTA V and "last gen cards" - not THAT bad as some claim.

[flexy]

I installed GTA V on my re-purposed (aka: give to wife...) spare PC which has a Q6600 and a GTX 660 TI.

Low and behold, I was actually surprised it run and actually LOOKED passable.

The only thing is that the old PC only had 4GB ram and there was constant pagefile access, but I think it should be playable with 8GB of memory, even on a GTX 660 TI.

 

[therealnickdanger]

I installed GTA V on my re-purposed (aka: give to wife...) spare PC which has a Q6600 and a GTX 660 TI.

Low and behold, I was actually surprised it run and actually LOOKED passable.

The only thing is that the old PC only had 4GB ram and there was constant pagefile access, but I think it should be playable with 8GB of memory, even on a GTX 660 TI.

A lot of system RAM and an SSD does wonders for playability across almost all games and hardware setups.

 

[Spjut]

I'm more impressed that the Q6600 still gets the job done:biggrin:

 

[.vodka]

A little overclock to 3 GHz on that Q6600 and it'll still do the job for some more years to come :biggrin:

What a CPU.

 

[BD231]

Saw someone playing it on a relatively modest laptop yesterday and it looked fine

Bravo rockstar.

 

[therealnickdanger]

A little overclock to 3 GHz on that Q6600 and it'll still do the job for some more years to come :biggrin:

What a CPU.

No kidding! It occurs to me that with the advent of DX12, older multi-core CPUs might become relevant again due to the more balanced API requirements. Has anyone tested the DX12 demos with older CPUs?

 

[SimianR]

It's mostly that Rockstar included lots of advanced options that you can really crank and people automatically assume that they should be able to max out all these options and still get 60fps. If you play with reasonable settings the game runs quite well and looks good. I personally think that turning down some of the options and turning up the MSAA to 8X makes a bigger difference, was still seeing lots of jaggies at 4X FSAA.

Video of a guy playing GTA V on "normal" quality settings on the integrated GPU on an A10 7850K:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9cPn-jDjd0

 

[TheELF]

Video of a guy playing GTA V on "normal" quality settings on the integrated GPU on an A10 7850K:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9cPn-jDjd0

I'll see your video and raise you one celeron + r7-240 with obs recording and no ghost-town settings.
But much smaller resolution, obviously,still GPU load is pretty low so higher res is possible.

 

[Gryz]

A friend of mine has a GTX660 and a i5-2500(@4Hz). He plays 1080p.

He tells me GTAV is running just fine on his machine. He has texture-resolution up, but uses only 2xTXAA (or FXAA, can't remember). Plus most eyecandy enabled. It's running 40-60fps for him. That sounds pretty good.

I got a i5-3570K and a gtx680. My GTAV should arrive tomorrow (it was sold out for a while, and I wanted a DVD-version). I expect GTAV is gonna run just fine on my "last gen card".

 

[nitromullet]

I think the fact that anyone is still interested in benchmarking Kepler this long after the launch of Maxwell is testament to the fact that until we get off of 28nm there aren't going to be an truly significant gains in graphics performance.

 

[Gryz]

I think the fact that anyone is still interested in benchmarking Kepler ....

No. The reason is much simpler. Before I spend money upgrading my hardware, I want to know how much bang I get for my buck. In other words: when I buy a new GPU, I want to know how much my fps will increase.

My gtx680 is doing fine in most games at 1080p. My rule of thumb is: I will only spend money upgrading my GPU if I get a guaranteed 100% increase of my fps (doubling). Right now the GTX980 is almost 2x as fast at the gtx680 but not just yet. The Titan X is 2x the speed of my gtx680. But I'm not so crazy to spend 1200 euros on a videocard. Maybe I'll buy a gtx980ti.

I think there are many more people in my situation. People with a gtx680, gtx670 or gtx660. Or older. Or an equivalent AMD card. Those videocards still run fine today. We want to know how the new cards compare to our current cards. Unfortunately many websites think that it suffices to only benchmark and compare the latest generation of videocards. But it's not.

 

[StinkyPinky]

A little overclock to 3 GHz on that Q6600 and it'll still do the job for some more years to come :biggrin:

What a CPU.

The best CPU of its decade IMO. Great CPU.

2500k was another great one.

 

[USER8000]

Its because hardware enthusiasts on forums tend to measurebate framerates when playing, and will just whack up every setting(even if it makes little to no actual discernable IQ difference),as they want to have any excuse to upgrade their computer components!

 

[Makaveli]

The best CPU of its decade IMO. Great CPU.

2500k was another great one.

Same with the i7 920 all of these cpu's overclocked can still hold their own today.

No. The reason is much simpler. Before I spend money upgrading my hardware, I want to know how much bang I get for my buck. In other words: when I buy a new GPU, I want to know how much my fps will increase.

My gtx680 is doing fine in most games at 1080p. My rule of thumb is: I will only spend money upgrading my GPU if I get a guaranteed 100% increase of my fps (doubling). Right now the GTX980 is almost 2x as fast at the gtx680 but not just yet. The Titan X is 2x the speed of my gtx680. But I'm not so crazy to spend 1200 euros on a videocard. Maybe I'll buy a gtx980ti.

I think there are many more people in my situation. People with a gtx680, gtx670 or gtx660. Or older. Or an equivalent AMD card. Those videocards still run fine today. We want to know how the new cards compare to our current cards. Unfortunately many websites think that it suffices to only benchmark and compare the latest generation of videocards. But it's not.

+1

I need to see a 60-100% increase in framerate for me to even consider another card.

 

[RussianSensation]

Same with the i7 920 all of these cpu's overclocked can still hold their own today.

Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz was one of my personal favourite CPUs to own but in hinsdight now I think i7 860 or i7 920/930 @ 3.9Ghz+ are more legendary. While Q6600 OC shows its age in many titles, those 1st generation near 4Ghz Nehalem/Lynnfield i7s are still nearly 80% as fast as the best i7 4790K @ 4.8Ghz for single GPU setups. That's insanely impressive for CPUs going back to Fall 2008/Summer 2009.

 

[iiiankiii]

Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz was one of my personal favourite CPUs to own but in hinsdight now I think i7 860 or i7 920/930 @ 3.9Ghz+ are more legendary. While Q6600 OC shows its age in many titles, those 1st generation near 4Ghz Nehalem/Lynnfield i7s are still nearly 80% as fast as the best i7 4790K @ 4.8Ghz for single GPU setups. That's insanely impressive for CPUs going back to Fall 2008/Summer 2009.

I agree. The 1st gen i Series were great. My old i5-750 @ 3.6ghz still runs game exremely well.

 

[loccothan]

A lot of system RAM and an SSD does wonders for playability across almost all games and hardware setups.

Yep SSD is Awesome

 

[Silverforce11]

I've noticed very few games show such a big difference between Sandy Bridge, IB & Haswell.. it just so happens GTA V is one of them, Haswell pulls ahead massively.

 

[guskline]

A programer told me years ago that software was @18 months behind hardware. I thought about that during the reading of this thread. Add in the explosion of console gaming vs pc gaming and in the gaming arena, the gap may be even larger.

It would be interesting to read what testbeds Rockstar used while developing the PC version of GTA V.

 

[Dribble]

tbh most people who really want to play a game don't care about "ultra quality" settings. They'll be quite happy on normal and average 40fps which isn't too hard to achieve. If you have better hardware high settings tend to look almost identical to ultra when playing (i.e. not comparing static screen shots).

The obsession with ultra settings seems to be for people who are more interested in graphics card hardware then actually playing games. [H] being the site that most caters to this obsession.

 

[guskline]

Good post Dribble. What I notice and like in GTA V is the ability to change so many graphic options and the estimator of the amount of VRAM at the top that changes as you change options. Nice touch.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Good post Dribble. What I notice and like in GTA V is the ability to change so many graphic options and the estimator of the amount of VRAM at the top that changes as you change options. Nice touch.

GTA IV has that as well and it's quite useful.

 

[rchunter]

I've noticed very few games show such a big difference between Sandy Bridge, IB & Haswell.. it just so happens GTA V is one of them, Haswell pulls ahead massively.

I thought gta 5 is one of the games that was supposed to do better with higher core count? I was reading that people with 6 & 8 core cpu's were playing it and it was showing activity on all cores. Is this right? I haven't played it yet, but I will eventually. I have a xeon x5660 @ 4.2.

 

[therealnickdanger]

I thought gta 5 is one of the games that was supposed to do better with higher core count? I was reading that people with 6 & 8 core cpu's were playing it and it was showing activity on all cores. Is this right? I haven't played it yet, but I will eventually. I have a xeon x5660 @ 4.2.

GTA V does have a very balanced engine - every part of your CPU will get exercise. It loves cores and speed.

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

 

[rchunter]

GTA V does have a very balanced engine - every part of your CPU will get exercise. It loves cores and speed.

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

Thanks. I'll definitely read that article you posted.