GTA4

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: barfo
I remember the GTA3 port being crappy as well, and Vice City and San Andreas much better performance wise, perhaps the sequels with this same engine will be better optimized.
I'll try this game in a year, with a computer that can handle it properly without costing an arm and a leg.

Really? It ran very well on my parents' old P4 1.6GHz/Ti4200 machine.

 

[Barfo]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: barfo
I remember the GTA3 port being crappy as well, and Vice City and San Andreas much better performance wise, perhaps the sequels with this same engine will be better optimized.
I'll try this game in a year, with a computer that can handle it properly without costing an arm and a leg.

Really? It ran very well on my parents' old P4 1.6GHz/Ti4200 machine.

I had a P3 Coppermine @ 1GHZ and a Voodoo 5500 when it came out and it made me weep, when I searched the web for a fix people with earth shattering systems were complaining about the bad port.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: barfo

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: barfo
I remember the GTA3 port being crappy as well, and Vice City and San Andreas much better performance wise, perhaps the sequels with this same engine will be better optimized.
I'll try this game in a year, with a computer that can handle it properly without costing an arm and a leg.

Really? It ran very well on my parents' old P4 1.6GHz/Ti4200 machine.

I had a P3 Coppermine @ 1GHZ and a Voodoo 5500 when it came out and it made me weep, when I searched the web for a fix people with earth shattering systems were complaining about the bad port.

Yep they don't have a good track record.

 

[RallyMaster]

Originally posted by: Madaz
I was once again looking at the packaging for this game and i was fairly pissed to see that if i was to just follow the recomended settings for this game as they are written on the box i would wrongly believe that my computer could handle this game quite well.

What Gives. Why do manufacturors do this. It makes me pissy and also gives me a glimmer of hope that im sure is false as all of you have had a shitty time with it.

You don't have a quad. That's why you're pissed off. I have no issues with it on my C2Q build.

 

[chizow]

Rofl love seeing all the haters posting ignorantly about GTA 4 being a poorly optimized port. To simplify and consolize your PC experience:

1) Drop resolution to 1280x720
2) Turn everything down to the absolute minimum settings
3) Enjoy!

GTA4 will not only run better than the console (capped to 30FPS), but it will *still* look better.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: chizow
Rofl love seeing all the haters posting ignorantly about GTA 4 being a poorly optimized port. To simplify and consolize your PC experience:

1) Drop resolution to 1280x720
2) Turn everything down to the absolute minimum settings
3) Enjoy!

GTA4 will not only run better than the console (capped to 30FPS), but it will *still* look better.

2) It's been stated by the devs (I think) that the consoles use roughly 25 draw/12 detail distances (something around there).

Comparing console to PC, it could seem like an okay port. But I don't buy that, and I don't think PC gamers should be subjected to it. Compared to other recent games, it (a) doesn't look good and (b) doesn't run well... These two shouldn't come together. I don't buy the 'there's so much going on' argument, either, because ultimately to the user there isn't.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great game, and I'll play through it a second time soon... But don't give credit where it isn't due. The division responsible for porting the game hasn't lived up to the standards set by other developers.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
2) It's been stated by the devs (I think) that the consoles use roughly 25 draw/12 detail distances (something around there).

Comparing console to PC, it could seem like an okay port. But I don't buy that, and I don't think PC gamers should be subjected to it. Compared to other recent games, it (a) doesn't look good and (b) doesn't run well... These two shouldn't come together. I don't buy the 'there's so much going on' argument, either, because ultimately to the user there isn't.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great game, and I'll play through it a second time soon... But don't give credit where it isn't due. The division responsible for porting the game hasn't lived up to the standards set by other developers.

And the fact you and other PC gamers don't want to buy into it are part of what's holding PC development back as they need to keep the lowest common denominator happy. Console CPUs are highly parallel by design, that is not going to change. PC hardware and software producers know this is the future as well, but are having a harder time implementing the change effectively. Console games drive development now and they're not going to go back and make their multi-threaded games run better on less efficient hardware just for the PC. Even if they did, its completely unrealistic to expect both better visuals (similar to what you'd expect on the PC) and better performance.

 

[Madaz]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster

Originally posted by: Madaz
I was once again looking at the packaging for this game and i was fairly pissed to see that if i was to just follow the recomended settings for this game as they are written on the box i would wrongly believe that my computer could handle this game quite well.

What Gives. Why do manufacturors do this. It makes me pissy and also gives me a glimmer of hope that im sure is false as all of you have had a shitty time with it.

You don't have a quad. That's why you're pissed off. I have no issues with it on my C2Q build.

I'm not pissed that i dont have a quad. I bought a laptop a year ago in my price range that i could afford that coud do the things i wanted it to at the time, run pro e etc, and im quite happy with it, it runs kane and lynch and the club without any troubles.

Im pissed because the box doesnt tell me that i need a quad, that the box tells me that my system is more than capable of handling the requirements but in reality i might as well take my $100, yep here in aus thats how much we have to pay for games, and wipe my arse with it because it will be about the same level of enjoyment as i will get playing the game, and i save myself the time of defraging installing defraging patching the game defraging and then patching the wall because ive just punched a hole in it.

my system cant do something, its not the manufacturers fault, and all is cool, so long as the pricks tell me that i cant play it. but if they put false data on the box then im going to get shitty, because you cant return games.

 

[pcslookout]

That is why GTA4 and all pc games need a demo!

 

[AzN]

I don't know why people keep saying GTA4 is bad port. The game is multiple core hungry. Xbox 360 has 3 cores and ps3 has 8 cores so it runs a bit better than guys with dual core computers. Dual core does not cut it with this game and is bare minimum you can play this game on. People with quads or triple cores do not complain. It's the guys with low end dual cores or single core owners.

I have a core 2 duo @ 3.36ghz. For the most part it runs fine averaging 30-35fps in actual game play. There are at times it does dip into mid teens other wise it runs fine.

 

[Darklife]

The consoles run this game fine because THEY run it on the bare minimum settings. At 1280x720, no dynamic shadows, minimal view distance and low textures its not a hard thing to do.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
2) It's been stated by the devs (I think) that the consoles use roughly 25 draw/12 detail distances (something around there).

Comparing console to PC, it could seem like an okay port. But I don't buy that, and I don't think PC gamers should be subjected to it. Compared to other recent games, it (a) doesn't look good and (b) doesn't run well... These two shouldn't come together. I don't buy the 'there's so much going on' argument, either, because ultimately to the user there isn't.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great game, and I'll play through it a second time soon... But don't give credit where it isn't due. The division responsible for porting the game hasn't lived up to the standards set by other developers.

And the fact you and other PC gamers don't want to buy into it are part of what's holding PC development back as they need to keep the lowest common denominator happy. Console CPUs are highly parallel by design, that is not going to change. PC hardware and software producers know this is the future as well, but are having a harder time implementing the change effectively. Console games drive development now and they're not going to go back and make their multi-threaded games run better on less efficient hardware just for the PC. Even if they did, its completely unrealistic to expect both better visuals (similar to what you'd expect on the PC) and better performance.

I would never expect both, but I would hope that give even other recent ports, the performance GTA4 offers shouldn't be expected of future games.
Without locking my page file, the game starts stuttering - making the game completely unplayable - after about 30-45 minutes. It doesn't matter what I do with any of my detail settings... This would always happen. It ends up taking somewhere around 2.5GB in page file and 1.5GB in system memory (which I admittedly need more of). I'd have been happy if, out of the box, I could run the game at 25fps or so, but somehow, with only a dual core CPU and 2GB of memory, that wasn't to be.
Parallel computing is the future, but I would hope that this doesn't mean releases like this, where if you don't have a quad core and 4GB your performance suffers to such an extreme, don't become the norm.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Azn
I don't know why people keep saying GTA4 is bad port. The game is multiple core hungry. Xbox 360 has 3 cores and ps3 has 8 cores so it runs a bit better than guys with dual core computers. Dual core does not cut it with this game and is bare minimum you can play this game on. People with quads or triple cores do not complain. It's the guys with low end dual cores or single core owners.

I have a core 2 duo @ 3.36ghz. For the most part it runs fine averaging 30-35fps in actual game play. There are at times it does dip into mid teens other wise it runs fine.

When did this new 8 Core PS3 Come out?

Originally posted by: Darklife
The consoles run this game fine because THEY run it on the bare minimum settings. At 1280x720, no dynamic shadows, minimal view distance and low textures its not a hard thing to do.

link for that? I don't remember it having minimal view distance.

 

[Darklife]

linky

Here is an interesting README i found on R* website, looks like performance problems might be "intentional" THE GRAPHIC SETTINGS OF GRAND THEFT AUTO IV PC Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available. Graphics settings are limited by system resources by default. 256MB video cards force minimum settings by default. If a user bypasses these safety measures using command line arguments and exceeds their system resources, the users gaming experience may be compromised. Video Mode Resolution scaling effects water, reflections, shadows, mirrors and the visible viewable distance. The resolution settings relate to the amount of available video memory. At 2560*1600 the game will require 320MB of video memory in addition to all the memory required for content. At 800*600 the game will require 32MB of video memory in addition to the content. Medium resolution settings are recommended for most users as higher settings are only usable if there is available video memory. Texture Quality Texture quality affects the visual quality of the content of the game. High setting for textures will require 600MB of video memory at a setting of 21 View Distance in addition to the memory taken by the Video Mode. A medium texture setting is recommended for most users. Render Quality Render quality is the texture filter quality used on most things in the world rendering. Most people would know this as anisotropic filtering. Medium settings are recommended for most users and will provide filtering beyond what the console versions can execute. View Distance View distance scales the distance in which different objects in the world such as building and cars are seen. Raising this option increases the distance in which high quality objects must be loaded and will increase the memory it requires. Restrictions are established to ensure the game runs optimally for most users. A setting of 22 or more will provide PC users an enhanced experience over the console versions. Detail Distance Detail distance scales aspects of the environment that the View Distance setting does not including vegetation, trash and other moveable objects. A setting of 10 would be the equivalent to the performance on a console. This setting has little effect on memory. Vehicle Density Vehicle density scales the traffic density of the traffic in the game. It has no effect on the mission vehicles or difficultly of the game, but can have a significant impact on CPU performance Shadow Density Shadow Density controls the number of shadows generated for positional lights in exterior environments. These shadows are exclusive to the PC version and can have a major impact on CPU and GPU performance. Crossfire/SLI With the latest ATI driver (8-11 series) the game supports crossfire modes (ie. 4870x2) SLI is currently unsupported. Support will be added through a future game patch as well as an updated Nvidia driver. NOTE: Background Processes Certain background processes can have a detrimental effect on system performance when playing GTA IV, especially on systems with minimum required system memory. Users should ensure they disable their Virus scans when running the game to maximize performance.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Jules

Originally posted by: Azn
I don't know why people keep saying GTA4 is bad port. The game is multiple core hungry. Xbox 360 has 3 cores and ps3 has 8 cores so it runs a bit better than guys with dual core computers. Dual core does not cut it with this game and is bare minimum you can play this game on. People with quads or triple cores do not complain. It's the guys with low end dual cores or single core owners.

I have a core 2 duo @ 3.36ghz. For the most part it runs fine averaging 30-35fps in actual game play. There are at times it does dip into mid teens other wise it runs fine.

When did this new 8 Core PS3 Come out?

Since ps3 launch. You do know cell has 8 cores right?

 

[Barfo]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Jules

Originally posted by: Azn
I don't know why people keep saying GTA4 is bad port. The game is multiple core hungry. Xbox 360 has 3 cores and ps3 has 8 cores so it runs a bit better than guys with dual core computers. Dual core does not cut it with this game and is bare minimum you can play this game on. People with quads or triple cores do not complain. It's the guys with low end dual cores or single core owners.

I have a core 2 duo @ 3.36ghz. For the most part it runs fine averaging 30-35fps in actual game play. There are at times it does dip into mid teens other wise it runs fine.

When did this new 8 Core PS3 Come out?

Since ps3 launch. You do know cell has 8 cores right?

He probably means that PS3's SPEs are not full fledged cores like the ones found in computers.

 

[chizow]

Cell has 8 cores but 1 or 2 of them are disabled from harvesting/yields. Also, thanks for the links Darklife, helps quantify the inferior settings on the console.

 

[Darklife]

It helps me pretend my computer isn't already becoming outdated. :laugh:

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: Jules

Originally posted by: Azn
I don't know why people keep saying GTA4 is bad port. The game is multiple core hungry. Xbox 360 has 3 cores and ps3 has 8 cores so it runs a bit better than guys with dual core computers. Dual core does not cut it with this game and is bare minimum you can play this game on. People with quads or triple cores do not complain. It's the guys with low end dual cores or single core owners.

I have a core 2 duo @ 3.36ghz. For the most part it runs fine averaging 30-35fps in actual game play. There are at times it does dip into mid teens other wise it runs fine.

When did this new 8 Core PS3 Come out?

Since ps3 launch. You do know cell has 8 cores right?

PS3 has 8 SPEs with 1 disabled. not 8 cores.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Darklife
linky

Here is an interesting README i found on R* website, looks like performance problems might be "intentional" THE GRAPHIC SETTINGS OF GRAND THEFT AUTO IV PC Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available. Graphics settings are limited by system resources by default. 256MB video cards force minimum settings by default. If a user bypasses these safety measures using command line arguments and exceeds their system resources, the users gaming experience may be compromised. Video Mode Resolution scaling effects water, reflections, shadows, mirrors and the visible viewable distance. The resolution settings relate to the amount of available video memory. At 2560*1600 the game will require 320MB of video memory in addition to all the memory required for content. At 800*600 the game will require 32MB of video memory in addition to the content. Medium resolution settings are recommended for most users as higher settings are only usable if there is available video memory. Texture Quality Texture quality affects the visual quality of the content of the game. High setting for textures will require 600MB of video memory at a setting of 21 View Distance in addition to the memory taken by the Video Mode. A medium texture setting is recommended for most users. Render Quality Render quality is the texture filter quality used on most things in the world rendering. Most people would know this as anisotropic filtering. Medium settings are recommended for most users and will provide filtering beyond what the console versions can execute. View Distance View distance scales the distance in which different objects in the world such as building and cars are seen. Raising this option increases the distance in which high quality objects must be loaded and will increase the memory it requires. Restrictions are established to ensure the game runs optimally for most users. A setting of 22 or more will provide PC users an enhanced experience over the console versions. Detail Distance Detail distance scales aspects of the environment that the View Distance setting does not including vegetation, trash and other moveable objects. A setting of 10 would be the equivalent to the performance on a console. This setting has little effect on memory. Vehicle Density Vehicle density scales the traffic density of the traffic in the game. It has no effect on the mission vehicles or difficultly of the game, but can have a significant impact on CPU performance Shadow Density Shadow Density controls the number of shadows generated for positional lights in exterior environments. These shadows are exclusive to the PC version and can have a major impact on CPU and GPU performance. Crossfire/SLI With the latest ATI driver (8-11 series) the game supports crossfire modes (ie. 4870x2) SLI is currently unsupported. Support will be added through a future game patch as well as an updated Nvidia driver. NOTE: Background Processes Certain background processes can have a detrimental effect on system performance when playing GTA IV, especially on systems with minimum required system memory. Users should ensure they disable their Virus scans when running the game to maximize performance.

Thanks for the link :thumbsup:

 

[ComputerDude67]

My computer with a dual core runs just fine. I have almost everything maxed out. I don't have any graphical corruption. The game plays and looks great. One thing nobody has brought up is this game has 64bit executables so running it on a 64bit OS probably helps greatly. I know when they relased the 64bit patch for Crysis Warhead it made the game run much smoother. 64bit is where it is at. They now have 64bit executables for GTA4, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, HalfLife 2, Far Cry 2 and Far Cry (great game to play again in 64bit mode). I also checked GPU utilization while running GTA4 and the game never pegged my GPU like others. My CPU was pegged but no lag noticed. Running game at 1680*1050.

Another thing slightly off subject, Crysis Warhead uses the most RAM I have ever seen on a PC (with video games) and with 64bit version Vista 64bit has a memory load of 3.8GB of RAM - Love it as I have 8GB.

I hate the Windows Live Internet garbage.

PEACE!!

 

[jonks]

Finally got around to loading this sucker up, was hesitant with all the bad press on the port. Needless worrying, it's running fine on my single 8800gt, though I'll give SLI a try tonight even though I heard it will either have no effect or cause even worse performance.

 

[Billyzeke]

I just replaced my 8800 GTS 512 with a 285 GTX and it greatly increased the draw, detail, vehicle, and shadow levels. Textures also raised from medium to high. It definitely looks better. The frame rates have remained the same averaging around 50 fps.

The following is a benchmark using the games recommended settings with the 285:

Statistics
Average FPS: 51.32
Duration: 37.11 sec
CPU Usage: 79%
System memory usage: 58%
Video memory usage: 48%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: High
Reflection Resolution: High
Water Quality: Very High
Shadow Quality: High
View Distance: 32
Detail Distance: 70
Definition: Off
VSync: Off

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
Video Driver version: 182.08
Audio Adapter: Speakers (2- Creative SB Audigy 2 ZS (WDM))
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli

Previous benchmark with the 8800GTS:

Statistics
Average FPS: 49.42
Duration: 37.01 sec
CPU Usage: 80%
System memory usage: 66%
Video memory usage: 98%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
Reflection Resolution: High
Water Quality: Very High
Shadow Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37
Definition: Off
VSync: Off

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

 

[coloumb]

Patience finally paid off - saw this on sale for $39.00 at the local Fred Meyer's. With $10.00 coupon in hand - I walked out with what I thought was the right price for this game [under $30.00]. Upon loading the game - everything looked pretty damn cool simply because it was night time in Liberty City. Once the sun started shining in the sky - the game became a visual crapfest of annoying pixelated shadows, fuzzy textures from various buildings/objects, and random texture effects on various buildings. If I had one request for a patch - give me the option to not have daytime shadows in the game or freakin change the code used to display the shadows [ugliest implementation of shadows I've ever seen in a game]

I do believe one of the major bottlenecks of my system is the 8800GTS card - I opted to get the funky 320mb version due to budget limitations back in the day. I think maybe if I drop funds for a GTS250 1gb or 4870 1gb - the game *should* look visually better.... including the shdadows [sure - they'll still look like crap, but maybe they wont' be as crappy looking as they are now]

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: coloumb
Patience finally paid off - saw this on sale for $39.00 at the local Fred Meyer's. With $10.00 coupon in hand - I walked out with what I thought was the right price for this game [under $30.00]. Upon loading the game - everything looked pretty damn cool simply because it was night time in Liberty City. Once the sun started shining in the sky - the game became a visual crapfest of annoying pixelated shadows, fuzzy textures from various buildings/objects, and random texture effects on various buildings. If I had one request for a patch - give me the option to not have daytime shadows in the game or freakin change the code used to display the shadows [ugliest implementation of shadows I've ever seen in a game]

I do believe one of the major bottlenecks of my system is the 8800GTS card - I opted to get the funky 320mb version due to budget limitations back in the day. I think maybe if I drop funds for a GTS250 1gb or 4870 1gb - the game *should* look visually better.... including the shdadows [sure - they'll still look like crap, but maybe they wont' be as crappy looking as they are now]

A GTS250 isn't much of an upgrade from your card as it's just an overclocked version of your card and getting a new card won't automatically make the game look better but you'll be able to turn things up.