GTA IV PC Benchmarks

ManCannon said:
There's a large difference between having a slow CPU and having a CPU that's not top of the line.

Honestly, an X2 clocked at over 3 Ghz should have no trouble running a 360 port at console settings (without the AA of the console version to boot), not when it absolutely decimates every other 360 port out there. I don't understand how you can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

why? an x2 clocked to 3ghz and a 8800gt video card is just about the same as an xbox isnt it? then the port should actually run much slower on the pc, and it does. also, when you step up a notch on pc power, like a core2duo, you see the game runs 30fps+. even if the game is ported poorly, ive seen MUCH worse.
 
ManCannon said:
There's a large difference between having a slow CPU and having a CPU that's not top of the line.

Honestly, an X2 clocked at over 3 Ghz should have no trouble running a 360 port at console settings (without the AA of the console version to boot), not when it absolutely decimates every other 360 port out there. I don't understand how you can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

Well the MINIMUM spec is an Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz...
 
nissanztt90 said:
And thats not very far above minimum spec...
Click to expand...

And my entire point is that it should not be minimum specifications if the game were coded well.

Something I've been wondering about also, isn't the PS3's Cell CPU superior to the 360's tri-core Power-PC architecture? I know that's not always the case, but in a properly multi-threaded game isn't the Cell usually better? So, if this game is so heavily CPU bound, why does the 360 version run at a higher-res, with AA, and at a higher framerate than the PS3 version?
 
ManCannon said:
And my entire point is that it should not be minimum specifications if the game were coded well.

Something I've been wondering about also, isn't the PS3's Cell CPU superior to the 360's tri-core Power-PC architecture? I know that's not always the case, but in a properly multi-threaded game isn't the Cell usually better? So, if this game is so heavily CPU bound, why does the 360 version run at a higher-res, with AA, and at a higher framerate than the PS3 version?
Click to expand...

I don't remember the 360 version running with much, if any AA.

I owned the 360 version many months ago and still have the PS3 version. I don't know how much AA the 360 version uses, but it's not enough.
 
ManCannon said:
So, he's "pwning" all of us, yet you disagree with him and also believe it's a poorly coded game.

Okay :rolleyes:.



Well that's some major horse shit, because while the C2D's were better chips, the X2's aren't terrible by any means and with an X2 5000+ Black Edition clocked at 3.1 Ghz I can't get decent frames no matter the settings or resolution. It's not like I think my CPU is a monster or that my computer is top of the line, but I at least expected decent performance at console settings, especially considering the PC version can't even enable AA.

So basically the game just doesn't work on AMD Dual Core CPU's? If that's the case I don't see how anyone can call it anything but flat out broken.
Click to expand...

I understand what your trying to say, but god damm, if the game is that much of a problem, why sit here and cry about it? Sell the game and move on, im pretty sure you proved your point that its a broken port in your book, We get it, and like i said move on, You can spread the word about it, but 90% of us dont care. Many people know that this game is not fully optimized and they know the issues they might get if their buying this game.

Anyways, back to playing gta4

edit, before you go all crazy and start name calling and all this other childish things, i understand you have your right to be upset or be against the game for being badly optimized, but really? you knew buying this game it was gonna have bad/crappy performance.
 
Casper312 said:
I understand what your trying to say, but god damm, if the game is that much of a problem, why sit here and cry about it? Sell the game and move on, im pretty sure you proved your point that its a broken port in your book, We get it, and like i said move on, You can spread the word about it, but 90% of us dont care. Many people know that this game is not fully optimized and they know the issues they might get if their buying this game.

Anyways, back to playing gta4

edit, before you go all crazy and start name calling and all this other childish things, i understand you have your right to be upset or be against the game for being badly optimized, but really? you knew buying this game it was gonna have bad/crappy performance.
Click to expand...

Sir, nobody are whining for no apparant reason, if you don't like the discussion don't join in, a forum is all about discussions:). I mainly joined in to discuss with Frostex, he's fair in an analytical sense but it's weird how he's defending this release just because HIS computer went through the needle's eye, yet turning his blind eye to everyone else's experience and opinions, just because they don't provide sufficient amount of facts for their concerns, which is totally rediculous. I have to say though, all the bug-related issues aside, it's somehow a good idea that the game is running three threads to finally make good use of the quad processors, but it's too early for that choice of design. There's ALOT of people out there still on dual core, who's running everything else perfectly well, hell, alot of PC games still dont make use of dual cores. I think that's mainly what's bugging us. This whole multiple core processor thing that's emerged suddenly seems like another strategy to further rip off PC gamers. It's kind of a cold shower running everything well on your dual core and bam, GTA4 gives you 15fps on minimum. Rockstar would have been wise to design the game around 2 threads for maximum impact on the PC community, but obviously they don't care for us. That's all, goodday:)
 
hfk said:
Sir, nobody are whining for no apparant reason, if you don't like the discussion don't join in, a forum is all about discussions:). I mainly joined in to discuss with Frostex, he's fair in an analytical sense but it's weird how he's defending this release just because HIS computer went through the needle's eye, yet turning his blind eye to everyone else's experience and opinions, just because they don't provide sufficient amount of facts for their concerns, which is totally rediculous. I have to say though, all the bug-related issues aside, it's somehow a good idea that the game is running three threads to finally make good use of the quad processors, but it's too early for that choice of design. There's ALOT of people out there still on dual core, who's running everything else perfectly well, hell, alot of PC games still dont make use of dual cores. I think that's mainly what's bugging us. This whole multiple core processor thing that's emerged suddenly seems like another strategy to further rip off PC gamers. It's kind of a cold shower running everything well on your dual core and bam, GTA4 gives you 15fps on minimum. Rockstar would have been wise to design the game around 2 threads for maximum impact on the PC community, but obviously they don't care for us. That's all, goodday:)
Click to expand...

I understand what your trying to say, but the thread was originally meant for benchmarks and the last few pages has been nothing but crying about the game is very badly optimized and complaining on how it runs bad on the users hardware, Thats nice and all and everyone deserves their opinion, but really? seeing people post their results then ''OMG OMG BS BS SEE THIS IS BS MY COMP IS NOT SUPER BUT IT SHOULD PLAY IT'', is that really needed? im sure a well made out post saying and showing their experience with the game would be enough, Giving people a heads up if they have similar hardware.
 
KENNYB said:
I don't remember the 360 version running with much, if any AA.
Click to expand...

It has 2xAA. I think it's selective though, it might not be applied to all edges. Not sure.

Casper312 said:
before you go all crazy and start name calling and all this other childish things
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing much name calling in this thread :confused:.

Furthermore, if you haven't noticed, this thread turned into the defacto GTA IV PC thread a while ago. I don't think there's any need for their to be a "GTA IV benchmarks thread", a "GTA IV gameplay discussion thread", a "GTA IV bitching and moaning thread", and a "GTA IV screenshots thread". All of such discussion should be, and has been, contained in one thread.
 
Mine is running almost perfect now, at least a constant 30fps (which is very smooth with vsync on)!

1920x1200 with these settings

Looks really good too: http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/games/gta4/solidsettings/

The shadows is what I think drops the fps the most, from 1 to 0 is 7fps difference alone and the only visual difference I notice is that you have dynamic shadows from car headlights on people and objects at night. Characters still have their own shadows during daytime etc.
I like night time dynamic shadows so chose to keep it on 1 which I found to be a good compromise between visual quality and performance.

It's probably not worth having vehicle density much higher than shown because I found traffic builds up quickly and making a swift getaway in a pinch-situation is very hard because there's so many cars hogging the lanes! (this setting has little impact on FPS I found also, dual core users may find otherwise).

I just noticed the shadow dithering, IIRC As a recent article suggested it's probably because the shadows are directly ported from the console version which was designed for 720p so upscaled on PC at much sharper detail the dithering occurs - not a problem in motion as you won't notice it :)

Another thing I really like that I noticed tonight was that each pedestrian is unique. I stole a car and drove around the corner only for someone to shout out "HEY! BOBBY'S CAR!!" :D

I ALSO noticed :

- That car interior lights go on and off when the doors are opened :D
- That when you leave the car door open at night or with lights on the drivers side goes *BONG BONG BONG!* :D
- That you can baseball bat mailboxes and letters go flying everywhere :D
- That rusty manked up cars also have alarms, these alarms sound rusty and manky too!
- That you can KILL A MAN by merely throwing Ketchup tubes at him in the cafe!

The more I play the more neat little things I discover, things that each time you discover them begin to forget that there are graphical bugs and performance issues at higher slider settings and just appreciate a super fun game world!

Now I'm happy :)
 
next-Jin said:
So technically according to this a setup like this;

Q6600 @ 3.6 Ghz
Geforce 280GTX
4GB Ram
10,000 RPM HD

You should be able to run the game with max settings (minus shadows prolly) with a view density of 40-45 and traffic density of 30-35. I did some math because of the resolution memory requirements for a resolution at 1920x1080.

If anyone wants to take a better shot at it go for it :p

Also the 4870 series has had major issues with the game, the 280GTX seems to be fine.
Click to expand...

That's the idea. I get about 15 FPS with that hardware, though, so I don't know what the hell's going on.
 
ManCannon said:
Something I've been wondering about also, isn't the PS3's Cell CPU superior to the 360's tri-core Power-PC architecture? I know that's not always the case, but in a properly multi-threaded game isn't the Cell usually better? So, if this game is so heavily CPU bound, why does the 360 version run at a higher-res, with AA, and at a higher framerate than the PS3 version?
Click to expand...

Poor implementation. Same reason it runs so poorly on high end PCs. You have to write your game to take advantage of Cell's SPEs, porting straight over from Xenon to PC and especially Xenon to Cell is a waste. Rockstar makes good games but I don't believe for a second they're as capable of "coding to the metal" as other game developers.
 
The game runs fine on my system- 9550 phenom, ati 4850, 2gigs of ram. It's strange how the game works well for some but not for others.
 
it's because of resolution. People say it runs well, or it runs poorly, and they don't bother to tell the whole story.

It runs great for me, but I'm running at 1280x1024 with a quad @ 3.6 and 4850.

If you read [H]'s review, that makes sense. I'm just lucky that this LCD I have has a 1280x1024 native resolution. This is the first LCD I've had... if I had a bigger one, I might not have been able to play this game unless I hooked up my 21" IBM CRT and bumped down the resolution.

Rockstar definitely dropped the ball.... but I bought the game on launch, on a whim (impulse buy) just because I was waiting for it and I'm a GTA fan.

A lot of luck was involved with me enjoying this game. It could have gone horribly wrong, and for a lot of people - it did.

Rockstar fucked a lot of PC users in the ass on this one...
 
TOOL1075 said:
Rockstar fucked a lot of PC users in the ass on this one...
Click to expand...

lol eloquently spoken dude.

I agree that the minimal and recommended specs are misleading and the game is certainly bugged to hell and back. After a few patches I believe it will be a lot better, but it's never going to achieve optimal performance on a mid level dual core system unless they totally rewrite the code. People need to wake up and smell the reality of the situation and know that they can bitch, moan and whine all they like but it will make no difference.

I have completely stopped playing single player ever since discovering Crooks'n'Cops, GTA Race & Free form multiplayer. Hours of glee :D
 
TOOL1075 said:
it's because of resolution. People say it runs well, or it runs poorly, and they don't bother to tell the whole story.

It runs great for me, but I'm running at 1280x1024 with a quad @ 3.6 and 4850.

If you read [H]'s review, that makes sense. I'm just lucky that this LCD I have has a 1280x1024 native resolution. This is the first LCD I've had... if I had a bigger one, I might not have been able to play this game unless I hooked up my 21" IBM CRT and bumped down the resolution.

Rockstar definitely dropped the ball.... but I bought the game on launch, on a whim (impulse buy) just because I was waiting for it and I'm a GTA fan.

A lot of luck was involved with me enjoying this game. It could have gone horribly wrong, and for a lot of people - it did.

Rockstar fucked a lot of PC users in the ass on this one...
Click to expand...



I was under the impression that laptops can display any resolution.
 
TOOL1075 said:
it's because of resolution. People say it runs well, or it runs poorly, and they don't bother to tell the whole story.

It runs great for me, but I'm running at 1280x1024 with a quad @ 3.6 and 4850.

If you read [H]'s review, that makes sense. I'm just lucky that this LCD I have has a 1280x1024 native resolution. This is the first LCD I've had... if I had a bigger one, I might not have been able to play this game unless I hooked up my 21" IBM CRT and bumped down the resolution.

Rockstar definitely dropped the ball.... but I bought the game on launch, on a whim (impulse buy) just because I was waiting for it and I'm a GTA fan.

A lot of luck was involved with me enjoying this game. It could have gone horribly wrong, and for a lot of people - it did.

Rockstar fucked a lot of PC users in the ass on this one...
Click to expand...

I've heard from some that resolution has little to no effect on frame rate. Maybe it was just on the ones that had problems running it at a playable frame rate. Though I thought I remembered a few that had it playing well said they could change the resolution and it had very little impact on frame rate.
 
mastrdrver said:
I've heard from some that resolution has little to no effect on frame rate. Maybe it was just on the ones that had problems running it at a playable frame rate. Though I thought I remembered a few that had it playing well said they could change the resolution and it had very little impact on frame rate.
Click to expand...

Resolutions only tax the GPU, so you can figure when resolutions become an issue. If your CPU is your bottleneck, you'll get shit performance no matter which resolution or graphical details, hence dual core users like me get 15fps on minimum settings. GTA4 requires quads, unless you enjoy slideshows.
 
GTAIV%202008-12-18%2023-40-59-42.jpg


GTAIV%202008-12-18%2023-50-59-75.jpg


GTAIV%202008-12-18%2023-53-41-12.jpg


GTAIV%202008-12-19%2000-09-43-92.jpg


GTAIV%202008-12-19%2000-26-12-60.jpg


Man it looks so good, and runs acceptable for me (smooth 30fps almost all the time at 1920x1200).
 
Quick update, upgraded form an E8400 @ 4.05GHz to an i7 920 @ 3.6GHz and can now run the game butter smooth with high texture 1680X1050 view distance 40.
 
OH MY GOD! LITERALLY!

I packed up my 4870 512MB this morning (going on sale) and picked up a Zotac GTX 260 (core 216) and OMFG, the game NEVER drops below 30fps now, it's basically butter smooth and on top of that it's using these settings.

And this is how it now looks!

I now take back everything I said about the game performance wise because it no longer applies (for me anyway :D)

WOOT AND WOOTASS!

Now all I need is FSAA and BLAMMO! I'm a super happy bunny :D

On top of that the gfx card came with FarCry2 and 3DMark Vantage Advanced edition, not bad for £228 (should be able to get £150 at least for the 4870):)
 
robbiekhan said:
OH MY GOD! LITERALLY!

I packed up my 4870 512MB this morning (going on sale) and picked up a Zotac GTX 260 (core 216) and OMFG, the game NEVER drops below 30fps now, it's basically butter smooth and on top of that it's using these settings.

And this is how it now looks!

I now take back everything I said about the game performance wise because it no longer applies (for me anyway :D)

WOOT AND WOOTASS!

Now all I need is FSAA and BLAMMO! I'm a super happy bunny :D

On top of that the gfx card came with FarCry2 and 3DMark Vantage Advanced edition, not bad for £228 (should be able to get £150 at least for the 4870):)
Click to expand...

Far Cry 2 should be given away free!

So Nvidia runs this game much smoother? The 216 core GTX 260 and HD 4870 should be relatively comparable in performance.

So systems with ATi graphics cards are pretty much screwed, unless you have an 4870 x2
 
Yeah I'm getting better fps with higher settings on the 260 (216) than I was with the 4870 512MB - Also my system temps have gone down since the GTX 260 idles at 50 deg instead of 64 and under load nowhere near 85 like the 4870 was. It's also very very quiet in comparison.
 
robbiekhan said:
OH MY GOD! LITERALLY!

I packed up my 4870 512MB this morning (going on sale) and picked up a Zotac GTX 260 (core 216) and OMFG, the game NEVER drops below 30fps now, it's basically butter smooth and on top of that it's using these settings.

And this is how it now looks!

I now take back everything I said about the game performance wise because it no longer applies (for me anyway :D)

WOOT AND WOOTASS!

Now all I need is FSAA and BLAMMO! I'm a super happy bunny :D

On top of that the gfx card came with FarCry2 and 3DMark Vantage Advanced edition, not bad for £228 (should be able to get £150 at least for the 4870):)
Click to expand...

Well, that just makes me feel worse that I've got a 280OC and still can't run it. Should I buy a 260?

:U
 
I would still probably see what the next patch does really, the 260-216 was not justf or this game but a multitude of issues I had with the ATI drivers and the overall system temps the hot 4870 gave me which is now all resolved on the 260.
 
robbiekhan said:
[im/g]http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/games/gta4/2008.12.19/GTAIV%202008-12-18%2023-50-59-75.jpg[/img]

[img/]http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/games/gta4/2008.12.19/GTAIV%202008-12-18%2023-53-41-12.jpg[/img]

[im/g]http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/games/gta4/2008.12.19/GTAIV%202008-12-19%2000-09-43-92.jpg[/img]

[im/g]http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/games/gta4/2008.12.19/GTAIV%202008-12-19%2000-26-12-60.jpg[/img]

Man it looks so good, and runs acceptable for me (smooth 30fps almost all the time at 1920x1200).
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how you are displaying your fps in the top let corner please? Thanks.


Also, I thought that this SecurRom thing was something I could put up with but it has stopped me from playing. Randomly, it tells me I need to insert original disc. I have to retry, and retry to get the game to finally load. The Rockstar gaming club splash screen has problems minimizing after I shutdown the game. I always have to kill the process.

hmmm...
 
Ok, the only thing stopping me from getting the damn game is the whole DRM issue. I do not want to get into argument about it, lol.

I just want to know if the GTA: IV Steam version still has a form of DRM (SecuRom, etc...) other than what Steam uses. Also, is the DRM as bad as the Crysis Warhead and Far Cry 2 issues?...I couldnt find out through all the posts regarding GTA sorry.
 
I get around 20-30 FPS average with my settings. I put traffic on 100, which cuts my FPS in half, but I couldn't play the game with traffic under 100, the anarchy is a good enough trade off for silky FPS. Weaving through traffic on a crotch rocket with 20+ cars is very fun. I also turned off shadows because I'm driving so fast that I don't even notice dynamic shadows.

One thing I noticed is that traffic makes my CPU temp skyrocket, up to 58, and I have my computer shut down at 60 degrees too. Since I started playing the game, my idle temp has gone up 3 degrees even after reboot.
 
zsec said:
I get around 20-30 FPS average with my settings. I put traffic on 100, which cuts my FPS in half, but I couldn't play the game with traffic under 100, the anarchy is a good enough trade off for silky FPS. Weaving through traffic on a crotch rocket with 20+ cars is very fun. I also turned off shadows because I'm driving so fast that I don't even notice dynamic shadows.

One thing I noticed is that traffic makes my CPU temp skyrocket, up to 58, and I have my computer shut down at 60 degrees too. Since I started playing the game, my idle temp has gone up 3 degrees even after reboot.
Click to expand...


My cores are running as hot as 66C! This is easily the most taxing game for the CPU. I think I better investigate what the temp threshold is for my CPU.
 
outside..i get around 19-22 or so..and inside..30-32. I had everything maxed out...view distance, shadow detal.....

render detail was at medium and the setting below that was at very high...

my point is, I tried lowering all those settings (by a half)...played with the resolution....and the thing was, I still got those avg fps. I don't understand at all. .my vid card is definitely working as the fan automatically goes on high when playing that game
Click to expand...

nevermind
 
Anybody playing in "blurry mode"? (P on keyboard to toggle)

I find it makes the trees blend more in the background, but a little too blurry for my taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top