![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
GTA IV PC Benchmarks
- Thread starter mr_zen256
- Start date
I very seriously doubt there's anything wrong on your end or for most of the rest of us having problems with this game.
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
You seem to have an issue with me stating the game shouldn't need a quad core to perform acceptably.
There is nothing special about GTA4 that justifies a quad core to get decent performance. A fast C2D should have ample computational resources, if the game was actually optimized around PCs.
Again, I'll ask, what other console to PC port recommends a quad core cpu ? None.
Don't take my word for it. Professional console programmers have commented what a half-assed port they did. http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47845&page=6
You're pissing in the wind dude.
lol server problems much?
You know.... you would think that errors like this would be caught BEFORE they released the game... lol
I can picture it:
Boss: "Joe, are you done coding that last line?"
Joe: "Yeah... shit..... just one second... I'm trying to finish... but we need more time to beta test...."
Boss: "No, there's no time. The corporate office wants it NOW. We've sat on this for too long"
Joe: "But I've only had a month to port this thing!!!!"
Boss: "Not my problem. John, you ready with the box art?"
John : "Got it boss. It's great. It has a magnet-closed fold-out flap thingy, says '64-bit' and 'mult-core' on the back... it's real sharp lookin'. I think people will snatch it off of the shelves."
Boss: "Excellent work John. Joe - why can't you be more like John???? Just compile the son-of-a-bitch and package it for shipping."
Joe: "Sigh."
--------- weeks later:
Consumer: "Well... it's pretty cool... almost.. oh fuck.. damn. oh wait, it works!!. kinda."
Forums: "WTFBQQ!!!!!"
Entire Internet: "Rockstar Games suck fat cock"
-------- back at RockStar:
Boss: "WTF Joe?"
Joe: <face-desk>
LOL.
Can you quantify that statement? It's obviously a very CPU intensive game as the CPU scaling indicates. The dynamic playback feature seems to be a huge culprit as shown by the increase in performance when turned off. This is a feature that was not available on console. The PC settings also allow for quality and view distances much larger than were available on the console, which by all logical standards would require much heavier hardware.
Jakalwarrior
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,189
Exactly how I pictured it.
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
You don't have to max out the game before a quad core pays off. Like I said earlier, someone on GTA4 forum with a dual core and 3850 (decent mid range system by today's standards) gets less than 10fps in the rain while running 800x600 LOW, every slider all the way left, i.e. far below console settings. Basically no matter what resolution or options you have enabled, the game runs a lot better on a quad than a dual.
Taking the GPU intensive options out of the picture reveals the game becomes CPU bound far too easily if they had done a worthwhile port. I speculate they did the minimal changes necessary to make it run on PCs. Basically took the X360 code, re-compiled it to run on a PC cpu without any optimizations, and called it a day.
CyberJunk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,243
i just bought this game today on my lunch break i had some BB gift cards
this is my system specs
Core2 duo 7200 @ 3.6ghz
8gb 800mhz ddr2
1600 fsb 1:1 ratio
4850 crossfire
asus p5Q pro mobo
WD 640 hd sata2
can i run this maxed out and what would my draw distance % be ? i use a 24" monitor
thanks!
this is my system specs
Core2 duo 7200 @ 3.6ghz
8gb 800mhz ddr2
1600 fsb 1:1 ratio
4850 crossfire
asus p5Q pro mobo
WD 640 hd sata2
can i run this maxed out and what would my draw distance % be ? i use a 24" monitor
thanks!
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
Nothing can run it maxed yet, maybe when they implement good crossfire and sli support.
Your going to avg 25-30fps at medium with a draw distance of 25 and traffic density of 10-15. I had my e6750 @ 3.4 and my new Q6600 at stock was significantly better.
lol yeah... it seems to be. but I have to admit, my company isn't like that. well, we try not to be lol
damn profit motive!!! daaaamn youuuuu! lol
guitarguy6
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,948
I have a similar system (E8400 @ 4.15GHz, 2 X 4870, 4GB) and can run it 1680X1050, texture medium, most other stuff maxed except draw distance is set to 35. Running the built in benchmark gets me an average fps of 49.7. The game lags sometimes but overall it's playable provided you can get the game to actually launch
SPARTAN VI
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 8,786
CyberJunk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,243
I TRADED IN MY PS3 VERISON FOR PC VERISON
i dunno what to do i wanan run it maxe d
i guess it will be a couple months before we can
i dunno what to do i wanan run it maxe d
i guess it will be a couple months before we can
Back on topic, benchmarks.
Runs smoothly here(much better than I hoped), first try on settings automatically allocated. Can't seem to select above medium textures, (limited by gfx card RAM)
Statistics
Average FPS: 41.16
Duration: 37.20 sec
CPU Usage: 78%
System memory usage: 63%
Video memory usage: 92%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Very High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37
Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz @3GHz
Runs smoothly here(much better than I hoped), first try on settings automatically allocated. Can't seem to select above medium textures, (limited by gfx card RAM)
Statistics
Average FPS: 41.16
Duration: 37.20 sec
CPU Usage: 78%
System memory usage: 63%
Video memory usage: 92%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Very High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37
Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz @3GHz
I pretty much read the whole thread and I just don't see why that much CPU horespower is required. Is every pedestrian in the game solving differential equations on the sidewalk while you do a physics jumping puzzle?
Secondly the game looks like utter crap even maxed out. I hate to throw in the obligatory Crysis reference, but at least it looked fantastic while a slide show.
Secondly the game looks like utter crap even maxed out. I hate to throw in the obligatory Crysis reference, but at least it looked fantastic while a slide show.
Brownstone
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 873
Game is fucking horrible, physics are on par at most with Crysis and AI is semi decent ...
If i put everything down to the absolute min i get 40-55 fps... and looks 10 times worse than console
I ve shadows at min... cant stand them, horrible horrible lighting, has a dreamy glow all over which i cant stand
If i put everything down to the absolute min i get 40-55 fps... and looks 10 times worse than console
I ve shadows at min... cant stand them, horrible horrible lighting, has a dreamy glow all over which i cant stand
SPARTAN VI
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Messages
- 8,786
I lol'ed
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
try explaining that to some of these gta4 fanboys who will defend this game to teh death
Brownstone
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 873
Brown and dreamy!
This here puts the NAIL in SNAIL! (for slow ass port
)ps: i just watched Not Another Teen Movie :x
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
/shrug game runs perfectly fine for me maxed out other than shadows (at 5) and view distance (at 35) at 1920x1200 with traffic density at 30. Never slows down while ingame and benchmarked at 53fps.
Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz
Abit IP35 Pro
4 Gb Corsair 6400C5
280GTX FTW Edition
Vista 64bit
The game looks great to me, and I have Crysis.
Monkey God
Mangina Full of Sand
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,723
Just found out the hard way you have be signed into windows live just to save game. WTF?
I have no interest in windows live or this social club crap.
I have no interest in windows live or this social club crap.
LMAO
You should put that into a comic.. or work for Penny Arcade.
lol yeah I re-read it, once I posted it....
I actually laughed as I did... and someone was walking by my office, looked in, and we stared at each other for a second. then my phone rang (thank god)
lol
I'll be done downloading this damn game sometime tonight, after 24 hours straight... I will know by tonight how poor this game runs... If I have little trouble, then I guess I must be a fanboy... If I do have trouble, I sure as fuck won't post over and over complaining about it... There are more and more ignorant PC gamers these days, hence more and more people who cannot fucking configure their computer to play a game and blame it on the developer...
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm doubtful...
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm doubtful...
I'll be done downloading this damn game sometime tonight, after 24 hours straight... I will know by tonight how poor this game runs... If I have little trouble, then I guess I must be a fanboy... If I do have trouble, I sure as fuck won't post over and over complaining about it... There are more and more ignorant PC gamers these days, hence more and more people who cannot fucking configure their computer to play a game and blame it on the developer...
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm doubtful...
THIS. They built a computer, thus they know everything there is to know about them, and you are the idiot.
I must be a fanboy as it runs great on my PC.
On that hardware it should run fine....
Maybe you should clean all of the Spyware and pr0n off your computer before running this. All of those dialers screw with your performance.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Playing at 1920X1200 on a 24 inch monitor is hardly what I call ridiculous. That's fairly common in PC gaming today.
Again, you're missing the point: When other cutting edge games and PC exclusives can run like butter with ease on my hardware but some console port that's been supposedly worked on for months runs this poorly?
No one gets the idea something isn't right about that?
Yup, that's exactly what it is.
GTA 3 was a buggy nightmare that Rockstar never fully fixed, either. For all the shit EA takes I'd venture to say Rockstar's track record on the PC is easily running into territory that should earn it some ire from PC gamers by now.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1358363
^^ There's Rockstar's last console port to the PC that they supposedly worked on for months as well.
Doom 3 was a PC exclusive that pushed boundaries legitimately. Two very different animals IMO.
Crysis is another recent example of that although there's mountains of data out there by now that proves that thing was not very well coded or well optimized at all and the fact that Warhead scales and runs so much better is more proof after that.
You're still missing the overall point of what's going on here. "Just play the game" is apologist drivel that excuses what's really going on here even though I agree with the general concept.
No, that sucks. You're in the Stone Age and you're missing out on a lot.
No wonder you're "arguing" "Just play the game!" and all the rest of it.
How about...no?
I probably won't for a while unless I can get it to run smoothly and somewhat respectably and glitch free which, given Rockstar's track record as of late, I'm not going to bet the farm on it.
I have plenty of other great games that work great that I can play in the mean time.
There's some issues here that can be fixed.
Apologists keep trying to lump a PC exclusive from the ground up like Crysis and a year old game being ported from the console to the PC in GTA IV in the same breath and it just isn't going to work for you all no matter many times you repeat it.
In your world, anything past 1280x1024 is "crazy" so people should take that for what it's worth, coming from you.
I'm going to keep repeating this until maybe you and some others finally get it: This isn't Doom 3 on day one. This isn't Crysis on day one. This is a port of a YEAR OLD CONSOLE GAME.
This is another glitch I ran into. The "GTA IV Fatal Error MMA10" on game startup and the only supposed workaround for it was to log out of the Social Club which means no mulitplayer for me until a patch comes out to fix that for me and plenty of other people having the same problem.
^^
And Crysis did push the envelope but again, people are either ignorant or in denial. The facts clearly are: Crysis WAS poorly coded and poorly optimized.
Agreed.
You just don't get it, you? It's like banging one's head into a wall but here goes again.
Hardware having to "catch up" to a CONSOLE PORT is bullshit, and you know it.
So in your world and Tool's "anything past 1280X1024 is 'ridiculous'/go back to CRT! Dumb down your hardware and settings to the Stone Age like me!" world, a rig running an Intel q9650, an EVGA GTX 280SC, 4 gigs of RAM PC8500, and so forth needs to catch up with a console port of a year old game.
Bullshit.
And there's plenty of people here and abroad with all kinds of hardware configurations, many of whom smoke my machine, bitching as well.
Hey guys! Problem solved! Buy a smaller LCD, or lower the resolution to the Stone Age or go back to CRT! Yeah!
And I probably will if I get past the glitches and other issues that just shouldn't be.
That's the point you and the aptly screen named "Tool" seem to keep missing here.
Absolutely.
Owned
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
gay.
read the thread, douche.
I did you obnoxious twat, everything he said still stands
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
Looking at your specs, God it fucking should. Point being if you don't have a quad it runs rather poorly, and there is no excuse for it.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Oh hey wow ignorance!
Page 3 of this thread.
Pretty sure that completely disproves what you just said!
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
The included benchmark means jack. It's very optimistic. Let's see your fps at those settings in game with 5 stars.
edit: lulz not even your test and he said "usually always stays above 30"
Usually always huh ?
I can't wait to see the [H] review on this game.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
The included benchmark means jack. It's very optimistic. Let's see your fps at those settings in game with 5 stars.
edit: lulz not even your test and he said "usually always stays above 30"
Usually always huh ?
I can't wait to see the [H] review on this game.
hahaha lulz