GTA IV PC Benchmarks

spicey said:
92 vs 48!

It's sad really that the GTA originated on the PC but we end up getting a half arsed console port.
Click to expand...


It does, in fact, make baby jesus cry.

They must make a lot more money when they develop for consoles instead... and money speaks pretty loudly.

Sigh.
 
Well apparently the game's been cracked properly, maybe Rockstar should have used that 200k they spent on DRM optimizing this pile of turd.
 
I think that if they would just offload more work to the GPU, intelligently... it would be way better.

It seems like they are using some kind of weird CPU brute-force method for things that a GPU could do instead.

I dunno, just speculation.....
 
Jakalwarrior said:
On my system with:

24.5fps

1680x1050
Medium
Medium

Most sliders around 20



Awesome huh?
Click to expand...

whambulance.jpg
 
spicey said:
The lack of AA is unforgivable, WTH were Rockstar Toronto thinking? This is 2008 not 1998..The game 'shimmers' constantly and the jaggies are very evident.

It must have been excluded due to already poor framerates on dual cores in particular.

Even 2x AA would have been much better. The blur effect is pathetic, it makes me blink as I think I have blurry eyesight. Highly likely to cause eyestrain.

Anyway, the game runs very smoothly here, but I wish it didn't look so amaterish and unpolished.
Click to expand...

because if AA was implemented you average 14 FPS
 
This link was posted on the GTA forums:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...U_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2


(that's the 2nd page of the article).


I guess this confirms what everyone has been saying- a quad is pretty much necessary... and your GPU doesn't really make THAT much of a difference.

(I guess that's why me running a Q6600 @ 3.6 with my ATI 4850 is doing much better than people with dual cores and nvidia 280 cards)


So, a lot of people are going to start saying "told you so!!!! quads are better!!! what say you now??!?!?!?!" lol. while that is tempting to say-

Yes, quads are OF COURSE more powerful (that's why I bought one, duh). However, I think Rockstar decided to put all that spare power to use.... and rather than concentrate on changing how the game engine renders and calculates certain things, they just used a brute-force approach. Allow me to... explain my theory:





----Earlier in the year, at Rockstar:

Boss: "Well Joe, how is that port coming?"

Joe: "I gotta tell you boss..... we need to think about using some different algorithms and allocating the resources differently....."

Boss: "What are you saying?! Oh shit... here we go... I *ahem* we promised corporate a fast turn around... can't you just... slap some more mhz on that bitch?"

John: "Yeah boss!!!! Slap the MHZ ON IT!!!!!11111. My box art is almost done... it's so freaking sweet!"

Joe: "No... no.... we need to make this game scale well.... this isn't a good idea... we're going to alienate a lot of gamers..."

Boss: "That is not your concern, Joe. Don't they have those new-fangled "Quadz?" I hear they're plenty fast, and a lot of people have them! Hell, my wife just bought me a Dell and it has one!"

John: "Dell r0xors!!!! Check out the cool magnet flap I made for the box!"


------At the Rockstar corporate offices:

kimjongil2mb2nj8.jpg
 
TOOL1075 said:
This was posted on the GTA forums:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...U_benchmark_review_with_13_processors/?page=2


(that's the 2nd page of the article).


I guess this confirms what everyone has been saying- a quad is pretty much necessary... and your GPU doesn't really make THAT much of a difference.

(I guess that's why me running a Q6600 @ 3.6 with my ATI 4850 is doing much better than people with dual cores and nvidia 280 cards)


So, a lot of people are going to start saying "told you so!!!! quads are better!!! what say you now??!?!?!?!" lol. while that is tempting to say-

Yes, quads are OF COURSE more powerful (that's why I bought one, duh). However, I think Rockstar decided to put all that spare power to use.... and rather than concentrate on changing how the game engine renders and calculates certain things, they just used a brute-force approach. Allow me to... explain my theory:





----Earlier in the year, at Rockstar:

Boss: "Well Joe, how is that port coming?"

Joe: "I gotta tell you boss..... we need to think about using some different algorithms and allocating the resources differently....."

Boss: "What are you saying?! Oh shit... here we go... I *ahem* we promised corporate a fast turn around... can't you just... slap some more mhz on that bitch?"

John: "Yeah boss!!!! Slap the MHZ ON IT!!!!!11111. My box art is almost done... it's so freaking sweet!"

Joe: "No... no.... we need to make this game scale well.... this isn't a good idea... we're going to alienate a lot of gamers..."

Boss: "That is not your concern, Joe. Don't they have those new-fangled "Quadz?" I hear they're plenty fast, and a lot of people have them! Hell, my wife just bought me a Dell and it has one!"

John: "Dell r0xors!!!! Check out the cool magnet flap I made for the box!"


------At the Rockstar corporate offices:

kimjongil2mb2nj8.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL.
Awesome.

Damn Suits and the Marketing Lackies!
 
more view distance = makes FPS cry

just take a look at MS flight simulator, it averages even worse than gta because of the view distance
 
lol no North Koreans were harmed in the typing of that post.


yeah, view distance and shadows...

When I put my view distance down to just above what you get on the consoles, and the shadow density slider all the way down, it helped a bit.

The shadows are shit anyway. There's actually no purpose in turning them up, because they look like shit lol. Turning the shadows down all the way should be the first tweak anyone does.

(the shadows CAN look okay sometimes.... but don't be fooled if you see that in screenshots. during the day-time "sunny" time periods in the game... they look like donkey-ass)
 
RESC10 fatal error upon quitting the game despite not being logged into Social Club. So much for that theory.
 
The error-code readme file is useless....

I googled it to try to help you just now man.... but all it says is:

"RESC10 Out of video memory - Please re-boot your system"

but it says that same thing for a ton of other errors. wtf??? lol it would be good if they would be more specific lol....


The MMA10 error (the only error I ever got) was definitely solved when they fixed the social club servers.

I'm assuming your video drivers are installed properly, etc, right?


edit: oh, no- I misread it. an out of video memory problem is specific to that error code.

perhaps its your video drivers? or are your settings too high? I dunno. but it only happens when you quit the game...? if it only happens then, and doesn't crash... well, atleast that's good... kinda. lol
 
TOOL1075 said:
The error-code readme file is useless....
Click to expand...

...please re-boot your system
...please re-boot your system
...please re-start the game
...please re-start the game
...please re-boot your system

:)

Looking at the PCGH article, GTX280/4870 cards should have plenty of headroom to force AA if someone comes out with a work around. Maybe another hotfix is in order.
 
Okay, I just got home and (real quick) loaded up the game with the highest settings I could (without using the -norestrict command). (laziness, sorry).

However, I turned shadow density down to 0. (remember this is shadow DENSITY). it doesn't make a big difference actually.

Anyway, here are the results

(Q6600 @ 3.6 and my 4850 with 8.12 drivers. oh, and 8GB of ram)

Statistics
Average FPS: 47.48 <------ barely take a hit when I raise up the settings... it's weird.
Duration: 37.68 sec
CPU Usage: 66%
System memory usage: 32%
Video memory usage: 68%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Very High
View Distance: 64
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.630
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB Audigy 2 ZS (WDM))
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz <----- it's really at 3.6, this is just the "brand name" in case you guys didn't know, which you probably do.

File ID: benchmark.cli



okay, and here's a quick screen shot when I ran out of the apartment. (sorry, I forgot to run FRAPS. it was smooth though.... definitely smooth).

veryhighzh5.jpg



Not too bad. I'll play around with it later tonight (if I have time.... I have other obligations this evening than gaming. lol)
 
it actually looks much better in the game....

I wonder if the lack of motion, and using print-scr to take the screenshot is affecting anything. oh well.
 
That benchmark sucks...
I have 50 in all sliders med textures and very high render
I get about 25-35 fps ... drops to 15-22 when im creating a bit of mayhem

Im not going quad for a single game... i can play anything but this
 
anyone can get the -norestriction to work ? i add it to gtalauncher.exe i login to rockstar social then start this but i still cant change from medium textures.
 
Mystic-Micro said:
So we should wait a good year, before playing this game, hopefully by then, it will like 10 bucks.
Click to expand...
to each his own. I love this game, it runs good and looks good.

installed new drivers.

before
Statistics
Average FPS: 35.82
Duration: 37.02 sec
CPU Usage: 85%
System memory usage: 66%
Video memory usage: 98%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (85 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37
Click to expand...

and after
Statistics
Average FPS: 40.19
Duration: 36.93 sec
CPU Usage: 80%
System memory usage: 60%
Video memory usage: 98%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (85 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37
Click to expand...

these drivers ROCK!
 
Statistics
Average FPS: 42.93
Duration: 37.36 sec
CPU Usage: 93%
System memory usage: 75%
Video memory usage: 78%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 40
Detail Distance: 30

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.621
Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz
Click to expand...


I find this acceptable. I wonder how would the difference be with a Q6600. Anyone with a system similar to mine but with a Q6600 instead?
The non-existence of anti-aliasing is unacceptable in a current game. Sometimes the textures are really, really bad.
 
Here's my before:

Code: 
Statistics
Average FPS: [B][COLOR=Red]39.62[/COLOR][/B]
Duration: 37.20 sec
CPU Usage: 71%
System memory usage: 73%
Video memory usage: 98%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Very High
View Distance: 31
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate 
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q6600  @ 2.40GHz
And now my after:

Code: 
Statistics
Average FPS: [B][COLOR=Red]39.98[/COLOR][/B]
Duration: 37.17 sec
CPU Usage: 72%
System memory usage: 62%
Video memory usage: 98%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Very High
View Distance: 31
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate 
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 
Video Driver version: 180.84
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q6600  @ 2.40GHz
Really didn't help me any unfortunately. My Q6600 is actually at 3.00Ghz fyi.
 
okay......

I just did the

-nomemrestrict -norestrictions

thing, and set my options up to the highest (except, shadow density to zero).

here is the benchmark:

(Q6600 @ 3.6, ATI 4850 with 8.12 drivers, 8GB of RAM)

Statistics
Average FPS: 46.41
Duration: 37.17 sec
CPU Usage: 62%
System memory usage: 34%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.630
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB Audigy 2 ZS (WDM))
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli


Here is a screen shot:




So... yeah... the benchmark FPS is good, right....

but there is some stuttering and pop-in of far away textures, because I am exceeding the amount of graphics memory I should use on my card lol......

I also had traffic density all the way up.

It runs fine like this, with an occasional stutter (from VRAM swapping, no doubt lol).... but the background pop is annoying.

With a better graphics card (with more VRAM), this would be golden.

putting the settings to a reasonable level (a little lower than this) makes it smooth as butter, and good to go. no stutter or pop-in. quad FTW.

maybe ATI will release some drivers for this too.... like NVIDIA did. lol not holding my breath though....
 
officer............

I didn't do anything......

I swear!!!

lol

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 22 (better than console)
Detail Distance: 10 (better than console)
(Traffic Density 100)

highest2zs1.jpg


very seldom stuttering (very very seldom), but the frame rate will drop below 30 sometimes.

so, yes, you can definitely run the highest texture and render quality with an ATI 4850, with current drivers, with a fast quad. (at my resolution, at least)
 
what do you mean you can't sit in an intersection and do a burnout until your tires peel off the wheels?????


lol

burnoutje9.jpg
 
The blur...... is good and bad I guess.......



It's...... I dunno.... it's just too blurry.

I think that if they toned it down a little....... or maybe, I dunno.... USED FUCKING AA lol it would be better.

of course... then there would be a performance hit.... I dunno, I'm on the fence about blur I guess.....
 
Me and my [email protected] and a 8500GT voltmodded and 64%oc'ed = FTW....ZOMG dis shit still plays GTA..

Another game that was really glitchy and still is..is GTASA.<<<<this game runs nothing equivalent then me taking a 30minute shit. But other then that..the only reason this game runs fine and still gets a little lag on the PS3 is mainly the 9 thread capable Cell Processor. Not sure how the Xbox360's tri-core Xenon processor can handle this better then a QX6850??? !
 
TOOL1075 said:
The blur...... is good and bad I guess.......



It's...... I dunno.... it's just too blurry.

I think that if they toned it down a little....... or maybe, I dunno.... USED FUCKING AA lol it would be better.

of course... then there would be a performance hit.... I dunno, I'm on the fence about blur I guess.....
Click to expand...

I think that if they set the res to his screens native..that jagginess and bluriness would improve by alot. As anything below your native screens res...= squashed pixels = uncanning image
 
that is my native resolution....

that's 1280x1024.... the native resolution of my LCD, and the resolution at which I run all my games.

The blur is a setting in the game.

You press "P" and it does post-processing, like the PS3 version.


edit: maybe you don't understand... but all the screenshots and benchmarks that I have posted are on MY computer, done by ME lol
 
ok...f.e..thought it wasn't you native screen res.

Hold up, let me check the in game settings...I don't think I've seen that blur setting in the graphics menu. Is it because of my already limited 8500GT? And yes, who doesn't know the post processing P function?!!
 
the blur setting IS the "P" function lol

I called it "blur" because it makes things blurry.

seemed logical....
 
I see no difference on mine, when I do press the P. Gtaforums gotta correct something now.
 
Matthew Kane said:
I see no difference on mine, when I do press the P. Gtaforums gotta correct something now.
Click to expand...


well, that means something is either wrong with you, your computer, your settings, or who knows. experiment with your settings, post specs, etc. someone will help you, guaranteed. I, however, am tired now. I apologize lol.

The game works great for me. I'm going to bed now.

here's an interview with Rockstar: http://pc.ign.com/articles/936/936304p1.html

peace out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top