GTA IV PC Benchmarks

Is it true that if you want to use a joypad you can only use an MS controller? If so, its as if MS and Rockstar want to be sued for anti-competitive behaviour.
 
TOOL1075 said:
they're bitching because their computers aren't powerful enough.

sucks, but it's the truth.

and, because of that, there will be 10000 threads about how it is "poorly optimized"

just like crysis.

but this time, they'll blame it on being a "port" too.... not just "poorly coded"

sigh.
Click to expand...
hmmm so consoles which have 7800gtx and x1900xtx as their gc are better than pc's which have 8800gtx and quad core ?
 
eric66 said:
hmmm so consoles which have 7800gtx and x1900xtx as their gc are better than pc's which have 8800gtx and quad core ?
Click to expand...

No.

Add more detail, higher res, and massive textures, and it is WAY more to handle.

Well I just played for about 40 minutes and it is a great game. Once you turn off the recording thing, it plays great. There are some issues, but they will be fixed with upcoming patches I would assume.
 
eric66 said:
hmmm so consoles which have 7800gtx and x1900xtx as their gc are better than pc's which have 8800gtx and quad core ?
Click to expand...

No.

The resolution, as well most of the other graphics settings, are far higher and demanding on the PC.

This is why PCs are so bad ass. We PC gamers play games that make console games look like shit. It just costs a lot more money to do it.


edit: lol he beat me to it.
 
TOOL1075 said:
they're bitching because their computers aren't powerful enough.

sucks, but it's the truth.

and, because of that, there will be 10000 threads about how it is "poorly optimized"

just like crysis.

but this time, they'll blame it on being a "port" too.... not just "poorly coded"

sigh.
Click to expand...

I'll blame it on both, at least.

Crysis was shoddy coding and poor optimization and most people know that truth for what it is. They clearly learned some things from that and Warhead is much better off all the way around.



TOOL1075 said:
No.

The resolution, as well most of the other graphics settings, are far higher and demanding on the PC.

This is why PCs are so bad ass. We PC gamers play games that make console games look like shit. It just costs a lot more money to do it.


edit: lol he beat me to it.
Click to expand...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1370688

It's poorly optimized, to say the least.

But this is typical of Rockstar on the PC. Hit my thread history and look at the thread for their last PC port: Bully Scholarship Edition.


If a qx9650, 4 gigs of PC8500 RAM and a GTX 280SSC isn't "powerful enough" for a friggin' console port then I quit. That's just ridiculous. I can chew Crysis and Far Cry 2 apart but I'm sweating a console port of something like GTAIV? C'mon, that's stupid and you know it.

So yes, I vote: Poorly coded, poorly ported AND poorly optimized.
 
I think that system is "powerful enough"

maybe not at a ridiculously high resolution.....

I dunno... I've seen people playing games at ridiculous resolutions of 1900xwhatever and 2000something x whatever...

that shit isn't normal.

games are going to have to come out and push the systems back down to reality. if this game is just a crappy port... as people seem to keep saying.... fine.

but I seem to remember people having the same problems with GTA 3 when it came to PC. Hell, people whined and complained about Doom 3. I played it on my 9700pro, and people were bitching about that. I ran it at a lower resolution than the whiners, and just had fun with the game - which is the point of a GAME lol.

I'm just going to play the game. I have purposely not upgraded the size of my LCD, because not having a CRT sucks.

1280x1024 lets you get way more life out of your system - no matter what the game.

either get a smaller LCD, just get a CRT, or bump the resolution down on the monitor you have.

or, don't play the game I guess....


no amount of "patching" or any other bullshit is going to change much here... it never does with these games.

it may fix some small glitches, but nobody is gonna be running crazy resolutions with full details yet. not with today's hardware...



oh, and I was just playing multiplayer -

32 players on a map. fucking awesome.
 
Anyone have trouble installing this? I just bought it tonight...and after the social club installs i get a "Your system isnt compatible with %P. Please click on the link for more info". The link leads to updating Windows XP, and im running Vista. Anyone have any thoughts?
 
TOOL1075 said:
I think that system is "powerful enough"

maybe not at a ridiculously high resolution.....

I dunno... I've seen people playing games at ridiculous resolutions of 1900xwhatever and 2000something x whatever...

that shit isn't normal.

games are going to have to come out and push the systems back down to reality. if this game is just a crappy port... as people seem to keep saying.... fine.

but I seem to remember people having the same problems with GTA 3 when it came to PC. Hell, people whined and complained about Doom 3. I played it on my 9700pro, and people were bitching about that. I ran it at a lower resolution than the whiners, and just had fun with the game - which is the point of a GAME lol.

I'm just going to play the game. I have purposely not upgraded the size of my LCD, because not having a CRT sucks.

1280x1024 lets you get way more life out of your system - no matter what the game.

either get a smaller LCD, just get a CRT, or bump the resolution down on the monitor you have.

or, don't play the game I guess....


no amount of "patching" or any other bullshit is going to change much here... it never does with these games.

it may fix some small glitches, but nobody is gonna be running crazy resolutions with full details yet. not with today's hardware...



oh, and I was just playing multiplayer -

32 players on a map. fucking awesome.
Click to expand...

Heresy!!!! Heresy I say!!!

People got used to their 8800's being able to tear through anything that came out. Then Crysis came along and upped the ante. Now they are pissed IMO. GTAIV runs fine at good resolution and detail settings that make an X360 or PS3 look even shittier than they already do. Huge textures, farther view distance. That means mroe on screen to draw, which means more pixels to push and more complexity.

Is it a perfect port? Hell no. Nothing ever is. But if you get over the "I should be able to run it on my C2D and 2 8800's at 60FPS or it is crap" is silly. Let the hardware catch up. It did with Crysis in only 8 months time and Warhead is even better.

Just play the GAME.
 
How are you running this benchmark? Any demos?-or do you have to go out and buy it?
 
Holy crap.. I just ordered thru steam, and downloading at 180k/sec max.. yah gg shitty canadian prairie DSL... I've yet to see 1% completed.. I'm thinkin this is going to be the biggest game download I've ever done... Now I'm worried I might not be able to play even tomorrow night! Oh well, I've already ended the game on the 360... I got it for PC to hopefully get better visuals, and m/kb multiplayer... I can't wait! <-- but I guess I will have to lol...
 
Why do so many people assume this is going to get patched in a timely manner? GTVA4 had its time to shine on the consoles, made a lot of money, this PC version is just a weak attempt to drag the mop through a few more wallets and get some cash :rolleyes: Just looking at how the launch went and the problems so many people are already having tells you they were not to focused on the end user experience after the sale.
 
defiant007 said:
Is it true that if you want to use a joypad you can only use an MS controller? If so, its as if MS and Rockstar want to be sued for anti-competitive behaviour.
Click to expand...

No, but even if it was true (which makes no sense for Microsoft or Rockstar), it still wouldn't be anti-competitive behavior.
 
schizrade said:
Is it a perfect port? Hell no. Nothing ever is. But if you get over the "I should be able to run it on my C2D and 2 8800's at 60FPS or it is crap" is silly. Let the hardware catch up. It did with Crysis in only 8 months time and Warhead is even better.

Just play the GAME.
Click to expand...

I am yet to see any screenshots which would make me think GTA 4 is even in the same league as crysis. Just looks like a jaggy low textured mess to me.
 
Actually just found this, supported gamepads. Big deal, my Rumblepad is useless still

* XBOX 360 for Windows (Controller)
* Wireless XBOX 360 Controller
* Joytech 360 pad (Controller)
* Pelican TSZ360 Pad (Controller)
* MadCatz 360 (Controller)
* MadCatz 360 Pro (Controller)
* MadCatz 360 MicroCon (Controller)
* Bigben Controller BB7201 (Controller)
* MadCatz Arcade GameStick 360
* Logitech Chillstream
 
spicey said:
Actually just found this, supported gamepads. Big deal, my Rumblepad is useless still

* XBOX 360 for Windows (Controller)
* Wireless XBOX 360 Controller
* Joytech 360 pad (Controller)
* Pelican TSZ360 Pad (Controller)
* MadCatz 360 (Controller)
* MadCatz 360 Pro (Controller)
* MadCatz 360 MicroCon (Controller)
* Bigben Controller BB7201 (Controller)
* MadCatz Arcade GameStick 360
* Logitech Chillstream
Click to expand...

Bah....snatched from the jaws of victory
 
schizrade said:
Is it a perfect port? Hell no. Nothing ever is. But if you get over the "I should be able to run it on my C2D and 2 8800's at 60FPS or it is crap" is silly. Let the hardware catch up. It did with Crysis in only 8 months time and Warhead is even better.
Click to expand...

The game is heavily CPU dependent. It seems the only people halfway satisfied with the game's performance are running very fast quad cores. (Rockstar did recommend one)

Considering the vastly weaker CPUs on the consoles, it doesn't appear they did much of anything to scale the game for non-bleeding edge PCs. Rockstar said they'd make it for 3 year old PCs too. Well if you've got something as ancient as an AMD X2 cpu, the frames will drop into the teens, regardless of graphics settings. Someone on GTA4 reports getting less than 10fps in the rain with a 3850 on 800x600 LOW.
 
defiant007 said:
Just looks like a jaggy low textured mess to me.
Click to expand...

Your computer must be exponentially more powerful than 3 year old console technology, to get a dramatic improvement in graphics, i.e. high textures and far view distance.
 
Stereophile said:
Your computer must be exponentially more powerful than 3 year old console technology, to get a dramatic improvement in graphics, i.e. high textures and far view distance.
Click to expand...

I cant tell whether you are being sarcastic or serious.
 
defiant007 said:
I cant tell whether you are being sarcastic or serious.
Click to expand...


Well maybe dramatic improvement was an over statement. The extra resolution, high quality textures (if you have enough vram) and farther draw distance are the major differences I spot on PC port.
 
People that try to do an apples to apples comparison of PC and console hardware make my head hurt.
 
bonsai said:
People that try to do an apples to apples comparison of PC and console hardware make my head hurt.
Click to expand...

People that try and reduce complex arguments into stupid cliches make mine hurt.
Yeah yeah, PC has higher O/S overhead. That still doesn't mean the game should NEED a quad core to run decently.

I doubt they re-optimized much of anything. PC version is likely running almost straight X360 code. The physics, AI, etc is not "improved" on PC. No excuse for such a ridiculous CPU recommendation of a console port.
 
TOOL1075 said:
TheGooch:

that sucks man. perhaps you can turn down settings (maybe not resolution, unless you have a CRT and you don't have to fuck with stupid LCD native resolution bullshit).

LCDs are the worst thing to happen to gaming lol

It used to be that if a game was too demanding, you just turned down the resolution, and it was still good looking (for the most part).

Stupid LCDs and their native resolutions.... :p

I always used to think anything above 1024x768 in a game was "high resolution."

I still feel spoiled playing at 1280x1024.

1600x1200 used to be the holy grail lol
Click to expand...

I've tried to mess with the settings, lower everything to the lowest possible, but as you know there isn't much customization. There's only the two settings really.

And for some reason, I can't even run this game at 1920x1200, it won't let me select it. 1680x1050 is the highest I can go! And lowering the resolution only seems to make the performance work.

I am very involved with game development, and I still can't understand how a company can let a game be released in this condition, other than obvious financial and business reasons that sometimes force a game out the door, but this is terrible.

/Rant off ;)
 
TheGooch69 said:
And for some reason, I can't even run this game at 1920x1200, it won't let me select it. 1680x1050 is the highest I can go! And lowering the resolution only seems to make the performance work.
Click to expand...

I believe you can override it to display higher resolutions than it thinks you should run.
It looks at your total vram when determining your "resolution ceiling" I wonder if it calculates actual vram bandwidth ? Doubt it.
 
yeah... the readme has a list of command line parameters.

using:

-norestriction

(or something like that) seems to be the ticket to overriding all the graphics settings limits - letting you bump up everything as you see fit.


After playing the game a lot (it's awesome), and reading a lot of people's problems, I'm now convinced of one definite issue, and one possible issue:


1. The edges of shadows (during the day, mostly - it's not as readily apparent at night in the game) are grainy around the edges. This was the same way on the Xbox I think, but I'm not sure. Not a big deal.

2. The game box has the ever-present "Nvidia - The way it is meant to be played" bullshit on it. And, folks, it seems to be true for the moment. While I am getting decent frame rates with my ATI 4850, there are people with NVidia 8800 cards getting the same performance or better.

However, I'm running old catalyst drivers... maybe that is the issue. My performance is fine, but if it could be better, that's always good. Perhaps tonight I'll update my drivers and compare the performance.


edit: yeah, I've been reading that the 8.11 catalyst drivers are the best to use.... and I'm using like 8.8 or something... lol

I usually keep all drivers up to date, but I only update my video drivers when I need to... I don't like to fix it, if it isn't broken. Perhaps now is the time to update them.... lol
 
bonsai said:
The are way, way too many variables for anyone to make a definitive statement like that. OS overhead is only the beginning.
Click to expand...

You're saying it's normal or acceptable for OS overhead, and everything else that is a part of running a PC game vice console game, to justify a 20 fold increase in recommended CPU power ? Just one core of a penryn is more powerful than a console CPU. 2 cores should be plenty. 4 is ridiculous. What other company's console to PC port recommends a quad core?

Rockstar Toronto did the PC conversion. Same outfit that ported Bully. We know how that turned out as well. :rolleyes:
 
TheGooch69 said:
obvious financial and business reasons that sometimes force a game out the door, but this is terrible.
Click to expand...

This is the best explanation. Due to PC game market trends, it probably wasn't profitable to do anything but a quick and hasty port.
 
Without a shadow of doubt quad cores are running the game up to 10fps faster with a 8800GT than a dual core. The duals are stuggling in the 20's and the quads are up in the 30's at 1680 x 1050. There is a thread on GTAForums with benchmarking results.
 
Stereophile said:
Just one core of a penryn is more powerful than a console CPU.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ, do I really have to spell it out for you? Dedicated hardware allows them to do a lot of things a PC can't do. On a console, bus speeds are faster, latencies are lower, machine level and assembly level code is more optimized, load balancing is better, the list goes on and on. Did you know that the bus speed between the CELL and memory on a PS3 released in 2006 is only just now being matched by Nehalem processors?

Could they have better optimized GTA4? Of course, you can better optimize everything, but you simply cannot just say one Penryn core is more powerful than a console CPU and call it a day. There's a hell of a lot more involved than just CPU clock. You're doing an apples to oranges comparison.
 
TOOL1075 said:
I think that system is "powerful enough"

maybe not at a ridiculously high resolution.....

I dunno... I've seen people playing games at ridiculous resolutions of 1900xwhatever and 2000something x whatever...

that shit isn't normal.
Click to expand...

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?

games are going to have to come out and push the systems back down to reality. if this game is just a crappy port... as people seem to keep saying.... fine.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's exactly what it is.

but I seem to remember people having the same problems with GTA 3 when it came to PC. Hell, people whined and complained about Doom 3.
Click to expand...

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.


I played it on my 9700pro, and people were bitching about that. I ran it at a lower resolution than the whiners, and just had fun with the game - which is the point of a GAME lol.
Click to expand...

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.

I'm just going to play the game. I have purposely not upgraded the size of my LCD, because not having a CRT sucks.

1280x1024 lets you get way more life out of your system - no matter what the game.
Click to expand...

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.


either get a smaller LCD, just get a CRT, or bump the resolution down on the monitor you have.
Click to expand...

How about...no? :rolleyes:


or, don't play the game I guess....
Click to expand...

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.


no amount of "patching" or any other bullshit is going to change much here... it never does with these games.
Click to expand...

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.


it may fix some small glitches, but nobody is gonna be running crazy resolutions with full details yet. not with today's hardware...
Click to expand...

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.


oh, and I was just playing multiplayer -

32 players on a map. fucking awesome.
Click to expand...

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.



^^
schizrade said:
Heresy!!!! Heresy I say!!!

People got used to their 8800's being able to tear through anything that came out. Then Crysis came along and upped the ante. Now they are pissed IMO.
Click to expand...

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.

GTAIV runs fine at good resolution and detail settings that make an X360 or PS3 look even shittier than they already do. Huge textures, farther view distance. That means mroe on screen to draw, which means more pixels to push and more complexity.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


Is it a perfect port? Hell no. Nothing ever is. But if you get over the "I should be able to run it on my C2D and 2 8800's at 60FPS or it is crap" is silly. Let the hardware catch up. It did with Crysis in only 8 months time and Warhead is even better.
Click to expand...

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! :rolleyes:


Just play the GAME.
Click to expand...

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.




spicey said:
Shame Rockstar North didn't do this port. I reckon it would have turned out far better.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
My computer (3.2C@D, 4gigs ram, 8800GTX) can't even play GTA:SA at 16080x1050 with everything maxed yet newer and better looking gmaes run amazingly well. Rockstar does have a habit of making thier games not work well on the PC. I would VIce City is the only one of the GTA games for the PC that ran well on all things.

And yes, the days of 60fps are over. 30 really is the new 60 and most newer games are perfectly playable at 30fps.
 
I didn't say anything past 1280x1024 was ridiculous.

I said that resolutions of 1900xwhatever, 2600xwhatever are ridiculous. Perhaps I worded it wrong, and the meaning was lost. Let me rephrase:

Expecting over 60fps no matter what, at resolutions like those, is sometimes expecting too much. The whole "LCD revolution" fucked PC gamers in the ass. Trust me, when everyone had CRTs, there was much less bitching.

Yeah, good job with the joke about my "forum" name. Haven't heard that one before. You should be proud of yourself- you're funny. Sorry you are upset that you can't play a game. I can, however. You can say I'm in the "stone age" all you like. However, I'm playing the game, and you aren't.
 
TOOL1075 said:
I didn't say anything past 1280x1024 was ridiculous.

I said that resolutions of 1900xwhatever, 2600xwhatever are ridiculous. Perhaps I worded it wrong, and the meaning was lost. Let me rephrase:

Expecting over 60fps no matter what, at resolutions like those, is sometimes expecting too much. The whole "LCD revolution" fucked PC gamers in the ass. Trust me, when everyone had CRTs, there was much less bitching.
Click to expand...

Actually, in one of my earlier posts last night, I said I really don't care if it's 60fps or not. I care if it runs fairly smooth and responsive. As long as it "feels" right, I'm satisfied.

Yeah, good job with the joke about my "forum" name. Haven't heard that one before. You should be proud of yourself- you're funny. Sorry you are upset that you can't play a game. I can, however. You can say I'm in the "stone age" all you like. However, I'm playing the game, and you aren't.
Click to expand...

Actually I am when I get around a bunch of other glitches that shipped with this title.

Maybe I read you wrong, but take another look at your previous few posts and at least see how maybe I and some others could easily misread you.

I'll apologize for that, but I won't apologize for not having much tolerance for people making excuses/dismissing/or ignoring real and legitimate issues which there are clearly with this game.
 
How could a company with that kind of money made from previous GTA games make such a poorly pc version.. i dont get it. all i see how they bragged how much money they invested in DRM, but what about testing the game etc so it runs smooth ? guess thats not as important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top