This is an excellent question especially when we look at how much time they had to work on this title.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
GTA IV PC Benchmarks
- Thread starter mr_zen256
- Start date
This is an excellent question especially when we look at how much time they had to work on this title.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Dont consoles have quiet a bit of CPU power relative to a PC? I mean there is alot going on in GTA4...in another thread someone with a GTX260 and an e6750 posted an average fps of 34 with his cpu at 2.66 and an average fps of 43 but bumping his CPU up to 3.2ghz. Thats 25%...thats pretty significant.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033400325&postcount=49
And his CPU is still almost maxed out in both instances. Seems like this game needs a ton of VRAM and CPU power to run decently.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033400325&postcount=49
And his CPU is still almost maxed out in both instances. Seems like this game needs a ton of VRAM and CPU power to run decently.
I'd have to check to see how much of a factor the PS3's Cell technology would be in this but a lot of us have systems that easily run circles around either the PS3 or Xbox 360 across the boards on CPU, GPU, and memory.
It just boils down to: A bad console port with suspect coding and very suspect optimization thereof.
I definitely wish Rockstar North had handled this thing.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
In raw computing power yes PCs can run circles around consoles, but as others mentioned the ability to program directly for the hardware is a huge advantage. It may or may not be a shitty port, computers may just not be able to handle the game with amount of CPU power it requires from a PC vs the abilitys of a console and coding for the hardware.
The fact that bumping up a Core2 from 2.66 to 3.2 when youre already using one of the most powerful video cards that nets a 25% increase in FPS doesnt really scream "im a shitty port"...its more like the current hardware just isnt enough for the way its implemented on a PC (vs consoles).
guitarguy6
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,948
Are you for serious? You couldn't pay me game on a crt. If you think gaming at 1920X1200 is ridiculous I feel sorry for you. Enjoy going blind playing at 1024X768 on your 50 pound 17" crt.
I agree with you about the game not performing as well as it should.
However, the screams of "crappy port!!! rockstar sucks!!!! blah blah blah!!!!!" on countless internet forums are getting out of hand. Not saying you're one of those 12 year old kids, I'm just saying I've read it so much it's making my head hurt.
I apologize if my posts led people to believe the game is without problems. Yes, there are some shadow issues, and yes, it runs slower than it should.
However, it is playable. And, there are quite a few people who are actually enjoying the game.
Perhaps performance will improve at a later date due to patches/driver updates/etc, but I wouldn't really bet a lot on that...
However, the screams of "crappy port!!! rockstar sucks!!!! blah blah blah!!!!!" on countless internet forums are getting out of hand. Not saying you're one of those 12 year old kids, I'm just saying I've read it so much it's making my head hurt.
I apologize if my posts led people to believe the game is without problems. Yes, there are some shadow issues, and yes, it runs slower than it should.
However, it is playable. And, there are quite a few people who are actually enjoying the game.
Perhaps performance will improve at a later date due to patches/driver updates/etc, but I wouldn't really bet a lot on that...
Are you serious?
The image quality on a CRT far eclipses that of an LCD.
I'm using a 19" LCD at 1280x1024 for the time being (space saving on the desk. LCDs are great for that.... not for much else though, except power savings. And I can afford the power differential, so that's a moot point).
However, I have a bad ass 21" IBM CRT as well, and I can play games up to ridiculously high resolutions, and all the way down to really low resolutions as well.
And guess what? It doesn't look like shit, like it would on an LCD.
If you think CRT monitors suck, just because the technology is older.... you have a lot to learn.
Two words: Eye strain.
A quality LCD, and I emphasize the word quality meaning it ain't gonna be cheap, offers you a lot now that CRT simply does not.
The LCD you are using there may not be the best frame of reference and it certainly doesn't set you up for a strong argument if that's your only real frame of reference on LCD.
Let's not have CRT vs. LCD round 827348374 in this thread please?
Unfortunately the last two games from them on the PC have fulfilled that description. Bully is a nightmare of a port and this isn't much better at early crack. For both games, they had MONTHS to work on them which makes this all the more inexcuseable.
I don't think "Rockstar sucks" but unless it's Rockstar North or maybe one or two other segments of the company...I'm basically not going to buy a PC game from them in the early days or weeks ever again.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Let's face it: For all the flack EA takes from PC gamers, some justified, Rockstar's overall track record on the PC does leave something to be desired. Past GTA games have shipped with annoying glitches and bugs as well.
I'm not sure if the original GTA 3 has been fully fixed to this day or not.
There are other glitches as well. Look around. Go to the Rockstar forums.
There's a lot of action out there for a game that's been on the street for a very short amount of time.
Given Rockstar's track record? Neither would I.
nissan said:
Noted.
Bully was a mess. GTA IV is working leaps and bounds better than Bully, I can tell you that from first hand experience.
Also, when GTA 3 came to the PC, the only problems I ever had with it were sound bugs. (because I was running an old, crappy soundcard, for which the drivers were shit)
But yes, I think we both agree that Rockstar does ship some glitchy games.
Actually, if you remember, GTA 2 had some strange glitches as well.
It seemed to work better with Glide than openGL/directX...
that was quite a while ago... but I remember some strange bugs with that game.
edit: yeah, I don't want to start arguing LCDs vs. CRTs.... but that guy spewing shit about a 17" CRT at 1024x768 is complete bullshit, and you know it. There are plenty of high quality CRTs that do extremely high resolutions with almost perfect geometry.
Talk to many graphics professionals, and also imagery analysts in the military/intelligence community. CRTs still rule the roost there.
My LCD isn't that good, you're right. But that's not the argument here. The argument was that douchebag saying CRTs are inferior, without any frame of reference whatsoever.
Also, when GTA 3 came to the PC, the only problems I ever had with it were sound bugs. (because I was running an old, crappy soundcard, for which the drivers were shit)
But yes, I think we both agree that Rockstar does ship some glitchy games.
Actually, if you remember, GTA 2 had some strange glitches as well.
It seemed to work better with Glide than openGL/directX...
that was quite a while ago... but I remember some strange bugs with that game.
edit: yeah, I don't want to start arguing LCDs vs. CRTs.... but that guy spewing shit about a 17" CRT at 1024x768 is complete bullshit, and you know it. There are plenty of high quality CRTs that do extremely high resolutions with almost perfect geometry.
Talk to many graphics professionals, and also imagery analysts in the military/intelligence community. CRTs still rule the roost there.
My LCD isn't that good, you're right. But that's not the argument here. The argument was that douchebag saying CRTs are inferior, without any frame of reference whatsoever.
I agree. It's nice that I don't have to deliberately take my system down to just below 2 gigs of RAM for the game to work like I do Bully. That's a nice improvement right there.
Yeah, I never had a slew of problems with it, either, past some relative farts but a lot of other people did for a long time.
Yup.
Jakalwarrior
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,189
Think I will have to buy the game and do some CPU scaling testing like I did with warhammer (had completely linear scaling at release and required 3.0+ghz core2 to play well... poor optimization). Anywho, cell "can" be more powerful if the stuff is made specifically for it. Sort of like how a GPU can run code made for it very fast. It's such a gray area though since we have no idea how well the Xbox and PS3 processors were being utilized.
oh, yeah, Q-BZ, you made a good point which I think needs to be emphasized:
Rockstar North didn't do this... did they.... It was Rockstar Toronto. (the same people who put out Bully - one of the worst incarnations of a "port" I've ever seen.)
I'm not sure how their company structure works, but I am so tempted to say that Rockstar Toronto is shitty.
Now, that may not be the case. I know that in my company, other branches across the world are still subject to the same quality control standards, regulations, and overall standards. However, there are sometimes disconnects. That is to be expected.
But, my BIG "however" is this:
They were hyping up this PC version of the game. I listened to some radio interviews of people directly involved with the production, and it really seemed like a lot was going into this "port."
I dunno, I guess I can see now why so many people are upset. But, everyone reading this should keep in mind -
You have to differentiate between little kids who don't know how to use computers and actual knowledgeable PC users who are having legitimate problems.
yes, there are legit problems with this game. But I think the shitstorm on all these forums is a biiiiit of an over reaction.
Rockstar North didn't do this... did they.... It was Rockstar Toronto. (the same people who put out Bully - one of the worst incarnations of a "port" I've ever seen.)
I'm not sure how their company structure works, but I am so tempted to say that Rockstar Toronto is shitty.
Now, that may not be the case. I know that in my company, other branches across the world are still subject to the same quality control standards, regulations, and overall standards. However, there are sometimes disconnects. That is to be expected.
But, my BIG "however" is this:
They were hyping up this PC version of the game. I listened to some radio interviews of people directly involved with the production, and it really seemed like a lot was going into this "port."
I dunno, I guess I can see now why so many people are upset. But, everyone reading this should keep in mind -
You have to differentiate between little kids who don't know how to use computers and actual knowledgeable PC users who are having legitimate problems.
yes, there are legit problems with this game. But I think the shitstorm on all these forums is a biiiiit of an over reaction.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Bingo. I wanted to some CPU scaling last night but i couldnt get the damn game to install. Might actually upgrade my CPU for this game. What im gathering so far is that people with GTX2x0 cards with lots of VRAM and higher clocked Core2 CPUs arent really having any problems playing this game at high resolutions with most stuff up.
Can someone comment on how well the 1gb 4870 is fairing in this game?
Yeah pretty much. Everyone is so quick to blame the game being a shitty port. How many people have more than 512mb of VRAM? Apparently this game will chew through that with no problem at 1680x1050.
I really wanna know how well people are playing this game with 1gb cards wether is a GTX280, 4870, 4850, arent there a couple of 1gb 9600GTs and 9800GT/8800GTs floating around too?
From the tech sheet...
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.
Anyone with out a GTX2x0 or 1gb 4850/4870 can pretty much forget about using high textures. I still dont get how people are surprised there PCs cant run the game at high settings when its spelled out pretty clear that it wont.
try the GTA forums site.... if you can sort through the bullshit posts by all the 10 year olds, there is some useful info.
I think the overall concensus so far is that you need a fast dual or quad (preferably quad) with a fast NVidia card, and at least 4GB of ram.
I have a 3.6ghz Q6600, ATI 4850, and 8GB of ram.
I'm running it well at 1280x1024 at settings MUCH higher than that of the consoles, but I think it would be better with a better graphics card.
I cheaped out, and got the $150 4850 when I built my machine months ago...
I should have just got a 260 or 280 lol. such is life.
i'm going to update my drivers tonight, and see if it makes much of a difference (I'm running catalyst 8.8 lol)
but as of right now, the game is fully enjoyable, and looks better than on the consoles, that's for damn sure.
edit: yeah, my 4850 has "only" 512mb lol. God, I'm so tempted to leave work to go update my drivers and see what happens... I just want to play the game more. This is one of those games you think about when you're not playing it. If the driver update doesn't help, it's okay - it still works fine. Extra speed is always welcome though.
I love GTA.... I've loved it since the 1st one. the gameplay is just damn fantastic.
I think the overall concensus so far is that you need a fast dual or quad (preferably quad) with a fast NVidia card, and at least 4GB of ram.
I have a 3.6ghz Q6600, ATI 4850, and 8GB of ram.
I'm running it well at 1280x1024 at settings MUCH higher than that of the consoles, but I think it would be better with a better graphics card.
I cheaped out, and got the $150 4850 when I built my machine months ago...
I should have just got a 260 or 280 lol. such is life.
i'm going to update my drivers tonight, and see if it makes much of a difference (I'm running catalyst 8.8 lol)
but as of right now, the game is fully enjoyable, and looks better than on the consoles, that's for damn sure.
edit: yeah, my 4850 has "only" 512mb lol. God, I'm so tempted to leave work to go update my drivers and see what happens... I just want to play the game more. This is one of those games you think about when you're not playing it. If the driver update doesn't help, it's okay - it still works fine. Extra speed is always welcome though.
I love GTA.... I've loved it since the 1st one. the gameplay is just damn fantastic.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ, people are spoiled and childish. Most complaining do not even have the game as far as I can tell. IT RUNS FINE, JUST NOT AT 100% CRANKED DETAILS. Our hardware cannot handle that right now. There are no 1.5-2GB Video cards out to do Max Distance view. Anything above 22 is better than the console. The textures are FAR better than the consoles.
OMG.
OMG.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
From what im gathering here this really doesnt look like its a shitty port. It really looks like its just an extremely demanding game, and its spelled out right there for everyone in the GTA4 graphics settings document.
Yeah, I started pouring through that this morning.
D'oh!
I remember that Bully Scholarship shipped to the 360 originally with a good number of bugs as well.
Obviously this is true. It definitely doesn't take much for this version to look WAAAAAY better than the console versions.
Might be. Like someone else said, you have to swim past the ranting 10 years old and such to really get down to something.
You're still missing the point completely. You just don't get it. Incredible.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
Time for a i7 matey
I'm sticking with my qx9650 for a long time.
my REAL, LEGIT, complaint, is the grainy shadows. (grainy when they transition from light to dark - like on the edges. I think it's some strange outdated shadow algorithm or something.... but don't quote me on that.) However, it's not really that noticeable when you're busy playing the game.
I read it was a problem on the console(s) too, but was covered up by the blurriness/scaling/something.
Damn you PCs for having such detail! lol
I also read that you can hit "P" and add some blur, with minimal performance hit. whether or not that is true... I dunno.
4:00 can't come soon enough today.... lol I feel like a little kid wanting to play with his favorite toy lol
I read it was a problem on the console(s) too, but was covered up by the blurriness/scaling/something.
Damn you PCs for having such detail! lol
I also read that you can hit "P" and add some blur, with minimal performance hit. whether or not that is true... I dunno.
4:00 can't come soon enough today.... lol I feel like a little kid wanting to play with his favorite toy lol
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
thats good enough. actually what i ment was time for a quad core
dual cores are dead to me now and gta4 has states that over and over and OVER again
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Hah, i wish. Ill probably grab a q9xxx and a p45 board sometime in the very near future though.
thats good enough. actually what i ment was time for a quad core
dual cores are dead to me now and gta4 has states that over and over and OVER again
Quad FTW (or i7 lol)
You know, I also read (yet to prove it to myself) that this game is using 3 cores, and not using 4 as much as it really could (i.e. it IS using 4 cores, but dissproportionately loading 3 of them).
Doesn't AMD have some kind of weird 3-core processor? lol I dunno. just some stuff to think about.
However, on the game box, it DOES say that the game was made with the following things in mind:
- multi-core
- 64-bit.
Which, I find odd - because the .exe is 32 bit.
Perhaps there are some other things going on of which I am not aware.
maybe they put "64-bit" on the box to suggest that you need a lot of RAM for the game, and having more than 4GB to share between the OS and the game is a good idea?
I dunno.
I'll have to look at how much RAM it is actually using... I know that my 8GB was plenty... because I would pause the game, and then alt-tab, do other stuff, and my computer would be so responsive, that I forgot I had the game minimized lol.
RAM FTW
Core i7 seems to make a big difference in this game, which makes sense as it seems to be CPU bound.
Not my PC - someone from GTA Forums. Specs are:
i7 920 , overclocked to 3.4GHz
Coolermaster 1366 CPU Cooler
KINGSTON 6GB DDR3-1333
ASUS P6T Deluxe
WD velociraptor 300GB
SLI GTX 260 x 2
Not my PC - someone from GTA Forums. Specs are:
i7 920 , overclocked to 3.4GHz
Coolermaster 1366 CPU Cooler
KINGSTON 6GB DDR3-1333
ASUS P6T Deluxe
WD velociraptor 300GB
SLI GTX 260 x 2
I <3 my quad core.
So here's what I did: I went back into the game, set my resolution to native 1920x1200, hit texture high and hit render highest on the and then hit the auto configure after that, and I'm running a REALLY nice smooth, awesome looking (and sounding situation) in game. I've had a few minor...stutters, for lack of a better term and I'm not sure what that is. The GPU is running nice and cool around 52 degrees Celsius in an air cooled system so I'm happy to see that.
All in all, unless I have a bunch of BS happen out of nowhere...I'm pretty blown away by what a night and day difference this is over the PS3 version I played months ago.
Time to "just play the game."
So here's what I did: I went back into the game, set my resolution to native 1920x1200, hit texture high and hit render highest on the and then hit the auto configure after that, and I'm running a REALLY nice smooth, awesome looking (and sounding situation) in game. I've had a few minor...stutters, for lack of a better term and I'm not sure what that is. The GPU is running nice and cool around 52 degrees Celsius in an air cooled system so I'm happy to see that.
All in all, unless I have a bunch of BS happen out of nowhere...I'm pretty blown away by what a night and day difference this is over the PS3 version I played months ago.
Time to "just play the game."
Yeah, I started pouring through that this morning.
D'oh!
I remember that Bully Scholarship shipped to the 360 originally with a good number of bugs as well.
Obviously this is true. It definitely doesn't take much for this version to look WAAAAAY better than the console versions.
Might be. Like someone else said, you have to swim past the ranting 10 years old and such to really get down to something.
You're still missing the point completely. You just don't get it. Incredible.
Gert what? That some people feel that 2 year old hardware should be able to run this at MAX details 60FPS or it is a bad port??
I <3 my quad core.
So here's what I did: I went back into the game, set my resolution to native 1920x1200, hit texture high and hit render highest on the and then hit the auto configure after that, and I'm running a REALLY nice smooth, awesome looking (and sounding situation) in game. I've had a few minor...stutters, for lack of a better term and I'm not sure what that is. The GPU is running nice and cool around 52 degrees Celsius in an air cooled system so I'm happy to see that.
All in all, unless I have a bunch of BS happen out of nowhere...I'm pretty blown away by what a night and day difference this is over the PS3 version I played months ago.
Time to "just play the game."
I'm glad it worked out for you.
see, I'm not crazy!!!!! lol
I spoke too soon. The game just crashed on me with a "GTAIV Fatal Error RESC10" code.
Now I get to look into that...
Both fatal errors I've had already show up all over the 'net and on Rockstar's forums so I'm obviously not alone with any of this.
Mine does the same thing.
What do you make of it? The best guess I saw was limit on video memory but that just shouldn't be here since the auto config has me a good spot shy of the "limit" on my GPU.
Doublechecking to see if I have Microsoft Net 3.0...
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...0B-F857-4A14-83F5-25634C3BF043&displaylang=en
I haven't had those crashes (I'm running vista ultimate sp1, x64)
the only error I've gotten was the MMA something error, because of the social club. the fix was to log out, start the game, alt-tab, and then log back in to the social club. multi-player works fine.
Do post back when you figure out the solution to those problems. I have a feeling there is a sticky on the steam and GTA forums about those you guys are getting.
By the way, what version of the game are you guys running? Mine is retail box. I've read the steam versions is having some weird problems....
the only error I've gotten was the MMA something error, because of the social club. the fix was to log out, start the game, alt-tab, and then log back in to the social club. multi-player works fine.
Do post back when you figure out the solution to those problems. I have a feeling there is a sticky on the steam and GTA forums about those you guys are getting.
By the way, what version of the game are you guys running? Mine is retail box. I've read the steam versions is having some weird problems....
Mine wasn't turned on all the way apparently. I'm using Vista 64 Premium.
We'll see if it does me any good.
I'm SP Home Premium 64 bit. Everything's up to date.
I'll try this.
Except I bought this on disc, not Steam.
Retail.
http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/12/03/gta-4-on-pc-gamers-report-fatal-error-already/
^^ Lots of hits like that out there already for RESC10 fatal error as well as the MMA10 fatal error, although that one apparently is easy to get around.
when you log into the social club thingy, it has a message and instructions about updating the "games for windows live" or whatever it is, and says specifically to exit out of stuff before you do the update... etc...
I just thought I would mention that, in case people didn't see it, or if that was causing additional problems.
It's strange that the game crashes on loading if you are logged into the social club. it must be some kind of weird server error that causes the exe to freak out.
If you start the game without being logged in, alt-tab, log-in, and then go back to the game, everything seems to work fine. You can just pull up your cell phone, and join multiplayer games at will.
quite cool.
I just thought I would mention that, in case people didn't see it, or if that was causing additional problems.
It's strange that the game crashes on loading if you are logged into the social club. it must be some kind of weird server error that causes the exe to freak out.
If you start the game without being logged in, alt-tab, log-in, and then go back to the game, everything seems to work fine. You can just pull up your cell phone, and join multiplayer games at will.
quite cool.
yeah, people (and that article) are correct on how to get around the MMA10 error, but they forget to mention the important part!!!!
you can STILL play multiplayer!!! just ALT-TAB AND LOG IN AGAIN FOR THE LOVE OF GOD lol
hopefully it is fixed soon, because it is kind of a hassle I guess.... albeit a small one.
you can STILL play multiplayer!!! just ALT-TAB AND LOG IN AGAIN FOR THE LOVE OF GOD lol
hopefully it is fixed soon, because it is kind of a hassle I guess.... albeit a small one.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
I <3 my quad core.
So here's what I did: I went back into the game, set my resolution to native 1920x1200, hit texture high and hit render highest on the and then hit the auto configure after that, and I'm running a REALLY nice smooth, awesome looking (and sounding situation) in game. I've had a few minor...stutters, for lack of a better term and I'm not sure what that is. The GPU is running nice and cool around 52 degrees Celsius in an air cooled system so I'm happy to see that.
All in all, unless I have a bunch of BS happen out of nowhere...I'm pretty blown away by what a night and day difference this is over the PS3 version I played months ago.
Time to "just play the game."
Wow so this game isnt really stressing the GPU at all is it?
Doesn't seem like it from that end. Cool as can be.
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzY1MzEsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=
I updated my .NET Framework to 3.5 in case that helps with the RESC1 fatal error crash code.