GTA IV PC Benchmarks

defiant007 said:
I did you obnoxious twat, everything he said still stands
Click to expand...

lol

anyway...

I tried the benchmark with the new "beta" 8.12 drivers for my 4850, and I got an average frame rate of 49.

I did two runs with my previous drivers (8.8) and they both ended up being 47.

whooopteedoooo lol.

I haven't played it with the new drivers yet, so I dunno if it looks any different.....

benchmark looked fine I guess....


It's strange that the 8800 cards are neck and neck with the 4850 cards on this game. that is the case right? or am I just reading bullshit?



oh, and the benchmark IS actually a decent gauge of performance. My game rarely drops below 35fps. it's higher most of the time.

Q6600 at 3.6
8GB of RAM
ATI 4850
asus p5q-pro (p45 chipset)

(these are all at the GTA auto-detect settings, by the way....)


Statistics
Average FPS: 48.89
Duration: 37.37 sec
CPU Usage: 62%
System memory usage: 29%
Video memory usage: 68%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37


I hate how it's only using a little over 2GB of ram (says only 29% of my system memory is being used, of which I have 8GB). Perhaps that doesn't matter anyway, and it's all about VRAM. I dunno.

I shall mess with command line parameters and see what happens I guess. I'm guessing nothing will....
 
defiant007 said:
I did you obnoxious twat, everything he said still stands
Click to expand...

SeriousCat.jpg


It runs fine on a properly configured dual. Look around off of [H] and you will see people enjoying the GAME on duals.
 
schizrade said:
It runs fine on a properly configured dual.
Click to expand...
THIS^^^^

C2D is enough, that's not the problem, it's the too low of Mhz. Many people can't see a game be obviously CPU-limited.
Not so good FPS with an E6750? OC that biotch to 3ghz or higher. Cpu cache helps, E8400>E6850(6>4MB).
I shall not be complaining about any shitty performance, if I ever get GTA-IV. GTX 260 on it's way, that'll help. :D
 
schizrade said:
On that hardware it should run fine....

1167926568946.jpg


Maybe you should clean all of the Spyware and pr0n off your computer before running this. All of those dialers screw with your performance.
Click to expand...

Have i got any reason to lie ? Maybe its just the cool thing to do right now, ranting about GTA 4 performance

Let me assure u, im not lying
Right now for some reason i keep getting crashes when i try to play

Maybe there is still hope for the royal screw up, i managed to test Catalyst 3.12 and eventho fps were the same, they felt much more consistent

Game still looks horrible, shadows are the worst i ve seen in a long time... And i see no reason i should be pleased with a 35 fps ingame avg (i did a 1h fraps benchmark)

Im going to Vista 64 now... i was using XP32

ps: i lol'ed at that pic :p
 
Do I have a CPU bottleneck?

Here are my specs:

Pentium Dual Core E2200 @ 2.93 ghz (despite what it says in the benchmark), BSEL mod and vCore 1.55v mod
eVGA 9600GSO @ 741/1836/1053 (better than G90 8800GTS, similar to 8800GT)
3GB DDR2 Ram
Vista Ultimate x64

Medium Settings, 1280x1024

Statistics
Average FPS: 28.12
Duration: 37.02 sec
CPU Usage: 97%
System memory usage: 85%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Medium
View Distance: 23
Detail Distance: 23

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
Video Driver version: 180.70
Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli
Click to expand...

Medium texture settings, Highest render quality, 1280x1024

Statistics
Average FPS: 28.53
Duration: 36.91 sec
CPU Usage: 97%
System memory usage: 71%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 23
Detail Distance: 23

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
Video Driver version: 180.70
Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli
Click to expand...

Low Settings, 800x600

Statistics
Average FPS: 33.83
Duration: 36.92 sec
CPU Usage: 96%
System memory usage: 72%
Video memory usage: 96%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Low
Render Quality: Low
View Distance: 1
Detail Distance: 1

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GSO
Video Driver version: 180.70
Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Pentium(R) Dual CPU E2200 @ 2.20GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli
Click to expand...
 
the game won't run smoothly on higher graphics settings even with the best hardware money can buy. We tested that last issue ourselves, though we were limited by the fact that the game currently doesn't support SLI.
Click to expand...
game currently doesn't support SLI.
Click to expand...
excellent.....:rolleyes:. Of course ATI doesn't use SLI, but GTA-IV could just have issues with multi-GPU setups atm.

Edit: quote(s) from Bit-Tech. Not sure if it's frowned upon to post the link to their article here. I can though.
 
I installed updated drivers for my 4850, and now the video card squeals when GTA is loading a save file.

not at any other time though.

that can't be good... right? lol
 
TOOL1075 said:
I installed updated drivers for my 4850, and now the video card squeals when GTA is loading a save file.

not at any other time though.

that can't be good... right? lol
Click to expand...

SQUEAL LIKE A PIG BOYYYY!

No... That cant be good.
 
so is anyone here getting the magic number of "60 FPS"???
 
TOOL1075 said:
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>
Click to expand...

lol, are you the guy who's always doing these dialog scenarios? keep up the good work Sir
 
mr_zen256 said:
SQUEAL LIKE A PIG BOYYYY!

No... That cant be good.
Click to expand...

lol... yeah.... I'm hoping it's the fan, and the new drivers changed the fan settings. if it's some electronic component.... well, I guess it's RMA time lol.

Hulk said:
lol, are you the guy who's always doing these dialog scenarios? keep up the good work Sir
Click to expand...

I... don't really know lol

I'm tired.
 
for those of you that are bitchin' just wait till the new gpus come out that are 50% faster.

can you imagine what the average joe must be thinking about right now when he installs the game on his dell/hp pc?....
 
Made it online for a rocking good time for 45 minutes or so...until an identified fatal error suddenly happened out of nowhere and it was all over.

Buggy as hell. What a shame...
 
I gotta tell you guys.... besides the shadows looking crappy (for a PC game, at least)..... I'm not having any problems. They fixed their servers, so the MMA10 error doesn't even happen any more.

Vista x64 ultimate
ati 4850 (latest drivers)
q6600 @ 3.6
8GB of ram


I had been playing it with the default settings at 1280x1024, and it was giving me over 34fps almost all the time.

Then, I tried the settings as described in the graphics explanation .doc file from Rockstar. (you know, the one that tells you that the view distance setting of 22 is actually still better than the consoles, the detail of 10, blah blah)

Now, I've hit above 60fps in open areas, and I'm usually in the 50s.

So.... yeah, it's not (by any means) even CLOSE to maxed out. But, I tell you what- it still looks better than on the console, I LOVE using the mouse to adjust view when in the car (always been a benefit of 3D GTA on the PC), multiplayer is great, and you get to aim at people with an ACTUAL MOUSE lol.

So, all in all.... $50 well spent for me I guess.

Hopefully those who are having problems are able to sort them out. Just sharing my experiences to make sure people know it's not impossible to enjoy the game. (maybe it's hard... but not impossible lol)


edit: okay, maybe I spoke too soon - it will dip into the 40s a lot if you try!! lol yeah.... so sue me.
 
There definitely seems to be a clear division here. Everyone with quad cores has been getting outstanding performance, but people with dual cores haven't been doing so great.

I'm not sure how much they can do with a patch to fix this.
 
okay, here's a toyota prius that went bad. (he got jealous of the other vehicles now enjoying low gas prices, so he had to draw first blood)

lol.... anyway....

here's a shot, without that blurry shit:

(notice the grainy, weird shadows, and jaggies galore lol)

priusgonebadnoblurho1.jpg




now, here's one of roughly the same spot, when you press "P" (to give that blurred effect):

priusgonebadblurul1.jpg





blurring is gay. if it's supposed to help jaggies.... not worth it. I'll take jaggies over blurred vision any day lol


edit: oh, and in response to the above post. yeah, quads are fairing better, but I wouldn't say it's "outstanding" lol
 
TOOL1075 said:
edit: oh, and in response to the above post. yeah, quads are fairing better, but I wouldn't say it's "outstanding" lol
Click to expand...

lol, true. That statement was relative to the dual-cores.

Hopefully they do SOMETHING to get dual-cores running better.

Only 4% of the people on Steam have quad cores. Making people have to play on quad cores to get decent framerates on medium settings is pretty ridiculous.

How much better did Assassin's Creed get on single core cpus after release?
 
lol........

I like how you can break windows with your elbow, and hotwire a car lol

<borat voice on>

"Very niiice"


boratwh8.jpg
 
lol

"don't mind me, I'm just stealing this car and blocking traffic while I listen to "Goodbye Horses" on the stereo... it gets me all riled up."

lmao.......

buffalobilldu6.jpg



lol... good lord, this game is ridiculous.

this is the last screenshot, I promise. notice how it kind of looks crappy? (jaggies, etc)

you don't notice that when playing really... I mean, you're moving most of the time, and doing stuff. so, keep in mind when looking at these screenshots that it is on medium details, and it is a snap-shot in time during a lot of motion happening, with print-scrn.

anyway.... sorry, i'll stop :D
 
TOOL1075 said:
okay, here's a toyota prius that went bad. (he got jealous of the other vehicles now enjoying low gas prices, so he had to draw first blood)

lol.... anyway....

here's a shot, without that blurry shit:

(notice the grainy, weird shadows, and jaggies galore lol)





now, here's one of roughly the same spot, when you press "P" (to give that blurred effect):






blurring is gay. if it's supposed to help jaggies.... not worth it. I'll take jaggies over blurred vision any day lol


edit: oh, and in response to the above post. yeah, quads are fairing better, but I wouldn't say it's "outstanding" lol
Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be some kind of half assed anti aliasing replacement?
 
pizza said:
Is that supposed to be some kind of half assed anti aliasing replacement?
Click to expand...

lol... you know, maybe they thought of it that way. I remember seeing this game a while back on a friend's PS3, and it looked a little blurry.

Maybe that's what the consoles did? Blur shit to cover up the jaggies and weird shadows?

I dunno.

If you are driving around, and you press "P" to get the blurry view going..... it looks okay, unless you are trying to make things out in the distance- it's hard to read road signs and look at details like that when there is blur.

I find the blur to be very homosexual, so I don't use it.
 
Statistics
Average FPS: 48.46
Duration: 38.03 sec
CPU Usage: 90%
System memory usage: 55%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Very High
View Distance: 70
Detail Distance: 100

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 (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 4.05GHz
 
you have a 4870, right?

that definitely seems about right, then.

Notice how your CPU usage is very high. That's because you have a dual core.

The quads get CPU usages in the 60s....

If only Rockstar had tapped into the extra power more efficiently....

(am I making sense? lol)


(oh... and despite the benchmarking tool being a "pretty good" performance indicator.... when you go around a place with a lot of shadows and such, the FPS will definitely take a hit... )

but, generally, if that benchmarking tool gives you an average in the 40s, you're pretty much good to go at the settings you are using, I've found.
 
TOOL1075 said:
lol... you know, maybe they thought of it that way. I remember seeing this game a while back on a friend's PS3, and it looked a little blurry.

Maybe that's what the consoles did? Blur shit to cover up the jaggies and weird shadows?

I dunno.

If you are driving around, and you press "P" to get the blurry view going..... it looks okay, unless you are trying to make things out in the distance- it's hard to read road signs and look at details like that when there is blur.

I find the blur to be very homosexual, so I don't use it.
Click to expand...
The PS3 version uses some blur. I think it's because of quincunx anti-aliasing.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6191251/p-3.html

It makes it look better than the 360 version, in my opinion, (360 version has this ugly fuzzy effect for distant objects) though the 360 version runs at a higher resolution and gets a better frame rate.
 
interesting.

You know, the screen shots I see of the consoles always look decent, but then when I see it in person - it's not that good.

With the PC screen shots I just took- it's the opposite. It looks good while playing, but the screenshots suck.

I think I just suck at taking cool screenshots.

The time of day in the game makes a big difference too......

At night, or evening, the shadows look WAY better at first glance.


edit: I am definitely sticking to my guns when I say the PC version looks better than the console version. (I've only seen the PS3 version in person though... not the Xbox.) The PC just has so much more detail... it's just more crisp, the lighting is better, and it's just.... better.
 
Here's a whole shit load of benchies I took with different settings and different CPUs (E8500 & Q9550):

I didnt include vista benchies because GTA IV performs smoother with a more consistant framerate under XP 32

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 49.53
Duration: 37.15 sec
CPU Usage: 87%
System memory usage: 57%
Video memory usage: 87%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 40
Detail Distance: 67

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 48.48
Duration: 37.15 sec
CPU Usage: 85%
System memory usage: 53%
Video memory usage: 90%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 34
Detail Distance: 67

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 35.88
Duration: 37.13 sec
CPU Usage: 84%
System memory usage: 51%
Video memory usage: 94%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 24
Detail Distance: 67

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 36.33
Duration: 36.94 sec
CPU Usage: 86%
System memory usage: 61%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 24
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 26.74
Duration: 37.20 sec
CPU Usage: 100%
System memory usage: 53%
Video memory usage: 98%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 24
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 34.64
Duration: 37.21 sec
CPU Usage: 85%
System memory usage: 51%
Video memory usage: 77%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 33.78
Duration: 36.95 sec
CPU Usage: 86%
System memory usage: 57%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 65
Detail Distance: 65

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 45.56
Duration: 37.13 sec
CPU Usage: 86%
System memory usage: 58%
Video memory usage: 96%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 41
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 46.13
Duration: 37.16 sec
CPU Usage: 87%
System memory usage: 57%
Video memory usage: 97%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 34
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 50.11
Duration: 37.10 sec
CPU Usage: 88%
System memory usage: 56%
Video memory usage: 96%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 30
Detail Distance: 47

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 43.70
Duration: 37.16 sec
CPU Usage: 86%
System memory usage: 62%
Video memory usage: 80%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 56
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 44.22
Duration: 36.91 sec
CPU Usage: 87%
System memory usage: 64%
Video memory usage: 83%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 56
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 43.10
Duration: 36.94 sec
CPU Usage: 86%
System memory usage: 63%
Video memory usage: 83%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 56
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 52.29
Duration: 37.20 sec
CPU Usage: 59%
System memory usage: 60%
Video memory usage: 82%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 53
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2D E8500 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 35.76
Duration: 37.11 sec
CPU Usage: 47%
System memory usage: 49%
Video memory usage: 76%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 45
Detail Distance: 50

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 53.27
Duration: 37.15 sec
CPU Usage: 60%
System memory usage: 55%
Video memory usage: 97%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 30
Detail Distance: 60

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 54.38
Duration: 37.14 sec
CPU Usage: 59%
System memory usage: 58%
Video memory usage: 92%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 800 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 42
Detail Distance: 70

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.60
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 36.80
Duration: 37.15 sec
CPU Usage: 60%
System memory usage: 49%
Video memory usage: 76%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 40
Detail Distance: 60

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 40.48
Duration: 37.13 sec
CPU Usage: 49%
System memory usage: 50%
Video memory usage: 76%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 50
Detail Distance: 60

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ Stock

---------------------------------------------------------

Average FPS: 38.31
Duration: 37.14 sec
CPU Usage: 49%
System memory usage: 48%
Video memory usage: 77%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 50
Detail Distance: 60

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [0001]
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ Stock
 
TOOL1075 said:
oh, and the benchmark IS actually a decent gauge of performance. My game rarely drops below 35fps. it's higher most of the time.

Q6600 at 3.6
8GB of RAM
ATI 4850
asus p5q-pro (p45 chipset)

(these are all at the GTA auto-detect settings, by the way....)

Statistics
Average FPS: 48.89
Duration: 37.37 sec
CPU Usage: 62%
System memory usage: 29%
Video memory usage: 68%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37
Click to expand...

Quad core @3.6ghz, 8gb ram, and a 3850 and you're only getting 47 avg fps on settings barely higher than an X360 ? (actually worse since you can't run AA)
gg rockstar toronto :p

schizrade said:
Or there is a reason, but you don't like it and refuse to listen to it.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I'll listen to professional game programmers who acknowledge this port should be running far better than it does, over random hard forum dudes with "something to prove". The game kicks ass but the PC optimization stinks on ice.
 
Those screens look like ass. As already stated, I am yet to see anything which would warrant this game running so poorly.
 
Just like I predicted.. The game runs flawlessly for me. Compared to the X360 version, its way better... Using the mouse feels great, and was easy to map out my controls.. years of trackmania on KB makes handling the cars simple for me, and the quick mouse view VS piece of shit gamepad on 360, makes driving, aiming and sightseeing so much easier..

I also already loaded custom music and LOVE this PC addition.. A feature I wanted while playing the 360 version.. Bowling sux, but it sucked on the 360 too so :p

I'm loving the high res textures and view distance. I'm noticing detail and words in random objects and signs like I could never have on the 360... I'm not bashing the 360 version, I put days into that game, just merely comparing the two. Benchmarks are avg 50fps, and only in heavy shadow does it seem to drop a fair deal... nothing to hinder gameplay... However, with some heavy police, firefights, I might need to drop the settings...

Can't wait to get into multiplayer... I'm enjoying the scenery too much, and revisiting the game I ended months ago.. Only this time I'm not gonna screw up my ending.. heh :eek:
 
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.
 
defiant007 said:
One great thing about metacritic, it allows you to easily tell when reviews have been bought.

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/grandtheftauto4

Average game journalist rating = 92%

Average user rating = 48%

Bit of a discrepancy there hey.

Edit:

http://rr.pc.ign.com/rrobj/pc/object/14269673/

Average ign user review = 45%
Click to expand...

92 vs 48! I think a score of 6 would be fair. PPP, piss poor port. It's sad really that the GTA originated on the PC but we end up getting a half arsed console port.

The critics should be rounded up and flogged or be forced to play, Solitaire for Windows, until they see sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top