256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD4330 good enough to play GTA IV?

On a system with a Pentium Dual-Core 2Ghz, 800Mhz FSB and 3Gb Ram can it play GTA IV properly or at all?

 

No,

Id imagine it can play it, but not "properly" it needs tons of video ram and a very fast cpu preferably a quad core cpu.

 

Hell no! 10char

 

Cool, well I was hoping I didn't have to regret purchasing a dell 1545 with a core 2 duo but with no Ati card, but instead I got a 4500MHD with this, and the higher cost bracket option was a pentium dual-core (not core 2 duo like I got) with the Ati 256 4330.

For a quad-core I think they run into well over £1000 or something like that.
Not sure if FSB affects gaming too much, maybe with an integrated card?
But then when your talking quad-core CPU's I guess having integrated graphics is not even a consideration as that would be some major bottleneck.

 

I put the wrong graphics card description in the body of the post, mind you the Intel 4500MHD technically isn't an actual graphics card, lol

I meant the 256MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD4330

 

GTA4 is one of the more demanding games out there, it humbles many peoples high end desktops even, mine included to some degree.

My laptop & desktop both can play the game great as I have a fast quad cpu in both, but I only have 512mb of VRAM in both, to max out the game you need 1GB+ VRAM

CPU is needed to run the AI of all the cars/people around you + physics engine and other stuff.
The GPU doesnt have to work too hard, as the graphics are not super high end, but it needs a ton of ram to hold all the texture data for the huge town. I think they could have optimized it much better as many other games have huge worlds also and operate without the need for so much VRAM, but it is how it is and its not changing anytime soon. GTA4 is like the new Crysis (poorly optimized console port that requires 3x more hardware power than it really should)

 

Can you run it on highest vicious?

 

Game wont let me says not enough VRAM, if I use the override command I can max it out but may see a missing texture now and then or blinking textures.

512mb of VRAM wont let me turn view distance up even half way.

 

wow thats shocking guess they should have patched that up early on.

 

ill need to try it on my desktop, maybe the extra $12 i spent for the 1GB will be worth it

 

$12? For the desktop 4330? Darn thats cheap

 

hi folks,

to have much fun with GTA IV you need hell systems like these:

MSI GT725Q-9047VHP Quad-Core Intel with ATI HD4850 (512 GDDR3)
see Game-check: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/review-msi-gt725q-9047vhp-intel-q9000-909/2

Cyber System i17 (Clevo Laptop) Core i7 Bolide with Nvidia GTX280
see Game-Check: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/review-gtx280-cyber-system-i7-893

 

even though the 725 is cheap it handles the game like a champ pretty cool

 

Agreed, gt725 is really good performance for the price, and handles games greatly.

 

VRAM, not system ram, meaning the Ram your GPU has

My laptop has 6gb of system ram lol, but only 512MB of GPU RAM

 

Intel Centrino 2 duo 2.53
3 gb RAM
9600 mgt (512+1 gb(Shared) = 1.5gb VRAM

is that good enough for GTA 4? i dont even mind OCing the processor and Card? i ask because i do not wish to buy the game if i cant run it. Experts on this , i need your help. thank you.

 

I have:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.40
3 GB RAM
9600M GT (256MB)

I run the game at automatic settings for my card (800x600), and in terms of frame rates, it's a little bit jerky, but mostly just alright to play on.

 

could you post your frame rates please? i wish to know it it is worth buying the game and playing it at these settings, thats all

 

How can I find out the framerate? edit:don't worry I'm downloading FRAPS now, be right back in 10 mins.

 

What graphics settings do you want me to test the FPS of?

 

GTA IV should be playable in your hardware, but dont expect to run it in eye-candy settings. Your processor is pretty good though. The shared VRAM will not make a big difference.

If you feel the game is fun enough to play, even in low-medium settings, then you should buy it

 

guess u should find out the settings in which FPS is atleast 30. stonesrubber shuld be able to get better FPS at same settings.

 

Over the period of 1 min;
Min: 7
Max: 43
Average: 20.533
That is the default settings.
Not the best experience.. It still felt jerky.

Next for the lowest settings. >_>

 

an avg. of 25-30 FPS is considered "playable". Is there still any scope of lowering the settings and acheiving better FPS? Is the settings worth of playing then?

 

At the lowest settings:
Min: 17
Max: 36
Average: 29.65625
The max value isn't as high as before. >_>

edit: tried it again.
average with recommended settings: 26FPS
averages with lowest settings: 28FPS..

 

oooo...that seems pretty dim, sacrificing so much of video quality, just to get the game running ...... are you using a 32 bit licenced version of Home premium?

 

I'm running Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit. It's what was installed when I bought the laptop.

 

have you managed to do a clean install of windows after that? or is it the same one that came pre loaded?

 

Pre-loaded. Not bothered to do a clean install. I still have my recovery partition as well.
79 Processes.

 

A lot of GTA users have told me they had a jump of about 6-7 fps, after they managed to do a clean install and remove all the additional programms that eat up and hog up memory, and CPU bandwith. 79 processes? Wow!!!!.....No wonder you play at these settings. try freeing up some of that, and watch the jump.

 

What does your computer get in 3DMark06 and what resolution did you run 3dmark06?

For my laptop:
5615 @ 1280x800
5020 @ 1280x1024

 

i havent bought the game yet, but my friend with the same notebook got an average of 29 at 1024*768,after a clean install and relatively lesser number of programmes running but with everything else turned down. i am thinking about going the OC way, but really thinking thrice about it. coz even the games thst have come out after that have not been so demanding. am not sure if it is worth the risk with the hardware and all that goes with it.

 

With that hardware, I really can't see how you will get an enjoyable experience to make it worth while. If anything, it could end up looking like San Andreas on low settings.

That 2.53 Core2Duo will struggle and the 9600 M GT isn't powerful enough to run at any nice looking resolutions or settings. You will be forced on low resolutions and low settings. This game was made to be played at settings that have a bit more eye candy.

 

lol how long haver I been here? you dont think i know that

no it was $12 going from the 512mb 4870 to the 1GB version so I saw no reason why I shouldnt.

 

Could I run Gt4 decenty?

I have a P9500 with HD3650 Vram 512mb, but I have 3.3gb of shared vram. But maybe shared vram isnt a big help after all .

 

GTA4 performs best on QUAD CORE cpus. Dual-cores barely run it acceptably, even on low settings. GTA4 is VERY CPU bottlenecked.

I can fully understand that, as it was coded for the tri-core in the Xbox 360 - it's massively multithreaded.

However, I don't understand the need for all the video ram. The 360 has only 512mb total shared ram for everything, system and video. Seems that part could've been toned down a bit.

 

I been reading that it could be sue to being such an inefficient port.
Also, the xbox doesn't have to run vista and whatnot, but I guess that would be solved by 3-4bg of ram for the OS overheads?
Seems to me that unless you spend big bucks on a quad-core CPU you won't get the game playing at decent framerates.

I didn't think the CPU was big in gaming, everywhere I read it seems to be all about the speed and capacity of the GPU in the system.

Well, anyway i'm pretty sure that after reading all this that the ATI Mobility Radeon HD4330 256mb won't come close to running it at an enjoyable FPS.
If it gets too jerky or you gotta turn the looks and/or draw distance right down to be able to pick up the frames then it really isn't worth buying the game i'd say.

 

It really all depends on what you consider playable or "decent frame rates". I have a Dual Core (granted overclocked) and have finished GTA IV with no complaints about playability. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. IMHO, you simply don't need huge frame rates for this game. As long as you don't dip below 20 its fine. I played on Medium textures, no shadows (they looked like crap anyway), very high water effects (they look AWESOME). Draw distance was 40, which was never a problem... object distance was around 60, and car density at 50. I don't know what else people want... sure it would run better with a quad, but unless you are very picky, it is playable on a fast dual core with a good GPU...

but for the OP... no. Not in the least, don't waste your money.

 

Key then I see coming up alot is having a good GPU, so for my budget it was always gonna be an inspirion level price point and I don't know much about GPU's and their models, but I can see that the HD4330 ati ain't top notch and barely makes the minimum with 256mb VRAM.

I'll just play Vice City on my 4500MHD with overkill 2Ghz core 2 duo and pretend the graphics are stellar and it's GTA IV for the meanwhile, for my budgets sake anyway

 

I have the Game and while a decent video card and 512mb of ram is a must, it wont get you running the game at all. Quad core is a MUST unless you can pull a 4GHz Core 2 Duo out lol. I upgraded my P7450 2.13 Overclocked to 2.45Ghz to a T9600 2.80 Ghz overclocked to 3.22 Ghz and the frame rates nearly doubled.

The game will use a constant 100% on dual core below 3Ghz which drags the GPU way down. The T9600 upgrade and the overclock put it into a much more playable range. While I can play between 25-60 fps i still drop into the low low shaky 20's all the time. If your read the wikipedia page on it it mentions while receiving good reviews for improved graphics it was rated the most disappointing game of the year it came out.

Here is a bench involving 13 processors on the same settings and video card showing how much the CPU means here. Their GPU settings are high but it doesnt matter much - http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ark-review-with-13-processors/Reviews/?page=2

The back of the box says 1.8Ghz C2D as a MINIMUM (YEAH RIGHT) and the bottom of the box says Intel QUAD 2.4Ghz recommended.

Remember Framerate counters show the average not the minimum. 24 FPS is fluid motion to the human eye which is why film movies are filmed at this to save film stock. If the minimum drops below 24 it will be visually choppy, wether u can play it yourself at that is a different story. I played Fear xp at 640x480 on the limit of dropping below 24 now and then and it was a pain.

There are complaints EVERYWHERE a quick google finds plenty, some on this forum as well. Its literally cheaper to buy a xbox for 300 and the game to play it properly then getting a pc thats not a quad to run it properly. Video card as long as its within the support range doesnt really matter as its being choked.

This is ofcourse with the details and res up from what most of us run it at but it makes the point that the CPU and not the GPU is the source of the framerate issues.