GTA IV Performance

There is a 64 bit too ... at least the box says 64 bit.

My 8600m GT is sturuggling to run it at 800x600 with an overclock and almost everything turned down.

 

Interesting! I wonder if I can run this on my relative's desktop computer, it's like in between the min and recommended requirements. I mean on my laptop, of course, there's no way.

 

This is really sad since GTA is known for its "system friendly" requirements... I don't blame them for giving us a game that would look stunning in future rigs.. My only gripe is that they should have thought of the PRESENT more since this is when it will matter most...

 

Yeah, why not develop GTA 5 for the future and keep GTA 4 present and semi-future, like Crysis Warhead?

If I built a desktop today, I'd put an overclocked Intel i7 Extreme along with 2 GTX280s or 2 9800GX2 in SLI, with 8GB of DDR3 RAM. I bet it'll kill that game.

*Drools @ the setup*

ATI 4870 boys back off *hiss*

 

Here's the thing -- It doesn't look stunning and it still looks like crap. The below image was taken on an 8800 GTS (~ 8800M GTX) at the game's auto-configure recommended settings for that card. Keep in mind that these people are getting very low FPS. Crysis, for all the power it requires, genuinely looks amazing. GTA IV, so far, does not.

(Click for full size)



Also: The game does not include any anti aliasing.

 

Well maybe now the people who believe PCs are the end all or be all of graphics over consoles will shut up and realize how case-by-case it is.

Those graphics, friend, truly suck =/.

If you take a look at the scene, it's not much to render...I have a feeling like it's been poorly optimized and is rendering useless things in and out of the scene.

 

Properly done PC graphics are far and away better than consoles -- console ports by lazy developers are not. RB6V2 is another example of a very poor graphical transition to PC. Rockstar's (And others) inability to write a proper PC version is not indicative of a PC's ability, considering that the PS3 for example is the equivalent of a 7900 GTX (or something similar), there's no way an 8800 GTS (about 25-30% faster) should look that bad with framerates that low.

 

tsk tsk tsk.... This is just not right.. i hope someone could look into the .cfg files and stuff just like in crysis so that they could customize the settings.. and then we can download them hehe =p

 

Crysis at least looks good for all the difficulty running it.

 

You said it man. If you compare the world of Crysis and GTA IV, it seems that Crysis' world is harder to render since it is set in a tropical island where there are lots of trees, water, shadows etc.. GTA would really look awesome if you would max the setting out.. the key word there is "IF"

 

Specs in sig.

Runs ~15fps and looks horrible.

 

how did u increase ur resource usage mine is locked at 400mb

 

You don't want to increase that; If I'm assuming correctly, that number is the approximation of the Video memory the game is consuming. If so, you don't want that near the maximum.

Wow, 1280x800 and medium settings already eating up 400+MB VRAM...and I thought Crysis chews through VRAM like candy.

 

I'm not sure, there probably is a way around it if you read the gtaforums.


Anyways I set everything to low and it increased by 2 fps while graphics looks pretty much the same. LOL what is this crap??

They seriously need to release a patch within the next week. So far a waste of $80.

 

this makes me glad that i have a 8800m gtx lol ....even then the lowest i get is 24 fps with medium textures and high rendering the other settings on 29 and shadows on 4

 

@redda2:

Will you try this for me please:

Keeping the resolution (or maybe even higher - as this can increase performance - read it here):
View Distance: 50
Detail distance: 20
Vehicle Density: 50
Shadow Density: 0

But then again your GPU is DDR2 so there's not much you can do. I'm just really curious to see what performance will you get with the above settings.

Cheers!

 

I upped my resolution from 800x600 and the game runs faster?

 

Yeah, it's weird..

What kinda FPS are you getting MillerMagic? And what settings are you using?

 

I average 22fps with that setup.

 

My guess is this game is running so many physics calculations that at 800x600 it can barely render the scene with all the physics going on, so 1920x1200 offloads enough on the GPU that even though it's bringing the GPU to a crawl, it's balancing out with the CPU.

You've got a pretty potent CPU redda2, bump your resolution up and take another FPS reading with the same settings cdnalsi recommended. I would not at all be surprised if that helped your FPS out even more.

I'd really like to see this benchmarked on a highly overclocked core 2 quad setup.

 

That's great Redda2!

Now try it at 1440x900 or above, and also try adding GTAIV.exe (or whatever it's called) into your nVidia Control panel, and mess around with the settings from there. Mostly turn them down.

It's been known you can't apply AA forced from there, but maybe you can tone down some things.

And also, if it's not too much trouble, can you take another screenshot to see what difference will the new setting make?

Cheers!

 

22 FPS is great? Comon, even as an improvement that's unacceptable. You should be furious >=(

 

22 is still better than 15. And with tweaks I'm sure you can get it up to 30. It'll still look ugly, but until R* comes up with a patch, there's so little you can do.

And also, I'm really furious with R*, because I just bought Far Cry 2 and it runs just awesome on my 2.53 - 1067FSB, 4GB DDR3 Ram and 9600m GT DDR3.

That just shows GTA IV is poorly coded. Or I could be wrong.

 

has crysis ever gotten patched?

 

Crysis Warhead is the patch.

 

Upping the resolution to 1400x900 drops it to 19-20 fps.

Its day time now, and it looks 10 times better than it does at night.

Btw, consoles equivalent are:

Render quality: medium (higher than console).
View Distance: 22 (equivalent to console).
Detail distance: 10 (equivalent to console).

from rockstars site.

 

What FPS do you get with that? View 22 and Detail 10, no shadows?

 

So waiting for someone to try it on a M860TU.

 

Two questions....

First will this game work with a gamepad(xbox 360/Ps3?) I hope it does

Second......Does anyone want me to buy this game on steam and test it on my 9800

 

YESSS times 85083450438503485. Lol.

 

22-23fps, though it feels much laggier than that.

 

Well yes it will work with an xbox 360 / ps3 considering it came out on them first.

 

Since it is a Games for Windows LIVE title, it should have native support for the Xbox 360 controller, I believe all Games for Windows LIVE games are required to natively support the controller just like you were playing it on the 360. It will also have all the Acheivements in the 360 version and you will be able to chat with people on Xbox LIVE, although not play GTA4 with them. Very few games are cross platform play on the 360 and PC.

 

I'm looking forward to Burning Balls' review. I think it will play ok and stable.

 

off topic but , for anyone who has downloaded of steam , have u got ur cd-key which allows u to play online? because i cant find mine, the game is activated but i dont have the cd-key

 

As a general rule Steam releases don't usually require a CD key, unless something has changed due to the draconian DRM/licensing issues with GTA4.

 

You guys sure you want to play large online games when the FPS on single player is bad? I'm so anal about anything sub-50, let alone sub-30.

 

ITTTT!!!! THERE'S NO HOPE FOR ME

 

*Sets overclock to max*

Bring it on!!!@@!! I will get this game to run on my setup. I may burn my house down trying, but it'll happen .

 

What kind of speeds does Steam give you guys? I'm getting about 800KB/s, taking forever.

 

May I suggest running it in XP if possible, I am sure there would be a significant FPS boost...

I might end up digging out my 360 for this, seeing as I only have an Asus M70VM with a P8400 (2.2ghz) C2D CPU, nVidia 9600M GS GPU, 4gb RAM, I'm starting to think that I'll struggle to get any decent FPS while keeping the game looking reasonable, even in XP...

 

And...your reasoning behind this?

 

I am sure you are incorrect.

 

Every game I have, including CoD 5 to name a more recent game I have, runs better and at slightly faster fps/higher res/higher settings in XP SP3 than they do in Vista HP SP1 on my Asus M70VM.

 

I will try have it installed untill friday and give you benchs a.s.a.p,my config in my sign.

Edit:Anyone has informations about how good SLI scales in this game?

 

According to the readme, SLI is not supported at this time.

 

Rockstar are turning into mofos

EDIT: and now boys and girls, do you understand why did i panic on the requirements? the game looks crap and runs crap

 

Oh no! is that sli is not supported? How Can you create a so demanding game without considering sli support? patching will do, ok, but what, they did not have time to do it before coming out? That's really disappointing!
BTW I LOVE GTA's and I will get one soon.

 

how long do patches usually take to come out in these situations? its going to be pretty iffy with my system, which is seeing as its one generation old mid-range card, seeing as there is no demo i might have to pick up a special demo first to see if this will even play.

ps. thing is when i think of the gta series graphics is not much of a concern to me, it was not so long ago i was happy planning gta in 2d, its all about the gameplay, leave the beauty to crysis, well attempted beauty in this case. my guess is they rushed it out for xmas, i mean they pushed back the original release date and they would of been under extreme pressure by the sales department to get it out by xmas, only 3 weeks before xmas isn't much time. my thoughts are that with patches it will become what they wanted it to be, they simply ran out of time to get it right by release date.

 

Here's the full post from Rockstar: