GTA V discussion

You need to add some msaa and it will appear

 

Since TXAA is a type of MSAA, I wonder what happens if you have MFAA enabled in Nvidia Control Panel and TXAA enabled in-game. Wish I had the game to test.

 

TXAA can't be enabled in-game without MSAA being on, so if you have MFAA overriding MSAA, then TXAA simply won't activate.

 

If that's the case, might as well use MFAA if you have the option and performance to spare since TXAA is garbage

 

As Kirrr said, this is a luxury afforded to the:
M17x R4 and R5, AW17 R1 and MSI GT72 notebooks.

That's literally it.

M18x R1 & R2, AW18 and MSI GT80 Titan can disable their dGPUs and run off the iGPU, but that's it. They cannot use Optimus anyway, so while they contain the MUX switch, they don't have optimus to "disable".

Yes, MSAA and TXAA is HUGELY impacting in GTA 5. In my case, I noticed a full 20fps hit from no MSAA/TXAA to 2x TXAA. 80fps down to 60.
It is also noteworthy that it is impossible to use 8x TXAA though 8x MSAA is possible. 8x MSAA on reflections can be used without regular MSAA being used.

The game with absolute 100% maxed out graphics (every single thing on ultra except FXAA. 4x TXAA and 8x reflection MSAA are on. No "long shadows" etc in advanced graphics) looks like this:
Shot #1
Shot #2

These are the only two shots I have of all the graphics turned up as I turned off MSAA for higher average FPS.

 

Sick! This is the kinda kinda benchmark result I've been looking for =)

Can't wait for my Batman to arrive!

 

@D2 Ultima another thing to think about is, since MSAA calls are intercepted and converted to MFAA at driver level, the game has no way of knowing that you're using MFAA not MSAA, so automatically disabling TXAA may not be a thing.

Edit: I just read Nvidia's tech docs. No problem using TXAA w/MFAA. They're actually similar in some ways.

How do the graphics compare to Sleeping Dogs and Watch Dogs?

 

This is true... but again, if you set the AA to "override" then it'll disable MSAA and use MFAA, which means it'll disable TXAA too. That was my train of thought.

The people on the street and stuff are very nice quality. Good detail in them all. Especially nice detail with the cars; something sleeping dogs lacked for the most part I'd say.

The world itself is okay. It's great for an open world game; Sleeping Dogs didn't have as-good world textures except for the roads and buildings, which was understandable as beaches etc were rare. GTA has pretty good stuff all around. GTA however has HUGE performance demands for its "generally same level of graphics" and it makes me feel it could do with some optimization, though texture pop-in is not an issue thankfully and I've not run into any people or objects being there and invisible. Though I did run into this one where I hit a wall at 120fps and fell through the game world. Maybe it doesn't like superfast FPS? I dunno. I rarely got such high FPS so maybe it does hate it and we just never notice cuz FPS is always low in the game world.

Sleeping Dogs still had better character models for the main characters, even though lesser characters/NPCs don't have high poly counts etc. Sleeping Dogs is still king of the character models as far as main characters are concerned, that is for sure. By a mile, in fact.

Sleeping Dogs also had very good blood, which is something GTA also lacks. The blood splatter if you hit the road or something is nice, but the character clothes don't bleed or get bloody or anything like that, they just have bloody spots that appear instead of looking "wet" etc.

Sleeping dogs, BY FAR, by 10 years, beats GTA 5 in its rain and reflection environments. There is no contest. Hong Kong at night and in the rain is by and large 10,000 times better looking than GTA 5. They knew what they were doing with Sleeping Dogs' lighting. Another thing that pissed me off about GTA was that as much as its first person mode is nice, even with the best reflection quality I can enable, its wing mirrors and rearview mirrors in cars and on bikes do not work. They just show a muddied version of what's behind you, like Watch Dogs does. Sleeping Dogs I cannot remember if it worked, but a first person mode was not touted as being "fully playable" for it, so I must give GTA the hit for that. It makes first person driving very difficult to do; more difficult than it needs to be, as I know working mirrors have existed in games in the past, and a simple overlay would have worked like they do in driving games.

Overall, I'd give GTA 5 the nod in general graphics quality etc, and its animations are nice and fluid etc, but I can't say it's better by a ridiculous amount, except for some instances of texture quality on the desert/beach/etc type areas. Also underwater looks quite nice, which sleeping dogs doesn't really have.

Watch dogs I cannot compare to, as I've never played it, but a graphics-whore youtuber I watch claimed that Watch Dogs with the graphics mod & sweetfx looks better than GTA 5. I'm inclined to agree with him too, even though I never played it. GTA is a very nice looking game, and one of the best open-world type titles for it, but it, like Watch Dogs, is too demanding for what it produces (in my opinion), even though like Dying Light, a simple ~15-20% performance improvement would be all it needs to be perfectly acceptable optimization-wise for me, and the graphics aren't something I'm completely blown away by.

I will also make sure and point out that I did NOT play sleeping dogs' definitive edition; my comparison is to regular sleeping dogs with the high resolution texture pack for PC. Also note that since Sleeping dogs included a SSAA as part of its graphics options AND that 4x SSAA (extreme AA preset) runs better than GTA 5 without MSAA, I must compare their running abilities as such, even though without SSAA sleeping dogs has a decent amount of jaggies. In fact, I'd say that the "medium" SSAA (high AA preset) in Sleeping Dogs allowed me to sit well above 100fps 24/7 in the game, rarely even approaching 80fps, far less 60fps, and is a good option to consider if avoiding the extreme AA option for graphics comparisons.

 

Yes the weather and lightning effects were far more beautiful in SD than in the previous GTA's.

 

Can anyone else tell me if you are getting much higher temps with AMD 15.4 beta drivers?
I just hit 100C (first time ever on 7970m) and am curious if its the driver or my system.

 

That's the thing though. MFAA is not an override setting. It enhances the in-game MSAA setting. With MFAA on (there is only on or off in Nvidia Control Panel), selecting 2x MSAA in-game gives you 4x MFAA, 4x gives you 8x, 8x gives you 16x (this is possible because of MFAA's temporal sampling whereas traditional MSAA tops out at 8x).

Anyway, MFAA works on both MSAA and TXAA:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8734/nvidia-34475-drivers-mfaa-arrives-for-maxwell

 

I'm on drivers 354.20 (as Im worried about blocking overclocking if I upgrade).

Performance is horrible on my rig.

Ambient Occlusion: Normnal
Anisotropic Filtering: no
DirectX: DirectX 11
Display Mode: Full-screen
Distance Scaling: 100%
Extended Distance Scaling: 40%
Extended Shadows Distance: 0%
FXAA: Off
Grass Quality: Normal
High Detail Streaming While Flying: On
High Resolution Shadows: Off
Ignore Suggested Limits: On
In-game Depth of Field Effects: Off
Long Shadows: Off
MSAA: Off
Nvidia TXAA: Off
Particles Quality: Normal
Population Density: 100%
Population Variety: 100%
Post FX: Normal
Reflection MSAA: Off
Reflection Quality: Normal
Resolution: 1920x1080
Shader Quality: Normal
Shadow Quality: Normal
Soft Shadows: Softer
Tesselation: Off
Texture Quality: Normal
Water Quality: Normal
Vsync: On


Average of ~15-20Fps. Very disapointed- looks terrible and lags like crazy.

Could something be wrong?

 

^Yeah, game is running on HD 4600

 

Playing on a i7 4710HQ + GTX 850M...
@ 1280 x 1024 with everything on High and no MSAA and DX11, getting 60 fps pretty much with dips to 50. Pretty satisified for a mid range laptop.

 

Are you using a CRT?

 

Either it's a driver issue or the game is not running on your 970M. There's no way you should be getting FPS that low when I'm getting more than twice your FPS in 4K with all my settings higher than yours, specially considering that our models are very similar.

I'm curious: did you get the game from Steam or from Rockstar? If Steam, did you preload the game?

 

Cheers for the reply I need some hope!

I got it from Steam (preload), then the patch was added. I had a few install issues... Could that be it?

I'm worried 350.12 could lock my card from overclocking. I read all are unlocked now, but I've also read a few people say theirs are locked on these drivers...

 

If OC is not locked for you now, it won't be locked after you update. Don't be a wuss and just update the darn driver.

 

Read the below quote.

 

I downloaded mine after the game was released in order to skip preload unpacking and the steam & social club patching and didn't have any issues whatsoever installing the game.
Also, make sure the game isn't running on the iGPU.

 

Well then maybe it would work. I really would love to check it out with a couple 980Ms now haha.

 

MFAA doesn't work in SLI

 

yeah yeah seems like nothing works with SLI now.

 

Or better yet having no igpu at all like me 100% whenever I want. Battery? Whatever.... Haha

Just went ahead and bought this! 62GB download! Pretty incredibly big. Lucky I have a secondary 2TB drive with 1TB free lol!

Hmm 90 min download time. No playing this tonight

 

I have the same issue, its a slight pain, but no big deal.

 

So fun experiment with a below min spec machine last night. To my surprise I was able to get it to install on my laptop and launch the game. However that is where the fun surprises ended. There were some oddities with playing the game. I could only get it to run "normal" in 800x600 windowed mode. When playing in full screen at this resolution I get some really bad artifacting.

Other things included that the game registered my machine's vRAM @512MB when it is suppose to be 1GB card. So it looked like it was using 1GB out of 512MB vRAM. It wouldn't let me adjust any other settings such as increasing my resolution without getting a message stating that I have exceeded the video memory.

Their benchmark tool is kind of weird, so I wasn't able to see just how bad it could get . So to answer the question, yes you can play on a below min spec machine, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Don't be sad, it thinks I have 8GB. It seems to be predicting DX12 or something.

 

Well, having a blast with the game, runs at a rock solid 59fps (V-sync on). Running the latest Nvidia Game Ready drivers.

Definitely worth the purchase, looking forward to enjoying this one for a while! It runs and plays so much better than the initial Xbox360 release. Much smoother than GTA IV as well. Rockstar did the PC version justice.

Now if only they'll give Red Dead Redemption the same treatment!

 

Whenever I watch a video on YouTube of a low-end laptop fluidly playing this game with medium settings, I am amazed every single time.

Kudos to Rockstar - they made us wait ages, but at least the end product is one of excellent quality. Doesn't even compare to how GTA IV turned out.

 

It's not without it's share of issues. Seems either you can run the game smoothly or you have lots of CTD's, hangs, etc.

 

Runs amazingly on my laptop, specs in sig. Settings are a mix of normal and high.

 

Damn. I'm not in the loop so to speak, I haven't got the game myself yet.

Hopefully those issues can be resolved via a patch.

 

Any Key, thanks a lot for your feedback, it really helps!

 

Quick question: I can't figure out what reflection msaa is. I tried turning it on (max) and off, I don't notice any difference on screen (and you barely loose any fps with it). I didn't manage to get an answer on google, so if anyone knows ...

 

What the name says, it's antialiasing of reflections

 

I tried turning down a bunch of settings but it seems like the drop below 60fps is inescapable for me. I don't know why. I've seen multiple users claim that higher than 1080p resolutions run the game better than at 1080p, and while it's very weird, the number of unrelated people who told me it worked is scary. I'm up to five people from various corners of the net who've gotten better performance with single 970s/980s and 3K/4K resolutions than my two 780Ms and this other guy's two 980s (not M) at 1080p

 

How is the game running frames wise on a 660m and a 960m ??

 

Don't suppose I have any hope of the game running on a i5 450M @ 2.4Ghz and a (gimped) AMD 5650 at 1366x768 resolution, do I?

It looks amazingly fun tbh

 

Unless they are throwing down frame rate graphs I would say it's a case of low expectations or stretched truths. I definitely dip below 60 (haven't been using an osd when this happens for all I know it would still read 60 but I have a good feeling for games) on a titan x at 1080p. It happens very rarely but it does happen

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

I was having fun going back though this thread reading all the delay hate. You even said you weren't buying it at launch.

It looks like the delays paid off eh?

 

Hey pals came in to report on behalf of those few of us who are below the minimum specs. I have a 2010 HP laptop, dual core i5 2.6ghz-3.06ghz, ati 5650 1gb vram, and 8gb system ram, windows 7. And They did an amazing job because the game runs at a crisp 720p with lowest settings which is impressive for a game of this magnitude. Deadrising3, Dying light, Metal Gear solid V, The evil within, Ryse, Dragon age Inquisition, and now Grand theft auto V have defied the minimum specs and allowed me to play even with some room to add vsync and fxaa.This is how you optimize a game!

I have criticized Rockstar in the past for optimization but I say now this a excellent port over that makes me forgive the delays. Even though both my Cpu and Gpu fell short of the requirements I was able to not only get it going but even toggle a few of the many graphics options given. Like Mgs5 and some others I mentioned being able to play with only a dual core is a big surprise given how poorly most companies port to the pc and how that is supposed to be a requirement. Looks like I may be able to wait for broadwell/skylake and new gpus when the next batch of laptops ship after all.

 

Ok my thoughts/opinions.

Played so far a fair bit and Venice beach is quite accurate know the area quite well heheh and it runs fluidly and really appreciate the vram usage indicating to what extent you can fill it up with the settings.

Looks to be quite the adventure and will take a long while to finish. I am getting high GPU temps on 7970m around 100C will test on my 680m system shortly.
Overall I give it 8/10 and graphics are quite good but not excellent compared to other recent titles.

 

Too damn expensive. I'm going to go the cheapo-gamer route: buy a mid-range card and wait for the game to lose 90% of its price 3 years after release, and then buy/play the game. It's what I did with Skyrim (got the entire game for $5 on Steam last year), Civ V, Bioshock Infinite, The Witcher 2, and so on.

Probably the only game I have and will ever pre-order is The Witcher 3.

 

Same, I'll wait for this game to drop to $15 or less within the next year before picking it up. I have no time right now anyway.

 

You nailed it Tron. I frequent LA, and it is uncanny on Vinewood BLVD. Im actually heading back towards LA in 2 days. Gotta be in Denver for 4/20 you know, the celebration?

 

Ha, it's well established when it comes to new shiny toys I have the will power of a gerbil

They did good with this one though... Unlike the turd WatchDogs was IMHO. Happy to support proper optimizations.

The game just does what it should, very enjoyable.

 

How is the game running frames wise on a 660m and a 960m ??

 

Take Route 66

EDIT: The Nvidia 680m running better than the AMD 7990m at this stage getting 60fps with everything on max whilst 7970m due to less vram have to reduce settings. Temps to follow.

 

You gotta be joking. OCed 860M performance > stock 680M performance. I am very happy.

 

Just did my first heist in the online portion of the game. It was a lot of fun.