GTA IV for PC (official)


Recommended Posts

Indeed. GTA: San Andreas was fun on the PS2 and even more fun on the PC. I literally spent hours and hours playing that game. I just never got bored of it. Heck, I'd play it right now if I still had it. Hopefully, I'll soon say the same about GTA IV.

What a coincidence. GTA IV runs on Natural Motion's Euphoria animation engine. Hence your alias, hahaha.

Well I guess that's why is running so smooth on my PC ;)

Sounds like it needs a DeLorean with 1.22jigawatts!!!!

that's 1.21 jigawats!!!! with 1.22 you might overload it, then youll be stuck there.

on another note, I think Ill be sticking with my trusty PS3 for GTA4... my rig is no where near good enough for that behemoth

Not in the Steam version apparently, you need to be online there to save.

Hmm I do have the Steam version....

To clarify one thing: I am logged in Microsoft Live but I am not logged in to Rockstar's Social Club...

Loggin in to R* Social Club crashes the game.

I am not sure but maybe you can save the games only by connecting to MS Live.

Yes, steam version has SecuROM too. I found a way around my problem, just had to disconnect the Internet while playing, which also means no saving :rolleyes: Oh well, got to try the game and so far so good.

Whats your system specs?

I cant stand playing games lower than my monitors max resolution (1920x1200) and will gladly sacrifice texture quality and shadows over lowering the resolution, but at the same time I want to get decent FPS, I know my CPU can handle it, but I am unsure if my 4850 can keep up (at 1920x1200). Either way I will be upgrading in January, but I am hoping to find out around what my current computer can handle before I run out and get the game.

Whats your system specs?

I cant stand playing games lower than my monitors max resolution (1920x1200) and will gladly sacrifice texture quality and shadows over lowering the resolution, but at the same time I want to get decent FPS, I know my CPU can handle it, but I am unsure if my 4850 can keep up (at 1920x1200). Either way I will be upgrading in January, but I am hoping to find out around what my current computer can handle before I run out and get the game.

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800

4GB Corsair DDR2 800MHz

8800 Ultra - Factory Overclocked

Windows XP SP3

I usually can't stand it either but the different between the two resolutions are for me, almost unnoticeable and I'd glad play at a lower res to get 40+ FPS.

Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800

4GB Corsair DDR2 800MHz

8800 Ultra - Factory Overclocked

Windows XP SP3

I usually can't stand it either but the different between the two resolutions are for me, almost unnoticeable and I'd glad play at a lower res to get 40+ FPS.

I just hate it throwing everything over to the side, with a 1920x1200 desktop res on 2 different monitors, I dont run my browser full screen, so if a game does not run at my desktop resolution, my browser always gets shifted to the right (even if its minimized) and I always have to reposition it when I get out of the game.

That being said, it seems the 8800 Ultra is virtually the same as the 4850 in terms of performance (I have the TOXIC edition, which is also factory overclocked), I have my processor clocked at 3.7Ghz so that should be an issue.....same amount of ram, but faster (1000Mhz). Are those all the settings that you can change or do they have things like shadow quality and what not? I personally am not a huge graphic guy (I value gameplay over graphics) so as I mentioned above, I dont mind sacrificing quality as long as I can get good performance at 1920x1200.

Either way, thanks for the info, I should be able to handle it pretty well after turning some more settings down, heck, after looking at your dynamic shadows screenshot, the graphics look good enough with what yours are set to that they probably wont look much worse by knocking them down a notch.

Well, I doubt you can directly compare our hardware like you're doing. So much hardware perform differently in each situation. There is also a lot of talk about most ATi cards struggling with the game, whether it be a driver or an optimization issue, I don't know. So doubt we can compare it like this :)

As I said earlier, there are a lot of steps in the various settings but the differences are really unnoticeable at times. You can change the settings In-game and see the changes on the fly through the transparent background and then you quickly notice the various setting differences. Like, Render Quality High looks exactly the same as Very High and Highest in the few areas I tried changing it, apart from a 'stitch' in the middle of the road which is visible at lower settings.

So even with everything at the lowest setting, the game still looks quite decent, almost on par with the console version. So no need to worry, the game will look great under any circumstances :)

Oh and here are all the available settings you can tweak;

vwyd6b.png

Good info, and yes I know you cant really compare even similar hardware, but it gives a basis of what can usually be expected.

Chances are I will turn view distance down a bit (from what you have it on), as well as shadow density.

Either way, I'll likely run it on 1920x1200, chances are the game was optimized for nVidia cards.....nearly all large software companies that deal with anything 3D optimize their graphics for one manufacturer or another. (Unigraphics for example, is more optimized towards nVidia cards than ATI)

Oh well, at least I'm lucky enough (compared to many other people) to be able to have a system right now that can at least handle running the game.

I found this screenshot on the web while looking for GTA IV benchmarks:

GTAIV2008-12-0218-28-39-84.jpg

Roughly 1.5 GB in resource usage just to max out the game at 1680x1050 seems a little too much. There's talk on the Internet that this game is chock-full of performance issues.

Damn I was looking forward to getting this but if people are struggling to get 50fps with 8800 Ultra's with quad cores, yikes. Might bypass this for a couple of months to see if some patches resolve these performance issues because lets be honest here its no Crysis, and those of us with decent rigs shouldn't have a problem cranking this game.

I was all ready to buy this game until I read about the performance issues, Hope I wouldn't have to run it at 800x600 with everything on low just to get an ok framerate out of my 8600GT (512MB)

$50 on steam here in Australia and at Eb Games it's $100, seriously what about the people who can't download it on steam because its 14gb and need to buy it, they will need to pay double.

$50USD translates to $77AUD or so, Still around $20 cheaper.

at 13.5 gb...no wonder this game runs so badly..sounds like it is unoptimized to me

Yup, sloppy porting imo. Think about it the 360 and PS3 only have 512MB of RAM and old ass gpu's.

Its almost like there is a conspiracy against PC gaming to get all of us to commit to console gaming because thats where all the money is as fas as devs and publishers are concerned, guaranteed returns and ms/sony help pay for advertising and dev cost.

I know that sounds a little tin foil hattish but seriously whats with these games that can run on far inferior hardware yet have trouble on high end gaming rigs?

Anyone else thought this?

I found this screenshot on the web while looking for GTA IV benchmarks:

GTAIV2008-12-0218-28-39-84.jpg

Roughly 1.5 GB in resource usage just to max out the game at 1680x1050 seems a little too much. There's talk on the Internet that this game is chock-full of performance issues.

it will improve the sales of 2GB equipped graphic card ahaha

and why the hell it doesn't just use system ram for textures ??

it will improve the sales of 2GB equipped graphic card ahaha

and why the hell it doesn't just use system ram for textures ??

'cause that is what VRAM is for. Plus, VRAM is faster than RAM I believe.

right, playing in offline mode didnt work, and ive found something interesting, the game is not saving my graphical options its always defaulting to 1680x1050 and a insane setting where i get 20 fps

ive tried setting it in the main menu saving and then quiting, then running the game again, but no joy, anyone else got this issue?

EDIT:

after lowering my settings down to the following (see pic) the game is STILL running like crap

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/1712/gtaje3.jpg

Edited by Unimatrix Xero
it will improve the sales of 2GB equipped graphic card ahaha

and why the hell it doesn't just use system ram for textures ??

Video RAM is not only faster, but different. It acts as a frame buffer between the CPU and GPU. It's also dual ported meaning that it can send information to the processor and read/update new information at the same time. As far as I know, that's the main difference between regular system RAM and video RAM.

Anyway, I've yet to play GTA IV on the PC. I'm afraid it won't run as well as I'd like it to. I sincerely hope Rockstar North releases a patch to fix any or all of the performance issues as well as the various bugs reported so far. Seriously, if it can run on console hardware from 2005/2006 then it should sure as hell run on computer hardware from 2008.

well after a little tinkering ive found a command line via a shortcut that helps me a little but i still feel i shouldnt have to do this on my system, but hey

simply create a shortcut and use the following line "M:\Rockstar Games\Grand Theft Auto IV\LaunchGTAIV.exe" -width 1280 -height 1024 -shadowdensity 0 -viewdistance 10 -texturequality 0 -renderquality 0 -detailquality 10 , you will need to change the folder location but it should help until something better comes out

at 13.5 gb...no wonder this game runs so badly..sounds like it is unoptimized to me....look at farcry2...2.5gb and huge worlds...destructible environment..etc..

Uh, I'm no PC gamer but aren't the new GTA IV texture resolutions higher now? That could mean a bigger filesize and I'm sure that there are MANY more textures (indoors, outdoors, cars, people, buildings, etc) in GTA IV than compared to FarCry 2 (at least what I've seen of it... open land, many reusable textures). And there's the radio and the diverse environmental sounds in GTA IV which should also take up some more space than when compared to FC2.

Of course, I haven't played FC2 but only seen a few videos, so I should shut up. 13.5GB vs 2.5GB is still big.

I was hoping that I would be able to play it on a Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz T7400/2GB RAM/X1600 Radeon 128MB (Not too bad for gaming) but I am doubtful that it will play very well on something midrange, when not even high end PCs in 2008 can handle it. I think that I will wait until the Core i7 and whatever GeForce that they are up becomes mainstream before considering to get this on PC.

Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to play this on one of the new MacBook Pros (Geforce 9600M GT 512MB / 2.53GHz C2D T9400 / 4GB 1066Mhz DDR3 RAM)? :D

I also wouldn't mind a Demo version so that I can test the performance first.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!