Recommended Posts

GTA5 map is bigger than San Andreas map........

I know, but imagine if SF, LV, and the whole san andreas map would made too with the size-rate of this new LS...

Just as I feared, the graphics are really weak. The narrative looks decent but without any indication as to what the gameplay is like we still know pretty much nothing about the game, other than that PC users are getting screwed over again. I'm really surprised that GTAV and Assassin's Creed 3 both went for last current-gen rather than first next-gen, especially when it's easy to scale down games so they can still benefit from the massive install base of the current consoles.

As for the issues you experience... I know it isn't a popular opinion round here, but that is what you get with PC games. I learnt that they were more trouble than they are worth a few years ago now.

What are you talking about? I was complaining that Max Payne 3 had cutscenes that were pre-rendered at console graphics levels and that it looks terrible in comparison to PC quality graphics. Unfortunately, that's what you get when bad developers put out half-assed ports - even the console versions of GTAIV suffered from slow down and the resolution for the PS3 version had to be lowered as well. Consoles can't render at 2560x1600, let alone 60fps, let alone with anti-aliasing, let alone with hardware physics, let alone with high resolution textures, etc. Even the bad PC ports are better than the console versions - it's just they terrible in comparison to how they should have been. Consoles are great if you don't care about graphics or accurate consoles and you're on a budget. That may sound elitist but it's like comparing McDonald's to a fancy restaurant - they both provide good food, it's just aimed at people with different tastes.

oh man! what a trailer!

Meh, cinematics again. Some gameplay would have been nice.

It's not all just cinematics, some of is gameplay just with the camera switched, and Rockstars cinematic are always rendered in game

I mean you didn't really expect raw gameplay footage from a Rockstar trailer did you...

Just as I feared, the graphics are really weak.

You say that like it's a huge blow. I think the game looks technically brilliant considering it's on console, but more importantly the art direction looks incredible.

  • Like 1

Just as I feared, the graphics are really weak. The narrative looks decent but without any indication as to what the gameplay is like we still know pretty much nothing about the game, other than that PC users are getting screwed over again. I'm really surprised that GTAV and Assassin's Creed 3 both went for last current-gen rather than first next-gen, especially when it's easy to scale down games so they can still benefit from the massive install base of the current consoles.

The graphics aren't weak. Considering the size of the game and the systems it is on, I think they are pretty impressive. Unless i've missed something, there is no claims of it every coming to pc anyway right?

Even if it does, you should keep in mind, that GTA4 with some small mods is one of the best looking games you can currently run on your PC. This would only look better.

Trailer looks great. (Y) Makes GTA IV look really boring and dull, and as I already said, I didn't find that as bad as some did.

What are you talking about? I was complaining that Max Payne 3 had cutscenes that were pre-rendered at console graphics levels and that it looks terrible in comparison to PC quality graphics. Unfortunately, that's what you get when bad developers put out half-assed ports - even the console versions of GTAIV suffered from slow down and the resolution for the PS3 version had to be lowered as well. Consoles can't render at 2560x1600, let alone 60fps, let alone with anti-aliasing, let alone with hardware physics, let alone with high resolution textures, etc. Even the bad PC ports are better than the console versions - it's just they terrible in comparison to how they should have been. Consoles are great if you don't care about graphics or accurate consoles and you're on a budget. That may sound elitist but it's like comparing McDonald's to a fancy restaurant - they both provide good food, it's just aimed at people with different tastes.

As I said, this is what you get with PC gaming. To be fair it is as much of (if not more of) a problem with the gamers as the developers. Why would you expect cutscenes to work on such an uncommon resolution? If I stick any of my old PC games in, the cutscenes are smaller than my resolution because they were rendered for common screen sizes of the time. I have never come across a game where pre-rendered cutscenes are upscaled for higher resolutions. Is no wonder developers can't be bothered with PC gaming - too much hassle to code for the platform so loads of bugs, then they get slated by the elitists who expect games to work with every weird and wonderful feature/peripheral/hardware PC gamers can throw money at and then they sell fairly small numbers anyway. I still play a couple of PC games, but I don't miss it at all. Spent more time fixing problems than playing games and since I switched I've found myself enjoying gaming much more as a whole. If you're happy with PC gaming then fine, but don't expect the ridiculous.

Anyway going off-topic so will leave it there.

People who base their purchase of a GTA game on graphics quite clearly shouldn't buy it. The GTA series has never been about how it looks, but how it plays. After all you can't get the best graphics out of such an open world sand box game. To be fair on Rockstar, what they've shown so far seems to be mind blowing, espeshally on how old the hardware is within todays consoles.

Also, by now you should expect a PC release to be delayed for 6 months + as it's the way Rockstar works. So wipe thoughs tears Q_Q

This game is going to be amazing! - Tommy Vercetti in San Andreas = the ultimate win.

As long as they have a Decent radio Im happy to roam around the map messing about, San Andreas was the best for this.

Never played Vice City? :/

V-Rock / Wave 103 > all.

  • Like 2

And once again no PC........amazing.

Although it hasn't been officially announced yet, I highly doubt they'll ignore the PC platform. I'm sure it'll be released after the console versions.

As I said, this is what you get with PC gaming. To be fair it is as much of (if not more of) a problem with the gamers as the developers. Why would you expect cutscenes to work on such an uncommon resolution?

Pre-rendered cutscenes should be rendered at maximum settings and scaled down. It wouldn't be as bad if they used anti-aliasing and were rendered at 1080p. The real issue is that if they were rendered in-game it wouldn't be an issue.

If I stick any of my old PC games in, the cutscenes are smaller than my resolution because they were rendered for common screen sizes of the time. I have never come across a game where pre-rendered cutscenes are upscaled for higher resolutions.

But the most common gaming resolution now is 1080p and developers should want their game to look as good as possible. I understand that the X360 has a limited capacity storage but the PS3 has Blu-ray and can easily store videos at 1080p. So the issue is bad development decisions.

Is no wonder developers can't be bothered with PC gaming - too much hassle to code for the platform so loads of bugs, then they get slated by the elitists who expect games to work with every weird and wonderful feature/peripheral/hardware PC gamers can throw money at and then they sell fairly small numbers anyway.

You say that as if most games aren't ported to the PC when that simply isn't the case. I don't know what you have against PC gamers but the reality is that the PC offers the best gaming experience out there and developers should want their games to be enjoyed like that.

Spent more time fixing problems than playing games and since I switched I've found myself enjoying gaming much more as a whole. If you're happy with PC gaming then fine, but don't expect the ridiculous.

It's great that you enjoy that but I expect more from gaming and certainly can't stomach playing at 720p with such low visual fidelity - if I wanted that I could have just kept my PC from 6 years ago. It's not "ridiculous" to expect a PC version released at the same time. It's not "ridiculous" to expect cinematics that are rendered at a sensible resolution and with graphics comparable to in-game visuals. It's not "ridiculous" to want PC gamers to be treated with respect. The issues you listed are design issues, not PC issues - most games don't suffer from them, so I won't tolerate them from Rockstar. If Rockstar isn't up to producing proper PC ports then I'm not up to handing over money for them.

But the most common gaming resolution now is 1080p and developers should want their game to look as good as possible. I understand that the X360 has a limited capacity storage but the PS3 has Blu-ray and can easily store videos at 1080p. So the issue is bad development decisions.

Stop right there: no it's not. Most AAA games run at 720p if not less (many at an upscaled 640p).

Again, you're not looking at cost v. reward. GTA4 sold 700k on PC. Which is great, until you compare it to nearly 25 million on 360/PS3.

It's better to build for consoles where you'll make your money, then go about rebuilding the port to deal with all sorts of resolutions, video cards, processors, and the variables and bugs involved.

That may not be the case for all developers, but this particular generation, even the major developers that catered to PC gamers (Epic, Bioware, Crytek, etc.) seem to be aiming their games for consoles where you only have to variables to worry about -- 360 build or PS3 build.

Stop right there: no it's not. Most AAA games run at 720p if not less (many at an upscaled 640p).

Again, you're not looking at cost v. reward. GTA4 sold 700k on PC. Which is great, until you compare it to nearly 25 million on 360/PS3.

It's better to build for consoles where you'll make your money, then go about rebuilding the port to deal with all sorts of resolutions, video cards, processors, and the variables and bugs involved.

That may not be the case for all developers, but this particular generation, even the major developers that catered to PC gamers (Epic, Bioware, Crytek, etc.) seem to be aiming their games for consoles where you only have to variables to worry about -- 360 build or PS3 build.

Where did you get that 700k number and from what period of sales was it exactly?

Where did you get that 700k number and from what period of sales was it exactly?

Up through current.

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/25503/grand-theft-auto-iv/Global/

I can't say whether or not this counts Steam digital copies.

  • 2 weeks later...

No PC version?

**** this ****

Seriously man. Come on. Damnit.

^&%^&%$%

^%*&%(*)&%

$*&^%(*

or it will come 6 months later with Rockstar Social, Games for windows live, ubisoft uplay, steam and a bunch of retarded useless 3rd party apps required to play a game

  • 4 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • AMD RX 9070 GRE AI, Blender benchmarks vs 9070 XT, 7800XT, Nvidia RTX 5070, 4070 by Sayan Sen Earlier this week, we shared the first part of our review of AMD's new RX 9070 GRE. It was about the gaming performance of the GPU, and we gave it an 8 out of 10. As a follow-up, similar to how we did with the 9070 XT and non-XT, we are doing a dedicated productivity review for the RX 9070 GRE as well, where we compare it against the 9070 XT, 9070, 7800 XT, as well as Nvidia's 5070 and 4070. This will include AI, rendering, compute, and more benchmarks. AI performance, especially, is a very important metric in today's world, and AMD also promised big improvements thanks to its underlying architectural improvements. We will be pitching it against the data we already have for the RX 9070, and RX 9070 XT, but also the Nvidia 5070 FE, MSI GeForce RTX 4070 VENTUS 2X 12G, and Gigabyte Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G as they are in a similar price class, but also because we do not have a comparable 5060 Ti card lying around here that we can compare it against. Before we get underway, this is a collaboration between Sayan Sen and Steven Parker, who lent me his test bed. Also, there was no editorial input from AMD. First up, the specs of the RX 9070, 9070 XT, and 9070 GRE, which were given to us by AMD: Radeon RX 9070 GRE Radeon RX 9070 Radeon RX 9070 XT Boost Clock: Game Clock: up to 2.79GHz up to 2.20GHz up to 2.52GHz up to 2.07GHz up to 2.97GHz up to 2.40GHz Stream Processors 3,072 (48 CU) 3,584 (56 CU) 4,096 (64 CU) Ray Accelerator 48 56 64 AI Accelerator 96 112 128 ROPs 96 128 Texture Mapping Units 192 224 256 Memory 12 GB GDDR6, 18Gbps Clock, 192-bit Bus 432 GB/s 16 GB GDDR6, 20Gbps Clock, 256-bit Bus Effective Memory Bandwidth: 640 GB/s Infinity Cache 48 MB (3rd Gen) 64 MB (3rd Gen) Card Bus PCI-E 5.0 X16 Output 2x HDMI 2.1b 2x DisplayPort 2.1a Power consumption 220W 304W Recommended PSU 650W 750W Slot width 2x 3x Price (SEP) $549 $599 As you can see from the specs above, it is less than the standard RX 9070 in every way that counts, except for slightly higher Boost and Game clock speed. Design Moving on, the RX 9070 GRE we were given is an XFX Swift triple-fan, dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors. At 30cm (self-measured), it will fit in most systems easily. There is no RGB either. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE by XFX from all angles. Test system Our test system consists of the following: Lian Li O11 Dynamic Mini V2 Flow (Amazon|Newegg) ASUS Z890 ProArt Creator WiFi (Amazon|Newegg) Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (Amazon|Newegg) Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet - 44x37 (Amazon|Newegg) 2x 16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB (7200 MT/s in XMP) (Amazon|Newegg) Sabrent Rocket4 Plus 2TB SSD (Amazon) Windows 11 25H2 (Build 26200.8246) AMD shared a press driver based on the recently released Adrenaline 26.5.2 that we were required to use. We now move on to our benchmarks. First up, we have Geekbench AI running on ONNX. For some reason, the 9070 GRE does exceptionally well here in both half-precision (FP16) and single-precision (FP32). It manages to beat the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 non-XT, and is only behind the 9070 XT. Since Geekbench runs in short bursts instead of continuously hammering the graphics card, it seems the GRE's faster boost clocks are helping here. Next up, we move to the UL Procyon AI test suite, starting with the image generation benchmark. We chose the Stable Diffusion XL FP16 test since it is the most intense workload available on Procyon. The Nvidia cards do very well here, as even the 4070 out-muscles AMD's best fairy easily. The positive thing about the GRE is that it gets quite close to the 9070 non-XT in this test; this indicates that the VRAM does not play a very big role here, as SD XL relies on float16 (FP16). So this is something to keep in mind again. If you wish to work with float32 AI workloads, graphics cards with larger than 12 GB buffers would likely emerge as victors. Regardless, the gains are still massive on AMD's 9000 series compared to the 7000 series. Following image generation, we move to the text generation benchmark. This is one test where the 9070 GRE struggled, quite a lot. It seems that the 12 GB VRAM and lower memory bandwidth of the new Radeon 9070 GRE are hurting it quite a bit; the split is massive, especially in a test like Llama2, which packs 13 billion parameters. As such, in all the tests, the 9070 GRE is the slowest of the lot. Next, we tried Blender, and here the AMD GPUs were beaten by Nvidia. Rendering is something the Green team has always had a lead over the Red side, and it has not changed so far. On the positive side, though, the 9070 GRE shows significantly better results than the 7800 XT, which means AMD is on the right path. Catching up to Nvidia, though, will require a lot more effort. And we hope HIP and ROCm can keep improving. Wrapping up AI testing, we measured OpenCL throughput in the Geekbench compute benchmark. The RX 9070 GRE alongside the 9070 did not fare well here at all, even falling behind the 7800 XT. Interestingly, even the RTX 5070 could not beat the 4070 on OpenCL, so perhaps this suggests that OpenCL optimization may not have been a priority for either AMD or Nvidia in the modern era. Conclusion We reached the end of our productivity performance review of the 9070 GRE, and we have to say it's a mixed bag. Unlike the 9070 and 9070 XT, the GRE excels in some areas while losing ground fairly easily in others. Similar to how it happened in gaming, any time the card's memory subsystem gets hammered, it tends to fall behind the others. This was the case with text generation, wherein we saw the VRAM sometimes hit its maximum available 12 GB of usage with larger model sizes. So what do we make of the RX 9070 as a productivity hardware? It can certainly be used, but you have to know it has its limitations. For those looking for a GPU that can deal with more, AMD recently unveiled the Radeon AI PRO R9700, which is essentially a 32 GB refresh of the 9070 XT with some additional workstation-based optimizations. On a similar note, the new Ryzen AI Halo platform is something you can consider if you want to set up a local AI processing station. Considering everything, we rate AMD's Radeon RX 9070 GRE a 7.5 out of 10 for its productivity performance. Price is less of a factor for those looking at productivity cases compared to those considering the GPU for gaming, and as such, we felt it did quite decently on many occasions and can be handy if you need a 12 GB GPU and, for some reason, don't want to get Nvidia. Purchase links: RX 9070 / XT / GRE (Amazon US) As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Does anyone here know if these updates are integrated into the UUP dump isos?
    • Motrix Next 3.9.4 by Razvan Serea Motrix Next is a modern, open-source cross-platform download manager built as the official next-generation successor to the original Motrix project. It has been completely rewritten using Tauri 2, Vue 3, TypeScript, and Rust, while still relying on the powerful Aria2 download engine for high-speed multi-protocol transfers. The app supports HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, BitTorrent, ED2K and magnet links, offering advanced features like multi-connection acceleration, task scheduling, bandwidth control, and batch download management. With a significantly reduced install size (around 20MB), it focuses on being lightweight, fast, and resource-efficient compared to traditional Electron-based download tools. Designed for Windows, macOS, and Linux, Motrix Next delivers a clean, modern UI inspired by Material Design 3 principles, with smooth animations and a minimal workflow. It improves usability through better download organization, system tray integration, and enhanced torrent handling including selective file downloads and tracker management. Motrix Next features: Multi-protocol downloads — HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, Magnet, .torrent, ED2K, and Metalink tasks BitTorrent — Selective file download, DHT, peer exchange, encryption controls, metadata caching, GeoIP peer flags, and tracker probing Browser extension integration — Embedded Extension API with independent authentication, download confirmation, smart auto-submit, filename hints, referer/cookie forwarding, and real-time controls (Chrome Web Store · Edge Add-ons) Safe filename handling — Content-Disposition, RFC 2047, non-UTF-8, percent-encoded, and extensionless URL resolution with path traversal sanitization Download organization — Favorite and recent folders, optional file-type categorization, stale-record cleanup, and completed history backed by SQLite Concurrent downloads — Independent controls for active tasks, HTTP connections per server, segments per file, and BT peer limits Speed control — Global and per-task upload/download limits with day-of-week and time-of-day scheduling System integration — Tray operation, optional tray speed display, macOS Dock badge/progress, protocol handlers for magnet://, thunder://, and motrixnext:// Lightweight mode — Destroys the WebView on minimize-to-tray while Rust keeps the engine, task monitor, notifications, history, and extension routing alive Notifications and power options — Native task start/complete/failure notifications, keep-awake during downloads, and optional shutdown after completion Network controls — Scoped proxy support for downloads, app updates, and tracker updates, plus system proxy detection Auto-update channels — Stable, Beta, and Latest Across Channels policies with separate download and install phases Diagnostics — Structured logs, exportable diagnostic ZIPs, database integrity checks, automatic DB rebuild, and Linux GPU rendering fallback Personalization — Light/dark/system theme, 10 color schemes, 26 languages, and first-launch system language detection Motrix Next 3.9.4 changelog: Motrix Next 3.9.4 promotes the 3.9.4 beta cycle to stable. This release refreshes bundled engine binaries, improves task detail readability and copy actions, expands link handling for magnet and ED2K workflows, polishes responsive navigation and text wrapping, updates browser extension documentation, and refines network preference controls. New Features Task Detail copy actions — Added copyable values for task metadata and reusable render functions for long text fields. Magnet and ED2K lifecycle support — Added task lifecycle handling for magnet and ED2K links. History cleanup for deleted tasks — Deleted tasks can now remove matching history records. User-Agent management — Added user-agent management and improved related network preference controls. Browser extension documentation — Added the Firefox Add-ons link for the Motrix Next extension. Improvements Engine binaries — Updated bundled binaries for supported architectures. Task Detail readability — Long task names, URLs, tracker values, and copyable metadata now render more clearly. Deletion messaging — Refined localized task deletion text for clarity and consistency. Text wrapping — Improved URI input wrapping and task name multiline display. Navigation layout — Improved sub-navigation responsiveness. Disk allocation default — Changed the default file allocation method to trunc. Proxy controls — Improved proxy button styling in network preferences. Download: Motrix Next 64-bit | ARM64 | macOS ~20.0 MB (Open Source) Links: Website | macOS / Linux | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NVIDIA officially supports Ubuntu, as linked above with the GeForce NOW Hands on I did in collaboration with Paul Hill.
    • TO be clear I am not running linux today, however I keep thinking about it. And I want to make sure there are minimal obstacles if I decide to make that switch in the coming months.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      250
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      69
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!