GTAIV: PS3 version runs at 630p while 360 version at 720p


Recommended Posts

Well I had a mediocre PC and it ran just fine for me. If you don't like PC gaming, what were you doing with a top of the range PC, then? Hmmm?

How would it be possible to say I don't like something if I haven't tried it? That would be the ramblings of a fanboy, would it not?

No - there are too many "Xbox 360 is better than PS3" threads :|

If it was true you could understand it...

How would it be possible to say I don't like something if I haven't tried it? That would be the ramblings of a fanboy, would it not?

Perhaps, but you're saying that the PC version of San Andreas had worse performance issues than the PS2/Xbox counterpart, which is just not the case. I don't know what caused problems for you, but it really wasn't a problem for me and my system was by no means "top of the line".

Perhaps, but you're saying that the PC version of San Andreas had worse performance issues than the PS2/Xbox counterpart, which is just not the case. I don't know what caused problems for you, but it really wasn't a problem for me and my system was by no means "top of the line".

No I didn't.

You said every GTA game on the PC you've played had Framerate issues. As Coldgunner pointed out, the PS2 version had them as well, so what was your point, exactly?

So where in saying they had framerate issues did you get 'the PC had worse performance issues'?

All I said was, GTA is known for having a slightly unstable framerate on any platform.

the better loading times of the ps3 was the seller for me, also with the popup being less of an issue.

Did you even play the 360 version at all. I'm going to quote myself from another thread here:

By the way, I watched a friend of mine play for about a half hour today and I don't know how anyone can say the PS3 has the edge b/c of load times and popin - load times on the 360 are next to negligible and I didn't actually notice any popin (perhaps because I was actually paying attention to the gameplay...).

-Spenser

I agree about the load times.

I've been playing this game for 16-17 hours now and you get practically NO loading screens, how can you improve on that?!

And i have experienced no pop-in, no roads missing, nothing appearing in front of me, no models without textures ...

Did you even play the 360 version at all.

no I haven't yet, but reading the vast amounts of comments on the subject tells me as such. its not an argument I wish to get into again.

Also the risk of having hardware failure is much less on ps3, again a topic for a different thread.

no I haven't yet, but reading the vast amounts of comments on the subject tells me as such. its not an argument I wish to get into again.

Well maybe if you'd have given it a shot before listening to a bunch of whiners on the internet first, I wouldn't bother you, since you'd have firsthand account, but as it is, I think you made a poor case for why you chose the PS3 version over the 360 version, as both your reasons are negligible. Hell, saying "I picked the PS3 version because I like the PS3 more" is a better reason than the one you put forth.

Also the risk of having hardware failure is much less on ps3, again a topic for a different thread.

If you already have a 360, than this is a moot point. Why buy any games for it if you're always going to use this poor excuse that only even merits looking at if you have an older console?

-Spenser

no I haven't yet, but reading the vast amounts of comments on the subject tells me as such. its not an argument I wish to get into again.

Also the risk of having hardware failure is much less on ps3, again a topic for a different thread.

Yeah but the risk of the game glitching and crashing constantly is much higher on the PS3, so go fish. It really is a pointless argument.

Yeah but the risk of the game glitching and crashing constantly is much higher on the PS3, so go fish. It really is a pointless argument.

How do you work that out? Both versions have crashing issues.

Well maybe if you'd have given it a shot before listening to a bunch of whiners on the internet first, I wouldn't bother you, since you'd have firsthand account, but as it is, I think you made a poor case for why you chose the PS3 version over the 360 version, as both your reasons are negligible. Hell, saying "I picked the PS3 version because I like the PS3 more" is a better reason than the one you put forth.

If you already have a 360, than this is a moot point. Why buy any games for it if you're always going to use this poor excuse that only even merits looking at if you have an older console?

-Spenser

1. I got it for PS3 because I don't have a X360, my reason being in #2

2. The X360 has an abysmal failure rate, I know a lot of people and all of them have had it fail at least once, in some cases multiple times. Noise is also a big issue, I've attended lans which we had both consoles set up and the 360 drowned out the ps3's. I've spent some time with the 360 and I simply don't like it, I don't like the interface, noise (as I've just stated) and reliability (I can't have a console that may fail due to the fact I use them for more than just games). Hence why I was so impressed with the PS3's functionaility.

Am I a 360 hater? no, I know its got a better games library, but reliability is a major thing for me. The multimedia and psp interoperability with the ps3 made it the better option.

Am I a Sony fanboy? no, I realise the games are often shoddy ports, and software is a little expensive, but multimedia is the big winner in this case.

Am I a PC lover? Yes, games have always continually pushed the edge over consoles but unfortunately the trend is more towards consoles due to the huge sums of money involved.

Edited by Coldgunner
1. I got it for PS3 because I don't have a X360, my reason being in #2

Much better.

Funny, Im seeing widespread issues for both platforms.

Have you actually got a PS3?

I'm not seeing it widespread for both.

Me not having a PS3 doesn't have anything to do with this argument.

-Spenser

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
    • Another devilish issue surrounding these certificates is what can happen with old, unsuspecting PCs that nevertheless have Secure Boot enabled. In my case, it was a Dell with a 3rd-gen Core chip (so about 13 years old). As of the last few weeks, it was suddenly BSOD'g within about 5 minutes of booting. Turns out it was because of MS's "Secure-Boot-Update" scheduled task, which is scheduled to run 5 minutes after login. It's explained in gory detail here (this is not my post, but it was where I found the answer), but the short version is that this legacy system would need fairly elaborate, manual certificate intervention since MS's automatic cert update method cannot work. How to do that is linked late in the thread. https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...od-caused-by-scheduled-task Secure Boot wasn't at all important for this particular PC, so I disabled it to be done with the problem.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      95
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!