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

    • 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!