GTA IV for PC (official)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

That won't do anything...

Yeah, maybe right after an update it could help, but Windows defrags all local disks weekly anyway, so the files are already in a contiguous layout (contig just calls the same API's as the windows defragger, but it can operate on a per file or directory basis, hence why it's a useful tool)

[Xtreme2damax]

I've already tried everything I can, even at the lowest settings GTA4 still runs like a dog for no apparent reason. My system isn't that bad (Core2Duo E8500, Geforce 9800 GT, 4 GB DDR2 ram), it should run a lot better but doesn't.

Quite an unoptimized game, not only contains performance issues but issues with missing geometry and other bugs, seems like it was rushed. It shouldn't require a quad core to run decently, the Vram requirement is insane and the game looks nowhere as pretty as Crysis does, Crysis actually runs a bit better than this game if you can believe that. I also own several other better looking games which run far better than this. Rockstar really hit the fan with the PC release, why couldn't it of scaled fairly well for older hardware, I remember GTAIII, Vice City, San Andreas running quite well on lowly hardware.

At least those with the money to build an Alienware grade super PC with a Core i7 and a high end Nvidia/ATI card can enjoy the game the way it was meant to be played, although I'm sure not at a full steady 60FPS.

[Elliot B.]

I've already tried everything I can, even at the lowest settings GTA4 still runs like a dog for no apparent reason. My system isn't that bad (Core2Duo E8500, Geforce 9800 GT, 4 GB DDR2 ram), it should run a lot better but doesn't.

Quite an unoptimized game, not only contains performance issues but issues with missing geometry and other bugs, seems like it was rushed. It shouldn't require a quad core to run decently, the Vram requirement is insane and the game looks nowhere as pretty as Crysis does, Crysis actually runs a bit better than this game if you can believe that. I also own several other better looking games which run far better than this. Rockstar really hit the fan with the PC release, why couldn't it of scaled fairly well for older hardware, I remember GTAIII, Vice City, San Andreas running quite well on lowly hardware.

At least those with the money to build an Alienware grade super PC with a Core i7 and a high end Nvidia/ATI card can enjoy the game the way it was meant to be played, although I'm sure not at a full steady 60FPS.

The 9800 GT is quite a dated card, I think that's your primary weak point, along with your processor. Most of us are in the same boat with this game - generally the processor being too dated :/

[Hani]

I remember running an unpatched version of the game with C2D T5750@2GHZ, Geforce 9500 GS, and 4 GB DDR2 ram. I got approx. 20 fps at medium settings.

[Xtreme2damax]

The 9800 GT is quite a dated card, I think that's your primary weak point, along with your processor. Most of us are in the same boat with this game - generally the processor being too dated :/

It's only a year or a year and a half old at most, and GTA4 isn't graphically groundbreaking, Crysis was and Crysis still runs a bit better than GTA4. This is just an example of what rushed releases and poor optimization could do, this and DRM are the future of PC gaming, it isn't looking good.

As I mentioned I have several games which look just as good or better graphically and run much better, I have no problem achieving 60 FPS or close to 60 FPS in my other games. I can run Resident Evil 5 at max setting and get 40 - 50 FPS consistently whilst playing with very minor dips.

I forget what the rendering technique is called, but a coder I know stated the shading or rendering technique used by Crysis, GTA4, and other games such as Mercenaries 2: World in flames is very demanding of resources for no good or logical reason. These games are mostly intensive on video hardware (Vram) resources and CPU resources. Due to the backwards rendering technique these games use, current hardware is incapable of rendering these games without substantial slowdowns.

I remember when hardware enthusiasts would buy a new game, use it as a benchmark on their new system bragging rights on how they could achieve over 60 - 100 FPS, not the case anymore with games like Crysis and GTA4. :/

Edited January 10, 2010 by Xtreme2damax

[san.W10]

gta4 is a rushed port by noobs at Rockstar Toronto :p

the same noobtards who ported Bully Scholarship Edition PC

GTA SA PC was developed by R* North, that game needed a patch to remove "something" :p, GTA4 has received 5 patches in total & still not performing as it should.

anyways, dont compare this retarded port to other games.

GTA's were never meant to be the best - graphically.

[san.W10]

Family Guy Teaches Us How to Drive — Using Grand Theft Auto

Last night on a very special Family Guy: When Peter loses his memory, he needs to re-learn everything. That includes driving. Trouble follows when Lois hooks him up to the murder simulator.

By the way, can you tell that's a hooker? It's a hooker. Look how she's dressed.

video - http://kotaku.com/5440143/family-guy-teach...rand-theft-auto

:D

[Victor Rambo]

And what was your frame rate?

17-18

Sometimes it used to drop to 4-5 fps. :p

btw I had xfx8600gt back then.

Now i have xfx9600gt, I get slightly more fps.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Any news on the DLC?

[Elliot B.]

Any news on the DLC?

It's an annoying wait.

[deletedxyz]

The 9800 GT is quite a dated card, I think that's your primary weak point, along with your processor. Most of us are in the same boat with this game - generally the processor being too dated :/

Then, why am I getting 19-30 fps at 1920x1200 with a 2.26Ghz C2D (Mobile processor), 9800m GTS, 4 GB DDR3 Ram?

[2xSilverKnight]

i've been ripped of by the 7,49 $ deal. The game performs like ****.

Even at minimum resolution and graphics it's unplayable.

Btw, I can run Crysis in 1680x1050 without a problem.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

It's an annoying wait.

An annoying wait indeed. I don't think I'm ever going to play this game again once Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 are released. What a waste of $50. :/

[Elliot B.]

Then, why am I getting 19-30 fps at 1920x1200 with a 2.26Ghz C2D (Mobile processor), 9800m GTS, 4 GB DDR3 Ram?

At bare minimum detail perhaps. A lot of us that have posted here have significantly more powerful systems and aren't getting that type of performance, even at low-to-medium detail levels.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

The game is just badly ported, there's nothing graphically special about it, they've used an even simple method of shadows than other games have and yet their shadows slow the game down more (for example)

It's not like there's high res textures to go along with it, pedestrian texture are fairly low res (I think they're 256x256)

Edit: No they're not, I was wrong, they're segmented into lots of textures ranging from small sizes to large* sizes based on the required detail.

* The largest character textures I've found are 512x512, not really that large in comparison to games that have 4,096x4,096 face textures

Edited January 11, 2010 by The_Decryptor

[deletedxyz]

At bare minimum detail perhaps. A lot of us that have posted here have significantly more powerful systems and aren't getting that type of performance, even at low-to-medium detail levels.

I have everything maxed out (except I didn't play with the sliders such as traffic density and such). I have not had one single hitch playing this port.

[Elliot B.]

I have everything maxed out (except I didn't play with the sliders such as traffic density and such). I have not had one single hitch playing this port.

On a 9800m with a mobile 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo? :laugh:

[deletedxyz]

On a 9800m with a mobile 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo? :laugh:

:huh: I don't see how it's funny that I'm getting great performance on my last playthrough when I downloaded it from Steam. You're simply doing it wrong but considering that you thought that a 9800GT is an old card shows that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Proof:

^However, he maxed out vehicle density and two other sliders while I didn't and I maxed out textures.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Masked Forever

[san.W10]

even 8xxx series is not old & you say 9xxx is old. :p

maybe old in terms of time, but not in tech.

isnt the gt2xx series a rebranded 9xxx series & 9xxx series rebranded 8xxx series? :p

[Elliot B.]

even 8xxx series is not old & you say 9xxx is old. :p

maybe old in terms of time, but not in tech.

isnt the gt2xx series a rebranded 9xxx series & 9xxx series rebranded 8xxx series? :p

For a game like GTA4, it will not offer good performance. I believe the mobile GT2xx chips may be rebranded 9xxx chips (I could be wrong), but the desktop GTX 2xx chips use a new architecture.

[ViperAFK]

I have everything maxed out (except I didn't play with the sliders such as traffic density and such). I have not had one single hitch playing this port.

WHat FPS do you get? I cant max out everything to very high without really bad performance on my X4 phenom II 2.6ghz and a 4870 @ 1680x1050. It plays great with med textures and everything else on high though and I can ramp traffic density to 50-60. I tried turning shadows off as suggested in this thread also and I do think the game looks better without the ugly rash shadows. It now plays perfectly smooth at all times and I can use vsync now too.

But with everything on very high its awful.

[hotdog666al]

Get a decent PC then :p

So my i5-750, 4GB DDR3 and GTX260 aren't enough to run a 2008 game in medium settings?

Can run Crysis pretty well, and that's a resource ######.

[Elliot B.]

So my i5-750, 4GB DDR3 and GTX260 aren't enough to run a 2008 game in medium settings?

Can run Crysis pretty well, and that's a resource ######.

That system should be nicely capable of running GTA4 in medium very well.

[hotdog666al]

That's what I thought.

It runs every game I've tried on it so far in absolute highest with full AA. (Except it gets about 50FPS Crysis and minor stutters in Fallout 3 now and then).

I blame the game, not my hardware! I shouldn't have to bugger about tweaking the config files either to get the game running at a playable level :/

[deletedxyz]

WHat FPS do you get? I cant max out everything to very high without really bad performance on my X4 phenom II 2.6ghz and a 4870 @ 1680x1050. It plays great with med textures and everything else on high though and I can ramp traffic density to 50-60. I tried turning shadows off as suggested in this thread also and I do think the game looks better without the ugly rash shadows. It now plays perfectly smooth at all times and I can use vsync now too.

But with everything on very high its awful.

I have everything maxed out at 1920x1200 but I left the sliders on default. I don't exactly remember the values but I know the first option (view distance?) was set to 23 and so on. Traffic density was set to 30 something. I got 19-30 fps. I uploaded a screenshot a few posts before. The youtube video I posted before is an older version of the laptop I have (in my sig) and it got 14-20 fps but he maxed out traffic.

Note: It's VERY important to have a 1GB video card. GTA IV stated it would use around 900MB out of 1GB that was available.