Max Veteran Posted November 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted November 3, 2008 How much is that costing if you don't mind me asking? I'm tempted by i7 but dont know if its worth it. Probably going to be about ?1,100. I've saved for about 10 months solid to get this rig. Lots of people who have Core 2's and PC's under 2 years old don't want to (or need to) upgrade which would be silly hence the price. I've had my PC now 6 years and want something brand spanking new. I would feel like I'm cheating myself now if I got a C2Q now, even though its alot cheaper. If you have a single core PC, upgrade. If you have anything above an AMD X2 4200+ I would wait until halfway through next year when prices drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skulltrail-old Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 goddamn thats like higher than far cry 2 and crysis. Hopefully it will be worth the extra power; better graphics than Crysis :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazuyette Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 This is a joke ... I'm glad to have an x360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted November 3, 2008 Veteran Share Posted November 3, 2008 Probably going to be about ?1,100. I've saved for about 10 months solid to get this rig. Lots of people who have Core 2's and PC's under 2 years old don't want to (or need to) upgrade which would be silly hence the price. I've had my PC now 6 years and want something brand spanking new. I would feel like I'm cheating myself now if I got a C2Q now, even though its alot cheaper.If you have a single core PC, upgrade. If you have anything above an AMD X2 4200+ I would wait until halfway through next year when prices drop. Thanks for that. I got a C2D when they first came out, and while it's weak compared to the newest CPU's, it's still quite good for games and such (my GFX card is the bottleneck) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Versaw Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I hope it naively supports the Xbox 360 controller, but I doubt it will... It will - the game is a Games for Windows Live game, so it will definitely support 360 controllers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capr Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 before you know it, your 280 will be the requirement... this SUCKs... really pushing my 8800 gts. and the quad is just too much i think my e6600 will have to do. come to think of it, the e6600 and 8800 are both almost 2 years old :( so i guess the system reqs aren't that bad after all, they require you to have 2 year old hardware... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 The requirements seem a little steep :/ Still I'm not surprised about the Quad been the recommended CPU though, seems about right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsy66 Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Well I'm glad I updated my rig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 It will - the game is a Games for Windows Live game, so it will definitely support 360 controllers. Excellent :) Facebook page: Grand Theft Auto VI (PC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrack Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 The specs for this game look insane. I didn't think that much of the graphics for the X360. Other than all the "relationship with other char" bull**** and the horrible gun fight gameplay (which no doubt will be a lot better on the pc) it was a really fun game. But those system requirements make me think that they aren't spending much time optimizing. You can tell they are taking the specs seriously as they took down what was originally posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaomegainfinity Posted November 4, 2008 Author Share Posted November 4, 2008 All previous GTA games like GTA 3,Vice City and San Andreas ran better on the PC than the consoles. Better draw distances, larger textures, higher resolutions and a in-game player customised mp3 player were some of the special features that made the PC versions always superior to the console versions. San Andreas sold so much that even people with Celerons were able to enjoy the basic features of the game. It came to such a situation that GTA games were known more famously for its gameplay rather than shiny games. Of course the underlying engine was Criterion software's Renderware which has since ben acquired by EA. Didn't expect the shiny new RAGE(Rovkstar advanced game engine) to require so much hefty spec machines to run. I wonder what is Rockstar's PC sales target? Also just a week back they released Bully for the PC. Although that game was quite playable on the old PS2, even 880O GTs were suffering from frame rate issues on higher resolutions. Looks to me that Rockstar has lost the art of optimising console games for the PC . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted November 5, 2008 Veteran Share Posted November 5, 2008 Did you ever try running San Andreas on a Celeron? I gave up when VC ran at around 10fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 San Andreas sold so much that even people with Celerons were able to enjoy the basic features of the game. So because San Andreas sold so well, the in-game performance increased? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted November 5, 2008 Reviews Share Posted November 5, 2008 thats retarded... It's realistic if accurate.0 The spec for Crysis is not in any way whatsoever accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealMySoda Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 So because San Andreas sold so well, the in-game performance increased? :huh: Haha. I see what you did there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shihchiun Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 All previous GTA games like GTA 3,Vice City and San Andreas ran better on the PC than the consoles. Better draw distances, larger textures, higher resolutions and a in-game player customised mp3 player were some of the special features that made the PC versions always superior to the console versions. San Andreas sold so much that even people with Celerons were able to enjoy the basic features of the game. It came to such a situation that GTA games were known more famously for its gameplay rather than shiny games. Of course the underlying engine was Criterion software's Renderware which has since ben acquired by EA.Didn't expect the shiny new RAGE(Rovkstar advanced game engine) to require so much hefty spec machines to run. I wonder what is Rockstar's PC sales target? Also just a week back they released Bully for the PC. Although that game was quite playable on the old PS2, even 880O GTs were suffering from frame rate issues on higher resolutions. Looks to me that Rockstar has lost the art of optimising console games for the PC . I suspect a large part of the reason for that is that it's basically been the same engine for all three games, while hardware has had 7-8 years to advance. Today's Celerons are vastly superior to what was available in 2001. But I still don't think any of the games would actually run well on a Celeron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaomegainfinity Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 So because San Andreas sold so well, the in-game performance increased? :huh: No what I meant was because the game was able to run decently on even ancient hardwares, it sold a lot. @ The_ Decryptor: I still remember I ran San Andreas on my old notebook having a 2.8 GHz Celeron D Processor with 512MB RAM and a Mobility Radeon 7000 IGP. The game ran at a decent fps of 20-25 at a resolution of 1024x768 on 16bit color and graphics being set to medium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted November 6, 2008 Veteran Share Posted November 6, 2008 No what I meant was because the game was able to run decently on even ancient hardwares, it sold a lot.@ The_ Decryptor: I still remember I ran San Andreas on my old notebook having a 2.8 GHz Celeron D Processor with 512MB RAM and a Mobility Radeon 7000 IGP. The game ran at a decent fps of 20-25 at a resolution of 1024x768 on 16bit color and graphics being set to medium. Since when was 20fps "decent"? And anyway, I forgot Intel kept pumping out the celerons, the last time I set eyes on one was when I had a 900Mhz Celeron in my main system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealMySoda Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Since when was 20fps "decent"?And anyway, I forgot Intel kept pumping out the celerons, the last time I set eyes on one was when I had a 900Mhz Celeron in my main system. For GTA 20fps was just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaomegainfinity Posted November 9, 2008 Author Share Posted November 9, 2008 Some more updated news! After initially mailing to its subscribed customers that GTA IV for PC will be released world wide on 2nd December 2008, Rockstar Games have stated that GTA IV for PC will be released on 2nd Dec 2008 only in North American region. Europe is getting the next day,i.e 3rd Dec 2008. I guess it won't make much of a difference though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbiotic Hat Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 It seems to me they are just being realistic with their system requirements. Even though the system requirement for Far Cry 2 and Crysis are high. They still are not playable even with recommended. I commend Rockstar for trying to be realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 My video card is a 286MB Graphics Media Accelerator 3100. Is that good enough to run this game? The system requirements doesn't really specify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 My video card is a 286MB Graphics Media Accelerator 3100. Is that good enough to run this game? The system requirements doesn't really specify. now that is a low low end intel graphics card and prolly hardly run the game at low settings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsweb Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 YEY! :) Thank god for my Quad core @ 2.4GHZ 4GB Ram and Nvidia Geforce 8800GT :) Off topic: Never known true specs on me graphics card as in how much graphics memory, how can i find out? as in the adapter gives me 3 different numbers! lol :) (attached screenshot) Thanks, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 now that is a low low end intel graphics card and prolly hardly run the game at low settings Wow! Rockstar is not going to make a lot of sales on this product then. My computer is only a few months old and this computer is extremely powerful too. So, if this game won't work on my computer, then it mostly likely won't work on many other people's computer as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts