Grand Theft Auto IV - Slooooowwww.....
- Thread starter legoman0
- Start date
Can't post a screenie as I'm away from home for the week... Spec is Q8300@stock, 4gb DDR2 800mhz ram, 8800gt 512mb. The settings are basically all dragged up to as far as the game will allow (it seems to prohibit them being dragged all the way up, I guess it auto-restricts dependent upon hardware)
Happy with mine. 
Statistics
Average FPS: 57.67
Duration: 37.33 sec
CPU Usage: 69%
System memory usage: 72%
Video memory usage: 77%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filter Quality: High
View Distance: 35
Detail Distance: 80
Hardware
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.1.6091
Audio Adapter: Speakers (VIA High Definition Audio)
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
Statistics
Average FPS: 57.67
Duration: 37.33 sec
CPU Usage: 69%
System memory usage: 72%
Video memory usage: 77%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filter Quality: High
View Distance: 35
Detail Distance: 80
Hardware
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.1.6091
Audio Adapter: Speakers (VIA High Definition Audio)
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
I'm aware you ideally need more than 512mb, but I'm confident enough to say it will run to an acceptable level with gfx card such as 8800GTS.
Tested GTAIV via couple of PC builds quite some time ago, with the lowest end build the game just managed 30+ fps; which iirc was running Q6600@3Ghz, 8800GTS, 4GB PC6400, 1680x1050. Some results and screen caps etc should still be on this forum somewhere.
I have a pretty avg pc too. See sig for details
Cant get any higher then med for the textures, for some reason
The GTA4 Benchmark is a box of laughs on its own. The benchmark timedemo doesn't use the same number of ingame props/people/vehicles as the actual game world itself so the fps is always higher than what you will actually see.
My benchmark fps was well over 50 at 1920x1200 high settings but ingame that dropped 20fps average just because ingame "happenings" had much more volume.
My benchmark fps was well over 50 at 1920x1200 high settings but ingame that dropped 20fps average just because ingame "happenings" had much more volume.
kinda reminds me of what some people write in threads about ATi cards/drivers..
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
I can just about run it relatively ok on my PC, which is a Core 2 Duo. I would definitely need a Quad core and a better graphics card for it to play more smoothly though. So for me, a Quad would be the way to go for this game.
i find that the texture quality option seems to be horribly buggy on HIGH so use medium and it should be ok
i still get the 'choppy lag' but since upgrading my gpu from x1950 to GTS250 it runs better and updating drivers to latest 196.21 that seems to help, maybe i just need more RAM or maybe the cycle will just never end!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,779
That's not average or rubbish!
Although youre graphics card will struggle to have all the bells and whistles switched on. You're right, the game limits how far you can drag the sliders based on your systems hardware constraints. So even though you said you could have everything maxed, that is maxed in terms of what your rig can handle, not what the engine can offer.
Misleading.
That's my benchmark and it's plain to see that even the best dual cores aren't good enough for this game, if mine was overclocked I feel it would perform much better but I don't know if I can justify the overclocking simply for one game as my performance in all my others games is more than satisfactory.
Last edited:
I'd just like to say, this is one of the BEST games I have ever played in my entire life. Performance is excellent for me at max settings. Graphics are absolutely beautiful. It's an extremely well designed, produced and coded game imo.
I am always dumbfounded and left with my face in my palm when someone farts out a statement like "It's poorly coded", "its a crap port", "it's better on consoles", etc..
This game is a complete masterpiece, I've played through it over 3 times now and never get bored of it.
I am always dumbfounded and left with my face in my palm when someone farts out a statement like "It's poorly coded", "its a crap port", "it's better on consoles", etc..
This game is a complete masterpiece, I've played through it over 3 times now and never get bored of it.
I fully agree with you. This is one of my fave PC games ever
Bad console portit is not
Well it looks and run like ass. (not on my PC, my i5 brute forces its way through it)
The graphics are awful, the shadows look like they are from 2003.
As for saying it's a complete masterpiece...LOL, the game has aged terribly, it was clunky then and now it feels even worse... Plus it was nowhere near as good as say Vice City.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,779
That made me lol
In all seriousness though, as much as I enjoy the game and the story I think that the developers could have at least done a better job at making the game run smoother on Dual Core chips. At the moment there seems to be the option of having about 4fps or taking down all of the detail and draw distance sliders to about 5 to get anything near 40+ fps
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2007
- Posts
- 993
I got Pentium D, 4850, 4gb it runs okay ...playable tho! just turned shadows to low ... played on my friends super system and the shadows still look rubbish anyway imo
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 2,174
- Location
- Behind you
The benchmark is not a true reflection of how the game truely runs. I can get 60fps in the benchmark but the game runs at 30 odd mostly and can go lower with rain.