• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

GTA4 - Best GPU

GPU is where it's at and even then games today are such crapola an 8800GTX is all you need.
Click to expand...

No, I have upgraded specially for gta IV from a 3ghz duo to a 3ghz quad and it nearly doubled my FPS in it. And lol try playing crysis maxed with an 8800, or any modern game for that matter with at least 16x AA and Transparency AA. If a GTX 260 can't keep games like fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Supreme commander, Anno 1404, etc at 60fps at all times, a 8800GTX sure as hell can't.
gurusan said:
I have had Q9650s, qx9650s, q6600, e8400, e5400, e6600, e2140....there's no diff between them. Anyone who says there is when clocked over 3+ghz is full of it. don't be queer.
Click to expand...

We are queer because we think 4 cores @ 3+ ghz is is better than 2 cores :confused: ? No difference between them ?

I can't even be bothered replying more to a stupid post like this.
 
Last edited:
because there is no proof in terms of gtaiv performance other than tomshardware bs at stupid resolutions like 1280x1024. prove me wrong with decent realistic resolutions like 1680x1050 at least, more like 1920x1200 and i will eat my words
 
gurusan said:
because there is no proof in terms of gtaiv performance other than tomshardware bs at stupid resolutions like 1280x1024. prove me wrong with decent realistic resolutions like 1680x1050 at least, more like 1920x1200 and i will eat my words
Click to expand...

There isn't any proof needed usually because people see what the change gives them...

But anyways, here's one link :

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ead-of-Core-2-Quad-in-CPU-benchmarks/Reviews/
With more cpu's:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ark-review-with-13-processors/Reviews/?page=2


Also, there is nothing wrong with 1280x1024, it's still better than the console crap, and many many people still run this res.


I'd rather raise you, where have you seen a quad doesn't offer a performance boost, because I'm having a hard time finding any cpu reviews at all for gta iv...
 
Last edited:
You have given me useless resolutions....yes it's better than console crap, yet how many people here game at anything under 1680x1050? I myself game at 2048x1152
 
I did what you asked :

prove me wrong with decent realistic resolutions like 1680x1050 at least
Click to expand...

You provide me with your insightful reviews then.


Incase you missed it:

GTA4_CPUs_Core_i7_1680.PNG


A 2.8 ghz quad beats a 3.33 ghz duo, there's a big difference with drops to 23 fps and drops to 29fps.

Furthermore, you said it's all about gpu's, it isn't because a 2.67ghz i7 poo's all over the X2 6000+. With nearly 3x as much minimal FPS ( only 2 fps off form being 3x as fast). With the same gpu...
 
Last edited:
hmm.

like some sort of fail person I did not scroll down. You have a solid point.

However, I would like to see an ocuk competition with this bench? Would be fun and interesting to compare nv/ati on current drivers and setups against setups we know.

btw excuse my aggressive tone...alcohol + insomnia played a role.

not backing down though. argh!

also what about my 59fps bench? a little incoherent w/ above benchies.
 
Last edited:
Just throwing my experience in ...

Going from a X2 6000+ to a Q6600 made an absolute huge difference. On the X2 the frame rate was fairly solid around 30 FPS, with drops when things got really hectic (pretty much like the 360 version). On the Q6600, my frame rate jumped up significantly, and it also stayed that way, in hectic situations it always stayed smooth.

That was on Nvidia hardware though, on ATI, i would constantly find after about a minute the FPS would drop to below 10, or if that didnt happen it would be significantly choppier. This was on a 4870 1GB. It runs a whole heap load better on my 8800GTS.
 
gurusan said:
also what about my 59fps bench? a little incoherent w/ above benchies.
Click to expand...

The ingame benchy is useless and completely loose from actual game performance, have you actually played/finished the game ? The fps can be as bad as 2 times as low ( and even worse sometimes) during actual gameplay than at the benchy. Though, if you want to compare the benchmark, you can pop over to the GTA IV benchmark thread in the PC games forum...
 
snowdog said:
The ingame benchy is useless and completely loose from actual game performance, have you actually played/finished the game ? The fps can be as bad as 2 times as low ( and even worse sometimes) during actual gameplay than at the benchy. Though, if you want to compare the benchmark, you can pop over to the GTA IV benchmark thread in the PC games forum...
Click to expand...

I have played the game but not extensively. Nevertheless, the point of a benchmark is to pit different setups against eachother on an even playing field...
 
Whilst not related to this game, I have recently moved fromm dual to quad, and can confirm that in my experience, my old higher clocked dual performed better in games than my lower clocked quad, and I also changed gfx cards at same time from 4870 512 xfire to 4890 xfire, I got a quad due to doing a lot more encoding work now, overall Im glad I did, but purely on the gaming front, the higher clocked dual does run better. BTW res is 1920*1200
 
Very very interesting article in latest custom PC magazine on porting. Reckons porting doesn't make a huge difference to games, whether PC or console, actually more work goes into the PC side of things because of different specs compared to standard specs for consoles. They are adding more stuff to the PC side of things in relation to graphic set-up.

CoD4 is an excellent example of perfect porting, no complaints here ?
 
I cant believe anyone who has used botha a high end pc and a console can be suprised at the differences, the level of detail on pc is amazing compared to consoles and just makes them look like the toys that they are, the only people that argue for consoles are those who are ignorant and dont knw any different
I agree COD4 is a very good example of this, Im used to it on my PC and a few months ago played it on a mates PS3 (who needless to say falls into this ignorant class - thinking his PS3 is just as good/better) It looks like a different game almost, certainly like its been reworked 2-3 computer generations later
 
This is the debate that throws me, could be getting a new cpu anytime now but as many people seem to be saying a very highly clocked dual would be better as those who support quads. Hopefully, fingers crossed, shouldn't need a new cpu since it would appear I am learning to tame mine;)
 
My stock Q6600 and GTX 260 Black Edition run this at full settings @ 1920x1200 with no problems, only thing I have turned a bit is the draw distance, still looks amazing though! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom