How many FPS's do you get in GTA IV?

Ninja Please! · 11 May 2009 at 14:40

Hey mates,
I recently downloaded the newest Nvidia drivers last night only to find out they made my graphics stuttery so I reverted back to the old drivers which work like a charm. While doing all of this I decided to OC my gtx 285 and the best benchmark had me at an average of 65.50 fps. What kind of fps average's are some of you getting (using the gta iv benchmark tool of course). Oh and tell us your settings!

all turned up as high as I can get on 1680x1050, except draw distance is around 28.

jamiehavok · 11 May 2009 at 14:57

the gta iv benchmark is flawed it doesnt relate to the true fps you get in game at all. my average fps in the benchmark is what you say. but in the actual game it jumps anywhere between 30-60

ScarySquirrel · 11 May 2009 at 15:00

magick · 11 May 2009 at 15:27

jamiehavok said:
the gta iv benchmark is flawed it doesnt relate to the true fps you get in game at all. my average fps in the benchmark is what you say. but in the actual game it jumps anywhere between 30-60

30fps minimum? What res are you playing at and do you turn the eye candy down?

AWPC · 11 May 2009 at 15:33

With max everything ingame I get around 30-35FPS @ 1920x1200 which is good enough for a very playable experience. You want high fps use the low settings as that is the same as the console versions according to R* (yes I know the difference is staggering-which is how far ahead PC's are).

magick · 11 May 2009 at 15:35

AWPC said:
With max everything ingame I get around 30-35FPS @ 1920x1200 which is good enough for a very playable experience. You want high fps use the low settings as that is the same as the console versions according to R* (yes I know the difference is staggering-which is how far ahead PC's are).

When GTA IV came out for the PC everyone was saying it ran terrible and the framerates were awful.

Sean_UK · 11 May 2009 at 15:36

Ignoring the benchmark and using in game sunny conditions, 1600x1200 with maximum detail and draw distance 40.

Min 28
Ave 35'ish
Max 57

magick said:
When GTA IV came out for the PC everyone was saying it ran terrible and the framerates were awful.

And everyone was correct, patch or two later things improved somewhat. Every dual core based pc I've seen running this game seems struggle with fps (Well unless it overclocked plenty), it's so very cpu dependent.

AWPC · 11 May 2009 at 15:54

magick said:
When GTA IV came out for the PC everyone was saying it ran terrible and the framerates were awful.

No me dude it ran very well straight away on my entry level I7-965

It even runs very well on a Q9450. All you need is a Quad Core or higher + mid range or higher gfx card. People just moaned that they needed more cores & a faster gfx card. If your eyes can handle it try the Low detail mode which is the same as the consoles (and they looked really poor :eek:

).

It's not rocket science!

Sean_UK · 11 May 2009 at 15:54

Sean_UK said:
Ave 35'ish

Infact scratch that, just fired it up now, average is more like 40'ish. :cool:

icey_haj · 11 May 2009 at 15:57

AWPC said:
No me dude it ran very well straight away on my entry level I7-965 It even runs very well on a Q9450. All you need is a Quad Core or higher + mid range or higher gfx card. People just moaned that they needed more cores & a faster gfx card. If your eyes can handle it try the Low detail mode which is the same as the consoles (and they looked really poor ).

It's not rocket science!

I see in your sig that you've got the top Intel CPU, a top mobo, but only a 260GTX, why not a 295?

snowdog · 11 May 2009 at 15:59

magick said:
When GTA IV came out for the PC everyone was saying it ran terrible and the framerates were awful.

1: Mostly people who couldn't believe their dual core cpu's sucked.
2: Patches since then...

I get about 35 fps actual in game, draw distance maxed as far as it can go in terms of vram usage. 1920x1080. And them shadows on 0. But rest like reflections, water, detail dist, filtering maxed...
Benchy iirc gave me 47 fps.

On 1280x1024 I got 64 fps on the benchy and 35+ at all times ( 42 ish avg.) ingame.

Ninja Please! · 11 May 2009 at 16:26

Hmmm, though I understand that the benchmark tool is not the most precise, it seems to me that it is fairly acurate. I can see a physical difference than when I'm running 60fps compared to 65fps. Granted I can only see the difference when I'm going about 200mph in a comet through the middle of downtown, but still.

Also is it the the EVGA precision tool that caps fps's at 200 or is it the card, or game?

AWPC · 11 May 2009 at 19:24

icey_haj said:
I see in your sig that you've got the top Intel CPU, a top mobo, but only a 260GTX, why not a 295?

Waste of money nothing worth playing which a GTX260-216 or lower spec cannot handle right now or in the next 12 months. ATI have several cards cheaper than a GTX260-216 which also do an excellent job.

Pointless buying a GTX295 unless your upgrading from a much older card even then 4870X2 is faster and better VFM. Also, you need to game @ 1920x1200 or much higher to see any massive benefits from the high end gfx cards.

Crysis is the only PC game released in the past 2 years which you cannot play on maximum detail unless you have a mega fast GPU. Crysis is not reason enough for me to upgrade I can wait until something else comes out but I am not holding my breath as buggy & laggy multiplatform console ports are all the PC is getting for a long time to come!!!