########Official GTA4 Performance thread########

LoadsaMoney · 3 Dec 2008 at 16:04

Statistics
Average FPS: 33.06
Duration: 37.21 sec
CPU Usage: 88%
System memory usage: 88%
Video memory usage: 69%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium (wont go higher)
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 40
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6879
Audio Adapter: Gamesurround Fortissimo III 7.1
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 8400 @ 3.00GHz

I was expecting worse.

Schnippzle · 3 Dec 2008 at 16:24

I think a standard has to be applied to these tests tbh. For example, one set resolution, texture quality, and render quality. Otherwise these tests arent really comparable.

yantorsen · 3 Dec 2008 at 16:27

Schnippzle said:
I think a standard has to be applied to these tests tbh. For example, one set resolution, texture quality, and render quality. Otherwise these tests arent really comparable.

It's not for that, it's just to help people gage an idea of how well they can run it on there own systems, rather than a hardware test as it were.

JimAroo · 3 Dec 2008 at 16:41

yantorsen said:
It's not for that, it's just to help people gage an idea of how well they can run it on there own systems, rather than a hardware test as it were.

From what I'm experiencing the benchmark means nothing, I was like 40fps in game average would be #AwesomeSauce.

When I load up the game I'm not getting any more than 25, when I drive around in a vehicle I'm only getting 17/20 FPS. No matter how much i lower graphics / resolution still the same FPS.

Stevev · 3 Dec 2008 at 16:44

Statistics
Average FPS: 44.95
Duration: 37.28 sec
CPU Usage: 70%
System memory usage: 90%
Video memory usage: 95%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Medium
View Distance: 15
Detail Distance: 15

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Video Driver version: 178.24
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz

I barely get any slowdowns in game at this res. Still prefer it if i could run at 16x10 tho.

warren_1979 · 3 Dec 2008 at 17:26

LoadsaMoney said:
Statistics
Average FPS: 33.06
Duration: 37.21 sec
CPU Usage: 88%
System memory usage: 88%
Video memory usage: 69%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium (wont go higher)
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 40
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6879
Audio Adapter: Gamesurround Fortissimo III 7.1
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 8400 @ 3.00GHz

I was expecting worse.

But is it playable?

yantorsen · 3 Dec 2008 at 17:35

Stevev said:
Statistics
Average FPS: 44.95
Duration: 37.28 sec
CPU Usage: 70%
System memory usage: 90%
Video memory usage: 95%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Medium
View Distance: 15
Detail Distance: 15

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Video Driver version: 178.24
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.40GHz

I barely get any slowdowns in game at this res. Still prefer it if i could run at 16x10 tho.

do you have a screenshot at those settingS? does it looks any good on medium etc?

willhub · 3 Dec 2008 at 17:59

Something tells me the Benchmark is not reflecting in game performance, check my other 2 benchmarks then this one:

Statistics
Average FPS: 43.13
Duration: 37.15 sec
CPU Usage: 92%
System memory usage: 70%
Video memory usage: 75%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 40
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.621
Audio Adapter: Digital Output Device (SPDIF) (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli

800x600

Statistics
Average FPS: 45.57
Duration: 36.98 sec
CPU Usage: 94%
System memory usage: 69%
Video memory usage: 52%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 40
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.621
Audio Adapter: Digital Output Device (SPDIF) (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8500 @ 3.16GHz

File ID: Benchmark.cli

Cocky-Roach · 3 Dec 2008 at 18:27

Statistics
Average FPS: 36.20
Duration: 38.01 sec
CPU Usage: 67%
System memory usage: 80%
Video memory usage: 80%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 32
Detail Distance: 70

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.621
Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (3.2)

File ID: Benchmark.cli

Hodders · 3 Dec 2008 at 18:31

Statistics
Average FPS: 38.34
Duration: 37.22 sec
CPU Usage: 58%
System memory usage: 64%
Video memory usage: 84%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37

Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6879
Audio Adapter: SoundMAX HD Audio
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

LoadsaMoney · 3 Dec 2008 at 18:33

The benchmarks a load of cack, i did an auto configure and it turned everything really low, high renderer etc..., and it said my average was 21, hilarious that, ive got to turn everything reet up for it to run faster.

yantorsen · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:10

LoadsaMoney said:
The benchmarks a load of cack, i did an auto configure and it turned everything really low, high renderer etc..., and it said my average was 21, hilarious that, ive got to turn everything reet up for it to run faster.

you get better FPS with higher settings?

WTF, this game is so f'ed up.

[TW]Fox · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:12

yantorsen said:
you get better FPS with higher settings?

WTF, this game is so f'ed up.

I've just encountered EXACTLY the same - with the recommended settings of everything on high I got 30fps, I set it all to medium, ran it again, 26fps?

Where are the benchmark results saved?

[TW]Fox · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:23

Ok check this out:

Statistics
Average FPS: 29.95
Duration: 37.13 sec
CPU Usage: 97%
System memory usage: 77%
Video memory usage: 80%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 32
Detail Distance: 65

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Business
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.43
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 4300 @ 1.80GHz

Then I turned the settings down..

Statistics
Average FPS: 26.30
Duration: 37.11 sec
CPU Usage: 97%
System memory usage: 63%
Video memory usage: 52%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Medium
View Distance: 32
Detail Distance: 60

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Business
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.43
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 4300 @ 1.80GHz

So then I turned it down even more...

Statistics
Average FPS: 25.35
Duration: 37.04 sec
CPU Usage: 97%
System memory usage: 66%
Video memory usage: 41%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Low
Render Quality: Low
View Distance: 32
Detail Distance: 65

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Business
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.43
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 4300 @ 1.80GHz

It just makes no sense. The lower the detail the slower the game runs?

yantorsen · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:32

Perhaps the benchmark is mashed up.

Has anyone ran an average FPS test with FRAPS in normal gameplay?

Viper² · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:33

Statistics
Average FPS: 46.91
Duration: 37.33 sec
CPU Usage: 72%
System memory usage: 63%
Video memory usage: 52%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Medium
View Distance: 32
Detail Distance: 70

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: WinFast GTX 280(NVIDIA)
Video Driver version: 177.42
Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

Viper² · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:33

yantorsen said:
Perhaps the benchmark is mashed up.

Has anyone ran an average FPS test with FRAPS in normal gameplay?

Will do that in a sec.

[TW]Fox · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:35

Viper, I notice you are running the 177.42's.

Would you be brave enough to upgrade and then run the benchmark again?

willhub · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:40

Has anyone here had to do that -norestriction to get high textures? If so how exactly did you do it?

Viper² · 3 Dec 2008 at 19:42

Sure will download them in a sec.

Here are a couple of fraps benchmarks with same settings as above:

Code:

Frames	   Time (ms)	 Min	 Max	 Avg
2459	   60000         30	 63	 40.983

Code:

Frames   Time (ms)	 Min	 Max	 Avg
3041	  60000	         32	 72	 50.683