I lolled :DQuote:
Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY
Printable View
I lolled :DQuote:
Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY
Thats why it looked like crap on my roommates ps3Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think it runs fine. Sure the optimization is horrible, but it was so with the console version. I have the PS3 version and the resolution is sub 720p (upscaled to 720p), looks like a blurry mess and is often below 30fps.
With higher settings on the PC version with better hardware, I'm getting better visuals and better frame rates which is what I was expecting.
I guess it's all about perspective: when you compare it to other PC games, yeah it's quite the disappointment, but when you compare it to the console versions, it seems fine. Sure there are things that need to be fixed, like the memory leak, lack of non-360 controller support, and odd errors, but I think its silly to expect this game to run as well as a PC exclusive game.
That said, after spending a lot of time with the console version, I'm pretty pleased with the PC version. I get around 55fps with sigged rig at 1600x1200 with textures on high and higher car density (required VRAM: 858 available VRAM: 497 :ROTF: ).
Hmm... seeing how it's probably more optimized for x360 hardware than PC hardware (triple-threading), should we except better performance on ATi cards?
I'm curious to see how ATi cards perform when the GTAIV drivers release on Wed. Hopefully my 4850 512 can run this at 1920x1200. :rolleyes:
GTA 4 incompatible wont install windows 7 6801 every other game ive thrown at it works fine :( much smoother than vista tho got to say that.
With 7 being a beta (more like a pre-alpha since release versions are actually the betas :) ) I would expect those sort of issues.
Core i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz
XFX GTX260 Black edition
3GB DDR3 1600Mhz
1280x1024
Setings : High/high
distance = 51%
Detail: 100%
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/7418/1280bc0.jpg
Average = 65 Fps
--------------------------
--------------------------
1920x1200
Setungs : High/high
distance = 28%
Detail: 70%
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/5833/gta1920ef9.jpg
Average = 55.8 Fps
:up:
Wounder how the X2 will fair, since i will be using the 920/1600mhz also (hopefully)
Thanks for results :)
What about E8400 @ 4.0Ghz?
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,66...3_CPUs/?page=2Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
there you go, e8500@4ghz.
btw, does someone know if rockstar will release a demo of gta 4? i'd like to play it and see the performance myself before i decide whether it's running "ok" or not.
Danke schöen, RaZz! :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
OMFG ROFLMAOZORZ.
Is this cr*p running through a emulator ? :p:
There's little to none physics usage in the benchmark.
No AI at all.
The graphics are....shabby.
Yet the performance is just a tad better than what we'd get with Crysis :D
Good go Rockstar! :D
By the way, AA ( Anti-Aliasing ) is NOT working guys, no matter what you do ( probably R* used deferred rendering ).
I'm not sure if AF ( Anisotropic Filtering ) is applied as well ( no time to play the game myself to check it out ).
Here's a quick crapmark run:
Asus P5K3 Deluxe ( BIOS v1103 )
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3.67GHz ( 333MHz FSB x 11 )
eVGA GeForce GTX 280 @ stock
3GB A-Data DDR3-1333 7-7-7-24 1T
1920x1080 @ 60Hz - 0xAA 0xAF nV Driver Settings @ High Quality
Statistics
Average FPS: 53.46
Duration: 37.19 sec
CPU Usage: 62%
System memory usage: 62%
Video memory usage: 82%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1080 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100
Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.84
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [EC00]
Intel Pentium III Xeon processor
File ID: Benchmark.cli
http://i35.tinypic.com/bgwzd3.png
1920x1080 @ 60Hz - 4xAA* 16xAF ( *AA IS NOT BEING APPLIED ) nV Driver Settings @ High Quality ( MS, Gamma Correct AA*, HQ Mipmaps, etc )
Statistics
Average FPS: 52.43
Duration: 37.17 sec
CPU Usage: 62%
System memory usage: 61%
Video memory usage: 86%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1080 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100
Hardware
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Service Pack 3
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.84
Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [EC00]
Intel Pentium III Xeon processor
File ID: Benchmark.cli
http://i36.tinypic.com/qq1imt.png
BenchZowner i think your on to something using win xp looks like its getting more frames...your pentium 3 Xeon how many cores does it have?
4 Core 2 cores :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY
It's a Core 2 Extreme QX9650 ( Core 2 Quad, extreme edition with the unlocked multipliers ) [ it's just the game identifying the CPU incorrectly ]
XBox 360 - 6 Cores, PS3 - 8 Cores go figureQuote:
Originally Posted by 003
lol..so what was the oc on your quad when you did the benchmark?Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Disable 2 cores on an i7 and find out, send me a copy of GTA4 and I'll do it for you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY
Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
here you have :
Core i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz
3GB DDr3 1600Mhz
XFX GTX260 Black Edition
forceware 180.84
1680x1050
High
Highest
distance : 36
Detail: 100
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4423/gta1680qi9.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialised
yep ! ;)
but i think a new patch for the PC version should fix this !
regards
The first patch is coming to fix the big woes:
Quote:
• A fix to the crash after legal screen that some German customers were reporting.
• Numerous improvements to the video editor: Smarter naming of videos, improved rendering quality, better fx during replays
• Fix to bowling while using certain sensitive mice
• Fix for ATI 1900 shadows
• Overall savings to memory
• Graphic improvements to particle systems and mirrors
• Multiplayer character settings are preserved
• Support for DirectInput controllers. Note: The current hack way of supporting these controllers may not work with the improved functionality. So we recommend you remove the hack before upgrading to the patch.
Issues with power management software have also been fixed (slow speed, double speed issues). Even after the patch comes out setting power management software to maximum performance is recommended. We’ve seen cases where power management software does not detect the game is running and puts the CPU in green mode.
Besides the patch we’ve also improved the way the Social Club handles data this should have greatly reduced or eliminated the Mma10 error. If you are still receiving this error after logging in and out of Social Club we would like to know as much info as you can about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v0dka
+1 :D
1) The console version is nerfed graphicallyQuote:
Originally Posted by 003
2) Even so, this game stutters and lags like a mofo on my friends PS3.
yet another reason added to the list of reasons Lucid Hydra needs to hurry up and get here.
Mascars video shows that gta 4 uses only 3X% of the Core i7 Cpu @ 3.8Ghz
so i guess any higer wont change the overall result of Fps
i'd like to see Core i7 at 3.0Ghz Results and couldnt find any if any one finds please show it :)
^^ This.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
The game is a :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty port job, if they spent any time actually porting it to the PC it would run just as well on average PC's as it does on consoles.
Lazy port jobs don't mean you have to buy more hardware, they mean you shouldn't buy the game.
You need to consider that the consoles are quite capable when it comes to the CPU's ability to process threads. The PS3's Cell has 6 SPE's available for processing threads (The 7th SPE is used for the system itself).Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
The Xbox 360 Xenon CPU has "Three symmetrical cores, each two way SMT-capable and clocked at 3.2 GHz". That means it's capable of 6 threads, just like the Cell.
A Core 2 Duo can only process 2 threads at a time, and a Core 2 Quad 4 threads. In terms of thread processing, the consoles have been ahead of the PC until only recently with the arrival of Core i7.
Everyone is saying, "Whaah!!! MY E8400 cant run this well!!!!!, Its just a terrible port, LOL"
Core i7 > your E8400.
Yeah the graphics arent crazy, very average and not up to PC standards, BUT the game is a blast, i am enjoying it very much.
Yes, graphics aren't up there with Crysis, but the city is immense, You can see that alot of work has gone in2 producing this. Hope they optimise it a bit better, runs ok for me but I've a Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz, but my other pc (XP, E6600 @ stock, 2GB ram, 512MB 8800GT @ stock) is struggling with 1280x1024. I'm also enjoying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
Producing, maybe. Optimizing, definitely not.Quote:
Originally Posted by P0gMoTho1n
The graphics aren't up there with any semi-decent looking game of 2008.. heck, even 2007.
Sorry to go on a bit of a rant here guys
I'm a huge fan of the GTA series and legitimately own every GTA game from GTA1 up until GTA San Andreas on my PC....however as bad as this may sound, R* are crap at supporting their PC fanbase.
To put it bluntly I would not hold your breath on ANY more patches other than the initial "token" 1.1 patch.
I have had dealings with R* before, and on numerous occasions and have reported reproducible bugs in GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas. Initially my reports were to frontline support @ Take2games, but eventually I got through to R* (series of e-mails with screen shots and dxdiag logs etc got me passed up the chain..)
All that R* did was thanked me for my time and AGREED that they were bugs which they could also reproduce on their test PC's and in their development environment, but said they would not release a patch as they were working on "other projects", but would make a not of the bugs as to try and not incorporate them in any future games.
This happened with Vice City and San Andreas. All we get is ONE patch (A last minute fix or 2 which did not make it into the final release, or in the case of San Andreas to remove something mass hysteria did not want in the game (no hot coffee patch)).
R* hang people out to dry and don't care, they just milk the money cow.
I wish more developers were like vALVE WHO DO LISTEN AND SUPPORT THEIR FANBASE.
Yes when Half-Life 2 was released their was the initial problems with "stutter", but vALVE worked hard and eventually ironed this gremlin out within at least a couple of months of launch.
I have not yet bought GTA4 (therefore have not played it), and I will only purchase this IF the issues many people on the net are reporting have at least been addressed in patches.
I hope that with this being a "Games for Windows Certified Game", R* will have to do more support for their end users, otherwise...GTA4 will be yet another buggy Port which had so much potential, yet failed at the finishing post.
Here endeth the rant:mad:
John
Game support might be a bit crap but at least GTA and it's brethren were made free after 7~ years. Valve could do that with Half Life (instead of $1 sales) but they haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
a dollar is as good as free tbh..Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathReborn
Not me i run my e8400 @ 4.45ghz on 1.344v and have no problem feeding it more juice...:devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by fhpchris
My E8500+9800GX2 runs it fine... I just don't have enough ram to run it 1920*1200 and High texture quality. (1600*1200 and medium) it runs 50fps+ (100 draw distance etc).
I noticed the nvidia SLI profile doesn't function properly, so I used nhancer to add the correct exe filename (seems case sensitive) and then it worked fine.
This game gains more fps from fsb increase than cpu clock, rockstar already sent a patch to m$ for validation and new gfx drivers will include performance tweaks.. hopefully this poor port will be more playable.
JohnZS: I'm with you. Can't understand why people think there's gonna be some miracle patch that takes away all the lousy optimization. I seriously doubt that R* was dumb enough not to know how badly the game ran on most setups. Despite that they still released it.. that sure tells me something.
Think some more patches will hopefully give it a nice boost and less choppy performance... runs most of the time fine here on a E8500@4Ghz with 500FSB and 4GB ram...
It definitely seems to be all about front side bus speed! I get similar frame rate with my Q6600 only running 3.36ghz, but with 478Mhz FSB compared to alot of others pumping high frequency into the CPU (3.6+ghz) with much lower FSB. It's far from perfect and whacking up GPU clocks definitely doesn't help all that much, even at 1920x1200.
Problem is at lower FSB frequency you begin to run into bus bottlenecks when using highish CPU frequency. It negates the increase in clock freq unless you raise the FSB accordingly to accomodate. FSB is a shared bus for all traffic so it's heavily impacted by too much data throughput. QPI on the other hand shouldn't be encountering this problem with its multiple point to point links.
LOL how about Q6600 @ 4 ghz?
dont know compare apples and apples i guess.
Statistics
Average FPS: 51.92
Duration: 37.12 sec
CPU Usage: 75%
System memory usage: 74%
Video memory usage: 97%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 31
Detail Distance: 100
Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Business
Service Pack 2, v.113
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280
Video Driver version: 180.84
Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
thats at 3.36ghz 7x478MHz. GTX280 @ 700/1458/2600
I know the ingame benchmark means nothing but its a way of comparing apples with apples.
Honestly if you want the truth, my Q6600 running 3.36ghz at 478mhz fsb completely annihilates performance wise anything I could run with lower fsb higher multiplier, even upto 3.6. The performance difference from the massive increase in bus bandwidth was something I couldn't have imagined unless I'd seen it myself. Clock frequency itself makes much less difference with Quad cores on Front Side Bus. It's a design that's reached its limits until you push the frequency way up towards 500MHz +
Edit: A quad core on FSB realizes its true potential within 5Mhz of hitting its FSB wall. My wall hits roughly about 482MHz. Btw wall isn't when it won't post, its when you can't maintain sync between both dies. I can post at 498MHz fsb, but the wall is much earlier.
What do you think guys. Will work better a Q6600 or a 8500? Both overcloked.
When they will learn how to program???Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
This is unacceptable in 2009.
Q6600, since it handles Quads better :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by zowle
Q6600!
Here's my benchmark result with overclocked middle-end CPU and C2D:
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...h_Image1-1.jpg
When playing, it keeps about 35fps by Fraps when not much action going on.. Drops to somewhere 25fps at it's lowest..
Just wondering why i can't rise the texture rendering to high?!?!?!?
Maybe they are letting multiple threads access same memory and also writes to that memory. This is a situation that C2Q isn't able to handle well. When games are optimized for PC's I think it mostly is optimized to scale well on C2Q and also do the main work on two threads for C2D. C2Q don't like threads that talks to each other and shares resources, each thread should handle be as "single threaded" as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyakame
If threads shares resources, then there will be a lot more FSB traffic.
it runs fine on me too :)
Q9450 @ 3.8Ghz
4850 @ 800/1100
4Gb Ram
Statistics
Average FPS: 42.45
Duration: 37.36 sec
CPU Usage: 52%
System memory usage: 70%
Video memory usage: 76%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 45
Detail Distance: 100
Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.630
Audio Adapter: Speakers (SB X-Fi Xtreme Audio)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
File ID: benchmark.cli
My Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz + 4GB Ram + 8800GT are doing 45fps on medium at resolution of 1680x1050 so i guess its fine only thing troubles me about this game is that i cant even put high so i could play on high
[if its not below 30fps that is]
I got suprised when a friend's new comp (he's not the overclocking kind of type so no OC) with a Q9550 @ stock 2.83GHz, GTX 280 @ stock and 2x2GB ram and he's doing 50~60 avg FPS (~35 fps minimum) @ 1920x1200 high quality. :confused:
Seems like Intel Yorkfield or i7 + Nvidia is doing best job at running this game currently.
yep, i7 + gtx 2x0 + 4GB ram is doing pretty good :up:
A q9550 and GTx280 running stock! Such a waste. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
does anyone play MP? how is it. Allot of people playing?
Because the console versions are somewhat stripped down of graphics that are demanding, hence FPS are constant in consoles :up:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
You just can't get enough of it ? Can you ?Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Drop your BS for a minute.
The game is optimized for d*ckheads that go out and buy the buggiest game ever without thinking about it or trying it on their system before purchasing it.
Do you think that after your 20+ pages of carefully worded BS people still take you seriously ?
looks like they should of spent a little less on advertising and a little more on finishing the game...:cool:
http://www.gamecheats.eu/images/gta/...billboard1.jpg
Quite a few people playing in player matches, where you gain no level.Of course, a lot of racing and classic deathmatch are the main modes people are playing. Coop is kinda quickly forgotten by players :(Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
Let's say it needs a tiny bit more players online and it will be fine! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY
LOL
That pic is Canal St, NY :D
Oh, and as for ..."The game is optimized for d*ckheads that go out and buy the buggiest game ever without thinking about it or trying it on their system before purchasing it.."
All I can say is .... bwahahahahahaahh!!!
I'm only at the beginning, but I'm about liking the game so far. System is a q6600 w/ 4gb ram and 8800gts512. The graphics at 19x12 @ high/very high are not very bad, but the lack of proper AA is the party pooper. No framerate issues though. The cars are fun to drive, and the story is followable.
It uses three threads, so dual core users might want to grab a cheap quad if they REALLY want to play the game without complaining. It sounds abit dull.. yeah. But it was about time my gaming machine had its cpu put to decent use.
There's room for improvement within this game, and i mean a huge room. Probably a hall of improvement. I just wish Rockstar had the patience to fill it. I wish they (not rockstar specifically, game manufacturers in general) would stop porting games, or if they were still to port...for gods sake, optimize your piece of code you lazy kunts.
If you are a programmer I think it more easy to understand how they think. It isn't fun to optimize code for Core 2, and that could mean that they need to do a rewrite of the game engine. Maybe they have designed one game engine that should work how processors are done in the future (i7, phenom etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
you're talking about "optimize for core 2" all the time. wtf do you mean with THAT?!Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_coherencyQuote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...0208182719&p=2
Nehalem is a fully integrated quad-core device, with an inclusive and shared last level cache. A central queue acts as a crossbar and arbiter between the four cores and the ‘uncore’ region of Nehalem, which includes the L3 cache, integrated memory controller and QPI links. From a performance perspective, the inclusive L3 cache is the ideal configuration since it keeps the most cache coherency transactions on-die. On-die communication has the benefit of both lower latency and lower power. Additionally, a shared last level cache can reduce replication. AMD made this transition with Barcelona at 65nm, leading to a massive 283mm2 die size as a result. Intel’s 45nm Harpertown was actually two dual-core devices in a package, which is advantageous due to the smaller die size and more flexible binning options. Depending on the workload, there was probably a fair bit of data replicated between the two caches in Harpertown (certainly the working set for the instruction caches at least). By eliminating this duplication, a unified cache can actually be smaller yet cache the same amount of data.
It is just his silly talk to make a fanboy excuse why AMD cpu's don't do as well as Intel cpu's on games or other software where that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
lmao
it's one explanation why GTA have bad performance and why some have noticed that it isn't a Core Hz problem but rather a FSB problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
:ROTF::clap::ROTF::clap::ROTF::clap::ROTF: Your old favourite bullshat line.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
GTA4 must be badly ported, because it runs fine without any problems on the xbox360.
Whoa, it looks like games are beginning to take use of 4 cores sooner than i thought
i had it on xbox. Graphics lot worse, 30fps limit and plenty of pop-ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
PC version looks alot better and renders lot more objects at a time period.
Cut the craaaaaap man.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
For God's sake...
You just can't get it... think about it... what will you do if some people ( and I know some that can and will do it just for fun ) play with the benchmark on two platforms, and also bench the C2Q's on various FSBs... all the way up and down and find no performance gain or loss ?
A real programmer can simply prevent such thing from happening, and wait... we haven't seen any game affected by that "limitation"... damn :(
That has already happened, so as before, Gosh will just continue on his merry way, ignoring that he was schooled and speaking the same garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
... he should be renamed to C2Hater. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
That's because when you optimize for PC or porting if you like that name better (which is the same as optimize for Core 2) you need to avoid bottlenecks. Maybe they need to have a margin for the FSB also because they want the game to run smooth. of course there are other things to think of also. If the processor doesn't have bottlenecks it would be much more simple to port the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
I have trouble to understand how sensitive some people are to criticism for the core 2, all things about that processor isn't super
I heard there are lots of trouble with the pc version. A friend of mine bought a legal copy. Can't get the damn thing to work because of securerom. He was able to install it on another pc, but lots of weird glitches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
But still a xbox or ps3 is theorically much slower then an I7 system, and still able to play it decently.
I've read somewhere that Rockstar pimped the textures for the pc version or would they have changed even more?
Does anyone think that GTA4 might be using an emulator to run on the PC?
I know it's a stupid and random thought which just crossed my mind, but in previous GTA incarnations (since GTA3) bits of the game contained data which was only relavent for the consoles.
For example, the PS2 joypad layout and "memory card stuff" was included in GTA Vice City's main GTA3.img datafile.
The fact that GTA3 and Vice City were woefully coded (bad transparent texture problems) and odd performance glitches suggested that they were not properly coded or tested for the PC platform, but merely ported across
However GTA San Andreas to me felt and played a lot better than GTA3 and Vice City, IMHO was the only one of the three which felt like it had been developed for the PC. (I recall it's the only one with FSAA options in the Graphics settings and used DirectX9 I think to).
I've not played GTA4 on the PC as I am too scared to buy it, after reading all these posts on here and other forums
AND
Reading the negative feedback people are giving the "patch" which has just been released I'm worried it will ruin the whole series.
As controversial as this may sound, I blame the developers for having "console exclusivity".
IF
The games were released on PC, PS3, and XBox at the same time the games would be developed properly, but I get the feeling they develop it for the console, milk as much money as they can and then port to the PC to get some extra sales. None of the Call of Duty games suffer from this problem, so why should GTA?!?
Hi Noinimod
I agree, the issues are too far and wide (what many people would describe as show stopping bugs), for R* not to be aware of them.
Everything from the crappy Windows Live and RockStar Antisocial club being mandatory requirements to play the game and the bugs smell of crappy coding and poor judgement....to put it bluntly R* are completely unaware of what the PC gaming community want and enjoy in a game.
How many gamers here thought the Windows Live and RockStar Social club are good ideas to try out and have a look at, BUT NOT what you want to see have as mandatory requirements to actually play a game?!?
Fair enough if the RockStar Antisocial club enabled people to play against the PS3 and Xbox opponents yet if you did not have it running you could only play PC opponents I could see the point...but no....it's just glorified bloat and spyware
John
"There is no way to penetrate this barrier. It has the strength of a million souls. The power of the dead."
:D
The game is certainly a very lazy port job although I doubt there's an emulator hiding under it. :p It uses three threads, no more, just like its proper home, the Xbox console. It reeks like a straight recompile with some slight changes to make it look not entirely retarded (although the obligatory sloppy port reminders like 'saving game, please don't turn off your system' are still there).
i'd say the problem gta4 is suffering from is the fact that it's not optimized for the pc platform at all :p: it runs crap on everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
but as me and other people already said, it ran crap on the consoles as well - with inferior graphics etc...
and IF a developer notices that it's running into bottlenecks of the pc platform then they should get their asses straight and completely recode it for pc architecture instead of releasing a poorly ported game. period.
other games run well on the pc as well, so why should gta4 be a "victim" of such a "weakness" a specific cpu arch has? if this "weakness" really exists (i have to admit, i have no idea ;)) then why aren't other games having problems as well?
Oh christ, gosh is at it again with his anti-FSB evangelism?
gosh, the issues are the same whether or not the game runs on Core 2, Nehalem or AMD systems. The game runs like :banana::banana::banana::banana: no matter which system bus we may be talking about. Please, just give it up. I'm struggling to understand how you can still be here given that basically all your posts consist of this FSB bottleneck trolling. On a UP platform it is negligible. In games doubly so. JumpingJack, with way more patience and knowledge than me, tried to explain this to you over several pages in several threads with loads of real-world tests and it's still not getting through, is it?
If the FSB was the bottleneck here the quads, with more traffic aggregated across the FSB and communicating between core pairs over the FSB certainly would be overwhelmed, wouldn't they? But no, they perform better than C2D systems.. Not to speak of the AMD systems. How you can keep this up and not laugh at yourself is beyond my comprehension.
Don't feed the troll. If you do so, he'll come again and again...
Question to those who thinks I am troll and say that GTA isn't optimized for the PC but that it isn't a FSB problem.
Could you please explain what you need to do for the game so it will run good on PC? What is the problem with PC if you need to optimize it?
There isn't a problem, the console is a completely different machine than any desktop PC on the market which is why you can't just recompile a console game and expect it to run perfectly (which is what they did as evident by the game only utilizing three threads, not, say, one, two, four or more). Tri-core in-order design with two execution pipes and SMT (which they apparently didn't use for this game), it's basically three 3.2GHz Intel Atoms on a die. And it's PPC. It's a sloppy port job, of an engine written specifically for the consoles (unlike say Unreal 3 which is truly multiplatform), and it needs a complete overhaul to function optimally on the PC. They didn't bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Given that all other console ports run better and look better compared to their console counterparts on lower specced hardware than this game I'd blame the game before I blamed the hardware. But given that your only purpose in this world seems to be to find fallacious arguments against the front-side bus I'm not surprised you're completely unable to see the facts.
In what way is it different? What do consoles do that a PC can't do or is bad on?Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Do you have any idea what FSB is? :shrug::shocked::)Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
It's a parrotQuote:
Originally Posted by ownage
Here is the main problem: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=164
So do you have any actual evidence for this or is conjecture now fact?
No it isn't a fact but is one possible explanation. Most people just say it is badly optimized but no explanation on what could be bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
If it is using three threads and each thread works against same memory.
Nehalem will the load the memory once, because each thread can access same L3 cache. C2Q needs to load the memory twice. C2Q = 2xC2D = no communication between caches on each C2D. That could also be one explanation why C2Q need to work that much more compared to Nehalem
Unfortunately I have to agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
It's like talking to a wall... or even better a mirror.
Every time you cover something properly, it just reflects something else...
A global ignore button... yay that would be so nice :D :rofl:
Then why do all other multiplatform games run so nicely on the x86 be it two 2 or 4 core one word "optimised" engine. fallout3,crysis"look at the crappy ps3 port",Farcry 2, Bioshock,Call of duty .. Do they all need 6 threads to work ? No they dont the gta4 game engine suck period . And if you think GTA4 is the most technically game ever made you are sadly mistaken.. The game does not utilize the GPU as it should either ..
Well from what I've tested so far, the game is very cpu limited. I get similar frame rates between 720p and 1000p resolutions with medium textures. Apart from the draw distance, the others have minor effects. The biggest boost to performance I found was going from 2.5ghz q9300 to 3.2ghz.
You and your FSB issue again. Is that why GTA 4 runs much better on a C2Q with its FSB than Phenom? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
It has nothing to do with capability or whatever, it has to do with the design philosophy, instruction set and microarchitecture. Of course I can't expect you to understand how they work and what the difference is, and even if you did you'd play dumb just to piss people off and for the sake of creating an argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
This is the last post I'll ever make in response to your senseless baiting posts.. Get a hobby.
God bless the ignore list.
Yea, JumpingJack showed Gosh tons and tons of data (run on his AMD and Intel systems with a HD4870X2) to show that FSB isn't an issue in these games and to show that bottlenecks don't exist. Of course, Gosh ignored all of the evidence shown. It doesn't matter how many times you tell him, he will always just play dumb to piss people off. I'm sure deep down, he knows FSB isn't an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
http://i35.tinypic.com/11mbzf8.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
:rofl::ROTF::p:
OTQuote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
I pay attention to things that are right, In that thread I think that there was something to learn for everyone. I didn't know that games didn't adapt to resolution, that was my error. None in that thread explained that the cpu and gpu runs asynchronously. English is my second language so I have a problem to defend myself because it takes time for me to express it and that will of course make it look like I ignore the information.
On topic
If you have one explanation that makes sense for why GTA runs badly on the PC then I will listen. I do not listen to people that just say "bad optimize".
Comparing Phenom and C2Q using GTA and other games you will se that phenom handles GTA very well. C2Q has higher Hz and bigger cache so even if cache coherency is bad it gains on other areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
GTA isn't the last game that will run bad on Core 2, the market is shifting so I think ther will be more facts about this issue for games in the future. It is a lot easier to create threaded applications if you don't need to allocate separate memory pools for each thread to get good scaling
Yes, it does contain xbox 360 code and gui settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
This port is indeed a partially emulated version of GTA IV for the 360.
Not in the traditional emulator sense though as the game is coded without many 360 bios calls.
As of now, only one true xbox 360 emulator exists. Kaizen360
Wanna bet that a 2.4GHz C2Q would run GTA 4 better than Phenom 9950? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Why do you keep insisting that FSB is an issue in desktop level applications? FSB will never be an issue, period.
and no, JumpingJack in that thread CLEARLY showed there is no bottleneck at whatever resolution and settings. You on the other hand just ignored him and kept insisting that a bottleneck existed. Once JumpingJack knew you were thick as a rock, he gave up.