Printable View
It's not much of an optimized port.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Still, the PC version has a heck of a lot more traffic and if you take to the skies in a helicopter and look down you'll notice that all the traffic is still there.. In all the streets. Unlike the previous games.
I don't think this will be the case with console game ports.Quote:
Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY
Have you ever looked at a console game first generation games, and last generation games. The difference is ginormous.
Since most of these ports are design to run on console first and cpu second(more money). What will happen is these things will become more multithreaded to utilize those extra cores on the console. This means the dual core is going to fall more and more behind.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...10&postcount=3 Mascaras' testing also confirms this. First game for years which are this CPU demanding and also first game to utilize a quad core this well. Seems like Quad @ ~3.6GHz is equal to a dualcore around 5GHz in this game.
I DONT use built-in benchmark (is useless), but FRAPS in game ... i am riding town few minutes ...Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo
You're right. I guess after Christmas, when all the new releases are launched, we'll finally be seeing even more QUAD utilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
I know the importance of physics in newer games is going to be very big.
whats the big deal? theres a max diff of 4fps between penny (oc'd) & yorkie (stock) - that definitely isnt 'quad needed' material. :down:
What? It runs like utter :banana::banana::banana::banana: on the 360 and ps3...Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
But how do you accurately benchmark ingame? Unless you've made a timedemo. If you just randomly run around ingame your results could be off easily by 10 - 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...essors/?page=2 I think this benchmark is probably currently the most accurate due to how it's benchmarked and settings used. Q6600 2.4GHz 52% faster than E6600 @ 2.4GHz, QX6850 @ 3.6GHz is 32% faster than E8500 @ 3.6GHz. Too bad no Yorkfield was tested so I'd imagine a 3.6GHz Yorkfield would have a bit more advantage maybe ~45% or so over Wolfdale if Conroe vs Kentsfield difference was 52% at a lower clock speed. Let's assume that would be the case then 3.6GHz Yorkfield x 1.45 = 5.2 GHz Wolfdale.
EDIT: However it seems they've done a craptastic job converting the console game to PC game though if we talk efficiency, at least I'm not willing to upgrade my CPU for this game. ;) It's still interesting and would be interesting to know what tasks they let CPU handle. As it looks now, the game looks more like a console emulator than PC game with such huge CPU load.
That is why i have been asking :D , that thingy averages 45fps but in game it is always 30sQuote:
Originally Posted by OBR
+1..:up:...my E8400 is gold im not to conserned about 4 frames...come on people this is rockstar were talking about the engine is probably crap and badly optimised to run on a pc why arent you mad at them...dont take it out on your hardware and think you need to spend $1000 for an i7 upgrade to make console games run on your pc...thats crazy talk.............i cant wait till id,s tech 5 engine comes out and shows people what a real engine is...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
Ever tried Supreme Commander with multiple ai players?Quote:
Originally Posted by OBR
maybe this game isnt optimised at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY
Good thing I don't care for GTA, I'm waiting for Lynnfield.
Just about all RTS games are the exception almost all of them have many threads (AI/Units/Physics) and benefit from more cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
How about some i7 numbers with HT disabled? And some skulltrail (8-core harpertown anyways) numbers? :D
This engine isn't optimized well. Left4dead spawns many more zombies with AI than GTA4 and it runs fine on dual cores.
I agree. Let's see some 4GHz+ i7 benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by billdavis
Optimize = Strip functionality
It will be more and more common that games need more cores.
Just to do detailed face movements needs a lot of computing power
Developers at rockstar are probably very good, if they wasn't they would never be able to create a game like GTA.
Yes it is. A 26% difference clock for clock at high res is astounding. Well, if OBR's numbers are accurate that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
ur comparing c4cQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
i was comparing oc'd to stock
very *very* few ppl around here keep their CPUs stock - the folks with c2d dont 'need' a quad eod
thanks for playing :up:
http://www.isarapix.org/pix44/1228657530.png
Three threads active, as many threads as the Xbox 360 has cores.. I guess this is the result of a lazy recompile or something. Didn't they claim they had 'rewritten' the game for PC? :bs:
I think it's not bad, we need progress afterall. 2009 should be a critical year for quadcore infusion into mainstream gaming system, and i think with the supposed rebound of AMD quad existence, quad processor would become more and more affordable and easier to accept by the masses -price should get lower with better competition out there.
1080p what?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by strange|ife
The game barely runs @ 720p,some said it runs below 720p also the graphics look horrible compared to PC + jaggies and low AF.
the x360 has 3 cores and each of these cores can execute 2 threads, i guess that's the reason for i7s advantage over C2Q ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
luckily i already bought this game on the 360 because it runs without any problems or slowdowns ;)
PS: the phenom does a great job in thie game, it seems that it is on par with the kentsfields
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
What they said :DQuote:
Originally Posted by billdavis
Hang on a second, how much RAM is GTA IV using up on that screenshot of the taskmanager above?
Usually over 2GB on Vista but not 4GB+ :)