GTA IV - Quad or Core i7 needed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacky

Yes it is. A 26% difference clock for clock at high res is astounding. Well, if OBR's numbers are accurate that is.

---

Exactly.

This surprises so many people? Yes the game is a poor port, but the fact that it uses quad-core decently is just a sign of the times. Quad-core was going to be used, it was only a matter of time, and it will continue to improve. All those people who insisted that dual-core 3GHz is SOOOOO much better than quad-core at 2.4 because current games run better on the C2D are realizing they weren't actually looking ahead. Doesn't matter so much around here, people upgrade every few months, but others in the outside world have to live with their purchases for at least a year.

Τhey need to optimize the game more ... That's really unacceptable ... 4870X2 limited by E8500 @ 4GHz on a game ('cause in benchmarks that babe is even limited by Yorkfields @ 5GHz :p:) ... :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cybercat

Exactly.

This surprises so many people? Yes the game is a poor port, but the fact that it uses quad-core decently is just a sign of the times. Quad-core was going to be used, it was only a matter of time, and it will continue to improve. All those people who insisted that dual-core 3GHz is SOOOOO much better than quad-core at 2.4 because current games run better on the C2D are realizing they weren't actually looking ahead. Doesn't matter so much around here, people upgrade every few months, but others in the outside world have to live with their purchases for at least a year.

---

Those old Quads @ 3 GHz aren't sufficient for future games anyway.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4541/benchfr1.jpg

System in Sig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Those old Quads @ 3 GHz aren't sufficient for future games anyway.

---

You has time machine? :)


Anyways, OC'd quads will outlive OC'd Dual cores in usefulness down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsbb

You has time machine? :)


Anyways, OC'd quads will outlive OC'd Dual cores in usefulness down the road.

---

Yeah sure, people around here upgrade their CPU's once a year or so thus living for the 2010 is plain useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cybercat

Exactly.

This surprises so many people? Yes the game is a poor port, but the fact that it uses quad-core decently is just a sign of the times. Quad-core was going to be used, it was only a matter of time, and it will continue to improve. All those people who insisted that dual-core 3GHz is SOOOOO much better than quad-core at 2.4 because current games run better on the C2D are realizing they weren't actually looking ahead. Doesn't matter so much around here, people upgrade every few months, but others in the outside world have to live with their purchases for at least a year.

---

yea but this game is completely cpu dependent...theres no balance not enough weight on the gpu...almost no difference in frame rates between 1200 or 1900 resolutions...its almost a joke.:rofl:...and trust me im not crying i have a dual but i could get a quad next week if i wanted it...besides the game looks like it came out in the year 2002 it shouldnt be this demanding...but since they didnt optimise it..most pc,s are having a hard time running it...whats rockstar supposed to tell people that are running $525 cards but only have a 3ghz dual...dear valued customer were sorry but you need a quad core cpu and you need to overclock it to 3.8+ghz as well to run our game...lmao...now im all for quad core optimisation but again this game should not need a quad to run it..."and by the way"...from all the bench marks it looks like it runs like crap on a quad to...proving even more so that rockstar messed up on this game.....no more excuses for lazy game makers.....only if this game had some revolutionary grafx like crysis would they have an excuse for it running so poorly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Those old Quads @ 3 GHz aren't sufficient for future games anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Yeah sure, people around here upgrade their CPU's once a year or so thus living for the 2010 is plain useless.

---

Our standards and those of gamers in general are different. If multi-threading continues to give better improvements than clockspeed, quad-core at virtually any clockspeed will be sufficient in the foreseeable future. With GPUs still being the bottleneck, and physics moving to the GPU, the CPU will diminish anyway. That being said, I don't think we'll have to wait till 2010 for our quad-cores to be utilized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VOID WARRANTY

yea but this game is completely cpu dependent...theres no balance not enough weight on the gpu...almost no difference in frame rates between 1200 or 1900 resolutions...its almost a joke.:rofl:...and trust me im not crying i have a dual but i could get a quad next week if i wanted it...besides the game looks like it came out in the year 2002 it shouldnt be this demanding...but since they didnt optimise it..most pc,s are having a hard time running it...whats rockstar supposed to tell people that are running $525 cards but only have a 3ghz dual...dear valued customer were sorry but you need a quad core cpu and you need to overclock it to 3.8+ghz as well to run our game...lmao...now im all for quad core optimisation but again this game should not need a quad to run it..."and by the way"...from all the bench marks it looks like runs like crap on a quad to...proving even more so that rockstar messed up on this game.....no more excuses for lazy games makers.....only if this game had some revolutionary grafx like crysis would they have an excuse for it running so poorly

---

Oh you'll get no argument from me that this game's performance isn't trash. It's got issues up the arsenal. But I am saying that this is a trend we'll start seeing, not so much of CPUs being the bottleneck, but of >2 CPUs being used up.

I'm glad to see that quad core CPUs are finally being well utilized in a game, but unfortunately this game is not one to get excited about. From the screenshots, even at high settings the graphics are not that great and neither are the AI or physics judging from my experience with the PS3 version. This is just a case of unoptimized code IMO. I want to see a real game built for PC that utilizes 4 cores+ and does some amazing physics/AI with that power.

even though i agree that it's nice to have 38 fps (quad @3,6ghz) instead of 28 fps (dual @3,6ghz), but come on. 38 fps with a quad oc'ed to 3,6ghz? are you serious? the fps of gta 4 are ridiculously low on high-end pcs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Optimize = Strip functionality

---

? Are you out of your mind? Optimizing costs resources, that's why
publishers don't like it. It's like rounding out a square. But if you like
non-optimized games, enjoy your square wheels instead of round
ones. It's got nothing to do with progress, it's just negligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

ur comparing c4c
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:

---

But 99% of all people (and gamers) keep their CPU at stock or only slightly overclocked. So my argument is stronger when talking about the end-user experience. Only the end-user experience/benefit will sell hardware anyway. :D
Nehalem shows its muscle, wanna see Deneb. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

even though i agree that it's nice to have 38 fps (quad @3,6ghz) instead of 28 fps (dual @3,6ghz), but come on. 38 fps with a quad oc'ed to 3,6ghz? are you serious? the fps of gta 4 are ridiculously low on high-end pcs.

---

yeah just because noobs playing it on cosole dont know/care if its lagging , they think it's acceptable to push this crud onto us..

allot of games stutter or lag at 1080P , most 22' + monitors run higher than that , of course there is going to be MORE stuttering...

lame bad ports..
its not even such a great game...

nice phenon scores for once. but it's only a 2.6 ghz :/ also needs toliman in there too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank M

? Are you out of your mind? Optimizing costs resources, that's why
publishers don't like it. It's like rounding out a square. But if you like
non-optimized games, enjoy your square wheels instead of round
ones. It's got nothing to do with progress, it's just negligence.

---

What you are saying is that you want a application to be optimized for Core 2. I think that developers at rockstar likes to develop, they don't like to create crappy code just so that it works on a processor that sucks when it comes to real scaling. The problem with Core 2 is that it is bad when threads are sharing memory and I doesn't like to work with ram. The PS3 is a bandwidth monster so it is the opposite.
It is vital to keep programmers to like their job if you want good code from them. Kill the spirit by forcing them to create code that isn't as fun to do and you will get a poor result. It is much more fun to create new functionality compare to do rewrites.
I think a lot of good developers have waited for Intel to release the i7 and increased market share for that type of processor that scales well is very welcome (Phenom is the same type of processor). You will see a lot more applications that is taking advantage of threads then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

What you are saying is that you want a application to be optimized for Core 2. I think that developers at rockstar likes to develop, they don't like to create crappy code just so that it works on a processor that sucks when it comes to real scaling. The problem with Core 2 is that it is bad when threads are sharing memory and I doesn't like to work with ram. The PS3 is a bandwidth monster so it is the opposite.
It is vital to keep programmers to like their job if you want good code from them. Kill the spirit by forcing them to create code that isn't as fun to do and you will get a poor result. It is much more fun to create new functionality compare to do rewrites.
I think a lot of good developers have waited for Intel to release the i7 and increased market share for that type of processor that scales well is very welcome (Phenom is the same type of processor). You will see a lot more applications that is taking advantage of threads then.

---

what?...it runs bad on quad cores also...from what every one is saying it runs bad on everything including consoles even i7 920 needs to be overclocked to make it playable...:down:....theres no reason this game shouldnt run around 60fps or higher.....this game=fail unless they come out with some magic patch to fix it...and why is it so jaggy at 35 frames you would think the AA would be maxed out for such low frame rates

Thats one of the reasons why I used to recommend quads even before they were NEEDED. I dont want ppl regretting about an new purchase coz an new title comes and rape dual cores... The trend is obvious, no way of running away from parallelism... Its only going to get worse, ppl with expensive e8600's would be better of with cheapo q6600's for gaming. Unless you dont mind upgrading often of course...

I remember alot of people around here saying that multithreaded games wouldn't be around for a long time. Everybody remember that? I also remember the other side saying How i7 was the future and the future was very near for multitreaded games and they would be utilized.

May I present to you GTA. May I also present to you Fallout 3. I would present another, but they screwed up and hacked in a root kit, so I'll leave that one off the list. There will be more. I expect to see 2 to 3 more before this winter season is up.

More and more it's gonna take CPU, and RAM. Yes it's gonna take GPU like it always has, but we are getting into titles that will take full advanatge of the complete system. The Vista Operating System already is, and the games, multimedia apps, and work software are gonna follow. It's gonna happen just as sure as the Sun rises everyday.

Personally I'm already looking for that 8 core 16 thread CPU beast from Intel. The future is Multicore and Simeultaneous Multithreading. The future is now. The end. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Flight

I remember alot of people around here saying that multithreaded games wouldn't be around for a long time. Everybody remember that? I also remember the other side saying How i7 was the future and the future was very near for multitreaded games and they would be utilized.

May I present to you GTA. May I also present to you Fallout 3. I would present another, but they screwed up and hacked in a root kit, so I'll leave that one off the list. There will be more. I expect to see 2 to 3 more before this winter season is up.

More and more it's gonna take CPU, and RAM. Yes it's gonna take GPU like it always has, but we are getting into titles that will take full advanatge of the complete system. The Vista Operating System already is, and the games, multimedia apps, and work software are gonna follow. It's gonna happen just as sure as the Sun rises everyday.

Personally I'm already looking for that 8 core 16 thread CPU beast from Intel. The future is Multicore and Simeultaneous Multithreading. The future is now. The end. :)

---

I wonder how a Nehalem derived Dual Core at 3.6Ghz(with HT) would compare to a Nehalem Quad at 2.93/3.2Ghz with the games that will be coming out in the next 12 to 18 months?

Dude... you always do quality work.... I don't have GTA IV at the moment, does it have benchmarking utilities?

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypediss

so is optimized for consoles or is it just that there's more "umph" added into the pc version?

---

I was wondering the same thing. Doesn't the PC version have more traffic, people, and higher res textures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papu

yeah just because noobs playing it on cosole dont know/care if its lagging , they think it's acceptable to push this crud onto us..

allot of games stutter or lag at 1080P , most 22' + monitors run higher than that , of course there is going to be MORE stuttering...

lame bad ports..
its not even such a great game...

---

Aren't most console games running at much lower resolutions (like 720p) and stretched to 1080p?

What's the game resolution on GTAIV for PS3 and x360?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turok

What's the game resolution on GTAIV for PS3 and x360?

---

PS3 was 640p upscaled to 720p IIRC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Dude... you always do quality work.... I don't have GTA IV at the moment, does it have benchmarking utilities?

Jack

---

It features a benchmark in the Graphics options menu, but it doesn't ( more than likely ) put the same stress to the system as it does when playing the game normally.
The game is hilarious, it doesn't even let the user set the graphics details to full even at 1280x1024 NoAA NoAF with a GTX280 :D
And the graphics are... piss poor :D

:down:

yep , CPU dependent


no problem runing GTA IV with Core i7 920 and single GTX260

1920x1200 High setings (40/60fps) >> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=209951




and LOT of CPU tests (13 CPUs) >>> http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...13_processors/



:up:

WTF, when did GTA4 ever run crappy on the 360? Anyways...

The problem with the console version is the weak draw distance. The game looked awesome however. On the PC, it's full potential will be shown. :D