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 :)
Printable View
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