GTA IV - Quad or Core i7 needed!

[BababooeyHTJ]

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.

Seems like Intel Yorkfield or i7 + Nvidia is doing best job at running this game currently.

A q9550 and GTx280 running stock! Such a waste.

[railer]

does anyone play MP? how is it. Allot of people playing?

[rockfella]

Because the console versions are somewhat stripped down of graphics that are demanding, hence FPS are constant in consoles

So how is it the consoles run it so well then if it is so demanding even on Core i7?

[BenchZowner]

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.

If threads shares resources, then there will be a lot more FSB traffic.

You just can't get enough of it ? Can you ?
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 ?

[VOID WARRANTY]

looks like they should of spent a little less on advertising and a little more on finishing the game...

[Mad1723]

does anyone play MP? how is it. Allot of people playing?

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

Let's say it needs a tiny bit more players online and it will be fine!

[Biker]

looks like they should of spent a little less on advertising and a little more on finishing the game...

LOL

That pic is Canal St, NY


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!!!

[Slay0r]

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.

[gosh]

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.

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)

[RaZz!]

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)

you're talking about "optimize for core 2" all the time. wtf do you mean with THAT?!

[gosh]

you're talking about "optimize for core 2" all the time. wtf do you mean with THAT?!

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_coherency

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.

[Chad Boga]

you're talking about "optimize for core 2" all the time. wtf do you mean with THAT?!

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.

[VOID WARRANTY]

lmao

[gosh]

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.

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 problem

[Chad Boga]

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 problem

Your old favourite bullshat line.

[ownage]

GTA4 must be badly ported, because it runs fine without any problems on the xbox360.

[cheezeit]

Whoa, it looks like games are beginning to take use of 4 cores sooner than i thought

[Cooper]

GTA4 must be badly ported, because it runs fine without any problems on the xbox360.

i had it on xbox. Graphics lot worse, 30fps limit and plenty of pop-ups.
PC version looks alot better and renders lot more objects at a time period.

[BenchZowner]

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 problem

Cut the craaaaaap man.
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

[Chad Boga]

Cut the craaaaaap man.
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 ?

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.

[Hornet331]

Cut the craaaaaap man.
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

... he should be renamed to C2Hater.

[gosh]

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 ?

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.

I have trouble to understand how sensitive some people are to criticism for the core 2, all things about that processor isn't super

[ownage]

i had it on xbox. Graphics lot worse, 30fps limit and plenty of pop-ups.
PC version looks alot better and renders lot more objects at a time period.

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.

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?

[JohnZS]

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

[Biker]

"There is no way to penetrate this barrier. It has the strength of a million souls. The power of the dead."