For the people unhappy with the specs

[carcols.dat]

Well, if your penis is that swollen, you're screwed...

 

EDIT: sorry, wrong forum.

[Ryuki]

i only have a problem with my processor..

 

Intel Qore Duo 2.4 Ghz....how this sh*t run GTA IV on max settings!!?

I love the game with beautiful graphic

 

i think i gonna buy PS3

[CharmingCharlie]

i only have a problem with my processor..

 

Intel Qore Duo 2.4 Ghz....how this sh*t run GTA IV on max settings!!?

I love the game with beautiful graphic

 

i think i gonna buy PS3

So you are going to buy a console and play the game on the equivalent of low settings on the PC. Yeah that makes sense, the consoles do not produce anything close to the medium or high settings of the PC version.

[ROFL2008]

i only have a problem with my processor..

 

Intel Qore Duo 2.4 Ghz....how this sh*t run GTA IV on max settings!!?

I love the game with beautiful graphic

 

i think i gonna buy PS3

So you are going to buy a console and play the game on the equivalent of low settings on the PC. Yeah that makes sense, the consoles do not produce anything close to the medium or high settings of the PC version.

Yes why buy a console?

The console plays GTA IV only on Low Graphics, 33% Traffic distance and only on 1280x1024

[Winrar]

f*ck yea!!! Runs on minimum lol

 

[RedEnd]

well

if you run Crysis at 1280X1024 and all Very High then IV wont be a problem (i run it and i think i will get even better at IV so i can use AAX4 or something)

[Ryuki]

 

well

if you run Crysis at 1280X1024 and all Very High then IV wont be a problem (i run it and i think i will get even better at IV so i can use AAX4 or something)

I have played Crysis Warhead and my pc can handle this game in max settings but i use AAX2.if i use AAX4 the game will be in 30 -40 fps and that is sucks!

 

 

So you are going to buy a console and play the game on the equivalent of low settings on the PC. Yeah that makes sense, the consoles do not produce anything close to the medium or high settings of the PC version.

really?? wow i dont know that kind of thing

[Rockstar1]

Does anyone think this game will be playable on a fast single core cpu ? Assuming the memory and gpu are above minimum ?

I have an A64 at 2.6ghz. For reference, an A64 4000+ is only 2.2ghz.

[extender]

Lol seriously. Those "Can You run it" etc things are bullsh*t. Totally. Don't believe those. http://i37.tinypic.com/2irk9xz.jpg

I have everything above the recommended but I don't have the Quad (btw when I was building my rig then I read many reviews and articles and they told me that E8400 3GHz is better than Q6600 2.4GHz) and thanks to that I would not be able to run my game with High settings? I don't think so. It just shows that it supports QUAD and knows how to use it but it doesn't mean that when you have good C2D CPU then you still will not be able to play it with high settings.

[CharmingCharlie]

 

So you are going to buy a console and play the game on the equivalent of low settings on the PC. Yeah that makes sense, the consoles do not produce anything close to the medium or high settings of the PC version.

really?? wow i dont know that kind of thing

That is the whole point of it, the base version is the console version which means all settings on low = console version. If you have a PC that can meet the minimum specs you will play the game to the console level of graphics. Now for those with better PC's than the consoles they will have access to medium and high settings which are considerably ABOVE what the console can do.

 

Now if you do not have a PC capable of playing it at the minimum settings you then have a choice. You can either pay £200 - £300 for a console to play the game at MINIMUM settings or invest in a PC around £500 that will play the game almost maxxed out.

[Smiley001]

 

f*ck yea!!! Runs on minimum lol

 

Whoa dude, according to that chart, I might just have a 10% chance of running this monstrosity of a game on my out of date machine!

I have an AMD Athlon 2.19 Ghz, Radeon 9800 PRO 256mb, 1gb memory, Win XP.

Maybe if I drop all setting to the lowest point, it might run with a little dodgyness, or not...

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm doomed... Just too out of date it seems.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Smiley001

[ROFL2008]

If you read the Readme you will read that it also runs on Geforce 6000 and Radeon X1000 Series Cards

[noobiewoobie]

My theory is that Minimum is the lowest graphics settings possible, and Reccomended is that equal of a console at a semi-bearable resolution at a console framerate. anyone agree or disagree?

[CharmingCharlie]

My theory is that Minimum is the lowest graphics settings possible, and Reccomended is that equal of a console at a semi-bearable resolution at a console framerate. anyone agree or disagree?

Nope I disagree with you because the minimum specs happen to match EXACTLY the hardware consoles have. The PS3 is said to have a 7800GTX equivalent GPU and the 360 is said to have the equivalent of a X1900XT GPU. I don't think it is any coincidence that the minimum gpu is the exact equivalent as the consoles.

 

The CPU that they have recommended is a 1.8ghz Duo2core and most tech sites have speculated that the cpu in the PS3/360 would be comparable to a 1.5ghz Duo2core. There is no getting around it the LOW settings are console equivalent.

[ROFL2008]

Yes, read the readme then know that it runs on older hardware then the requirements too

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nicotin3]

My theory is that Minimum is the lowest graphics settings possible, and Reccomended is that equal of a console at a semi-bearable resolution at a console framerate. anyone agree or disagree?

Nope I disagree with you because the minimum specs happen to match EXACTLY the hardware consoles have. The PS3 is said to have a 7800GTX equivalent GPU and the 360 is said to have the equivalent of a X1900XT GPU. I don't think it is any coincidence that the minimum gpu is the exact equivalent as the consoles.

 

The CPU that they have recommended is a 1.8ghz Duo2core and most tech sites have speculated that the cpu in the PS3/360 would be comparable to a 1.5ghz Duo2core. There is no getting around it the LOW settings are console equivalent.

No, you can scale the settings up or down, some preview said IV on minimum settings looked like a PS2 game and the console versions of IV dont.. look ..like.. SA...

I think you can disable shadows or use less detail (visibility, textures, shadders) than the consoles default settings.

 

Remember that many people dont have high performance graphics cards on their PC's (8400/8600 series are not even midrange).

 

[Rockstar1]

 

My theory is that Minimum is the lowest graphics settings possible, and Reccomended is that equal of a console at a semi-bearable resolution at a console framerate. anyone agree or disagree?

Nope I disagree with you because the minimum specs happen to match EXACTLY the hardware consoles have. The PS3 is said to have a 7800GTX equivalent GPU and the 360 is said to have the equivalent of a X1900XT GPU. I don't think it is any coincidence that the minimum gpu is the exact equivalent as the consoles.

 

The CPU that they have recommended is a 1.8ghz Duo2core and most tech sites have speculated that the cpu in the PS3/360 would be comparable to a 1.5ghz Duo2core. There is no getting around it the LOW settings are console equivalent.

I agree with you low settings on PC will be similar to console but it doesn't match exactly.

PS3's gpu is very similar to a 7800/7900 class gpu only with less bandwidth, but a higher clock speed.

X360's gpu isn't a stripped down X1900. People assumed Xenos was based off R580 because they came out around the same time. But it's a very different animal, its a one off design, not based on any PC gpu

 

The cpu in the X360 and PS3 are nowhere close to as powerful or versatile as a C2D. They are highly specialized for gaming, and would be pretty terrible at running X86 code. Rockstar's minimum spec PC is easily more powerful than either console. The difference is the console code is highly optimized while the PC code is very generalized.

[CharmingCharlie]

Well I didn't actually say the Xenos was a stripped down X1900XT but most tech sites pretty much agree that Xenos has performance around the X1900XT's level. The fact that both consoles look pretty similar when it comes to graphics shows that the Xenos certainly isn't any massive leap over a 7800/7900 card.

 

The cpu is of course alot more difficult to compare since the consoles use a stripped to the bone processor with a reduced instruction set, in-order processors and no-execution window. There are some things console cpu's will do better than the core2duo's and there are a lot of other things a core2duo will do better than the console cpu's.

 

It just looks incredibly suspicious to me that Rockstar would set the minimum specs to be a 7900/1900XT with a low end Core2Duo. I firmly believe if you have that level of spec you can expect graphics that match the consoles at a resolution of 1280 x 720. I guess we will find out in a few days when all this guess work will be over.

[noobiewoobie]

My theory is that Minimum is the lowest graphics settings possible, and Reccomended is that equal of a console at a semi-bearable resolution at a console framerate. anyone agree or disagree?

Nope I disagree with you because the minimum specs happen to match EXACTLY the hardware consoles have. The PS3 is said to have a 7800GTX equivalent GPU and the 360 is said to have the equivalent of a X1900XT GPU. I don't think it is any coincidence that the minimum gpu is the exact equivalent as the consoles.

 

The CPU that they have recommended is a 1.8ghz Duo2core and most tech sites have speculated that the cpu in the PS3/360 would be comparable to a 1.5ghz Duo2core. There is no getting around it the LOW settings are console equivalent.

Be that as it may, there are other factors in play on the PC, such as vista/xp running in the background and the addition of more features such as the video editor. Also, didn't they come out and say it runs on 640P on consoles? Also, looking back to the san andreas requirements, the minimum roughly looked like the xbox version on low, but the requirements were 1Ghz, 256BM RAM, Geforce3 on the pc, much greater than the 733 mhz, 64MB, and Geforce2 equivalent of the first xbox. Also, we have to factor in the possibility of R* not doing to well of optimizing the game. As well, an 8600 performs similar to a 7800, hinting at the possibility of this game using features of the 8000 series that the 7000 series does not. However, i believe that even my Q6600 is a bit much for simply a recommended requirement, so i think that is only for the video editor.

[ROFL2008]

Now we know why on the recommened requirements stand 8600 instead of geforce 7900

because the game uses direct x 10 effects

[flyer2359]

My theory is that Minimum is the lowest graphics settings possible, and Reccomended is that equal of a console at a semi-bearable resolution at a console framerate. anyone agree or disagree?

Nope I disagree with you because the minimum specs happen to match EXACTLY the hardware consoles have. The PS3 is said to have a 7800GTX equivalent GPU and the 360 is said to have the equivalent of a X1900XT GPU. I don't think it is any coincidence that the minimum gpu is the exact equivalent as the consoles.

 

The CPU that they have recommended is a 1.8ghz Duo2core and most tech sites have speculated that the cpu in the PS3/360 would be comparable to a 1.5ghz Duo2core. There is no getting around it the LOW settings are console equivalent.

Technically we just get better physics pretty much no matter what with a 1.8GHZ C2D compared to a 1.5GHZ C2D because physics are made by the processor

[ROFL2008]

Its good that i have an AMD Dualcore with 2,6 Ghz!! SO i will have good physics.

But bad graphics because of my card

im searching for a new one who is very cheap and has DX10

Maybe someone can help me

[noid449]

so whats with the gpu nvidia physics enabled ??

[extender]

 

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla......However, i believe that even my Q6600 is a bit much for simply a recommended requirement, so i think that is only for the video editor.

Amen to that! I hope it is so. Because I don't really wanna believe that traffic density and good graphics/physics are asking Quad(remember Crysys, it has crazy ass graphic and physics and it asked C2D). I know that video processing and editing prefers 4 core CPU over 2 core cpu's. So maybe that's why QUAD is recommended because I think when they released those system settings then they thought that people will start messing with the video editor a lot. I'm 90% sure that you will be able to run this game with high settings when you have good C2D cpu and over the recommended system settings GPU.

Edited November 30, 2008 by extender

[Jackmackg]

My theory is that Minimum is the lowest graphics settings possible, and Reccomended is that equal of a console at a semi-bearable resolution at a console framerate. anyone agree or disagree?

Nope I disagree with you because the minimum specs happen to match EXACTLY the hardware consoles have. The PS3 is said to have a 7800GTX equivalent GPU and the 360 is said to have the equivalent of a X1900XT GPU. I don't think it is any coincidence that the minimum gpu is the exact equivalent as the consoles.

 

The CPU that they have recommended is a 1.8ghz Duo2core and most tech sites have speculated that the cpu in the PS3/360 would be comparable to a 1.5ghz Duo2core. There is no getting around it the LOW settings are console equivalent.

yeah but why then run the game?

 

when the game comes out i want to see if gta iv on low is the same on the xbox. i would like to know that.

[ROFL2008]

Yes most the same but you dont will have cardamage on low end cards only on high end and med end cards

maybe it wille be fixed, maybe not

[Jackmackg]

Yes most the same but you dont will have cardamage on low end cards only on high end and med end cards

maybe it wille be fixed, maybe not

you pointed out a good thing. is this because these cards dont have the juice or is it that they are not as optimized.

[ROFL2008]

I think its not optimized enough because normally the cpu is working with euphoria and not the graphics card the card does only show the picture and does NOT make the damage and i think its because that those cards DONT support DX10 and maybe DX10 is needed for those car damage effects

But i will anyway buy an new card then i will have car damage a HD4350 it costs only 45 euros thats not much

Edited November 30, 2008 by ROFL2008

[Jackmackg]

I think its not optimized enough because normally the cpu is working with euphoria and not the graphics card the card does only show the picture and does NOT make the damage

the card does do the 3d processing. a 3d model with dents in it will have more polygons witch will take the gpu longer to make and run the shaders for it.

 

some one smart correct me if im wrong.

[ROFL2008]

Yes this why i think its because these cards dont have Dirext X 10 and this why they cannot make this realistic car damage