Jackmackg Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Yes this why i think its because these cards dont have Dirext X 10 and this why they cannot make this realistic car damage the xbox does not support any form of DX10 that i know of but has car damage. i don't think that is why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROFL2008 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 hmm then its a bug and it will be fixed soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 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? Well the console versions ran at the following specifications :- 360 = 1280 x 720 with 2xAA @ 30fps PS3 = 1120 x 640 with 0xAA @ 29fps (not 100% sure on the AA and naturally it was upscaled to 720p) So as you can see nothing earth shattering there resolution wise for the game. Now of course you are quite right neither console has a great honking OS running to use up resources. However we have too remember that the consoles relied a lot on compression of textures and files in the game. So a fair bit of the cpu usage on the console will have been wasted on constantly uncompressing textures for streaming. The PC obviously won't have such a problem since the game is being installed to HD and the fact we have tons of memory will also reduce the compression burden. 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. I always feel it is a bit unfair the way people judge the PC in the last generation. You have to remember here the PS2 and Xbox 1 were running GTA SA at 320 x 240 upscaled to 640 x 480. They could get away with that because TV's had crappy res. Now most people even when GTA 3 came out were wanting to run GTA 3 at least natively at 640 x 480 (twice the res of the consoles). So naturally if you wanted to run the game at twice the res you would have needed nearly twice the machine. I believe if you could've run GTA 3 at 320 x 240 on the PC you would have needed a similar spec to the xbox 1. There really is a lot of bunk spread about these consoles. I will of course agree that they can be more efficient than PC's but I don't believe it is by the great margin people seem to think, it is all just smoke and mirrors but people still fall for it. 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. I have to confess I think Rockstar pulled the specs out of their ass, for a starters there is the minimum being a 7900 and the recommended being 8600gt ????? last time I checked the 7900gt wiped the damn floor with the 8600gt in terms of memory bandwidth and had at least a 20% advantage when it came to fill rate. The 8600gt isn't helped by the fact it only has a 128bit memory bus compared to the 256bit memory bus of the 7900gt. I would hazard a bet that in every benchmark the 7900gt would come out on top over the 8600gt. So I really haven't got a clue why Rockstar seem to think the 8600gt is "better" than a 7900gt. Having said all this though I have to confess the indications are this isn't going to be a fantastic port (and please don't pull that bull out that Rob Nelson said). I still remain open to being wrong and I hope I am but I guess we will see in a couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROFL2008 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I think now that the graphic cards are to slow to make the cars damage lets hope that rockstar at least put in a damagemodel like on san andreas for older cards. so that means that maybe on older cards always be the same damage on a car like on the older gta's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackmackg Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 (edited) 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? Well the console versions ran at the following specifications :- 360 = 1280 x 720 with 2xAA @ 30fps PS3 = 1120 x 640 with 0xAA @ 29fps (not 100% sure on the AA and naturally it was upscaled to 720p) So as you can see nothing earth shattering there resolution wise for the game. Now of course you are quite right neither console has a great honking OS running to use up resources. However we have too remember that the consoles relied a lot on compression of textures and files in the game. So a fair bit of the cpu usage on the console will have been wasted on constantly uncompressing textures for streaming. The PC obviously won't have such a problem since the game is being installed to HD and the fact we have tons of memory will also reduce the compression burden. compression loading is going to to be the same. the pc going to halt to still do the same amount and a little more because these textures and sound are bigger and higher quality. well it depends how much they lossless they do. telling how big this games is it makes me wonder. is it the HQ stuff or did they also lower the lossless compression level for more performance. but also pc don't have a dvd player slowing them down, that's ware some speed comes from. Edited November 30, 2008 by Jackmackg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter780 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I have to confess I think Rockstar pulled the specs out of their ass, for a starters there is the minimum being a 7900 and the recommended being 8600gt ????? last time I checked the 7900gt wiped the damn floor with the 8600gt in terms of memory bandwidth and had at least a 20% advantage when it came to fill rate. The 8600gt isn't helped by the fact it only has a 128bit memory bus compared to the 256bit memory bus of the 7900gt. I would hazard a bet that in every benchmark the 7900gt would come out on top over the 8600gt. So I really haven't got a clue why Rockstar seem to think the 8600gt is "better" than a 7900gt. I think the 8600 was a typo that hasnt been corrected. 3870 is the recommended card for ATI users and has almost identical performance to the 9600. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECHN9CiAN Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 If you read the Readme you will read that it also runs on Geforce 6000 and Radeon X1000 Series Cards where exactly does it say it runs x1000? i ask because i have a x1250 (laptop). that's the only thing stopping me from enjoying GTA IV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregrein Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I pass ALL recommended requirements. EXCEPT My video card. I have a geforce 6150 SE, 128 mb. Which video card should I buy to runthis game smoothly thats 150 dollars or less? PLEASE HELP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vachon644 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I pass ALL recommended requirements. EXCEPT My video card. I have a geforce 6150 SE, 128 mb. Which video card should I buy to runthis game smoothly thats 150 dollars or less? PLEASE HELP!!! 9600GT, 8800GT, 9800GT, 8600GT(S), etc. I would go for the 9600GT as other cards may be expensive and the 8600GT(S) might suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ObsessedWithGTA4 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Thanks. I'm calm now. In the mean time, how about you tell us your tales of running games on machines that were below the minimum specs. Where do I start? I have AMD Athlon 3500+ 1GB and GeForce 8800GT 512MB. Alone in the Dark 5 requires dual core. I'm able to run it on high smoothly after changing priority. I'm able to run Far Cry 2 on high without dual core. Assassins Creed required dual core too, right? It ran perfectly on my PC. BTW I can't do harm to my PC by doing this - minimize the game, press ctrl+alt+delete, go to processes, find Far Cry 2.exe for example, right click, set priority to high, and now the game runs smoothly on high right? You want want to get more ram. You can get 2x2gigs of ddr2 for like $40 now. Don't know if you have ddr or ddr2 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abel. Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I have to confess I think Rockstar pulled the specs out of their ass, for a starters there is the minimum being a 7900 and the recommended being 8600gt ????? last time I checked the 7900gt wiped the damn floor with the 8600gt in terms of memory bandwidth and had at least a 20% advantage when it came to fill rate. The 8600gt isn't helped by the fact it only has a 128bit memory bus compared to the 256bit memory bus of the 7900gt. I would hazard a bet that in every benchmark the 7900gt would come out on top over the 8600gt. So I really haven't got a clue why Rockstar seem to think the 8600gt is "better" than a 7900gt. I think the 8600 was a typo that hasnt been corrected. 3870 is the recommended card for ATI users and has almost identical performance to the 9600. Actually, it's more of an equivalent to the Geforce 8800GT, the 3850 is more or less the same as the 9600 GT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregrein Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 I pass ALL recommended requirements. EXCEPT My video card. I have a geforce 6150 SE, 128 mb. Which video card should I buy to runthis game smoothly thats 150 dollars or less? PLEASE HELP!!! 9600GT, 8800GT, 9800GT, 8600GT(S), etc. I would go for the 9600GT as other cards may be expensive and the 8600GT(S) might suck. Ok ill look into that, thanks for the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregrein Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 BTW can I run Crysis on high settings on that video card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vachon644 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 BTW can I run Crysis on high settings on that video card? It depends on your screen resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachinator Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Ive got all the specs and that but what pisses me off is all the god damn extra installations like Net Framework?? and i have to make 2 seperate accounts to play online... seriously do they even want us playing this game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gta-man22 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Ive got all the specs and that but what pisses me off is all the god damn extra installations like Net Framework?? and i have to make 2 seperate accounts to play online... seriously do they even want us playing this game? No. They only want your money, they are 2 companys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTA22 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 With these specs is looks like they're playing hard to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockstar1 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 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. Any tech site saying a Xenos has performance around an X1900XT is flat wrong. I'm basing that statement off threads over at Beyond 3D. X1900XT has 16 ROPS, 256bit memory bus etc.. Agree that Xenos is not a massive leap over an RSX. A Criterion developer (they made Burnout Paradise on both systems) said the GPU in each console is within 10% performance of each other. Different strengths and weaknesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockstar1 Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Well the console versions ran at the following specifications :- 360 = 1280 x 720 with 2xAA @ 30fps PS3 = 1120 x 640 with 0xAA @ 29fps (not 100% sure on the AA and naturally it was upscaled to 720p) Those specs are correct. But as Quaz says, resolution isn't the only factor on how it looks. It's funny, most reviewers liked the PS3's graphics slightly better until the pixel count actually showed a lower native resolution. PS3 has better shadows and anisotropic filtering . X360 version has far worse texture dithering, but I hear it does run smoother, with less blur on the horizon. Even the PC must uncompress textures. I don't think it's much of a load. Either way. I think the big difference comes down to optimization. Console is built for one configuration while the PC version has to scale from old to state of the art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now