Slow performance on a very fast PC

[pinky]

I have both Xp and VISTA x64, they are virtually the same..... one has stupid little bells and whistles on it.

Bingo, and you can switch them off too aparently.

[RCagent]

I don't get this need to run it on high settings. Just run it on normal and a average resolution if you are getting a bad framerate.

 

I don't think its necessarily a bad port, I think just porting the entire RAGE engine in general with Euphoria and other sh*t is just incredibly difficult.

[Nomad91]

Try to turn off vsync, with it off in most games you will see a 15 fps improvement...

Here is the command line for it: -novblank

[Bluesman]

 

Ok specs are as follows:

 

2.4 quad core

2xEVGA GTX260 SC in SLI. Running latest Nvidia's 180.48 driver

4 Gigs DDR2 Ram

150gb Raptor HD

Vista Ultimate 32-bit

System is only 2 weeks old so no anti-viruses, viruses or other garbage on it.

Direct2Drive version of GTA4

 

I am getting really low framerate in the ballpark of 10-15 at 1680x1050 with 38 view distance (!!!). When it displays my memory usage it only shows 870mb (what happened to my second card?  ). I can go as high as 46 on my view distance (with memory usage shown at 970mb, which is almost 100 megs over alotted system resource of 870), but it wouldn't let me go any higher and the performance is horrible. When i try to tweak through Nvidia control panel, GTA4.exe appears on the "Add" list but it does not actually add it to the panel.

 

 

I really thought that GTA4 will peanuts for my system (it runs on PS3, which has graphical hardware from 4 generations ago (albeit with a really good GPU/CPU architecture)), so at the moment i am quite confused.

 

Any suggestions?

Have a look here

 

The beta drivers I posted there did a lot of very good stuff for me in FarCry 2 and Call of Duty world at war. They might also for GTA.

 

Be sure not to forget to re-enable SLI and PhysiX after installing the drivers. For some reason SLI and PhysiX are always turned off after a driver update.

[Shadow Kipper]

I'm currently in the first stage of installing Windows XP Service Pack 3. I've stopped on the first stage because I need to back up all my files to my 1TB E-Hard Drive in case what happened last time, happens again when installing Service Pack 3:

 

 

 

Yeah I wasnt too happy about this. Sure enough i got it working (after an excess of 5 hours labor and researching) and I got all my files back but the actual desktop and system is all muddle up now so I have to reinstall all my old programs and I'm missing a whole load of programs too :-/

 

Back Up Your Files Before Installing Any New Service Pack And Then Rebooting.

 

[Cojage]

 

I'm currently in the first stage of installing Windows XP Service Pack 3. I've stopped on the first stage because I need to back up all my files to my 1TB E-Hard Drive in case what happened last time, happens again when installing Service Pack 3:

 

 

 

Yeah I wasnt too happy about this. Sure enough i got it working (after an excess of 5 hours labor and researching) and I got all my files back but the actual desktop and system is all muddle up now so I have to reinstall all my old programs and I'm missing a whole load of programs too :-/

 

Back Up Your Files Before Installing Any New Service Pack And Then Rebooting.

 

Buy an orginal license. Seriously i had no trouble installing SP3 on my pc, on my mothers pc and on my sisters pc. So i dunno but its probably your pc though.

[Shadow Kipper]

I'm currently in the first stage of installing Windows XP Service Pack 3. I've stopped on the first stage because I need to back up all my files to my 1TB E-Hard Drive in case what happened last time, happens again when installing Service Pack 3:

 

 

 

Yeah I wasnt too happy about this. Sure enough i got it working (after an excess of 5 hours labor and researching) and I got all my files back but the actual desktop and system is all muddle up now so I have to reinstall all my old programs and I'm missing a whole load of programs too :-/

 

Back Up Your Files Before Installing Any New Service Pack And Then Rebooting.

 

Buy an orginal license. Seriously i had no trouble installing SP3 on my pc, on my mothers pc and on my sisters pc. So i dunno but its probably your pc though.

Well I'm getting this SP3 Update from The official Windows Update page and it already confirmed that my SP2 is genuine as it forces you to install some 'Genuineness Checker' thing.

 

I think it failed last time because I was messing about with the settings when I shouldnt have.

[SyphonPayne]

 

Ok specs are as follows:

 

2.4 quad core

2xEVGA GTX260 SC in SLI. Running latest Nvidia's 180.48 driver

4 Gigs DDR2 Ram

150gb Raptor HD

Vista Ultimate 32-bit

System is only 2 weeks old so no anti-viruses, viruses or other garbage on it.

Direct2Drive version of GTA4

 

I am getting really low framerate in the ballpark of 10-15 at 1680x1050 with 38 view distance (!!!). When it displays my memory usage it only shows 870mb (what happened to my second card?  ). I can go as high as 46 on my view distance (with memory usage shown at 970mb, which is almost 100 megs over alotted system resource of 870), but it wouldn't let me go any higher and the performance is horrible. When i try to tweak through Nvidia control panel, GTA4.exe appears on the "Add" list but it does not actually add it to the panel.

 

 

I really thought that GTA4 will peanuts for my system (it runs on PS3, which has graphical hardware from 4 generations ago (albeit with a really good GPU/CPU architecture)), so at the moment i am quite confused.

 

Any suggestions?

Should read, "Slow performance on a potentially fast PC".

2.4GHz is utterly useless for SLi cards, needs to be at least 4GHz on a Quad to get rid of the bottleneck.

Wrong, if anything SLI makes it LESS CPU dependent. Generally when one uses SLI it scales best at higher resolutions, and the higher the resolution you have, the less a game is CPU-dependent and is actually completely more GPU dependent.

 

CPU "bottlenecks" are generally mythical unless someone's still running a P4 or an old Athlon or a seriously low-clocked Core 2 (less than 2.4GHz.)

 

Yes, a better/faster clocked CPU may affect SLI performance by 5-10fps, but nowhere near the amount that you act like it will affect performance.

[Bluesman]

 

You serious ? You reckon its worth me putting Windows XP SP3 on my machine and get rid of Vista ?. I would be willing to try any thing to get this game working. I have Vista and dont even do projects or work on this machine, its strictly for gaming and surfing.

 

No, no, no, NO!

 

You dumbasses need to stop claiming that XP is better then vista. That OS is f*cking obsolete. It's 8 years old! It doesn't know how to handle dual and quad cores, it doesn't have DirectX 10, it gets slow and clogged overtime (Vista DOESN'T), it looks like sh*t, the search function sucks, and it actually runs slower on today's computers because it only uses 1 core 99% of the time..... No really, Vista IS better. Especially since SP1, your opinions are as useless as tits on a garbage can. And if you don't know how to deal with Vista, it's because you're too f*cking stupid to use it.

 

People say it uses a lot of ram, but they don't know why it does that. Vista collects files you use a lot and loads it into the ram for you. It uses ram that isn't used at the time. That's why it's filled up to 2-3GB even if you're doing nothing. It really helps loading programs faster. Once other programs need it, it's cleared within a nanosecond and free again.

 

 

[MisterBubbles]

run in xp sp2?

[Vasil]

I'm currently in the first stage of installing Windows XP Service Pack 3. I've stopped on the first stage because I need to back up all my files to my 1TB E-Hard Drive in case what happened last time, happens again when installing Service Pack 3:

 

 

 

Yeah I wasnt too happy about this. Sure enough i got it working (after an excess of 5 hours labor and researching) and I got all my files back but the actual desktop and system is all muddle up now so I have to reinstall all my old programs and I'm missing a whole load of programs too :-/

 

Back Up Your Files Before Installing Any New Service Pack And Then Rebooting.

 

Buy an orginal license. Seriously i had no trouble installing SP3 on my pc, on my mothers pc and on my sisters pc. So i dunno but its probably your pc though.

Well I'm getting this SP3 Update from The official Windows Update page and it already confirmed that my SP2 is genuine as it forces you to install some 'Genuineness Checker' thing.

 

I think it failed last time because I was messing about with the settings when I shouldnt have.

Are you an AMD user?. You should have applied an official microsoft hotfix before upgrading to sp3...Google is your friend.

 

btw...someone can explain me how to run this in a window?. I´ve added -windowed in the command line, but still launches in fullscreen mode .

[Cojage]

 

No, no, no, NO!

 

You dumbasses need to stop claiming that XP is better then vista. That OS is f*cking obsolete. It's 8 years old! It doesn't know how to handle dual and quad cores, it doesn't have DirectX 10, it gets slow and clogged overtime (Vista DOESN'T), it looks like sh*t, the search function sucks, and it actually runs slower on today's computers because it only uses 1 core 99% of the time.....

First of all it doesnt get clogged if you are not putting crap on it and run cccleaner once in a while and uninstall programs properly(remove registry keys and leftovers). Second of all it doesnt use 1 core 99% of the time and xp can handle dual cores. I dunno about quadcores though.

 

 

 

People say it uses a lot of ram, but they don't know why it does that. Vista collects files you use a lot and loads it into the ram for you. It uses ram that isn't used at the time. That's why it's filled up to 2-3GB even if you're doing nothing. It really helps loading programs faster. Once other programs need it, it's cleared within a nanosecond and free again.

Yes, i rather wait 5 seconds longer for opening a program than having 400 to 1000 mb less avialable.

[gta4freakk]

I have XP and all games up to date run crystal clear. It can handle dual core and everything else. Quad Cores dunno that. Well I'm happy with what I got. Lots of my friends have XPs and don't bother on getting Vista.

[EntropicLqd]

...the search function sucks...

I'm sorry, but you lost me right there. Microsoft has never, ever shipped a working search function that is more effective than the DOS

dir /s

command. Microsoft's GUI search is useless.

 

I mean, what's the point of having a search function that can't even search files of "unregistered file-types". It's just bloody useless.

 

Sure Vista gets a lot of bad press. Some of it is deserved (it is a needless resource hog irrespective of what you might think), and some of it isn't. Still, I'll be interested to see how it runs on my PC when I get it (soon, it's in the post).

 

[Bluesman]

 

 

 

No, no, no, NO!

 

You dumbasses need to stop claiming that XP is better then vista. That OS is f*cking obsolete. It's 8 years old! It doesn't know how to handle dual and quad cores, it doesn't have DirectX 10, it gets slow and clogged overtime (Vista DOESN'T), it looks like sh*t, the search function sucks, and it actually runs slower on today's computers because it only uses 1 core 99% of the time.....

First of all it doesnt get clogged if you are not putting crap on it and run cccleaner once in a while and uninstall programs properly(remove registry keys and leftovers). Second of all it doesnt use 1 core 99% of the time and xp can handle dual cores. I dunno about quadcores though.

 

 

Sure, it can SEE dual and quad cores, but it doesn't distribute resources in the same smart way Vista does.

 

And it actually DOES clog up. I know how to keep my computer clean, and I run ccleaner a few times a week. I did all the things you posted there and more. I have XP as a dual boot (which I very rarely use) and Vista x64. I notice that XP boots slower then it used to do when I just installed it. Vista is just as blazing fast as the first day I installed it.

 

 

People say it uses a lot of ram, but they don't know why it does that. Vista collects files you use a lot and loads it into the ram for you. It uses ram that isn't used at the time. That's why it's filled up to 2-3GB even if you're doing nothing. It really helps loading programs faster. Once other programs need it, it's cleared within a nanosecond and free again.

Yes, i rather wait 5 seconds longer for opening a program than having 400 to 1000 mb less avialable.

 

...and with that reply you just proved to me that you didn't even read my post. Because if you did, you wouldn't be talking bullsh*t like that out of your stupid ass right now.

 

You're a f*cking idiot and you fail. Peope like you piss me off.

 

 

I have XP and all games up to date run crystal clear. It can handle dual core and everything else. Quad Cores dunno that. Well I'm happy with what I got. Lots of my friends have XPs and don't bother on getting Vista.

 

Sure, I kept using XP too until I got a new computer. It's a stupid idea to install XP on a new computer. Why install a 2001 OS on a 2008 computer. It defines any logic.

[ThomasPL]

Oh my god! I want to buy a new PC to play GTA IV on full details. But now I see they really fu***d up this game. I want buy E8400, HD 4870 512MB and 4GB of ram to play on full details in 1680x1050. But now I see I probably won't play in full details.

[gta4freakk]

Maybe I prefer XP more than Vista you self absorbed idiot. If it runs up to date games like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, Call Of Duty 5, Need For Speed Undercover etc. on max, then why the f*ck I bother getting Vista? If something ain't right, then I will consider my options. The way I see it, you're literally telling people 'f*ck XP, get Vista, way better!'

Sorry pal but not for me. Not everything you say is gold .

[Cojage]

 

 

 

No, no, no, NO!

 

You dumbasses need to stop claiming that XP is better then vista. That OS is f*cking obsolete. It's 8 years old! It doesn't know how to handle dual and quad cores, it doesn't have DirectX 10, it gets slow and clogged overtime (Vista DOESN'T), it looks like sh*t, the search function sucks, and it actually runs slower on today's computers because it only uses 1 core 99% of the time.....

First of all it doesnt get clogged if you are not putting crap on it and run cccleaner once in a while and uninstall programs properly(remove registry keys and leftovers). Second of all it doesnt use 1 core 99% of the time and xp can handle dual cores. I dunno about quadcores though.

 

 

Sure, it can SEE dual and quad cores, but it doesn't distribute resources in the same smart way Vista does.

 

And it actually DOES clog up. I know how to keep my computer clean, and I run ccleaner a few times a week. I did all the things you posted there and more. I have XP as a dual boot (which I very rarely use) and Vista x64. I notice that XP boots slower then it used to do when I just installed it. Vista is just as blazing fast as the first day I installed it.

 

 

People say it uses a lot of ram, but they don't know why it does that. Vista collects files you use a lot and loads it into the ram for you. It uses ram that isn't used at the time. That's why it's filled up to 2-3GB even if you're doing nothing. It really helps loading programs faster. Once other programs need it, it's cleared within a nanosecond and free again.

Yes, i rather wait 5 seconds longer for opening a program than having 400 to 1000 mb less avialable.

 

...and with that reply you just proved to me that you didn't even read my post. Because if you did, you wouldn't be talking bullsh*t like that out of your stupid ass right now.

 

You're a f*cking idiot and you fail. Peope like you piss me off.

 

 

I have XP and all games up to date run crystal clear. It can handle dual core and everything else. Quad Cores dunno that. Well I'm happy with what I got. Lots of my friends have XPs and don't bother on getting Vista.

 

Sure, I kept using XP too until I got a new computer. It's a stupid idea to install XP on a new computer. Why install a 2001 OS on a 2008 computer. It defines any logic.

Well sorry mods for offtopic but why do you get all angry like that? Jeez.

 

Anyway i have used Vista for a couple of months but went back to XP. Vista used 700 MB idle, when i was doing nothing, not a single program open and it used 700MB. Currently my XP with about 10 FF tabs open and music player open uses 510MB. I couldnt find all the functions i used to find in XP anymore. Not to mention the software that didnt work, or acted weird on Vista.

When you go back to XP you will notice how much faster it is, thats what i did and it is so much faster, and yes my system is above the requirements of Vista.

[Bluesman]

 

Maybe I prefer XP more than Vista you self absorbed idiot. If it runs up to date games like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, Call Of Duty 5, Need For Speed Undercover etc. on max, then why the f*ck I bother getting Vista? If something ain't right, then I will consider my options. The way I see it, you're literally telling people 'f*ck XP, get Vista, way better!'

Sorry pal but not for me. Not everything you say is gold .

 

The funny thing is, you can't even run those games you named there maxed out on XP. Why? You don't have DirectX10 in XP. The only way to get DirectX10 is in Vista. Especially Assasin's Creed and FarCry2 will look a lot better.

 

 

 

 

Anyway i have used Vista for a couple of months but went back to XP. Vista used 700 MB idle, when i was doing nothing, not a single program open and it used 700MB. Currently my XP with about 10 FF tabs open and music player open uses 510MB. I couldnt find all the functions i used to find in XP anymore. Not to mention the software that didnt work, or acted weird on Vista.

When you go back to XP you will notice how much faster it is, thats what i did and it is so much faster, and yes my system is above the requirements of Vista.

 

Like I explained 10 posts back:

People say it uses a lot of ram, but they don't know why it does that. Vista collects files you use a lot and loads it into the ram for you. It uses ram that isn't used at the time. That's why it's filled up to 2-3GB even if you're doing nothing. It really helps loading programs faster. Once other programs need it, it's cleared within a nanosecond and free again.

 

Technically Vista uses about the same amount of ram then XP. Maybe 50 mb more if you have aero enabled. But who cares anyway? Ram is dirt cheap these days and if you want to play some serious game, you'll need 4GB anyway.

 

Installing XP on anything faster then a current-gen 2Ghz Dualcore with at least 2GB ram and a decent videocard is just stupid. I stand by my case.

[namechangedbyacs1]

Ok specs are as follows:

 

2.4 quad core

2xEVGA GTX260 SC in SLI. Running latest Nvidia's 180.48 driver

4 Gigs DDR2 Ram

150gb Raptor HD

Vista Ultimate 32-bit

System is only 2 weeks old so no anti-viruses, viruses or other garbage on it.

Direct2Drive version of GTA4

 

I am getting really low framerate in the ballpark of 10-15 at 1680x1050 with 38 view distance (!!!). When it displays my memory usage it only shows 870mb (what happened to my second card? ). I can go as high as 46 on my view distance (with memory usage shown at 970mb, which is almost 100 megs over alotted system resource of 870), but it wouldn't let me go any higher and the performance is horrible. When i try to tweak through Nvidia control panel, GTA4.exe appears on the "Add" list but it does not actually add it to the panel.

 

 

I really thought that GTA4 will peanuts for my system (it runs on PS3, which has graphical hardware from 4 generations ago (albeit with a really good GPU/CPU architecture)), so at the moment i am quite confused.

 

Any suggestions?

Maybe your graphic card is integrated?

 

Or Windows VISTA making your PC slow!

[Frostshocker]

Ok specs are as follows:

 

2.4 quad core

2xEVGA GTX260 SC in SLI. Running latest Nvidia's 180.48 driver

4 Gigs DDR2 Ram

150gb Raptor HD

Vista Ultimate 32-bit

System is only 2 weeks old so no anti-viruses, viruses or other garbage on it.

Direct2Drive version of GTA4

 

I am getting really low framerate in the ballpark of 10-15 at 1680x1050 with 38 view distance (!!!). When it displays my memory usage it only shows 870mb (what happened to my second card?  ). I can go as high as 46 on my view distance (with memory usage shown at 970mb, which is almost 100 megs over alotted system resource of 870), but it wouldn't let me go any higher and the performance is horrible. When i try to tweak through Nvidia control panel, GTA4.exe appears on the "Add" list but it does not actually add it to the panel.

 

 

I really thought that GTA4 will peanuts for my system (it runs on PS3, which has graphical hardware from 4 generations ago (albeit with a really good GPU/CPU architecture)), so at the moment i am quite confused.

 

Any suggestions?

Maybe your graphic card is integrated?

 

Or Windows VISTA making your PC slow!

an intergrated SLI gtx260 system now ive heard it all...

[gta4freakk]

Like I said, no thanks pal. I will stick to my XP. Like I said, if there is something not right for me, I will look into it and consider my options. Anyways, the end of this argument, and let's try not to get off topic alright?

[evilrex]

As if Vista is the problem, I mean seriously...

Every new PC you buy these days comes with Vista, so I am sure that it would of been tested on it quite a few times.

[disposeablehero]

Maybe I prefer XP more than Vista you self absorbed idiot. If it runs up to date games like Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 2, Call Of Duty 5, Need For Speed Undercover etc. on max, then why the f*ck I bother getting Vista? If something ain't right, then I will consider my options. The way I see it, you're literally telling people 'f*ck XP, get Vista, way better!'

Sorry pal but not for me. Not everything you say is gold .

 

The funny thing is, you can't even run those games you named there maxed out on XP. Why? You don't have DirectX10 in XP. The only way to get DirectX10 is in Vista. Especially Assasin's Creed and FarCry2 will look a lot better.

 

 

 

 

Anyway i have used Vista for a couple of months but went back to XP. Vista used 700 MB idle, when i was doing nothing, not a single program open and it used 700MB. Currently my XP with about 10 FF tabs open and music player open uses 510MB. I couldnt find all the functions i used to find in XP anymore. Not to mention the software that didnt work, or acted weird on Vista.

When you go back to XP you will notice how much faster it is, thats what i did and it is so much faster, and yes my system is above the requirements of Vista.

 

Like I explained 10 posts back:

People say it uses a lot of ram, but they don't know why it does that. Vista collects files you use a lot and loads it into the ram for you. It uses ram that isn't used at the time. That's why it's filled up to 2-3GB even if you're doing nothing. It really helps loading programs faster. Once other programs need it, it's cleared within a nanosecond and free again.

 

Technically Vista uses about the same amount of ram then XP. Maybe 50 mb more if you have aero enabled. But who cares anyway? Ram is dirt cheap these days and if you want to play some serious game, you'll need 4GB anyway.

 

Installing XP on anything faster then a current-gen 2Ghz Dualcore with at least 2GB ram and a decent videocard is just stupid. I stand by my case.

Exactly, the guy who sayd Vista uses 700 MB on idle is an idiot, it does that on purpose, the thinking behind it is ram nbot being used is wasted ram, thus Vista stores most frequently programs in memory for faster access, but if needed by an app like a game, frees it up instantly. For the last year now games have performed the same on Vista and XP (See benchmarks at Tweak town), and HardOCPs Far Cry 2 benchmark show Vista and Dx10 runs faster then Dx9 in XP:

 

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

Vista is betetr then XP in everway, it took 2 service packs for XP to be even decent and have any kind of security. It has nothing to do with XP, people with Vista and Xp both see GTA 4 runs like crap.

[izzy eckerslike]

Anyone using SLI needs to try selecting' force split frame rendering' in Nvidia control panel, this makes both cards render half the frame each & will help utilise the both cards memory, sometimes it improves games & sometimes it doesn't, works very well

for FC2 & Crysis but not got this game yet to try it out with my 9800GX2

[Jackmackg]

theirs nothing wrong with vista. the only reason people were having trouble at first was drivers. that was years ago. Its as good or better than xp. more stable and secure. this is coming from some one who runs vista and xp on the same pc.

 

for all you people who say it take a lot of ram. if you don't want to use ram than why are you using windows xp? go back to windows 2000

[Shadow Kipper]

I just installed SP3

Thankfully, no problems.

 

 

[moryggy]

I'm experiencing something really curious. Game is ok, works fine... except for cinematic scenes. Everytime that you get a help tip or you are talking with someone before a mission game goes really slow... but just in the moment that you get control of Nico and you can move again game is ok again... I just cannot understand it...

[P-Thunder.]

Remmber when i told you guys that having the same hardware in a PC as a console (or slightly better) means nothing at all. Well, i got laughed at for that. Do not compare your machine to a console. They just dont work the same way.

[wysockisauce]

 

Remmber when i told you guys that having the same hardware in a PC as a console (or slightly better) means nothing at all. Well, i got laughed at for that. Do not compare your machine to a console. They just dont work the same way.

There is a reason why they didn't come out with Crysis for consoles. I'm gonna let you figure that one out.