W1ckeD- Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I don't get the "Bully-port' crap. Why is everyone so graphic-whores these days? I run everything on almost medium, it looks awesome, no framedrops whatsoever, it really plays well. The gameplay rocks, that's the bottem line.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackmackg Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 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. he already did. They just dont work the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DML Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Remmber when i told you guys that having the same hardware in a PC as a console (or slightly better) means nothing at all. It certainly does mean something...when the developers know what they're doing. (I am commenting on this without currently playing it. When I play it, then I'll give my real thoughts.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorgDroneX Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 well my system has run a lot better since reverting back to XP and im happy with the way its performing, ive recently got COD 5, NFSU, GRID and they all run perfect the big test will be tomorrow when i get my hands on a copy of GTA IV and we'll see if i get the same problems you guys are having or not, i will let you know........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmadlad Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 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. How do i run it on normal settings then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 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. Like GTA IV was tested on consumer pc's and not just NASA ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ftmch Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I don't get the "Bully-port' crap. Why is everyone so graphic-whores these days? I run everything on almost medium, it looks awesome, no framedrops whatsoever, it really plays well. The gameplay rocks, that's the bottem line.. I would be happy if it run well even on low settings, but it doesn't for me, I guess my core2duo 2.4 isn't enough despite the fact that all my other stuff is over the recommended specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr.whiz Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 I sometimes wish I could reach through my monitor and choke some of these wanabe techies that know jack squat. Wouldn't solve this horrible port job problem but it would let off some steam. Whos the wannabe techies? I can also admit that Vista Sucks Horse Cock. We'll no sh*t its not the best, no sh*t its got its problem. But if the retard above me actually believes vista is the cause for the many people already (games only been out for a few hours) flooding these boards with top of the line or near top of the line systems having 25-30 fps with it all on low OR high is at all vista's fault as opposed to poor coding with a horrible port job, then he deserves a good kick in the nuts. Especially considering there are many XP users having the same issue. And on the note of vista, I've never had 1 issue with it. Used XP for 4 years, vista for 1 now, would never go back. I'll live with my 1-2 FPS loss at most in a few games. exactly. i got the same frustration from the dude above you bitching about vista with his fancy phrasing fooling people to believe him. just cause you learn some fancy computer jargon doesn't mean you have a single clue what you're actually talking about. thankfully many of us are blessed with some basic logical thinking enabling us to ignore to take comments like that seriously. still wanna punch the guy in the face though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carx0x Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I just got GTA IV, and it's running fine for me. It's not top-notch, but it's decent (and working). I am averaging 42 fps. No crashes yet! Dell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.5GHz 3.0 GB RAM Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit nVidia Geforce 8800GTS 512MB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr.whiz Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I just got GTA IV, and it's running fine for me. It's not top-notch, but it's decent (and working). I am averaging 42 fps. No crashes yet! Dell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.5GHz 3.0 GB RAM Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit nVidia Geforce 8800GTS 512MB on what graphic settings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I just got GTA IV, and it's running fine for me. It's not top-notch, but it's decent (and working). I am averaging 42 fps. No crashes yet! Dell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.5GHz 3.0 GB RAM Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit nVidia Geforce 8800GTS 512MB ah very good news, finally someone is enjoying this game have fun and thx for reporting back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extender Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hm. With 8800GTS, 3GB of RAM and Q9300 he is able to run this game on high/medium with high resolution and no crashes and runs good. I think that this game really then requires Quad to run finely. But then again some guys with better GPU like 280 GTX and Quad are not able to run this game so well like he is with his 8800GTS. Maybe because he was very good Quad? Other have Q6600 etc. I don't know. I just wanna get the game already so I can explore and tweak etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieDave27 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Most games don't take full advantage of a quad core. A dual core will normally beat a quad core if the dual core has a higher clock speed (which it will for the same price). Even though the requirements say a quad core as recommended, I'm yet to read any technical reasons as to how GTA IV uses a quad core properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disposeablehero Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Most games don't take full advantage of a quad core. A dual core will normally beat a quad core if the dual core has a higher clock speed (which it will for the same price). Even though the requirements say a quad core as recommended, I'm yet to read any technical reasons as to how GTA IV uses a quad core properly. How about it runs much better on quad then dual, GTA 4 does really make use of quads, and runs better on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catzilla Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I doubt it will run better on 2.4 quad then on 3.6 duo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disposeablehero Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I doubt it will run better on 2.4 quad then on 3.6 duo. It does, as does Any game designed with Quads in mind, also a Q6600 is easily OC'd to 3.0, at which point it rapes the Duo @ 3.6 in GTA 4. There is a reason Quac core is the recommended spec. More and more game now will run better on Quads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkf Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 guys its not your PC! its the bastard child Microsoft named Windows Vista. its sucks has a games platform when i got my new PC my games ran like it was a 486 lol but formatting the hard drive and putting XP back on was the best thing ever, all my games run sweet now e.g - me and my m8 both got identical computers, we both got same game (Race Driver GRID) he had Vista i had XP mine ran sweet while he's ran like an old dog dragging its tired ass on the floor im telling ya man you want GTA IV to run smooth then f*ck off Vista and put XP back on your machines ps - im in europe and still waiting for GTA to be released sorry my friend but the game is f*cked in XP as well. AMD 6000+ 4GB 1066 Corsair (oc) 8800gts "Rock Star Social Crap" takes 15-30mins to load the game itself run at 1150x864 @ 15fps and the graphic is very appealing actually jaggy like Delta Force 1 shadow is full of dots texture is not fully loaded ... I'll return it tomorrow btw. I may reconsider buying it again if they release the patch to improve the performance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffman12 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I just got GTA IV, and it's running fine for me. It's not top-notch, but it's decent (and working). I am averaging 42 fps. No crashes yet! Dell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.5GHz 3.0 GB RAM Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit nVidia Geforce 8800GTS 512MB Good to hear mate! Got a similar setup here, slightly slower CPU but more RAM. Hopefully will be able to achieve similar performance. Hm. With 8800GTS, 3GB of RAM and Q9300 he is able to run this game on high/medium with high resolution and no crashes and runs good. I think that this game really then requires Quad to run finely. But then again some guys with better GPU like 280 GTX and Quad are not able to run this game so well like he is with his 8800GTS. Maybe because he was very good Quad? Other have Q6600 etc. I don't know. I just wanna get the game already so I can explore and tweak etc. The Q9300 and Q6600 aren't very different to be fair, only 0.1Ghz clock speed difference, I doubt that would account for such a difference. Even though I have a Quad myself, and want to believe that it will make the game perform much better, I am skeptical. I want to see benchmarks with two identical systems side by side, same GPU, RAM, OS etc, but just one with a Core 2 Duo and one with a Quad, to see what difference it makes. If it does, great! But im not holding out hope because from the reports of people playing it, I doubt R* would have put alot of thought into optimizing it for multi cores if they couldnt get the basics.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevyboy Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I just got GTA IV, and it's running fine for me. It's not top-notch, but it's decent (and working). I am averaging 42 fps. No crashes yet! Dell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.5GHz 3.0 GB RAM Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit nVidia Geforce 8800GTS 512MB Good to hear mate! Got a similar setup here, slightly slower CPU but more RAM. Hopefully will be able to achieve similar performance. Hm. With 8800GTS, 3GB of RAM and Q9300 he is able to run this game on high/medium with high resolution and no crashes and runs good. I think that this game really then requires Quad to run finely. But then again some guys with better GPU like 280 GTX and Quad are not able to run this game so well like he is with his 8800GTS. Maybe because he was very good Quad? Other have Q6600 etc. I don't know. I just wanna get the game already so I can explore and tweak etc. The Q9300 and Q6600 aren't very different to be fair, only 0.1Ghz clock speed difference, I doubt that would account for such a difference. Even though I have a Quad myself, and want to believe that it will make the game perform much better, I am skeptical. I want to see benchmarks with two identical systems side by side, same GPU, RAM, OS etc, but just one with a Core 2 Duo and one with a Quad, to see what difference it makes. If it does, great! But im not holding out hope because from the reports of people playing it, I doubt R* would have put alot of thought into optimizing it for multi cores if they couldnt get the basics.... So far from the benchmarks posted, 3.8+ ghz C2D's are performing on par or even better than 2.4-3ghz quads. The closest comparison I've seen (not law, just what I've seen) was a 3.8 E8500 benching roughly the same as a 3.2ghz Q6600 using identical components and clock speeds in other components. It seems although they did make use of quads, they did a poor job of it. I actually have access to an E8500 and a QX9650, I'll try to do some benching using the exact same computer this weekend if we haven't seen some official statements or fixes by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[email protected] Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) great... And i thought i was the only one getting poor performance! Oh well! Time to wait for dem patches! The game is at auto settings and it runs horrible, very chunky... God damnnit, GTA IS NEVER OPTIMIZED! Yet to try MP. Edited December 3, 2008 by $[email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffman12 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I just got GTA IV, and it's running fine for me. It's not top-notch, but it's decent (and working). I am averaging 42 fps. No crashes yet! Dell XPS 420 Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.5GHz 3.0 GB RAM Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit nVidia Geforce 8800GTS 512MB Good to hear mate! Got a similar setup here, slightly slower CPU but more RAM. Hopefully will be able to achieve similar performance. Hm. With 8800GTS, 3GB of RAM and Q9300 he is able to run this game on high/medium with high resolution and no crashes and runs good. I think that this game really then requires Quad to run finely. But then again some guys with better GPU like 280 GTX and Quad are not able to run this game so well like he is with his 8800GTS. Maybe because he was very good Quad? Other have Q6600 etc. I don't know. I just wanna get the game already so I can explore and tweak etc. The Q9300 and Q6600 aren't very different to be fair, only 0.1Ghz clock speed difference, I doubt that would account for such a difference. Even though I have a Quad myself, and want to believe that it will make the game perform much better, I am skeptical. I want to see benchmarks with two identical systems side by side, same GPU, RAM, OS etc, but just one with a Core 2 Duo and one with a Quad, to see what difference it makes. If it does, great! But im not holding out hope because from the reports of people playing it, I doubt R* would have put alot of thought into optimizing it for multi cores if they couldnt get the basics.... So far from the benchmarks posted, 3.8+ ghz C2D's are performing on par or even better than 2.4-3ghz quads. The closest comparison I've seen (not law, just what I've seen) was a 3.8 E8500 benching roughly the same as a 3.2ghz Q6600 using identical components and clock speeds in other components. It seems although they did make use of quads, they did a poor job of it. I actually have access to an E8500 and a QX9650, I'll try to do some benching using the exact same computer this weekend if we haven't seen some official statements or fixes by then. That would be great! I can see how the fastest of the C2D would out perform the Quads that are slightly slower. I doubt any game at the moment uses Quad, or even Duals properly and effectively, and by the sounds of it definately not this. At least it is using the cores, and not just running on single clock speed alone, that *would* be a massive f*ck up by R*. I'd be more than happy if my 2.4 Quad performed similarly to that of a 3.2+ Duo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylb_etajv Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) Anybody tried to run the game with the "-help" command ? When I do it, the Launcher starts up, after 1-2seconds posts what I suppose are all the command line options but immediately shuts down before I even have the time to take a screenshot. Would be interesting to know if there are other options than those in the readme. -edit- just managed to capture it, only options which weren't in the readme are : -forcer2vb : force r2vb -forceframelockinwindow : force framelock to work even in a window (works best with 60hz monitor refresh) Edited December 3, 2008 by pylb_etajv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeclaredEvol Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) Haha, dude my computer cant even load streets on this game half the time. Like literally, the street is missing and everyone is walking on sunshine. So basically this game is one of the worst written and optimized video games in the history of 3d Video Games. Especially after about 10 years of 3d game design, I am surprised these guys couldn't come up with better stability than a pile of sash. I want my money back because I spent almost $1,050.00 some dollars alone just to play good games like this. And if you notice the $50.00 at the end is GTA 4, in which I basically wasted 3 years of working for something I will probably never have. Hard to believe it, but my computer is even better than the ones posted on this website... and it runs in the worst ways. My game doesn't load buildings, streets, rooms, textures, and worst of all... it can barely play on the highest settings without being a choppy little pain in the A$$. So what I have to say about this game is a -50 because it runs horrific at all settings and it sure isn't performing this way on the console versions. If my computer is compatible enough to not slow down to 1 fps every 10 seconds then it would be a blast. Now, I am sure I am not the only guy in here that spent up to $1,000.00 for a good computer. But damn, why such a b!tcH if 50% or more people are playing this game with worse computers at 50-60 fps. I need help lol!! --Sys Specs-- AMD Phenom ii x4 965 BE 3.4ghz Nvidia Geforce9800gtx+ 8 gb DDR2 Corsair memory Windows 7 RC 64 Bit 3 Hard drives optimized for separate processing [526 gb free space] and a Rocket fish Sound Card Edited August 19, 2010 by DeclaredEvol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigglyass Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Haha, dude my computer cant even load streets on this game half the time. Like literally, the street is missing and everyone is walking on sunshine. So basically this game is one of the worst written and optimized video games in the history of 3d Video Games. Especially after about 10 years of 3d game design, I am surprised these guys couldn't come up with better stability than a pile of sash. I want my money back because I spent almost $1,050.00 some dollars alone just to play good games like this. And if you notice the $50.00 at the end is GTA 4, in which I basically wasted 3 years of working for something I will probably never have. Hard to believe it, but my computer is even better than the ones posted on this website... and it runs in the worst ways. My game doesn't load buildings, streets, rooms, textures, and worst of all... it can barely play on the highest settings without being a choppy little pain in the A$$. So what I have to say about this game is a -50 because it runs horrific at all settings and it sure isn't performing this way on the console versions. If my computer is compatible enough to not slow down to 1 fps every 10 seconds then it would be a blast. Now, I am sure I am not the only guy in here that spent up to $1,000.00 for a good computer. But damn, why such a b!tcH if 50% or more people are playing this game with worse computers at 50-60 fps. I need help lol!! --Sys Specs-- AMD Phenom ii x4 965 BE 3.4ghz Nvidia Geforce9800gtx+ 8 gb DDR2 Corsair memory Windows 7 RC 64 Bit 3 Hard drives optimized for separate processing [526 gb free space] and a Rocket fish Sound Card This thread is more than a year old. What the f*ck is wrong with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeclaredEvol Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 Haha, dude my computer cant even load streets on this game half the time. Like literally, the street is missing and everyone is walking on sunshine. So basically this game is one of the worst written and optimized video games in the history of 3d Video Games. Especially after about 10 years of 3d game design, I am surprised these guys couldn't come up with better stability than a pile of sash. I want my money back because I spent almost $1,050.00 some dollars alone just to play good games like this. And if you notice the $50.00 at the end is GTA 4, in which I basically wasted 3 years of working for something I will probably never have. Hard to believe it, but my computer is even better than the ones posted on this website... and it runs in the worst ways. My game doesn't load buildings, streets, rooms, textures, and worst of all... it can barely play on the highest settings without being a choppy little pain in the A$$. So what I have to say about this game is a -50 because it runs horrific at all settings and it sure isn't performing this way on the console versions. If my computer is compatible enough to not slow down to 1 fps every 10 seconds then it would be a blast. Now, I am sure I am not the only guy in here that spent up to $1,000.00 for a good computer. But damn, why such a b!tcH if 50% or more people are playing this game with worse computers at 50-60 fps. I need help lol!! --Sys Specs-- AMD Phenom ii x4 965 BE 3.4ghz Nvidia Geforce9800gtx+ 8 gb DDR2 Corsair memory Windows 7 RC 64 Bit 3 Hard drives optimized for separate processing [526 gb free space] and a Rocket fish Sound Card This thread is more than a year old. What the f*ck is wrong with you? I was looking up the same problem on Google, nothing wrong with me. There isn't a ton of information about GTA's performance issues. And how to fix it, so don't get feisty about something for no reason lol 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