GTA IV PC will not work on a 64-bit O/S

[Knyte]

There is no DX10 eyecandy!!!!

 

The game runs in DirectX 9!!!!

 

http://www.rockstargames.com/support/req_s...4&submit=Submit

 

Nowhere does it say DX10!

 

Download EVGA Precision. (If you have an EVGA card you can download it from evga. If not, then I belive you can get it from 3dguru.)

 

Turn on OSD (On screen display) for FPS.

 

Now play the game. (In Vista)

 

Notice in the top corner, it says "D3D9 = XX FPS" and not "D3D10 = XX FPS"

[PestilenceJM]

It does work on Vista Ultimate x64. No wonder it doesn't work on XP x64, it's a piece of sh*t with no support.

People tend to assume the worst before investigating the problem. You shouldnt.

[radioman]

 

Nowhere does it say DX10!

 

Actually, it has to support DX10, because it says in the requirements Windows Vista SP1, and Vista has DX10. Only XP and earlier OS's has DX 9. The game is only compatible with Vista SP 1 and XP SP2 or SP3-Vista comes with DX 10 automatically, and XP comes with DX 9 automatically. Hope this helps.

[Knyte]

 

Nowhere does it say DX10!

 

Actually, it has to support DX10, because it says in the requirements Windows Vista SP1, and Vista has DX10. Only XP and earlier OS's has DX 9. The game is only compatible with Vista SP 1 and XP SP2 or SP3-Vista comes with DX 10 automatically, and XP comes with DX 9 automatically. Hope this helps.

You do know that DirectX 10 is backward compatable right? It can ran DX9A,B,C games, DX8, etc.

 

GTA doesn't not use any DX10 resources. When I get home from work tonight, I will post proof.

 

Okay?

 

Not, too mention, your argument doesn't make sense. By your argument, that means that games that were made years before Vista came out support DX10 (Which didn't exist when the game was made), because they run in Vista.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Knyte

[stan101]

Vista can use DX9 games too. GTA 4 doesn't have to be programmed with DirectX 10 necessarily.

[Knyte]

Okay, look in the top left corner of the screenshot.

 

 

If, it was a DX10 game, it would say "D3D10"

[eagle016]

Just like the topic title says, GTA IV PC will not work on 64-bit Windows XP. Which is completely retarded considering the ridiculous amount of RAM this game requires and how little RAM 32-bit operating systems can support. If you try to install you will be greeted with this message:

 

 

Your operating system is not compatible. Click the image below to find out more information.

 

 

Clicking the image does nothing, by the way. Other than the System Recommendations lists no one online has a single word to say about this game not being supported on XP 64-bit. I'm hoping this will get some Google hits and spares some individuals the time I've wasted acquiring this game.

 

I'm also hearing a friend of mine is getting awful framerates on even the lowest screen resolution with his 9600GT. Thank you, Rockstar, Sony, and all you companies involved for making such an awful product.

I REALLY want to know how you come to the conclusion that no 64bit system can run this AND about why you blame Sony for this.

 

On the back of the cover it says something like "Optimized for: 64bit". I guess that means it's optimized for it but that it can't run it?

 

And Sony? Tell me how a game developed by R* and made for a Microsoft product can be made bad by Sony... a company that had NOTHING to do with the PC version.

[pinky]

Nowhere does it say DX10!

 

Actually, it has to support DX10, because it says in the requirements Windows Vista SP1, and Vista has DX10. Only XP and earlier OS's has DX 9. The game is only compatible with Vista SP 1 and XP SP2 or SP3-Vista comes with DX 10 automatically, and XP comes with DX 9 automatically. Hope this helps.

Vista service pack1 actually sorted DX9 compatibility, previously I would have to copy a sh*tload of dlls in when I reformatted. Not any more.

[OilerNut]

Alsom XP 32 bit cannot use anymore then 3 Gb ram, another limitation, why people clings to the dinosaur Xp is beyond me, people are so idiotic and mis-informed. It took 2 Service packs for Xp to be even decent, Vista is already miles ahead of XP. XP has been around so long and people whine about change, thats the only thing I can think of, because the facts are Vista is vastly superior then Xp and has been for awhile.

Vista 32 bit is still limited to 3gb, just because Vista SP1 shows more than that doesn't mean it can actually use it.

[Turdist]

not being funny, but it works on my xp64 sp2.

 

its not great cuz the game isnt patched yet, but it starts, loads and the framerates are smooth untill i start driving. the textures pop up too late. same sh*t as everyone else.

[Stickymaddness]

Same here, I'm on xp x64 sp2, getting 35-45fps, everything maxed except draw distance and no issues...

[Takenover83]

Can you guys who are running fine on "Windows XP x64 SP2", please have a look at this thread?

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=386622

 

And yes, I have all the required stuff installed.

[manoman]

Hey,

 

how did you get to work your GTA iV on your Windows XP 64bit ?

 

I get bugged already in the RGSC installation sreen...

 

I installed the .NET 3.5 framework and wm9x64 codec thing...Also i tried the compatibility trick.

 

|Could you help me out? Thanks!

 

Michel

[email protected]

[supertin]

Bullsh*t. You need XP service pack 3, and that one isn't available for XP x64. You should install Vista 64 instead if you have so much ram anyway. XP is obsolete.

 

 

<snip>

 

You're an idiot.

Oh, the irony (I think)... I think the phrase "takes one to know one" applies here.

To clarify: XP 64 bit is really a cut back Win2K3 Server 64 bit, and thus uses the 2K3 Server Service Packs. SP2 is the latest and is actually the same list of fixes and changes as XP32 SP3.

So next time, save yourself the embarrassment and stay quiet on issues you don't understand.

 

 

Now, as to how to get it working in XP 64: I stuck the disk in and it worked. I had made sure I was up to date with Windows Update before I tried though. Might be a start...

But it does work no problems. Possibly a tiny performance hit from the 32 bit emulator, but better to have access to 8GB of RAM (in my case anyway) than only 3GB. Even if GTA can't address it, at least Windows and the other apps have somewhere to sit while I play.

[badguy]

I'm running it just fine on XP x64...

 

Make sure you have:

• Service Pack 2
• .NET 3.5
• Windows Media Encoder 9 Series x64 Edition (Check the readme)

The Media Encoder you can get from http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en

You mean service pack 3. Right?

 

[Pixelated]

 

XP is pointless for GTA IV, especially if you have a DX10 video card.

You might want to rethink that one.

 

 

Also GTA IV works fine on 64 bit OS. I'm using Vista 64 bit without issues.

[LSD T]

Aside from the memory addressing in Vista 64, there is very little reason to use it.

DX10 is a load of bollocks and is not faster, and you can only see differences with the DX9 counterparts in minimal areas in a 1920x1200+ Res screenshot of a 1/1000th sec moment, like gunshot smoke source etc.

Hardly groundbreaaking.

 

Vista 32 is sh*t, staggeringly so in fact, the 64bit flavour allows higher memory addressing though (wow some saving grace eh, and GTAIV is not optimised for 64bit as advertised, it will work but performs poorly compared to XP.

 

Multi-boot system that I have, the XP OS will return 60FPS in benchmark and Vista 64 about 20FPS.

The XP version while giving a good benchmark score means f*ck all, it runs like sh*t (sub 25 when raining), too many people with depressingly poor low standards around here.

[Pixelated]

 

Aside from the memory addressing in Vista 64, there is very little reason to use it.

DX10 is a load of bollocks and is not faster, and you can only see differences with the DX9 counterparts in minimal areas in a 1920x1200+  Res screenshot of a 1/1000th sec moment, like gunshot smoke source etc.

Hardly groundbreaaking.

 

Vista 32 is sh*t, staggeringly so in fact, the 64bit flavour allows higher memory addressing though (wow some saving grace eh, and GTAIV is not optimised for 64bit as advertised, it will work but performs poorly compared to XP.

 

Multi-boot system that I have, the XP OS will return 60FPS in benchmark and Vista 64 about 20FPS.

The XP version while giving a good benchmark score means f*ck all, it runs like sh*t (sub 25 when raining), too many people with depressingly poor low standards around here.

Yes that's the entire point the OP is making, GTA IV can use more memory than 32 bit allows and for some this is reason enough.

 

If you play a lot of games that use HDR and AA DX10 is faster. It's only now starting to show since DX10 is still fairly new and there isn't the catalog of games like DX9 has. There aren't a lot of examples other than Assasains Creed and Far Cry 2 being faster in DX10 vs DX9. Both are Ubisoft games which leads me to believe that with adequate coding and research investment DX10 does have it's advantages over DX9.

 

Assassin's Creed PC: DirectX 10 Faster Than DirectX 9

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/02/ass...x_9_or_not.html

 

FarCry 2 DX9 vs. DX10 Performance

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

 

But in general I would agree both Vista and DirectX 10 are not the jump in quality like XP and DirectX 9 was.

[Th3 ProphetMan]

On the box it says "optimized for x64 operating systems"

Optimized my ass

 

No, seriously, i dont think the game is optimized for 64bits at all, whaetever the box says; it was mentioned on another topic, the only game that really was faster on 64bit so far is Crysis, at least that i know of, and even had separate exe files for 32/64bits

[-TheStig-]

I think you all need a lesson in manners people, just because your opinion differs from others doesnt make you any better or your OS for that matter, its a choice we all make and everyone wants to believe they have made the best choice but bagging out other peoples choice in OS and even worse insulting people you dont even know because of a statement they made is rather pathetic I believe.

 

 

well said

[js01]

This game does run better in xp over vista, I have both installed and in vista I get massive lag and not the best framerates but when I tried it in xp it ran very smooth barely dropped below 30fps anywhere.

[LSD T]

Yes that's the entire point the OP is making, GTA IV can use more memory than 32 bit allows and for some this is reason enough.

 

If you play a lot of games that use HDR and AA DX10 is faster. It's only now starting to show since DX10 is still fairly new and there isn't the catalog of games like DX9 has. There aren't a lot of examples other than Assasains Creed and Far Cry 2 being faster in DX10 vs DX9. Both are Ubisoft games which leads me to believe that with adequate coding and research investment DX10 does have it's advantages over DX9.

 

Assassin's Creed PC: DirectX 10 Faster Than DirectX 9

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/02/ass...x_9_or_not.html

 

FarCry 2 DX9 vs. DX10 Performance

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

 

But in general I would agree both Vista and DirectX 10 are not the jump in quality like XP and DirectX 9 was.

Interesting, though I must say that the FarCry 2 performance is no better on my Vista 64, ahhh I just examined the results, yeah a few frames improvement, nothing that I would have noticed ingame but that is a start.

Thanks for the link, it certainly shows that when developers really push it improvements can be made with DX10, however minimal.

 

 

 

 

Crysis, Farcry (1st one) & Unreal are the only I've seen that are 64bit optimised, and by optimised I mean the old school Oxford English definition, i.e actually faster and better.

 

Yeah the GTAIV.exe is running in 32bit mode, why therefore print on the packaging the claims for optimisation.

Then again a quick glance at minimum and recommended requirements shows what sh*t they talk.

 

So far the only positive I can take from this experience with GTAIV is that people are more and more waking up to the fact that Microsoft are slowly dismantling the gaming industry, the only good creative console games out there are being developed for Nintendo and PS3, you'll never get a Little Big Planet on XBox.

Just a 1000 Halo's repackaged with slightly different textures.

 

Anytime you see the term "Games for Windows" you'll notice nothing but incompatibility across the many different windows platforms, custom controls featuring an XBox controller, and a rather accidentally on purpose strangely poor performance when held in comparison to far more power taxing games out there.

 

 

Back to the Vista arguments, the very fact that Intel, Msofts closest working partner and some would say aiding and abetting in their rather unscrupulous practices in technological advances...

 

This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista

 

There is no feature Vista can offer that cannot be done faster and better than any other 3rd party app.

[Pixelated]

 

Yes that's the entire point the OP is making, GTA IV can use more memory than 32 bit allows and for some this is reason enough.

 

If you play a lot of games that use HDR and AA DX10 is faster. It's only now starting to show since DX10 is still fairly new and there isn't the catalog of games like DX9 has. There aren't a lot of examples other than Assasains Creed and Far Cry 2 being faster in DX10 vs DX9. Both are Ubisoft games which leads me to believe that with adequate coding and research investment DX10 does have it's advantages over DX9.

 

Assassin's Creed PC: DirectX 10 Faster Than DirectX 9

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/02/ass...x_9_or_not.html

 

FarCry 2 DX9 vs. DX10 Performance

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

 

But in general I would agree both Vista and DirectX 10 are not the jump in quality like XP and DirectX 9 was.

Interesting, though I must say that the FarCry 2 performance is no better on my Vista 64, ahhh I just examined the results, yeah a few frames improvement, nothing that I would have noticed ingame but that is a start.

Thanks for the link, it certainly shows that when developers really push it improvements can be made with DX10, however minimal.

 

 

 

 

Crysis, Farcry (1st one) & Unreal are the only I've seen that are 64bit optimised, and by optimised I mean the old school Oxford English definition, i.e actually faster and better.

 

Yeah the GTAIV.exe is running in 32bit mode, why therefore print on the packaging the claims for optimisation.

Then again a quick glance at minimum and recommended requirements shows what sh*t they talk.

 

So far the only positive I can take from this experience with GTAIV is that people are more and more waking up to the fact that Microsoft are slowly dismantling the gaming industry, the only good creative console games out there are being developed for Nintendo and PS3, you'll never get a Little Big Planet on XBox.

Just a 1000 Halo's repackaged with slightly different textures.

 

Anytime you see the term "Games for Windows" you'll notice nothing but incompatibility across the many different windows platforms, custom controls featuring an XBox controller, and a rather accidentally on purpose strangely poor performance when held in comparison to far more power taxing games out there.

 

 

Back to the Vista arguments, the very fact that Intel, Msofts closest working partner and some would say aiding and abetting in their rather unscrupulous practices in technological advances...

 

This isn't a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista

 

There is no feature Vista can offer that cannot be done faster and better than any other 3rd party app.

Yes that's what Microsoft does best. GFWL is awful IMO. Forcing people to use an XBox360 controller is just wrong. I'm glad Rockstar decided to add support for more gamepads.

 

Actually I play all GTA games with a gamepad and was disgusted with GTA IV not allowing me to use an equal if not better Logitech Rumblepad 2. I had to go to the store to buy an XBox controller for twice the price of the Logitech controller I already owned. Safe to say I returned it when Rockstar issued the first patch. I don't feel the slightest bit bad about "renting" it either.

 

I thought Games For Windows was supposed to be about helping people with compatibility issues and giving PC gamers a steady type of platform or standard, not forcing them to give Microsoft their money. As long as Microsoft has this kind of attitude toward their products and customers they will continue to lose market share in all aspects.

[DIRTYDUNKY]

 

XP is pointless for GTA IV, especially if you have a DX10 video card.

You might want to rethink that one.

 

 

Also GTA IV works fine on 64 bit OS. I'm using Vista 64 bit without issues.

GTA4 is a DX9 game not DX10

even crysis isnt a true DX10 game

 

XP 64 - latest SP is SP2 there is no 3 for xp64

 

if you have netframework 3.5 make sure you have all the previous ones installed too (go to windows update)

 

i installed my copy on xp64 from steam no issues

except the issues after i started playing (textures missing lag etc all of which seems to be affecting all OS's)

 

i had an odd issue with BF2 when trying to install SF for it a while ago

it kept bugging on me and wouldnt install

 

turned out i had a bad stick of ram

 

run Memtest 86 from a bootable disk and check for errors

[borgeater]

why does it say its enhanced for 64 bit on the Games for Windows Live site when that is a load of bullsh*t?

[creat3d22]

why does it say its enhanced for 64 bit on the Games for Windows Live site when that is a load of bullsh*t?

Probably for the same reason some monitors have "Optimised for Vista" stickers on them

[radioman]

 

XP 64 - latest SP is SP2 there is no 3 for xp64

 

 

Actually, if you check the Windows Update program that comes default with XP and Vista, it will be there as an option to install, that's how I installed SP3 on my XP laptop, and once I did, I got better performance out of the laptop. Windows Update automatically checks for updates everyday/week(depending on how you have it set up), so if it is not there, you can always download it free off the Microsoft website. Hope this helps.

 

The game should work on 64-bit OS's, because it says on the box that it is optimized for 64-bit OS's.

[TruXter]

Okay, look in the top left corner of the screenshot.

 

user posted image

 

If, it was a DX10 game, it would say "D3D10"

how in the heck did you get temp to show while in game?

 

 

and back to the main post.

anyone notice the op hasn't

been back, and that his name

and tag throw troll redflags ???

[dr.whiz]

XP 64 - latest SP is SP2 there is no 3 for xp64

 

 

Actually, if you check the Windows Update program that comes default with XP and Vista, it will be there as an option to install, that's how I installed SP3 on my XP laptop, and once I did, I got better performance out of the laptop. Windows Update automatically checks for updates everyday/week(depending on how you have it set up), so if it is not there, you can always download it free off the Microsoft website. Hope this helps.

 

The game should work on 64-bit OS's, because it says on the box that it is optimized for 64-bit OS's.

there is no service pack 3 for windows xp 64-bit like the poster you quoted said. you're probably talking about the 32-bit version. they're two completely different os's. stop claiming stuff that's not true.

[Knyte]

Okay, look in the top left corner of the screenshot.

 

user posted image

 

If, it was a DX10 game, it would say "D3D10"

how in the heck did you get temp to show while in game?

 

 

and back to the main post.

anyone notice the op hasn't

been back, and that his name

and tag throw troll redflags ???

If you are using EVGA precision, then click on the "Gear cog" which will open up the options, then go to GPU temp and click on "Show in OSD" (On Screen Display) Then you can see hard hard you cards are pushing.

 

In the case of GTA IV, they are working for crap. In GRID, my GPU1 (1st 9800GT in my SLi setup) gets as high as 95c, and the 2nd (GP2) pushes close to 90c. In GTA IV they never get higher than what you see in my screenshot, no matter how much action is taking place in the game. Which shows, that either the game is poorly coded, or that it requires more from the CPUs than the GPUs.

 

Also, can we quit arguing about the following:

 

1. The games DOES work in Windows XP x64. You may just need some extras updates to run it.

 

2. XP x64 SP2 is the equivalent of XP x32 SP3. (Features introduced by Service Pack 2 for Windows XP were already present in the RTM version of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, which identifies itself as "Service Pack 1" akin to the Server edition. That's why there is a difference in the SP numbering system between x32 and x64.)

 

 

3. GTA IV does not use DX10. So that should not be a factor when choosing to run it in Vista vs XP. Just pick what runs better for you.

 

4. The tag on the box that reads "Optimized for 64-bit systems" is complete BS. Even in 64 bit OSs, the game's executable is running in 32-bit, there are no differences in quality of the game. The only difference that may be a factor, is the ability to make use of more RAM, which personally, I have never seen GTA IV to use anywhere near 3.2 GBs when running, so I don't really think that is much of a factor.