NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hey there. Are there any guys that have the X2 5000+ CPU and play GTA IV on it? If yes, how good does it perform? Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquaphonic Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hey there.Are there any guys that have the X2 5000+ CPU and play GTA IV on it? If yes, how good does it perform? Cheers. I have a 6000+ x2 with 2gb ram and a 9800GTX and the game runs poorly to say the least. The strange thing is that it makes very little difference to the frame rates whether I adjust the settings higher or lower. I still seem to get between 19 - 30 fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hey there.Are there any guys that have the X2 5000+ CPU and play GTA IV on it? If yes, how good does it perform? Cheers. I have a 6000+ x2 with 2gb ram and a 9800GTX and the game runs poorly to say the least. The strange thing is that it makes very little difference to the frame rates whether I adjust the settings higher or lower. I still seem to get between 19 - 30 fps. damn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medfreak Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hey there.Are there any guys that have the X2 5000+ CPU and play GTA IV on it? If yes, how good does it perform? Cheers. I have a 6000+ x2 with 2gb ram and a 9800GTX and the game runs poorly to say the least. The strange thing is that it makes very little difference to the frame rates whether I adjust the settings higher or lower. I still seem to get between 19 - 30 fps. Not strange at all. It's because you are CPU bound. Your graphics card is fine, and that is why no matter how high you go it is the same performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gutslab Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I have AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ / 2.1 GHz with 9800gt and 2GB ram. Should I even bother? someone please answer. I've seen others with slightly higher dual core, be able to get the game working fine.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasil Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 yep, I´d say actually C2D performs better than AMD, and the game is very CPU dependant...I hope patch/drivers give a little boost (not very optimistic though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlingShotUK Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Ok this might help.. I've finally installed GTA 4 after all the horror stories.. I expected it to run like crap on my system: AMD 4600+ 2.4ghz. 4GB Ram Nvidia 8800GTX However, it runs great! Ok it's not super FPS like many of you demand but it is more than playable.. Here are is my benchmark results: Resolution:1920x1080 Average FPS: 27.30 CPU: 96% System memory used: 55% Video memory used: 80% Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Low View Distance: 20 Detail Distance: 37 I'm very pleased with this and I havent played with the ingame graphic settings yet. Funnily enough, setting render quality to high only lost 1fps.. I've got the beta Nvidia drivers (.60) and changed some settings in the control panel based on advice here. The video editor is bloody amazing! First thing I tried and spent 30 minutes playing.. Works a treat... When I upgrade to the Phenom 9950 in the next week or so I expect performance to change dramatically and it's good now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquaphonic Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hey there.Are there any guys that have the X2 5000+ CPU and play GTA IV on it? If yes, how good does it perform? Cheers. I have a 6000+ x2 with 2gb ram and a 9800GTX and the game runs poorly to say the least. The strange thing is that it makes very little difference to the frame rates whether I adjust the settings higher or lower. I still seem to get between 19 - 30 fps. Not strange at all. It's because you are CPU bound. Your graphics card is fine, and that is why no matter how high you go it is the same performance. Hmm, that had crossed my mind. Well I'm certainly not upgrading to a quad core just for one game, especially when the rest of my games run fine. Besides, people with quads are also suffering from what I've read, albeit not as badly. It's good to see that R* are working on a patch to cover the problems experienced by "a small number of fans" as they put it. Hope we're not waiting long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Ok this might help.. I've finally installed GTA 4 after all the horror stories.. I expected it to run like crap on my system: AMD 4600+ 2.4ghz. 4GB Ram Nvidia 8800GTX However, it runs great! Ok it's not super FPS like many of you demand but it is more than playable.. Here are is my benchmark results: Resolution:1920x1080 Average FPS: 27.30 CPU: 96% System memory used: 55% Video memory used: 80% Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Low View Distance: 20 Detail Distance: 37 I'm very pleased with this and I havent played with the ingame graphic settings yet. Funnily enough, setting render quality to high only lost 1fps.. I've got the beta Nvidia drivers (.60) and changed some settings in the control panel based on advice here. The video editor is bloody amazing! First thing I tried and spent 30 minutes playing.. Works a treat... When I upgrade to the Phenom 9950 in the next week or so I expect performance to change dramatically and it's good now. Looks nice! With a bit of luck, I maybe will get it running with 1280x720 on Low with more than 20 FPS? Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlingShotUK Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Ok this might help.. I've finally installed GTA 4 after all the horror stories.. I expected it to run like crap on my system: AMD 4600+ 2.4ghz. 4GB Ram Nvidia 8800GTX However, it runs great! Ok it's not super FPS like many of you demand but it is more than playable.. Here are is my benchmark results: Resolution:1920x1080 Average FPS: 27.30 CPU: 96% System memory used: 55% Video memory used: 80% Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Low View Distance: 20 Detail Distance: 37 I'm very pleased with this and I havent played with the ingame graphic settings yet. Funnily enough, setting render quality to high only lost 1fps.. I've got the beta Nvidia drivers (.60) and changed some settings in the control panel based on advice here. The video editor is bloody amazing! First thing I tried and spent 30 minutes playing.. Works a treat... When I upgrade to the Phenom 9950 in the next week or so I expect performance to change dramatically and it's good now. Looks nice! With a bit of luck, I maybe will get it running with 1280x720 on Low with more than 20 FPS? Who knows. Ah man I'd say defo with your setup. You've got a faster CPU and will use a lower resolution so I'd say you'll be fine most likely. I know my video ram is a big help but I reckon you'll be ok. I can't believe how good the game looks.. So rich and atmospheric.. A massive improvement on the PS3 version I've got.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 (edited) Ok this might help.. I've finally installed GTA 4 after all the horror stories.. I expected it to run like crap on my system: AMD 4600+ 2.4ghz. 4GB Ram Nvidia 8800GTX However, it runs great! Ok it's not super FPS like many of you demand but it is more than playable.. Here are is my benchmark results: Resolution:1920x1080 Average FPS: 27.30 CPU: 96% System memory used: 55% Video memory used: 80% Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Low View Distance: 20 Detail Distance: 37 I'm very pleased with this and I havent played with the ingame graphic settings yet. Funnily enough, setting render quality to high only lost 1fps.. I've got the beta Nvidia drivers (.60) and changed some settings in the control panel based on advice here. The video editor is bloody amazing! First thing I tried and spent 30 minutes playing.. Works a treat... When I upgrade to the Phenom 9950 in the next week or so I expect performance to change dramatically and it's good now. Looks nice! With a bit of luck, I maybe will get it running with 1280x720 on Low with more than 20 FPS? Who knows. Ah man I'd say defo with your setup. You've got a faster CPU and will use a lower resolution so I'd say you'll be fine most likely. I know my video ram is a big help but I reckon you'll be ok. I can't believe how good the game looks.. So rich and atmospheric.. A massive improvement on the PS3 version I've got.. You fill my hype gauge, man. Thanks a lot for the hope. I'm glad you're enjoying IV. Edited December 4, 2008 by NonToXIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gutslab Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 slingshotuk, what do you think of my setup? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medfreak Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Ok this might help.. I've finally installed GTA 4 after all the horror stories.. I expected it to run like crap on my system: AMD 4600+ 2.4ghz. 4GB Ram Nvidia 8800GTX However, it runs great! Ok it's not super FPS like many of you demand but it is more than playable.. Here are is my benchmark results: Resolution:1920x1080 Average FPS: 27.30 CPU: 96% System memory used: 55% Video memory used: 80% Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Low View Distance: 20 Detail Distance: 37 I'm very pleased with this and I havent played with the ingame graphic settings yet. Funnily enough, setting render quality to high only lost 1fps.. I've got the beta Nvidia drivers (.60) and changed some settings in the control panel based on advice here. The video editor is bloody amazing! First thing I tried and spent 30 minutes playing.. Works a treat... When I upgrade to the Phenom 9950 in the next week or so I expect performance to change dramatically and it's good now. That's damn beautiful. My secondary rig is 4200+ and an 8800GT. I didn't expect much from it but I have not tested it out yet. I'll check it tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flat Face Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 dflkdflkfs!!! I MEAN, I'LL ASK ABOUT MY PC TOMORR...LATERTODAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
u4ik Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I have an AMD X2 5600+ these are the the benchmarks results I get: Statistics Average FPS: 27.86 Duration: 37.08 sec CPU Usage: 90% System memory usage: 56% Video memory usage: 98% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (59 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Very High View Distance: 33 Detail Distance: 60 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 Video Driver version: 180.48 Audio Adapter: SB Audigy Audio [AC00] AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ the game is very playable, rarely dropping below 25 fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 So it all depends on the CPU. How much is 5600+ better than 5000+? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tw1ggy Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 got athlon 5000 right here, black edition tho. had to oc it to 3ghz, combine that with ocd 8800gts, runs ok, get about 30 fps on med. mind u, benchmarks are waaaay off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah,CR#P! Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Me playing with this processor. Everything goes fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Me playing with this processor. Everything goes fine Could you please tell us more details? Benchmark results, your PC specs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah,CR#P! Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 My PC: 5000+X2 3 GB RAM 8800GT 512 MB 1280x960 75hZ Textures- Medium Render - Very High View Distance - 21 (equal to console version) Detal Distance - 10 (same) Vehicle Density - 21 (from console too. this option does not have much effect though) Shadow Denisity - 0 (consoles don't have) Benchmark said average fps is ~31. Games runs not like helluva smooth, but very much playable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 My PC:5000+X2 3 GB RAM 8800GT 512 MB 1280x960 75hZ Textures- Medium Render - Very High View Distance - 21 (equal to console version) Detal Distance - 10 (same) Vehicle Density - 21 (from console too. this option does not have much effect though) Shadow Denisity - 0 (consoles don't have) Benchmark said average fps is ~31. Games runs not like helluva smooth, but very much playable Whoa, exactly same PC specs as mine sans memory. Thanks so much for this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medfreak Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 My PC:5000+X2 3 GB RAM 8800GT 512 MB 1280x960 75hZ Textures- Medium Render - Very High View Distance - 21 (equal to console version) Detal Distance - 10 (same) Vehicle Density - 21 (from console too. this option does not have much effect though) Shadow Denisity - 0 (consoles don't have) Benchmark said average fps is ~31. Games runs not like helluva smooth, but very much playable Whoa, exactly same PC specs as mine sans memory. Thanks so much for this! Bottom line is, if you want to play GTA IV and you are not sure about your system, try to get it from a place that would gurentee a refund if it does not work, and try it out. You never know you might like the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah,CR#P! Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 You're welcome dude. The main thing - dont be "greedy" and use console-equal gpahics. Its awesome too. By the way, medium textures are better than consoles have, so you're gonna play even a little better graphics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasil Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 My PC:5000+X2 3 GB RAM 8800GT 512 MB 1280x960 75hZ Textures- Medium Render - Very High View Distance - 21 (equal to console version) Detal Distance - 10 (same) Vehicle Density - 21 (from console too. this option does not have much effect though) Shadow Denisity - 0 (consoles don't have) Benchmark said average fps is ~31. Games runs not like helluva smooth, but very much playable Whoa, exactly same PC specs as mine sans memory. Thanks so much for this! Using almost the same rig and config, except vehicle density (y got it at 50) and resolution (1680x1050). The analysis gave me 31 average fps...This, in game is traduced in framedrops (it goes below 20 sometimes) here and there, which is almost unplayable for me. Turning resolution or vehicle density down doesn´t have much impact in the performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Bottom line is, if you want to play GTA IV and you are not sure about your system, try to get it from a place that would gurentee a refund if it does not work, and try it out. You never know you might like the results. I've pre-ordered it from an online shop, and they don't take games back. But I wouldn't return GTA IV if it'd refuse to work anyway. I have a collection of all GTA's and I just have to own IV. You're welcome dude. The main thing - dont be "greedy" and use console-equal gpahics. Its awesome too.By the way, medium textures are better than consoles have, so you're gonna play even a little better graphics I can play it on low graphics, I just want to play through the storyline, I want cop chases and grand shootouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Using almost the same rig and config, except vehicle density (y got it at 50) and resolution (1680x1050). The analysis gave me 31 average fps...This, in game is traduced in framedrops (it goes below 20 sometimes) here and there, which is almost unplayable for me. Turning resolution or vehicle density down doesn´t have much impact in the performance. No rose without a thorn. I'm hoping for a patch from R*, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekfvk Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 ive got a 5000 black at 2.8ghz and it is running fine, not maxed out by any means but looks fine and runs smooth, will only get better with a patch hopefully. Statistics Average FPS: 21.21 Duration: 37.29 sec CPU Usage: 90% System memory usage: 55% Video memory usage: 95% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Medium View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Video Driver version: 178.24 Audio Adapter: SB Audigy 2 ZS Audio [E800] AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 ive got a 5000 black at 2.8ghz and it is running fine, not maxed out by any means but looks fine and runs smooth, will only get better with a patch hopefully. Statistics Average FPS: 21.21 Duration: 37.29 sec CPU Usage: 90% System memory usage: 55% Video memory usage: 95% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Medium View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Video Driver version: 178.24 Audio Adapter: SB Audigy 2 ZS Audio [E800] AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+ t Thanks for your input mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvettelover Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Funnily enough, setting render quality to high only lost 1fps.. ..that is because (if I remember right) Render Quality is just AF, they were dumb and re-named it to Render Quality for some unknown reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTxC Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Funnily enough, setting render quality to high only lost 1fps.. ..that is because (if I remember right) Render Quality is just AF, they were dumb and re-named it to Render Quality for some unknown reason... Yeah it's the filtering. Doesn't "render quality" sound like some pixel shader quality modifier, etc? Misleading like sh*t. 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