"Higher settings are for future PC's"

[disposeablehero]

That guy is proof inbreeding is bad. Why would it be a bitch to run on PC which has 5 times the power of any console yet runs on console, yet PC struggles with much better hardware on medium and low? Bad coding.

 

Why release a statement AFTER launch and people bought the game saying that a game that looks like a console game is somehow future proof and requires 3 times more resources then games that look 3 times as good? It is called trying to save thire arse, marketing, pr speak to cover for their obvious technical ineptitude.

 

Explain why Steam is doing the unheard of offering refunds?

 

Explain why the recommended requirements only allow you to play a game that looks average on medium settings at best?

 

Explain how this is not rockstars fault? It is the consumers fault Rockstar cannot use modern tech properly? (See Bully as well, which runs like arse and looks like a PS2 game). That is beyond the dumbest, most ignorant thing I have heard anyone say.

 

Explain why ech sites all over the web are all saying the game is a mess? IS that our fault?

 

How is it our fault Rockstar has the most assinine DRM of all, knowing full well the game will get pirated regardless?

 

Lowest common denominator? That would be consoles, so explain how PC's with 4 times the power crash, cannot run on medium settings with a game that has terrble shadows, low res textures?

 

The game runs fine on console, so PC should be able to run it vastly better like any other console port, why not GTA 4? Incompetence.

 

That guys is beyond a retard, seriously, everyones PC is bad and it is the consumers fault Rockstar released a bad product and waited until AFTER launch to try and BS us with the future PC crap. No one will be playing GTA 4 by the time that future comes, and games will be vastly better graphically, hell, many are now.

[Brawly]

R* are idiots. This is a next generation game not a future generation game so it should be able to run high on most PC's easily.

[XtremeDogg]

I have

 

AMD Phenom QuadCore 2.60 Mhz 3.50 Gigs of ram (4 but windows is gay)

GeForce PCI Exp 2.0 GTX 260 (New line of GFX cards)

Sound Blaster Audigy 4 Pro

Asus mother Board.

 

Now I know my machine isnt top notch anymore, but im sure its damn well up there. It can run crysis at everything maxed and any other game at the moment.

 

But for some reason GTA IV studders and the sound goes funny and repeats.

 

 

So all the people thinking this game requires next gen comps, no.

Its probably just a really bad port.. and the graphics cards that do work ok were probably the ones the porters were using when they thought their game ran fine.

 

There was probably a lack of testing on multiple GPU's so the outcome was the nasty thing we are seeing now.

[snak3ua]

I dont understand such hate against R* they made the f*ckin game for pc you should be happy and i can play the game without problem and i dont have a 2008 rig of death

[proh1]

R*'s new motto should be:

Money Over Bitchez

[Bones36]

Problem graphics are far from state of the art and there is no justification to need such insane resources. At least Crysis looked like an orgasm to justify being a pig.

the game does look just like Xbox in some computers, and they arent ultra NASA computers so.. That's pretty good imo

 

lol You guys are the kind of guys who will leave ur supermodel girlfriend when she gets one point of acne in her face xD

And u are the type of guy to stand in front of rockstars headquarters with ur pants down saying kick me in the nuts oohhh and by the way take my wallet.

[nitro_hedgehog]

the game runs acceptable but not great for me. i'm not refunding it, but i still want those patch(s). rockstar definitely the benchmark says i should be getting 38 FPS. anyone think that its coded better than the game itself? and yet. the game has never crashed once for me.

[Officer_Dufus]

I have to agree, it looks exceptionally well on LOW.

 

I am running textures and renders on low at 1024x768 (60hz) and everything at the lowest below that except traffic which I set at 85.

 

A little laggy but playable and like I said looks good for low settings!

 

You just have to change your thinking for GTA4 I guess. Low in GTA4 is DEFINITELY not like low in ANY other game.

[skating101]

I have to agree, it looks exceptionally well on LOW.

 

I am running textures and renders on low at 1024x768 (60hz) and everything at the lowest below that except traffic which I set at 85.

 

A little laggy but playable and like I said looks good for low settings!

 

You just have to change your thinking for GTA4 I guess. Low in GTA4 is DEFINITELY not like low in ANY other game.

low looks like crap man i know its up to the viewer but still it only looks good if you compare it to GTA SA

[smokeringhalo]

Maybe when everyone's drooling over the release of GTAVI we'll have rigs fast enough to actually be able to run GTAIV.

That's the mentality of creating a game for future PC's. People want to play the game today, not sometime in the distant future.

 

[skeeter780]

 

The Highest view/detail settings don't really add that much visually to the game for the most part. If you read the graphics faq you'd know:

 

- view distance on 360 is 21

- detail distance on 360 is 10

- shadow density on 360 is 0

- SLI is not supported properly, nVidia will have to release drivers to fix it

 

also the 360 version

- runs at 1280x720

- has 2xAA

- has no AF (lowest render quality setting I guess)

- uses Medium Textures

- runs at ~25FPS according to some benchmarks out there

 

And finally the game is CPU intensive, the 360/PS3 CPUs are pretty powerful (360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115 gigaflops), only quad cores can compare to that performance.

 

Put that together and you are running at the same FPS as the 360 version with much higher view/detail settings.

 

As for complaining about the game's visual quality, the sliders DO NOT increase the visual quality of the immediate surroundings nor do they claim to do that. They increase the visual quality of Distant surroundings; most of which you can't see and are obscured by other buildings. All you are doing is making your GPU render stuff that you can't see in the distance at a higher quality by bumping up the detail. Why would R* not cap the view/detail settings then you ask? Probably because they could. It would help the quality when flying over the city with a helicopter, so if systems next year to improve significantly, people will be able to use the higher settings.

The console cpu's are actually very weak. The 360 is actually a tri core 1.6ghz with miniscule amount of cache.

 

360 was released in 2005. The first dual core cpu's for pc like the x2 3800 came out around the same time and all by itself cost more than the 360.

 

If a cpu matching the speed of a core 2 duo was available when the 360 was released it would have cost at least $1,000. So how exactly could the 3 year old 360 have a better cpu than todays mid range pc cpu's? It doesnt, its a paper tiger.

 

The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050...5054.html?95741

 

[mkey82]

I'm gonna piss off a bunch of people, but this should be fun.

 

1. R* is a company that care about profits. Releasing the game before Christmas precludes having great profits. Announcing that your game isn't optimized for most computers would hurt those profits, hence why they didn't say anything.

 

2. The fact that people don't realize this is not the fault of R*, its the fault of the incompetent public that has rose-colored glasses and think that companies are in the game for the benefit of the consumer.

 

3. If you had read anything about the game, seen any screens or videos of the game, or even played on one of the consoles, that should have let you know that this game would be a bitch to run on PC, because no other game released to date, even Crysis, has attempted to combine the graphic quality of GTA with all of the cogs and gears that are involved in the pedestrian AI, the physics, etc.

 

4. Because many of the people didn't read, can't read, or decided to think that their old-ass systems would be able to play a game that was created on systems made recently with hardware made recently should not suggest that R* is at fault. It's not their problem that your systems are using CPU and graphics hardware that is outdate by 2 or more years and 3 or more hardware generations.

 

5. All comparisons to Crysis, Crysis:Warhead, or any other non-sandbox PC game should henceforth be the symbol of gross incompetence on the part of members of this forum. GTA never has, and likely never will be, a FPS, and FPS don't have to compute anywhere near the amount of data that a GTA game would have to.

 

6. Why in the hell would people care about graphics settings that affect buildings and objects in the far distance when the majority of the game is on ground level? If that's the case, go out a pick up the latest iteration of Cabela's Deer Hunting or Crysis if you want to look at crap in the distance while people shoot at you back on ground level. Last time I checked, Niko wasn't anything near an ornithologist, and could probably care less about how the Chrysler Building's Art Deco features are rendered on your poor ass computer.

 

7. To the person with the 7900gs. I had a 7900gs for two year. It lasted long, ran well, but was thoroughly outclassed by even the worst of the 8000-series Nvidia cards and the 3000-series ATI cards. If you had taken the time to do some research, you would have known that fact. Just because you card meets the minimum requirements, that should not suggest that R* will or would have catered to the lowest-common denominator, that being your card. Shell out $100 bucks, get a new graphics card, maybe a new CPU, and enjoy, but don't complain to R* because your technology is outdated and they've created a game that rightfully caters to the latest and greatest.

 

8. If companies catered to the lowest common denominator, as some of you posters seem to want, people a 3dfx card would be able to play Crysis in all it's 2-d or -10FPS glory. Now just let that seep in for a bit, and think about how silly that sounds, and then think about how stupid it makes you look in retrospect (Since I can tell most of you need some honest retrospection and stop being such misers and shell out the money necessary to play a game you've probably already beaten 10 times).

 

9. On that note, I don't see why people are so enamored with the PC version anyways. Most of you have probably beaten it, likely all have played it, so why should R* care about repeat players when they've already gotten you once for the console version and have gotten you again for the PC version. Don't get all pissy at R* because you have the need to purchase a game you've played and/or beaten already.

 

10. Don't get mad that R* requires us to sign up through various methods before we play the game. Again, if people had not been lazy and stupid and did their research before they pre-ordered and/or purchased the game, they would have known these facts and prepared accordingly. R* is not at fault for your laziness, your incompetence, and your inane inability to do what you need to do to get ready for a purchase. They prey on fools like you who go by name and reputation only, and that's not their fault, it's yours stupid.

 

11. Lastly, upgrade your sh*tty ass computers and stop complaining. If you want the game to look good, upgrade. If not, play on lower settings, or stick to the console versions that have consistent framerates and still great graphics. People aren;t buying the game for the future, they're buying the game for now. However, some of these people were smart and realized that GTA4 for PC would need a very powerful computer to run well, and those who were stupid thought that their old sh*t would run the game at a playable framerate. Stupidity is a royal pain in the ass, isn't it? And y'all only have yourselves to blame.

 

Now, allow me to return to my playing of GTA4 on my 360. When I want to get it for PC, I'll make sure before I spend $50 that my computer will play it at the framerates that I deem acceptable, not stumble in with blind hope that outdated hardware and technology will suffice like so many of you fools did.

You are out of our f*cking mind.

 

1. Every game company cares about profits. EVERY. Does any of those companies act like those bitches at R*? No.

 

2. You ARE a morn, aren't you?

 

3. ditto. Plus, is there some sort of Crysis on your x360/PS3? No? How come? Maybe because it's so demanding that consoles can not run it. But they can run GTA IV. How come? Maybe because GTA IV is a pile of junk?

 

4. You are a moron, no doubt about it. Can *you* read? There are people with killer specs being unable to play this game.

 

5. just "Compute the amount of data"?

 

6. Really, can you read? The game is broken, a lot of people can't get it to work on lower settings, higher settings. Nothing. And when some guys who should easily max it get a jittery experience we can not talk about a "ground breaking game" bout about a broken console port. It was crappy on consoles, it's rubbish on PC.

 

7. Worse 8000 series outclassing 7900? No, definitely not. You are pulling that out of your ass. You are a little pathetic lair, nothing more.

 

8. You should sleep a bit. With the fishes. Like already stated, people with excellent rigs have trouble running the game.

 

9. No, unlike you little console bitches, most of PC gamers didn't go for the "cheap" solution and go shafted by MS and Sony. Why? Because playing on consoles makes us barf. I would rather play GTA IV on lowest ultra minimum on 10 FPS then play it on any console. But hey, that's just me.

 

10. The only one stupid here is you, mate. Get ready for a purchase? What is this, nuclear physics exam or a GTA video game?

 

11. "consistent framerates and still great graphics" Sure. "Stupidity is a royal pain in the ass, isn't it?" and you are paying the full price, mate.

 

"Now, allow me to return to my playing of GTA4 on my 360."

Goodbye.

[bcrt2k]

 

The Highest view/detail settings don't really add that much visually to the game for the most part. If you read the graphics faq you'd know:

 

- view distance on 360 is 21

- detail distance on 360 is 10

- shadow density on 360 is 0

- SLI is not supported properly, nVidia will have to release drivers to fix it

 

also the 360 version

- runs at 1280x720

- has 2xAA

- has no AF (lowest render quality setting I guess)

- uses Medium Textures

- runs at ~25FPS according to some benchmarks out there

 

And finally the game is CPU intensive, the 360/PS3 CPUs are pretty powerful (360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115 gigaflops), only quad cores can compare to that performance.

 

Put that together and you are running at the same FPS as the 360 version with much higher view/detail settings.

 

As for complaining about the game's visual quality, the sliders DO NOT increase the visual quality of the immediate surroundings nor do they claim to do that. They increase the visual quality of Distant surroundings; most of which you can't see and are obscured by other buildings. All you are doing is making your GPU render stuff that you can't see in the distance at a higher quality by bumping up the detail. Why would R* not cap the view/detail settings then you ask? Probably because they could. It would help the quality when flying over the city with a helicopter, so if systems next year to improve significantly, people will be able to use the higher settings.

The console cpu's are actually very weak. The 360 is actually a tri core 1.6ghz with miniscule amount of cache.

 

360 was released in 2005. The first dual core cpu's for pc like the x2 3800 came out around the same time and all by itself cost more than the 360.

 

If a cpu matching the speed of a core 2 duo was available when the 360 was released it would have cost at least $1,000. So how exactly could the 3 year old 360 have a better cpu than todays mid range pc cpu's? It doesnt, its a paper tiger.

 

The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050...5054.html?95741

http://movementarian.com/2006/08/18/flops-...he-human-brain/

 

 

AMD Athlon @ 600 mhz - 2.4 gigaflops (single precision), 1 gigaflop (double precision)

Pentium 4 @ 2 ghz - 8 gigaflops (single precision)

Pentium 4 @ 3 ghz - 12 gigaflops

Athlon 64 X2 4600 - 14.7 gigaflops, 17400 MIPS

G5 Dual 2.3GHz - 30 gigaflops

XBox 360 Xenon chip -115 gigaflops

XBOX 360 Xenos graphics chip - 240 gigaflops

nVIDIA 7800 GTX 512 - 200 gigaflops

ATi X1900 - 553.8 gigaflops

 

I've also read that a 2GHz Core 2 Duo processor core theoretically can run at 16 gigaflops. So four 3GHz Core 2 Duo cores (Core 2 Quad) would be running at 96 gigaflops.

 

Now its all theoretical, but I think that shows that the 360 CPU is not a slouch at all. The FIFA 09 PC producer stated earlier in the year that the Xbox 360 version uses nearly all the CPU power for AI/physics, and they were not able to port the gameplay of the 360 version over because it would not perform well on many PCs.

 

 

 

I wonder if theres a performance difference between running the game on x86 and x64 since the game was originally optimized to run on a 64-bit system.

[Rokz0r]

The Highest view/detail settings don't really add that much visually to the game for the most part. If you read the graphics faq you'd know:

 

- view distance on 360 is 21

- detail distance on 360 is 10

- shadow density on 360 is 0

- SLI is not supported properly, nVidia will have to release drivers to fix it

 

also the 360 version

- runs at 1280x720

- has 2xAA

- has no AF (lowest render quality setting I guess)

- uses Medium Textures

- runs at ~25FPS according to some benchmarks out there

 

And finally the game is CPU intensive, the 360/PS3 CPUs are pretty powerful (360 has a theoretical peak performance of 115 gigaflops), only quad cores can compare to that performance.

 

Put that together and you are running at the same FPS as the 360 version with much higher view/detail settings.

 

As for complaining about the game's visual quality, the sliders DO NOT increase the visual quality of the immediate surroundings nor do they claim to do that. They increase the visual quality of Distant surroundings; most of which you can't see and are obscured by other buildings. All you are doing is making your GPU render stuff that you can't see in the distance at a higher quality by bumping up the detail. Why would R* not cap the view/detail settings then you ask? Probably because they could. It would help the quality when flying over the city with a helicopter, so if systems next year to improve significantly, people will be able to use the higher settings.

The console cpu's are actually very weak. The 360 is actually a tri core 1.6ghz with miniscule amount of cache.

 

360 was released in 2005. The first dual core cpu's for pc like the x2 3800 came out around the same time and all by itself cost more than the 360.

 

If a cpu matching the speed of a core 2 duo was available when the 360 was released it would have cost at least $1,000. So how exactly could the 3 year old 360 have a better cpu than todays mid range pc cpu's? It doesnt, its a paper tiger.

 

The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in terms of CPU performance.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050...5054.html?95741

http://movementarian.com/2006/08/18/flops-...he-human-brain/

 

 

AMD Athlon @ 600 mhz - 2.4 gigaflops (single precision), 1 gigaflop (double precision)

Pentium 4 @ 2 ghz - 8 gigaflops (single precision)

Pentium 4 @ 3 ghz - 12 gigaflops

Athlon 64 X2 4600 - 14.7 gigaflops, 17400 MIPS

G5 Dual 2.3GHz - 30 gigaflops

XBox 360 Xenon chip -115 gigaflops

XBOX 360 Xenos graphics chip - 240 gigaflops

nVIDIA 7800 GTX 512 - 200 gigaflops

ATi X1900 - 553.8 gigaflops

 

I've also read that a 2GHz Core 2 Duo processor core theoretically can run at 16 gigaflops. So four 3GHz Core 2 Duo cores (Core 2 Quad) would be running at 96 gigaflops.

 

Now its all theoretical, but I think that shows that the 360 CPU is not a slouch at all. The FIFA 09 PC producer stated earlier in the year that the Xbox 360 version uses nearly all the CPU power for AI/physics, and they were not able to port the gameplay of the 360 version over because it would not perform well on many PCs.

 

 

 

I wonder if theres a performance difference between running the game on x86 and x64 since the game was originally optimized to run on a 64-bit system.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/xbox360-2.ars, read up on that and tell me if you think the xenon cpu is "good"...and you're answer is because the programmers write hardware specific or lazy port programming with fifa 09 - read that article as to why the cpu of the xbox is not the same as what's in your pc.

[Malik]

that rockstar statement is the gayest I have ever seen in my opinion...still cant believe they really mean it...

 

if u defend that u really gotta get a lifetime supply of free r* games cause you dont exist anyway

[Malik]

"Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available."

 

 

------ R* declared this AFTER the release of the game! How many people would have pre-ordered the game, knowing this facts? 50% of the actual orderes maybe? F*ckin nasty move, Rockstar.

+1

 

This is as true as it gets, what if this was known before the release...

 

I would tel you at least half of the people wouldnt buy it knowing they have to settle with medium graphics and UGLY textures

[TECHN9CiAN]

And the award for biggest dissapointment for the year 2008 goes to: :rockstar:

I really wanted to get the game, but my laptop couldn't handle it, and I actually considered buying a new one just for GTA IV, but after this, I got to give them a big f*ck YOU! Damn it R*, focus on getting your games done in time and done right! Money hungry bastards.... In part, I blame the M$ curse first, M$ launches a console that had a 70-80 or so percent chance of breaking down, then they both set the DLC date to a date by which most GTA IV owners have resold their copy of the game, and now R* releases an unplayable game and AFTER they start selling, acknowledge that it's a piece of epic sh*t. I am really disappointed by my ex-favorite developer. [/rant]

Edited December 5, 2008 by the7ftmidget

[Malik]

What you need to understand is that "medium" in GTAIV is equivalent to "(very) high" in any other game, so it's not really surprising that many PCs have problems running it at medium settings.

You really are retarned aren't you?

[Malik]

Im actively reading game forums for about 1 year now. Has it always been like that? Do the customers always get punked?

 

Crysis: Patch support stopped, multiplayer died because of punkbuster

Crysis Warhead: Still no SDK / Editor, Modding scene is gone

Left 4 Dead: To less content, no promised cutscenes

And now GTA: sh*tty port, excuses after everyone bought it

 

What the f*ck is wrong with the game industry? Are they f*ckin stupid? They cry and cry about piracy and how

noone buys their f*ckin games, but their f*ckin games are just f*ckin bad - so what?

 

Im really getting sick of those money hungry motherf*ckers. Game Industry, Music Industry, Clothing Industry. Its all the same.

 

Gta runs great for me, but there is no excuse for what they are doing.

Thats kapitalism for ya. Enjoy it

[Malik]

They are going to release a patch so why still bash the company? Don't fret over it and move on. This is a new game on a new engine and there are people that can get the game running. If the patch still didn't fix anything, then you can bash them.

 

Actually, the best port from Rockstar was Vice City and it was a direct port. All other ports tries to add enhancing features that doesn't seem to work.

And retard II arrives

[Malik]

800 x 600 gives me the same fps according to fraps as 1680x1050...

Now thats what i call good quality coding

 

bring in the fanboys

[Malik]

I would really be happy if even just one other person on this board would join me in referring to rockstar as cockstar from this moment onward.

 

any takers?

LETS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE IT!!

[Malik]

 

The game is made to last, it's one of these games where there is no other type like it, making this happen with the best pc graphics would be hard, it's not a case of having the best looking cars in any game, the best looking guns in any game, they have to balance it and they have no other game to look at for hints or experience regarding the qaulity pc graphics system.

 

 

Yes it's been problamatic but so what, thats pc games for you, go and buy a console if you cant handle better games/more problems.

 

 

 

The game looks great on a lot of pc's and it will still look great and run great in a year or so, just when the mods start coming out, I hope. If it was any less then it wouldn't last, and thats one thing that shouldn't happen with pc games like this, it's made to last, i.e = the future.

Your sig says youre the biggest fanboy twat to ever lived

 

I waited for over a year for the first ever GTA game after reading about it in a very old Nintendo magazine, GTA till I die !!"

 

Anybody insulting r* is like they stabbed you in the heart isnt it?

[Malik]

R*'s new motto should be:

Money Over Bitchez

Priceless +1

[Nemon]

Wow, seven posts in a row. You know you can quote more than one post, right?

[pinky]

Wow, seven posts in a row. You know you can quote more than one post, right?

Yeah, I think we know who the real retard is in this thread now.

This is for you Malik, it kinda reminds me of your recent posts.

A load of spam.

[notsofrisk]

Hey.... no retards here.

 

 

Come on... lets not make this just another RANT thread/forum

[Sektor]

 

The console cpu's are actually very weak. The 360 is actually a tri core 1.6ghz with miniscule amount of cache.

IBM says it's 3.2GHz.

 

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/...9-calendar.html

 

 

In-Stat Fall Processor Forum attendees got a chance to preview the Xbox 360's three PowerPC cores, 64-bit processor cores that each run at 3.2 GHz, the "highest core speed" ever achieved by Power Architecture™ technology according to IBM Chief Project Engineer Jeff Brown. Designed to handle the high sustained bandwidth the game console requires, the processor can support two simultaneous threads and is projected to reach a peak bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps. The 90nm SoI chip, manufactured by IBM and Chartered Semiconductor, features a split L2 cache in which the first part runs at the CPU frequency, and the other part runs at half that speed. It will sport 128 registers, with the first 32 mapped to the 32 registers that exist in the previous generation of PowerPC processors (for binary compatibility). (PC Magazine via ABC News)

Edited December 5, 2008 by Sektor

[pinky]

The console cpu's are actually very weak. The 360 is actually a tri core 1.6ghz with miniscule amount of cache.

IBM says it's 3.2ghz.

No one seems to spec the PS3 CPU though. Is it because it aint that pish?

http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/614/614682p1.html

[Killuminati91]

Most of you against this don't seem to understand what R* intended by this.

 

The point is that at medium to medium-high settings you (are supposed to) match the console versions quality. That means if you meet the recommended hardware you'll be able to play it at a medium setting and get the quality the same as a console.

Now when future stronger cards and processors are out you'll be able to get even HIGHER quality than consoles.

 

Any complaints that you have aren't involving what R* did in this aspect. The problems are:

1. It's a sh*tty port. Poor shadows, no AA, for example.

2. People are running the game at too high of settings

 

The first one is obviously all R*'s fault. It seems they didn't optimize the game to work with PC's very well, and they've disabled AA for some god-awful reason, and I have no clue what seems to be with the shadows. The edges are all jaggy and rough from the pictures I've seen. This all could be a contributing factor to poor performance.

 

However, I think the biggest reason MOST people are having performance issues is they're trying to run the game at higher settings than their system is capable of. With R*'s decision to make medium based on current mid-high to high end PC's, people aren't adjusting their settings accordingly.

There. are. no. higher. settings.

 

Im runnin it at highest and it still doesnt look much better than console versions. Thats the point, they just use some lame excuses.