Most probably YOUR fault.

[null_]

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=383164&hl=

 

Tell me if that's normal. Since you like to act like a f*cking genius here. Huh? I have LATEST EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING. Latest windows update, latest drivers, latest framework bullsh*t, latest adobe flash player, latest directx, latest EVERYTHING.

 

Whenever I game I have NOTHING except for crucial windows apps running (like svchost or something). I have tweaked my computer to make it run smoother (old ME theme, less services that run, no wallpapper etc, you name it I have done it)

So in summary shut the f*ck up when you don't know sh*t.

[guyspy]

Ive not read the whole thread, got bored lol... but I do have something to say to the OP

 

If it aint broke ! Why did R* patch it

 

Why will they continue to patch it till its ok (we hope)

 

why has there been 3 Nvidia drivers and an Early ATI driver to help make it perform better !

swsuk,

 

You don't need to shout for people to read your post.

 

Pretty much every game I've ever played has required a patch at some time. It's the nature of software development (more so with games software). With the best will in the world, bugs will always be present in the first release of any game.

[FX2K]

You don't need to shout for people to read your post.

 

Pretty much every game I've ever played has required a patch at some time. It's the nature of software development (more so with games software). With the best will in the world, bugs will always be present in the first release of any game.

Dont worry, I dont make a habit of it, I just wanted to make a point to the original poster stating its all our fault.

Which if it was, then why would R* acknowledge a problem and start to patch it

[HakuAnime]

The reason this games runs like sh*t on most computers is because R* did a horrible optimizing this game for PC. Aside from the optimization and performance issues, R* still hasn't fixed all the general bugs that exist. While terminating as much processes as possible can make a bit of a difference, it doesn't hide the fact R* did a horrible job porting this game to PC.

[guyspy]

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=383164&hl=

 

Tell me if that's normal. Since you like to act like a f*cking genius here. Huh? I have LATEST EVERYTHING! EVERYTHING. Latest windows update, latest drivers, latest framework bullsh*t, latest adobe flash player, latest directx, latest EVERYTHING.

 

Whenever I game I have NOTHING except for crucial windows apps running (like svchost or something). I have tweaked my computer to make it run smoother (old ME theme, less services that run, no wallpapper etc, you name it I have done it)

So in summary shut the f*ck up when you don't know sh*t.

Why does everyone feel the need to shout in these forums.

 

People still read your posts, even if you're not shouting.

 

null_, What are your system specs and what fps do you get?

 

[guyspy]

The reason this games runs like sh*t on most computers is because R* did a horrible optimizing this game for PC. Aside from the optimization and performance issues, R* still hasn't fixed all the general bugs that exist. While terminating as much processes as possible can make a bit of a difference, it doesn't hide the fact R* did a horrible job porting this game to PC.

Actually, I completely agree.

 

*but*, we're stuck with the game for the PC. R* aren't going to completely re-write their code to fully optimise it for x86 or x64 Windows and so all the moaning on this forum isn't going to change the core code for the game.

 

...and I'm sure that gamers reading this forum will remember this fact when R* release their next game.

[Qumulys]

I've been gaming since way back, my first pc was a good old xt8086, with a 'real' floppy drive, and pretty advanced for its time a MFM 20mb hard-drive. So I know how to keep a system clean and running its best or close to.

I have a problem with your resolution argument.

My system is as follows:

I've installed a fresh copy of vista 64 ultimate, and removed all possible useless services.

The only software installed is .net, 8.12 ccc (no previous drivers installed), flash, and GTA4, oh and firefox.

My system is running on a:

Gigabyte x48-dq6 mobo

4gb OCZ 1033 ram

Quad 8200, which I've mildly overclock from 2.33 to 2.8

Gigabyte 4870X2 vid card.

 

I have 6 HDD's running, 1 has the op system, 1 is for swap files, and 2 more are in raid-0 with only gta4 on it. (the extra 2 are backups)

 

I'm using dual monitors, the main one I use for gaming runs at 1920x1200 native res.

 

So, my in game results at 1920x1200 res are.

Statistics

Average FPS: 50.38

Duration: 37.38 sec

CPU Usage: 69%

System memory usage: 56%

Video memory usage: 93%

 

Graphics Settings

Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)

Texture Quality: High

Render Quality: Very High

View Distance: 31

Detail Distance: 56

 

Hardware

Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate

Service Pack 1

Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2

Video Driver version: 7.14.10.630

Audio Adapter: Speakers (2- [email protected] Audio)

Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz

 

So, going on your the ops advice, with only changing my res down to 1280x1024, other settings left as is are.....

 

Statistics

Average FPS: 43.09

Duration: 37.48 sec

CPU Usage: 66%

System memory usage: 53%

Video memory usage: 76%

 

Graphics Settings

Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz)

Texture Quality: High

Render Quality: Very High

View Distance: 31

Detail Distance: 56

 

Hardware

Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate

Service Pack 1

Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2

Video Driver version: 7.14.10.630

Audio Adapter: Speakers (2- [email protected] Audio)

Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz

 

So there you go, my cpu is barely breaking a sweat in either bench, and on your fabulous advice dropping down to 1280x1024 gave me a whooping boost of NEGATIVE 7fps.

 

awesome....

 

[ElectricNZ]

Fail thread is fail.

[Whiskey.]

 

Sorry mate, but i'll have you know i have a start up profile i use just for games were i disable as many processes as possible even some useless MS ones like Help and Support. I know what i'm doing i've been PC gaming for a long time so don't talk to me as if i know f*ck all about it. Right now i'm playing at 1280 x 1024 res and the rest on med/low and yet i have a q6600 @2.4 4GB DDR3 Ram,ATI HD 4850 512MB and the game still runs like sh*t.

It would be nice if we didn't have to use the useless Rockstar Social Club which right now is using more resources than Steam and as far as i can tell it does f*ck all. This game has far to many graphical glitches and no matter how much i optimize my system it's not gonna fix it. To fix my joypad i had to use a registry tweak some nice guy on this forum provided, Rockstars patch was useless. I'm glad you got yours working, but don't think you got it working due to being some kinda techinal whiz while the rest of us are retarded moaning idiots cause we are not.

I don't think I claimed that you're a retarded moaning idiot.

 

If you have a "q6600 @ 2.4 4GB DDR3,ATI HD 4850 512MB and the game still runs like sh*t" and I have a P4 3.6 Ghz CPU with 2GB RAM and an ATI 3870 graphics card, and I can play the game, then the problems surely relate to software, not hardware.

There's a difference in perception here. I have exactly the same system as pimpinpenguin and it runs horrible as well. The truth is that your game runs horrible to. You just dont experience it that way.

 

20 average fps is almost unplayable to me. My benchmark actually gives me an average fps of 38 but in game it'll often drop to 20-25 and in multiplayer this will even be 15-20 at times. The fact that the game doesn't appear smooth at all is very annoying to me personally. Especially in multiplayer where you are trying to be very precise in your aiming. Twitchy framerates ( anything below 25-30) make this very very hard.

If your happy with 20 fps, good for you, but if you are serious about playing this game online that just won't cut it.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Whiskey

[guyspy]

Qumulys

 

If your game plays at an Average FPS of 50.38, then ignore any advice given in this thread.

 

The recommendation of reducing the screen resolution is for lower spec PCs or for people who are experiencing problems with playing the game.

 

[Nillansan]

lol OP suck a dick

[fjl]

I can play Quake 3 at 600 fps.

[Bladerunner_UK]

How about this for proof that R* messed up?

 

In the manual, on page 3, there is a list of the MINIMUM requirements needed to play the game. It quite clearly states that the MINIMUM video card needed is an nVidia 7900 with 256mB vRAM.

In the "Readme" file that is installed with the game, it states, under the heading: "Known Issues (Chapter 6)":

 

 

6000/7000 series cards:

Cars do not show damage.

Changing the resolution or minimizing the game can sometimes result in visual

corruption.  You can restart the game to resolve this issue.

 

My point is this..why bother saying that there is a "Known Issue", and tell you how to fix it; with a card that they say wont run the game?

 

I have a LOT more vRAM than that, and a far superior card, given the hit that my card takes to show SUBSTANDARD (no AA!!!!) graphics, I dread to think what sort of slideshow you would get with 256 MB vRAM.

Declared MINIMUM requirements should be the lowest possible combination that you need to run the game in a SUITABLE fashion. Suitability is a matter of preference I will admit, but will somebody show me a person that would be satisfied playing at 5 fps at a resolution of 320*200??

[Quemical]

 

lol OP suck a dick 

I AGREE WITH YOU. I'M SO MAD I NEED TO TYPE IN BIG BOLD LETTERS!!!!!!11111111111

[guyspy]

 

lol OP suck a dick 

I AGREE WITH YOU. I'M SO MAD I NEED TO TYPE IN BIG BOLD LETTERS!!!!!!11111111111

Wow. not only bold, but size 14 font. You *must* be mad. and all those 1's and all.

[Quemical]

Yeah, i was so mad i typed 1s, but now i am calm

[bishman82]

Op sort of knows what he's talking about but he's not quite getting what the main complaints are with people on here, yes i'm sure quite a few people are trying to run the game on old installations of XP, don't know much about optimising their system and have loads of unnecessary crap running in the background but the thing is, the game seems to run badly the further away you get from a 3Ghz processor, even more so if it's a dual core instead of a quad.

 

I've tried it on a C2D-2.2Ghz with a 8800GT and it's not what i would call playable at all, parts of it are but night time causes slowdowns as well as rain and busy areas, just about the only time it is an acceptable level is when i go near less populated areas like the beach. I've used a brand new hard drive especially for testing this game and the only things installed are essential drivers and the actual game, now since the box says minimum is a 1.8Ghz processor, i can only imagine how horrible it must be playing it on something like that.

 

And to make matters worse, the graphics card is sat there with hardly anything to do because the CPU is stuck at 99% and it cant cope with it, game is badly optimised with how people have PC's set up plain and simple.

 

 

 

[Gibbo3771]

more than 14 processes is wank, and you dont need them, get rid of steam, and the bullsh*t nvidia boot up crap. Find out what all the rest do for you.

 

 

My system by the way is core2 8200 @3.ghz, 4 gig OCZ800, 9600 gt XXX version

 

peace

hmm, i have SLI 9600GT's, i have like 70 Proccesses running sometimes tops 110-115 and my game runs like sh*t, yet again that is on vista, on xp i have like 20-30 proccess's running with the exact same spec and what a suprise i still cant run it

 

[Quemical]

OP should have had a better aproach than to pretty much say everyone that can't run the game is a PC n00b.

 

I can run my game fine but just because it works for me, i'm not gonna be arrogant and say everyone else that can't run the game is a dumb n00b because i really don't know sh*t about other ppls PC knowledge and what may be causing their game to not run.

 

I defrag, clean my registry and do runs with CCleaner constantly, so my system runs smooth. I keep my list in msconfig clean from clutter to start up. Is that why my game runs with minimal problems? Maybe

[Gaffa08]

@ OP, I run the game fine, so does it mean everyone should? No. This is a PC thread, not consoles. Each and every PC runs different, even with the same setup. Consoles all run the same, so your either mistaking a PC for a console, or you have no idea what your talking about.

 

I think I average 30-40fps, my specs are...

 

Quad Core 2.4GHZ

4GB Corsair 800MHZ

Vista 64bit Home

8800GTX 768MB

 

I play the game with the following...

 

Res: 1680 x 1050

Texture quality: High

Render Quality: Highest

Draw Distance: 30

Detail Distance: 10

Traffic Density: 20

Shadow Density: 0

 

With my PC I should be maxing GTA4 out, but no, I'm not. Its not peoples fault because the game IS a sh*tty port.

[Frostshocker]

Actually, you can polish a turd.

true but its still a turd....

[Fuel_81]

I agree that R* could have taken the time to give us parameters at least to shut off reflections, shadows, bloom, ect., and could optimize the game a very minute amount more - but I really think thats as far as it's gonna go.

 

I agree with the OP on a few things; comparing Crysis to GTA4 is ludacris and lacking information - far..FAR more view distance, actively higher intelligence AI, physics (going on almost in every second in multiple locations, i.e. cars <mixture of physics + AI at once x the amount of vehicles on the screen + the amount of people on the street). Tally in the view distance (which is fully visible at any given second even at low detail distance settings afaik), vertexes, background tasks - Crysis is a short winded showboat and GTA4 is long winded hard headed bastard. I can give this game headroom for justifying it's bad performance because of it's brute forced multitude and weakness of our current CPU's vs GPU's

 

As far as ram goes, I've got 25 processes running @ around 200MB of 2GB used at XP's full start. Open GTA4 and you open RSSC, Steam, Windows Live, A font program, and some other I can't recall - not to mention GTA4 itself - the bloat is a bit retarded - and I'd still think that way if I had 4GB.

 

 

[Alucard155]

So it's my fault that before the "patch" I had absolutly no problems and after installing it, the game crashed about every 10minutes, after re-install a few minutes ago I tried again and now I hear only the music sound files, I don't hear voices, footsteps, carengines, etc... everything silent exept for the music... So, this is really my fault huh? Then I guess I'm very sorry to have f*cked up.. Pardon me Rockstar...

[MMhardKy]

Everyone justifying the insane requirements of this game by saying how much it's happening in the city, tell me, what is it that is happening here that stresses the CPU so much and wasn't in San Andreas or Vice City?

 

That's right, nothing!

 

It's a crappy port. Xbox360 is on par with a very cheap PC these days and there is no reason for GTA4 to run this bad and besides crappy coding.

It's heavily CPU limited almost until 3.2GHz Quad!

 

/THREAD

Edited December 15, 2008 by MMhardKy

[Gaffa08]

You can say that, but people will come back by saying "its a new engine!"

 

As people keep trying to use the city as a poor excuse, I've play many games that are allot more demanding on the CPU than GTA4. To name one, SupCom.

 

Don't use the city as an excuse, because with the technology we have now days there AIN'T no excuses. 4 CORES ain't enough power to max out the density of GTA4? Yeh bollocks. The people that use the "living city" as an excuse, you need to learn some facts.

 

One main FACT - The game is poorly optimised and a crappy port over that is not even worth half of what people are paying for it. This is the ONLY reason why the game runs sh*t for most people.

 

EDIT: Just so you know, I run the game ok I guess. I've had a couple crashes but nothing serious. Although, with the amount of money I've spent on this PC, I should be maxing the game out, not making adjustments so I can squeeze a few more FPS.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Gaffa08

[Fuel_81]

 

Everyone justifying the insane requirements of this game by saying how much it's happening in the city, tell me, what is it that is happening here and wasn't in San Andreas or Vice City?

 

That's right, nothing!

 

It's a crappy port. Xbox360 is on par with a very cheap PC these days and there is no reason for GTA4 to run this bad besides crappy coding.

 

/THREAD

...Euphoria and general physics for one?

SA, VC, 3; GTA3 engine - prerendered. Each fall, the same animation. Each hit, the same animation - it is all in memory and not in real-time (real-time requiring the CPU to process gravity + weight + structure.

Nothing on the street in 3's engine either - compare them both. Look at the crap rolling around, garbage cans, paper, cups.

No reflections, *Edit >wrong >no bloom, no blur<< , lower polly count, lower texture resolution (even onl low), less dynamics (clouds, sun, effects on the game, almost no comparison to the lighting in 3, car physics (extremely simplistic), ect ect ect.

Damage modeling <real-time again, no prerendering.

 

C'mon?! Logic anyone?

Edited December 15, 2008 by Fuel_81

[MMhardKy]

 

Everyone justifying the insane requirements of this game by saying how much it's happening in the city, tell me, what is it that is happening here and wasn't in San Andreas or Vice City?

 

That's right, nothing!

 

It's a crappy port. Xbox360 is on par with a very cheap PC these days and there is no reason for GTA4 to run this bad besides crappy coding.

 

/THREAD

...Euphoria and general physics for one?

SA, VC, 3; GTA3 engine - prerendered. Each fall, the same animation. Each hit, the same animation - it is all in memory and not in real-time (real-time requiring the CPU to process gravity + weight + structure.

Nothing on the street in 3's engine either - compare them both. Look at the crap rolling around, garbage cans, paper, cups.

No reflections, *Edit >wrong >no bloom, no blur<< , lower polly count, lower texture resolution (even onl low), less dynamics (clouds, sun, effects on the game, almost no comparison to the lighting in 3, car physics (extremely simplistic), ect ect ect.

 

C'mon?! Logic anyone?

OK, I forgot about the physics, but I don't see it being THAT demanding to max out such CPUs, not after I see the things I can do in Crysis and not maxing out my CPU.

 

The other stuff should be processed by the GPUs which aren't properly utilised.

[Gaffa08]

 

Everyone justifying the insane requirements of this game by saying how much it's happening in the city, tell me, what is it that is happening here and wasn't in San Andreas or Vice City?

 

That's right, nothing!

 

It's a crappy port. Xbox360 is on par with a very cheap PC these days and there is no reason for GTA4 to run this bad besides crappy coding.

 

/THREAD

...Euphoria and general physics for one?

SA, VC, 3; GTA3 engine - prerendered. Each fall, the same animation. Each hit, the same animation - it is all in memory and not in real-time (real-time requiring the CPU to process gravity + weight + structure.

Nothing on the street in 3's engine either - compare them both. Look at the crap rolling around, garbage cans, paper, cups.

No reflections, *Edit >wrong >no bloom, no blur<< , lower polly count, lower texture resolution (even onl low), less dynamics (clouds, sun, effects on the game, almost no comparison to the lighting in 3, car physics (extremely simplistic), ect ect ect.

 

C'mon?! Logic anyone?

Fair enough, people say its stupid to compare Crysis to GTA4. I agree. Although one game that you can compare GTA4 to is Fallout 3. If anyone says "that's bollocks" how can you compare those. Well its simple really... Even though both games are completely different in there own respective ways. They are both FREE ROAMING games, and both have a LIVING CITY. Even though Fallout 3 doesn't have vehicles, you have even MORE going on in Fallout than you do in GTA4. graphics are 100 times better, physics are 100 times better, AI everything... But let me ask you this... Why is it with Fallout 3, I can MAX out every single setting and still get an average of 50-60FPS? That's with AA, Vsync the works but GTA4, well... No AA, no Vsync everything maxed out and it just crashes... Oh another thing to add, map sizes... Fallout 3's map is maybe 10x bigger than Liberty City and LIVING!

 

Someone please explain this. Don't say, "I know, its because they use different engines". Yes that's correct, but it shouldn't make any difference. They are both doing roughly the same thing.

 

Simple answer, Rockstar have lost the plot.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Gaffa08

[MMhardKy]

Bad port. There's your explanation.

[Fuel_81]

 

Everyone justifying the insane requirements of this game by saying how much it's happening in the city, tell me, what is it that is happening here and wasn't in San Andreas or Vice City?

 

That's right, nothing!

 

It's a crappy port. Xbox360 is on par with a very cheap PC these days and there is no reason for GTA4 to run this bad besides crappy coding.

 

/THREAD

...Euphoria and general physics for one?

SA, VC, 3; GTA3 engine - prerendered. Each fall, the same animation. Each hit, the same animation - it is all in memory and not in real-time (real-time requiring the CPU to process gravity + weight + structure.

Nothing on the street in 3's engine either - compare them both. Look at the crap rolling around, garbage cans, paper, cups.

No reflections, *Edit >wrong >no bloom, no blur<< , lower polly count, lower texture resolution (even onl low), less dynamics (clouds, sun, effects on the game, almost no comparison to the lighting in 3, car physics (extremely simplistic), ect ect ect.

 

C'mon?! Logic anyone?

OK, I forgot about the physics, but I don't see it being THAT demanding to max out such CPUs.

 

The other stuff should be processed by the GPUs which aren't properly utilised.

Physics kill the CPU, I mean kill our current CPU's.

CSS - there's a game thats, what? 5 years old now? The ragdoll and simplistic physics in the game have held the 5 year old game from tripling fps rates (as most GPU heavy games do every 3 years for). You can run CSS on a GTX280 and get the same frame-rate at heavily physics ridden times in the game as a 7900GT.

 

GTA4 is doing simplistic physics + actively intelligent AI calculations x the amount of physical objects in one radius.