babarian225 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 aru's File Modding Ability Patch http://www.gtagaming.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111501 then edit Visual settings file in GTA IV/ common data dir and turn off bloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaoulDukeHsT Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 Installed, no gains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babarian225 Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 Installed, no gains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Sixguns Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 I'll get vista when hell freezes over.. or Mojave.. or whatever marketing scheme Gates is calling his cluster F*#% of an OS now a days.. The day I pay to have my pc turned into an advertising machine is the day i get utinized.. My advice.. stick with the 180.48.. 180.84 caused crashes in other games.. 181.00 is going to likely do the same thing.. wait for a final.. it's beta for a reason. you'll likely just end up trying to play another game and crashing horribly for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruXter Posted December 17, 2008 Share Posted December 17, 2008 I'll get vista when hell freezes over.. Well when that cold day comes along, you can have your own personal opinion from personal experiences. untill then we love to hear quoted conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGun Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 I'll get vista when hell freezes over..or Mojave.. or whatever marketing scheme Gates is calling his cluster F*#% of an OS I am never getting Vista cuz Windows 7 is really looking good. Looks like MS might finally got it pretty right this time round.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnottis Posted December 18, 2008 Author Share Posted December 18, 2008 181.00 work perfectly here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unrealwolf Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 8800GTS 640, no fps gained with those drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Pilot Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 They actually slowed my game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnotyou Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 It may be just subjective, but to me, the shadows look much better after this patch. Plus between R* patch, and these drivers, I have no more memory leak/memory reallocation problem. Hours of play with no problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcin6 Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 GeForce 9800 GTX+ BFG OC no fps gained with those drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zefra Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Attention ! The reason why the benchmarking tool give's more fps then in the game is because it only test's your GPU. Most if not all ingame benchmarking tools only test your GPU so please before some of you start yelling the benchmarking tool is broken know what it does first. GTA 4 has crap performance YES but some of you 'whineasses' should just play games on a console really when I see the stuff posted on this forum, I'm not talking about wether you knew what the benchmarking did or not but i've seen some real pootalk on here. There also has been posted a tweak for the dissapearing textures by monkey for those with dissapearing textures. It worked for me atleast, let's hope it does for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnotyou Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Something else I notice NOBODY mention, is the fact on Xbox360 and PS3 the game is locked at 30FPS. Period. No more, often less. Anytime you run GTA4 on your pc, and it is at even 31 FPS... it is running smoother than the console version. If you can achieve 24-30 FPS, then YOU ARE RUNNING IT AT CONSOLE PERFORMANCE. Even better than console though, since you have higher textures, longer draw distance. Keep that in mind next time you whine about getting 45 FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szterke Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 and what about an x64 os for example vista, does the game run better??in the end it supports 64 bit processors like duals or quads...wonder if that would boost the overall game perfomance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicida Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 and what about an x64 os for example vista, does the game run better??in the end it supports 64 bit processors like duals or quads...wonder if that would boost the overall game perfomance Not for me anyway on Vista x64, XP x86 gives me the best performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlingShotUK Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Something else I notice NOBODY mention, is the fact on Xbox360 and PS3 the game is locked at 30FPS. Period. No more, often less. Anytime you run GTA4 on your pc, and it is at even 31 FPS... it is running smoother than the console version. If you can achieve 24-30 FPS, then YOU ARE RUNNING IT AT CONSOLE PERFORMANCE. Even better than console though, since you have higher textures, longer draw distance. Keep that in mind next time you whine about getting 45 FPS. I dont know about the xbox version but the PS3 does not maintain 30fps constant. I remember various times where it was visibly lagging slightly. Still perfectly playable but when lots of stuff was going on the FPS was definetely going down. So far, the PC version has felt infinetly smoother and more responsive than the PS3 version, never lagging to the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicida Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 I dont know about the xbox version but the PS3 does not maintain 30fps constant. I remember various times where it was visibly lagging slightly. Still perfectly playable but when lots of stuff was going on the FPS was definetely going down. I was playing it today on the PS3 and I couldn't remember it being so bad. Any sort of explosion or big smash ups and it chugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4ts Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Well I remember the console version playing in 15-30 fps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babarian225 Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 Most peoples Pc getting 60 fps are almost 4 times more powerful than the consoles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
..'Ant'.. Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 I prefer better the 180.84 drivers over these ones in my opinion the 181.00 lags more for GTA IV. But the 180.84 runs smoother for me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lubosz Posted December 18, 2008 Share Posted December 18, 2008 I prefer better the 180.84 drivers over these ones in my opinion the 181.00 lags more for GTA IV. But the 180.84 runs smoother for me so. +1 181.00 = less FPS for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledar4 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 hello i have a nvidia fx 3600m 512mb 256 bits and i cant install these drivers, the setup sent my an error: "the nvidia installer cant find any driver for the original hardware (more or less)" in spanish : "el instalador de envidia no ha podido encontrar ningun driver compatible con el hardware original", the drivers 181.00 doesnt work to me, and my card appear in the list of compatibility cards, some body know how can i do to install these drivers?????? thanx and sorry for my poooor english Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireItUp Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 (edited) Why on gods earth do you have xp running on a quad core with 4 gig or ram and a gtx 260? where's the sense in that. For your information I have Vista Ultimate and it runs WAY! better than xp, I have had less crashes and have'nt need to reformat once since it came out unlike xp, 3 reformats and installs due to viruses. So I suggest you go and get Vista and utilize the full capability of your system. Do you mean vista is better for just quad cores? I tried vista on my dual core and it was 10 fps worse than xp. I'll never install vista again. IMO it's nothing but crap. Edited December 19, 2008 by FireItUp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireItUp Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 and what about an x64 os for example vista, does the game run better??in the end it supports 64 bit processors like duals or quads...wonder if that would boost the overall game perfomance Not for me anyway on Vista x64, XP x86 gives me the best performance. I have tried it on both xp x86 and xp x64 and im sticking with x86, it seems to give me the best performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancaster77 Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Maybe its just you because ive never had any BSOD with any of beta drivers lately. 180.84 on a clean install of Win XP SP3 caused BSODs in anything 3d / games. There were about 10 threads on this, it was the drivers. They worked fine on a previous installation that had earlier drivers installed before though - this ONLY affected a clean installation of XP SP3 and 180.84. Okay for XP but not for vista. Not everyone likes to use the resource hogging Vista Your back in the stone age my friend. Vista is safer and more reliable especially after the sp1 update. Only problem I ever get on Vista is on the rare occasion when I boot up my system gets a blue screen and I recieve a memory dump error, 100mg of system ram is dumped. I clean it out and the system runs perfectly with no hiccups. It happens once every 2 weeks. I say try it before you buy it and comment on it after you've tired it, so don't knock it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnottis Posted December 19, 2008 Author Share Posted December 19, 2008 Why on gods earth do you have xp running on a quad core with 4 gig or ram and a gtx 260? where's the sense in that. For your information I have Vista Ultimate and it runs WAY! better than xp, I have had less crashes and have'nt need to reformat once since it came out unlike xp, 3 reformats and installs due to viruses. So I suggest you go and get Vista and utilize the full capability of your system. Do you mean vista is better for just quad cores? I tried vista on my dual core and it was 10 fps worse than xp. I'll never install vista again. IMO it's nothing but crap. Vista is garbage, even MS knows it - thats why they are pushing Windows 7 out the door so quickly. Vista is probably the worst OS ever made. Of course the idiots that ran out and dropped $600 on won't admit it, they will tell you how it's more secure and it's faster for them. I mean whatever makes you feel good about yourself. Just quit lying to the rest of us, I got it free from someone I still dual boot just so I can compare XP x86 and Windows 7 to it and let me tell you, Vista is the worst piece of software I've ever used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zyrex Posted December 19, 2008 Share Posted December 19, 2008 Statistics Average FPS: 51.54 Duration: 37.25 sec CPU Usage: 73% System memory usage: 59% Video memory usage: 65% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (59 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 180.84 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi) Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz Statistics Average FPS: 50.59 Duration: 37.26 sec CPU Usage: 70% System memory usage: 59% Video memory usage: 65% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (59 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 181.00 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi) Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz Almost same FPS for me. With the 180.84 i had some texture problems (not much) but with the 181.00 i didn't see any problems (YET) Oh, and the 1.0.1.0 patch was heaven for me !!! before 1.0.1.0 i had crashes all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FX2K Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 If this driver worked for you, which it seems it did for a small minority, just a note... I turned on GTA today to V. low framerates and thought WTF Went into Nvidia Control Panel and it said Version Mismatch It seems Vista decided to download and upgrade (not) by drivers to some old 178.xx ones I also wanted to add, that these drivers also fixed a number of issues I saw, which the 180.84 drivers brought on (180.48 where fine) such as graphic corruption where GTA would draw the same screen multiple times like window in window i.e on my resolution I would get what looked like an 800X600 window in the top left, another one to the right and half a screen below. At this point it would also crash and leave my windows desktop with hundreds of multi colour pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoz Posted December 20, 2008 Share Posted December 20, 2008 (edited) StatisticsAverage FPS: 37.17 Duration: 37.09 sec CPU Usage: 96% System memory usage: 61% Video memory usage: 100% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: High View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 61 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+ Video Driver version: 180.84 Audio Adapter: Luidsprekers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz File ID: benchmark.cli StatisticsAverage FPS: 35.65 Duration: 37.14 sec CPU Usage: 95% System memory usage: 56% Video memory usage: 100% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: High View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 61 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+ Video Driver version: 181.00 Audio Adapter: Luidsprekers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz File ID: benchmark.cli Uhh.. StatisticsAverage FPS: 39.60 Duration: 36.92 sec CPU Usage: 96% System memory usage: 57% Video memory usage: 100% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 61 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+ Video Driver version: 181.00 Audio Adapter: Luidsprekers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz File ID: Benchmark.cli .. ingame it playes a lot better with high/high. The drivers doens't make any difference over here. Edited December 20, 2008 by Ronaldoz 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