ezisxl Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I upgraded from E6400 (2,1GHz) to E8500 (3,1GHz) and it gained me no fps! Btw I play all textures to high (@800x600) getting ~20fps (fps do not change when I change texture settings to low though fps changes when changing resolution to 1024x728 - ~15 fps) - this is the same for E6400 or E8500 . Rest of rig: gpu: 7950gt (512mb) ram: 3gb mb: gigabyte 965P-S3 os: xp sp3 My next step was to upgrade gpu to 9800gt, now I am not sure. p.s. When I changed CPU I didn’t reinstall neither XP neither GTA. ?-> How/Why it comes that after gaining 1GHz of CPU I have no fps increase? Thanks for any clues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cigarettes Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 maybe is the game that you need to change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cacarla Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Try and re-install the game. I doubt it'll make any difference because increase in clock speed should give immediate results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamOperator Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Are you using the benchmark tool? It would be interesting to see the results. High texture settings is too much for your card. That will hold your performance back. Try benchmarks at med. I just posted this in an OC topic, but I went from 40.02fps in the benchmark to 48.30 after OC my Q6600 from 2.4 to 3.5 and GPU too 730/1020 (GPU OC only added 1.6FPS). (Using tweak from MonkeyMhz to trick shadows/reflections into 800x600). Vista Ultimate SP1 is x64. Shadows at 5. Traffic 100, but I don't think that affects the benchmark. Average FPS: 48.30 Duration: 37.08 sec CPU Usage: 78% System memory usage: 57% Video memory usage: 96% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1080 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 23 Detail Distance: 20 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 Video Driver version: 180.84 Audio Adapter: Line 1/2 (M-Audio Delta Audiophile) Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle016 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Ya I went from 2.4GHz stock to 3.3GHz OC'd and didn't notice much of a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highwayman72 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Ya I went from 2.4GHz stock to 3.3GHz OC'd and didn't notice much of a difference. ditto.... OC from 2.4 to 3.6 and nothing changed (although did in all other games), this simply aint optimised for the PC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roypaci Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I upgraded from E6400 (2,1GHz) to E8500 (3,1GHz) and it gained me no fps!Btw I play all textures to high (@800x600) getting ~20fps (fps do not change when I change texture settings to low though fps changes when changing resolution to 1024x728 - ~15 fps) - this is the same for E6400 or E8500 . Rest of rig: gpu: 7950gt (512mb) ram: 3gb mb: gigabyte 965P-S3 os: xp sp3 My next step was to upgrade gpu to 9800gt, now I am not sure. p.s. When I changed CPU I didn’t reinstall neither XP neither GTA. ?-> How/Why it comes that after gaining 1GHz of CPU I have no fps increase? Thanks for any clues. Fault of the game... Don`t upgrade any other parts `till the game is not ready to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feedmyspitz Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 only noobs upgrade their computer for this game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezisxl Posted December 30, 2008 Author Share Posted December 30, 2008 I'll still run the benchmarks.. I think that over my 15 year gaming experience I have never ever seen anything like this! It's like a black hole - GTA 4 eats up any source of computing power and releases nothing in return. there is no logic – any other games I know do react to the changes of resolution or texture quality with at least some fps changes but this .. this is just impolite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwards Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) Sigh. Ever heard of a bottleneck? If your GPU is already holding you back because it can't keep up with your CPU, for example, getting a faster CPU won't help you. No surprise here. Now get off my lawn. Edited December 30, 2008 by Edwards sysnode.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creat3d22 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Sigh. Ever heard of a bottleneck? If your GPU is already holding you back because it can't keep up with your CPU, for example, getting a faster CPU won't help you. No surprise here. Now get off my lawn. Yep, and 512mb isn't enough for High textures... they need at least 600mb. OP: Instead of buying a new CPU, you could've easily overclocked that E6400 beyond the 3ghz point and gotten a better GPU. Of course the FPS doesn't change when you change the texture resolution since your card is performing just the same (it CANNOT stream all of the High textures no matter how hard you want to believe it should). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dethred Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Anyone that thinks this game is anything but a piss poor programming job needs to jump off a tall bridge. At 800x600 resolution, any video card will see a benefit with a CPU upgrade of that magnitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elBATCHo Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 (edited) Ya I went from 2.4GHz stock to 3.3GHz OC'd and didn't notice much of a difference. ditto.... OC from 2.4 to 3.6 and nothing changed (although did in all other games), this simply aint optimised for the PC same for me. that is why i set my q6600 to 3.0ghz since it uses the least voltage at that speed. being at 3.4 and 3.2 did almost nothing and it was tested to be stable. Edited December 30, 2008 by elBATCHo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron123 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I upgraded from E6400 (2,1GHz) to E8500 (3,1GHz) and it gained me no fps!Btw I play all textures to high (@800x600) getting ~20fps (fps do not change when I change texture settings to low though fps changes when changing resolution to 1024x728 - ~15 fps) - this is the same for E6400 or E8500 . Rest of rig: gpu: 7950gt (512mb) ram: 3gb mb: gigabyte 965P-S3 os: xp sp3 My next step was to upgrade gpu to 9800gt, now I am not sure. p.s. When I changed CPU I didn’t reinstall neither XP neither GTA. ?-> How/Why it comes that after gaining 1GHz of CPU I have no fps increase? Thanks for any clues. GTA IV worls on 3 core cpu like xbox360, that's why you better upgrade next time to core 2 quad like the cheap q6600 2.4 GHZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamOperator Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Sigh. Ever heard of a bottleneck? If your GPU is already holding you back because it can't keep up with your CPU, for example, getting a faster CPU won't help you. No surprise here. Now get off my lawn. Exactly. It's all about what's holding you back. An extra 1Ghz on the CPU might help somebody else, but not you because your asking for more out of your video card than you can have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezisxl Posted December 30, 2008 Author Share Posted December 30, 2008 Shouldn’t than there be a difference between having Texture and Render quality to High or to Low? Because there is no change in fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One-time Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Lol, texture quality depends on the GPU and Vram, not the CPU. No surprise if it does make no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamOperator Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 One would expect so, but add a crappy port to an older video card, maybe not. Let me emphasize the crappy port aspect please. I know that doesn't help you though. You might try to find others w/ 7950's here and see what they get. Have you tried the tweak that MonkeyMhz figured out? Tricks the game into 800x600 shadows/reflections? Of course this only matters if your trying a res. that's higher than 8x6. Lets see some benchmark results to see your vram, CPU and system ram usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Thats it, bottleneck, your GPU is slowing down your rig, you can upgrade to a i7 965 at 4 Ghz that youll get the same FPS, if you keep using this old GPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick18 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 the ghz don't matter as long as you got your self 4 cores! I mean it obviously needs those extra 2 cores to handle how awesome the game is, Rockstars awesomeness takes up at least 1 and a half cores. god... Why do I have to explain this to people you should know already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron123 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 the ghz don't matter as long as you got your self 4 cores! I mean it obviously needs those extra 2 cores to handle how awesome the game is, Rockstars awesomeness takes up at least 1 and a half cores. god... Why do I have to explain this to people you should know already. rat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp2018 Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 GPU bottleneck, simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grand.theft.auto Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 The only option you have is to lower your reslution (to get an increase in fps), so as to create a CPU bottleneck. AT lower resolutions, resources are more sided to CPU as GPU is eating up less resources. Regardless, you were stupid of buying a new CPU. You were better off OC your core 2 duo, and getting an 8800gt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mravikt Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 This game needs multiple cores. The more you have, the faster it gets. Upgrading to QuadCore Phenom 9850, from 4600+ DualCore gained me over 25 fps+. Now av. 45-50 in 1440x900. I use ASUS EAH 4870. Only this piece of sh*t keeps crashing always... Anyway first you should get a faster video card, ATi 4800 series or equivalent in nVidia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angryandroid Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I couldn't believe when I read people saying this game was CPU dependant when it's clearly GPU necked. I really can't imagine how 4 cores would make much difference either, 2 of them running at 2.4Ghz seems plentiful to keep things running very smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elysian Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I couldn't believe when I read people saying this game was CPU dependant when it's clearly GPU necked. I really can't imagine how 4 cores would make much difference either, 2 of them running at 2.4Ghz seems plentiful to keep things running very smooth. seriously, my dual core opteron at 2.5ghz is one helluva processor, its never been slow, at anything, until GTA4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angryandroid Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Well Elysian, my C2D had problems with SupCom and another similar game which name escapes me. It is currently owning GTA 4 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
