gpux Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 1280 x 1024. Native Resolution of my 19-inch LG Display, Playing with all settings set to max and it runs smooth for me. Lack of AA is really hurting though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordByte Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 20" 1680x1050 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laport Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 (edited) Im playing at 800x600(75hz) windowed, enlarged to my full screen (1280x1024 75hz) low low so it doesnt crash view distance = 14 detail distance = 7 vehicle density = 72 shadow density = 0 Ive turned my stock xfx 8800 cooler with rivatuner up to 100% fixed fan speed in stead of the stock 60% max value (because ive ordered a aftermarket one, the stock coolers do 78 degrees C, the triple arctic cooling one does 58C) It stutters now sometimes but it almost never crashes its always recovering when stuttering. I sometimes get the RESC10 message after at least one hour of intense gaming fps: high: 72 avg: 45 low: 38 (when it freezes of course its 0 fps but without looking at the freeze fps data, the lowest is 38 when playing in downtown). gameplay>graphics IMO. I just finished the bank robbing mission (three leaf clover, which crashed when i got out of the bank when i had the fullscreen 1280x1024 settings.) Im using the xtreme-g modded 185.20 drivers, which gives me about 2/3 fps more than the original 185.20 drivers. get them here if you want to try them out (dl urls for various windows os): http://hosted.filefront.com/gozilla1/ And in the NVidia Control panel @ 3d settings, mipmap (i think) is at high performance. Theres only one thing which is normally at quality and i put it at high performance. That gives you a performance boost depending on your config of course, but when coping with crashes and/or low fps an option. Peace, Laport Edited January 5, 2009 by laport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okei Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 10x10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycold Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 1280x1024 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 (edited) 1680x1050, this game runs way better the higher you set the resolution. Like, you bottleneck the game when you try to run it under 1024 because it then needs to become very selective about what it shows and does not show in large textures. You will all get better performance the higher you go, and as you work your way up you'll see it slows down once you reach a point as well - once you reach the point where your machine is now adding and being selective about what holes to fill in on smaller textures. It's hard for me to explain, but running it on low resolution makes the game and your PC work harder to "mash" in as much color as it can for each frame, which costs you clock time. So, to run this game the best, it takes: Set GFX card to Performance for everything then set mipmaps to highest/quality once everything else has been set to performance/let application decide then start upping your resolution until the speeding up turns to slowing down, then back it back to the last fast one then you can go back to your gfx card control panels and start tweaking that as each box and card will do different things with different settings depending on what gimmicks your hardware was designed to sell when it was printed and had it's core/s placed on it 800x600 all the way through 1400x900 are all noticably slower for me than 1680, so give a try. If you are maxed out at 1024 by your monitor, you'll know this much: Once you get a monitor that supports higher resolutions, your GTA will run better as long as your resolution tinyness is your bottleneck Also, view distance and detail distance... I CANNOT notice a difference between what shows up and does not show up between the two settings except detail adds more lights, but other than the further lights, view distance does the same exact thing, so set view distance to 1 and detail to 50, you will not be able to tell a difference and it will seem like you can see for ages. I think detail is all that really matters anyway because I think view distance IS the same thing, just NOT relavant to the player (at least, not in the same way as detail is, I think view is more relevant to the END of detail, and detail is more relevant to player position) Edited January 5, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foges01 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (foges01 @ Jan 5 2009, 03:06) i play with 800x600 every setting on its lowest and still runs slow Intel Quad CPU 2.40GHz 2.00GB RAM Radeon 2600xt HD 512mb Cant play any higher or the game runs extreemly slow and laggy With the same config, i play in 1024/768 or 1280/1024 without lags. Medium Very High 50 65 40 5 Strange What fps do u get If i play 1024/769 and everything on lowest i get 15fps not realy playable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chevyboy Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 1680 x 1050 (22" monitor) *I'll build a "better" PC before I play on a non native resolution 35 view distance Every other setting / slider maxed. In game benchmark just a tad over 50 FPS, Actual playing FPS is 35-60. Average in an area like star junction high 30's low 40's. E8500 @ 4Ghz 4870 512MB @ 790 / 1100 4gb DDR2 @ 1066 However... my 2 other nearly identical rigs have no such luck. They are lucky to average 20 FPS on those settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FX2K Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just to add some benchmarks to this thread, using the same setup with various min / max settings (not touched textures) Hardware specs are posted at bottom, since there was no point repeating. This should help put the resolution into perspective a little 1 # -------------------------------------------------------------- Statistics Average FPS: 64.93 Duration: 37.08 sec CPU Usage: 64% System memory usage: 73% Video memory usage: 40% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Low View Distance: 1 Detail Distance: 1 2 # -------------------------------------------------------------- Statistics Average FPS: 52.88 Duration: 37.27 sec CPU Usage: 67% System memory usage: 75% Video memory usage: 43% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 3 # -------------------------------------------------------------- Statistics Average FPS: 58.82 Duration: 37.06 sec CPU Usage: 68% System memory usage: 76% Video memory usage: 73% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Low View Distance: 1 Detail Distance: 1 4 # -------------------------------------------------------------- Statistics Average FPS: 43.90 Duration: 37.42 sec CPU Usage: 74% System memory usage: 73% Video memory usage: 74% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 # -------------------------------------------------------------- Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 181.00 Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: Benchmark.cli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prtynkd Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 i play @ 1920x1080 on my 42" lcd tv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemesi5 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 1680x1050 babey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomcatMVD Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 1680 x 1050 22" monitor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sporbie Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 1920*1200, I get the same FPS on that resolution and on 800*600 so it might as well be that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killer45acp Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) I play at 1920 x 1200 on a 24" Samsung 245BW. Benchmark with current settings. Statistics Average FPS: 46.30 Duration: 37.04 sec CPU Usage: 63% System memory usage: 32% Video memory usage: 90% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (59 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 60 Detail Distance: 100 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra Video Driver version: 181.00 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel® Xeon® CPU X3350 @ 2.66GHz Benchmark with the -safemode command. Statistics Average FPS: 65.89 Duration: 36.98 sec CPU Usage: 63% System memory usage: 29% Video memory usage: 40% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 800 x 600 (56 Hz) Texture Quality: Low Render Quality: Low View Distance: 1 Detail Distance: 1 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra Video Driver version: 181.00 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel® Xeon® CPU X3350 @ 2.66GHz Edited January 6, 2009 by killer45acp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 1024x768 @ 85Hz. Can go higher to 1280x1024 (maximum my monitor supports), but at 60Hz my eyes start burning, so I have no option but to stick to 1024x768. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ja Pierdole Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Statistics Average FPS: 35.58 Duration: 37.05 sec CPU Usage: 95% System memory usage: 69% Video memory usage: 50% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (75 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest View Distance: 1 Detail Distance: 1 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB Video Driver version: 180.84 Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device) AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+ 4GB RAM 800 Mhz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggot_CZ Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 1280x1024 High Highest 30 70 100 16 Iam cheerful.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhazzy Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just to add some benchmarks to this thread, using the same setup with various min / max settings (not touched textures)Hardware specs are posted at bottom, since there was no point repeating. This should help put the resolution into perspective a little pff u mad i have same fps at u but at this settings: Statistics Average FPS: 64.49 Duration: 37.09 sec CPU Usage: 52% System memory usage: 56% Video memory usage: 75% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Very High View Distance: 10 Detail Distance: 30 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 185.20 Audio Adapter: SoundMAX HD Audio Intel Pentium III Xeon processor File ID: benchmark.cli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abel. Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Monitor's native, 1440''900. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulletx Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 at 800x600, i can get 16-20 fps, enough to only get kicked from MP 90% of the time. If i slide up to a higher resolution, my fps drops to 10 fps or less - unplayable.Increasing the view distance or detail distance drops the FPS even worse. I've ordered a OC 9600 512mb nvidia, and a power supply, but considering my cpu speed, it prolly wont help too much. have you tried the Ultimate GTA IV Performance Fix sticky to try to bump up res? you play at a higher res without sacrificing (much) performance view distance and detail distance are about GPU, I think, so hopefully your new graphics card can handle it better traffic density is about CPU, but I don't think you need to have it at 1 I have a duo core 2.4GHZ 256 MB 8600 GTS 2 GB RAM and at medium medium 15 20 33 0 I get about 25 fps (missing textures though) so perhaps you could try using some command lines, I think your computer could probably do better before my new minitoer and cpu,graphics card,ram and motherboard i was getting 1fps every 2 seconds,i only spent 200 dallas on a quad core prossesor 4gb ram and a 1gb card!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-vilx- Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 800x600 on 17" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 so basically i'm running the highest res on this forum considering my screen size. 1600x1200 19" no need for AA Nice resolution for a 19" screen what monitor is it ? I can see why you dont need AA on that Im running at 2560X1600 30" and need AA badly Some generic PROVIEW CRT monitor that i got for $80 from a kid who goes to college near me, the sticker in the back came off so i can't even tell what model it is. regardless, best purchase i made in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 800x600 low low 1 1 1 0 omg dont do that. Think of it like this, you need to smoosh big textures into just small area, so really a small screen size is making your game work harder to decide what pixel to color at any given time... So... You should try higher resolutions one by one until it goes slow for you, esocially with this game which I don't think will ever look really really good unless you go max (2560?). But the higher you can push the resolution the better, man, especially with this game and not just because it looks like GameBoy Advance games on that resolution (it does, you got to admit, it looks like an animate MSpaint image at that resolution), but also so you don't end up down-scaling to the point where a small resolution is no longer helping you, it is instead beginning to bottleneck you because once you go to low you clear up math for other things, then you put more load on the math when forcing it to lower the resolution of textures. I bet you keep the same settings and go at the very least to 1024 you won't see much of a difference in speed, and if anything is noticed, you will see it actually goes faster This all depends on your setup. You might be playing on a single core with 256mb video, integrated. amd athalon 64 x 2, 4600+ 2.4 ghz 8500 gt 1024 mb 4gig ram at 800x600, i can get 16-20 fps, enough to only get kicked from MP 90% of the time. If i slide up to a higher resolution, my fps drops to 10 fps or less - unplayable. Increasing the view distance or detail distance drops the FPS even worse. I've ordered a OC 9600 512mb nvidia, and a power supply, but considering my cpu speed, it prolly wont help too much. Wow, you should really be seeing a lot better results than that I would thing, I only have a 1.86ghz core 2 duo, maybe your gfx card will make the world of difference. If it doesn't, send that bitch back and get a cheaper and more powerful and more capable hd3850 and see if then you still need a new processor, because you'll still have some scratch left over too I dont even like ATI, but this 3850 has no issues with IV at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One-time Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 800x600 low low 1 1 1 0 640x480, forced via the command line. low low 1 1 1 0 Ugly "P" blur on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lem-Bert Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 1600 1200 85hz on 21inch EIZO FlexScan F77S high highest 10 10 10 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FX2K Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Just to add some benchmarks to this thread, using the same setup with various min / max settings (not touched textures)Hardware specs are posted at bottom, since there was no point repeating. This should help put the resolution into perspective a little pff u mad i have same fps at u but at this settings: Statistics Average FPS: 64.49 Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) I play at 2560X1600, the above benchmarks where to show the difference between 800X600 and 2560X1600 from lowest to high settings I didnt choose high textures, since at 2560X1600 without forcing no restrictions, I couldnt use the same settings and give a benchmark for comparison My Settings 2560X1600 Medium High Draw Distance 50 Detail Distance 50 Vehicles 50 Shadows 1 Game Benchmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S_G Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 2304x1440 @ 75hz on my workstation 1920x1080 @ 60 hz on the HTPC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 1920x1200 @60Hz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999Jay999 Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 1400, 900 max i can get on my widescreen.. Spec below. Average 24 fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaze Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 because of no AA I'm playing it at [email protected] which is the maximum the game will let me play it on. 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