The Horror Is Alive Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have a Core 2 Duo 2.5GHz T9300. I can jack the graphics up to 1280x800-Medium-Medium-25-25-50-0, and get about 15-25FPS usually. I can take the graphics down to 1280x800-Low-Low-1-1-1-0, and get the same framerate. I can also take the resolution down to lowest (800x600-Low-Low-1-1-1-0), and get slightly better performance (usually 20FPS+). My specs: ATI Radeon HD3650 Mobility 4GB RAM Vista 64 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat. It can tear through pretty much all applications and games without too much trouble. Do you NEED a Quad to get 30FPS+? It's just I can't believe that the game needs more than 5GHz of power to get it around 30FPS. Also, it seems that changing the resolution is the only way to get better performance, which leads me to believe that if you've got the video memory, then you can take the slider bars as far as your memory allowance will let you without a performance hit. This game is really confuzzling with it's power needs. BTW, I've already finished it with my 15-25FPS, and it wasn't too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[CTD]LaBan Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat. I wonder when people realize that a 2.5 GHz 2x processor ain't equal to 5GHz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 LaBan' date='Jan 18 2009, 15:13'] 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat. I wonder when people realize that a 2.5 GHz 2x processor ain't equal to 5GHz. It becomes 5GHz if necessary, as the cores act in unison when told to by a multi-core supporting program such as GTAIV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modCJpls Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 The T9300 doesn't work that way...as a dual core it shares the load (Both tied together @ 2.5ghz) if it was 5Ghz, you'd have 2 CPU Slots on the motherboard. A T9300 is one CPU with 2 Physical CORES. I Have the exact same specs as you do (Except I Have Ultimate 32-bit) From the activity I've seen on my cores, GTA IV uses basically one core. Infact, for some reason it doesnt even use SpeedStep to boost game performance unlike the rest of my games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 as the cores act in unison when told to by a multi-core supporting program such as GTAIV. GTA 4 definetely has a great multi core optimization, i can check with the G15 + Everest Ultimate it uses the four cores of my CPU all time, and hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shivanandrs Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Do you NEED a Quad to get 30FPS+? LOL! I guess so, maybe you could overclock. Just recently i set the affinity of GTA iv in the task manager to run on only 2 of my cores and found that the game would not cross 25fps @ stock 2.4Ghz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Horror Is Alive Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 I've added a long and detailed post to my blog with my research and findings. The bottom line is here, folks: Get a quad-core, or live with under 30FPS. That's the end of my wondering. I know for certain now that GTAIV pretty much relies on the CPU for performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) I know for certain now that GTAIV pretty much relies on the CPU for performance. Pinky has posted about this, maybe at 4 Ghz - 4.2 Ghz a quad (except the i7) is fast enough to "transfer" the rig's limit to the GPU / RAM, considering a high end VGA such as the GTX 280. Edited January 18, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have a Core 2 Duo 2.5GHz T9300. I can jack the graphics up to 1280x800-Medium-Medium-25-25-50-0, and get about 15-25FPS usually. I can take the graphics down to 1280x800-Low-Low-1-1-1-0, and get the same framerate. I can also take the resolution down to lowest (800x600-Low-Low-1-1-1-0), and get slightly better performance (usually 20FPS+). My specs: ATI Radeon HD3650 Mobility 4GB RAM Vista 64 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat. It can tear through pretty much all applications and games without too much trouble. Do you NEED a Quad to get 30FPS+? It's just I can't believe that the game needs more than 5GHz of power to get it around 30FPS. Also, it seems that changing the resolution is the only way to get better performance, which leads me to believe that if you've got the video memory, then you can take the slider bars as far as your memory allowance will let you without a performance hit. This game is really confuzzling with it's power needs. BTW, I've already finished it with my 15-25FPS, and it wasn't too bad. Really the cpu becomes a bottleneck when it can't run an application at 100%. But everyone assumes otherwise. I find it funny. You can bottleneck at any processor level. Sure, but that's not really want makes your computer defined as a bottlenecker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 as the cores act in unison when told to by a multi-core supporting program such as GTAIV. GTA 4 definetely has a great multi core optimization, i can check with the G15 + Everest Ultimate it uses the four cores of my CPU all time, and hard. Hmm that doesn't seem hard to me. You still have a lot left. And if GTA 4 really ran at 100% it would be very smooth unless you really under ran your graphic card, but regardless you would see a lot of smoothness around. I haven't seen any of this. Just leaves me to believe there is some sh*tty code. I can get 60+ frames and I see lag here and there. If the benchmark is realistic that shouldn't happen. People claim it's where I am and what I am doing, sure, but if it still shows 60+ on screen then what do I assume? I'm stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Hmm that doesn't seem hard to me. You still have a lot left. And if GTA 4 really ran at 100% it would be very smooth unless you really under ran your graphic card, but regardless you would see a lot of smoothness around. I haven't seen any of this. Just leaves me to believe there is some sh*tty code. I can get 60+ frames and I see lag here and there. If the benchmark is realistic that shouldn't happen. People claim it's where I am and what I am doing, sure, but if it still shows 60+ on screen then what do I assume? I'm stupid? I agree with you, the benchmark is FAR from being realistic. This fact + the announced "requirements" for the PC version of GTA 4 (unrealistic too) were two big mistakes by R* imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Hmm that doesn't seem hard to me. You still have a lot left. And if GTA 4 really ran at 100% it would be very smooth unless you really under ran your graphic card, but regardless you would see a lot of smoothness around. I haven't seen any of this. Just leaves me to believe there is some sh*tty code. I can get 60+ frames and I see lag here and there. If the benchmark is realistic that shouldn't happen. People claim it's where I am and what I am doing, sure, but if it still shows 60+ on screen then what do I assume? I'm stupid? I agree with you, the benchmark is FAR from being realistic. This fact + the announced "requirements" for the PC version of GTA 4 (unrealistic too) were two big mistakes by R* imo. Well I would honestly love to see their code, but I'm not going to work backwards and run through an assembly, very difficult to read anything and takes a longer time to make changes. I forgot to mention they could of codded the fps test of theirs bad and it doesn't really compare to how the game really runs. Use another tester and it's a different story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle016 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat True. It's just too bad there isn't a processor that's even close to doing that at stock speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat True. It's just too bad there isn't a processor that's even close to doing that at stock speeds. You mean 5Ghz per core, and op means 5Ghz as the sum of all CPU cores, like 2 x 2.5Ghz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSD T Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 My rig runs 2 cores at 4,500MHz per core, and it really shows that when neither the GPU, the memory bandwith or CPU is maxed out the games performs woefully considering the power in relation especially with the very little going on ingame. At the most peak filled scenes it will go to around 22FPS then in sopme sh*tty indoor box room it will go no higher that 38FPS, then 72 when all seems like chaos on screen with all the traffic and peds interacting. Shame really, just a half arsed hacked up port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK47-Maximus Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 LaBan' date='Jan 18 2009, 09:13'] 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat. I wonder when people realize that a 2.5 GHz 2x processor ain't equal to 5GHz. I guess never, in that case my Q6600 @ 3.6 GHZ is actually a 14GHz CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 LaBan,Jan 18 2009, 09:13] 5GHz of power is by no mean a pussy feat. I wonder when people realize that a 2.5 GHz 2x processor ain't equal to 5GHz. I guess never, in that case my Q6600 @ 3.6 GHZ is actually a 14GHz CPU. A lot of applications/programs run at the single level core. 3.6 ghz can be easily used. But yea if they all are coded with multi-threading then it would be nice 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