tiger82 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 what pc required to play gta4 in maximum setting is quad 2.83 is best . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cacarla Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Apparently, you can play the game at max settings but it's just that you'll get lags or some other problems. Medium is fine. There is no huge difference between max and medium. Only having a good processor is not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger82 Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 Apparently, you can play the game at max settings but it's just that you'll get lags or some other problems. Medium is fine. There is no huge difference between max and medium. Only having a good processor is not enough. Can you tell me the pc specification. Can you tell me the PC specification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) I play it all maxed at 1680 x 1050 HIGH - HIGHEST - 100 - 100 - 100 - 16, i oc my quad to 4Ghz to have good FPS , generally 35+ outside. I think there is a huge difference between medium and max settings btw. Click to enlarge 1680 x 1050 Edited January 18, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bamb0o-stick Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Damn, i withdraw my post Edited January 18, 2009 by bamb0o-stick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger82 Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 I play it all maxed at 1680 x 1050 HIGH - HIGHEST - 100 - 100 - 100 - 16, i oc my quad to 4Ghz to have good FPS , generally 35+ outside. I think there is a huge difference between medium and max settings btw. Click to enlarge 1680 x 1050 what is hte specification of your pc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 what is hte specification of your pc Check my sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger82 Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 what is hte specification of your pc Check my sig. can i get the same look in Quad Q9550 + Intel extreme DX48BT2 + ZION 1333MHZ 4GB DDR3 RAM + 2 X ATI 48700 512MB GRAPHIC CARD + PSU ANTEC 750W. PLEASE SUGGEST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necramonium Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Doesn't matter how much power a pc has,the engine still doesn't support AA.so it still looks like cr*p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) PLEASE SUGGEST The Q9550 is a 2.83Ghz quad, you could easily overclock it if you want, but even at the stock clock you could run it at similar GFX settings, maybe tweaking the view distance and detail distance a bit to 70 or 80 %, considering you would play at 1680 x 1050 too. Anyway i think it would be better to get a 1Gb GPU, cause using 2 x 512mb you would be always limited at 512 mb of effective VRAM. PSU, MOBO and RAM are great imo. Click to enlarge 1680 x 1050 : Edited January 18, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Doesn't matter how much power a pc has,the engine still doesn't support AA.so it still looks like cr*p. I wouldnt say it looks crap, i thnk it looks great at all max GFX settings, but some AA wouldnt hurt of course. Anyway it looks 200% better running on a PC at highest settings than any console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger82 Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 Doesn't matter how much power a pc has,the engine still doesn't support AA.so it still looks like cr*p. I wouldnt say it looks crap, i thnk it looks great at all max GFX settings, but some AA wouldnt hurt of course. Anyway it looks 200% better running on a PC at highest settings than any console. can you tell me if buy pc like yours pc specification how much it will cost any idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 can you tell me if buy pc like yours pc specification how much it will cost any idea. It depends on where you live, but it would cost like + 700 dollars for the CPU (q9550 -> qx9650) than the one you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Full settings are not for graphics, they are for resolution sizes, except for shadows.If you want to play all settings on high, it's pointless without a 2560 resolution. So, if you can push to that resolution, you're on your way. Otherwise, trust me, high settings are worthless and do nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Full settings are not for graphics, they are for resolution sizes, except for shadows.If you want to play all settings on high, it's pointless without a 2560 resolution. So, if you can push to that resolution, you're on your way. Otherwise, trust me, high settings are worthless and do nothing... Youre completely wrong, awful post dude, can you run it all maxed with your rig so you can test it ? You should test yourself something before posting bs . Edited January 18, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Otherwise, trust me, high settings are worthless and do nothing... Check this dude, same resolution 1680 x 1050 (click to enlarge) : LOW / LOW HIGH / HIGHEST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Russian 9 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Thales there's an edit button on your posts. Please use it. On Topic: I suggest an i7. That blows GTAIV out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Thales there's an edit button on your posts. Please use it. Oh really, are you some kind of moderator now. Edited January 18, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Russian 9 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Thales there's an edit button on your posts. Please use it. Oh really, are you some kind of moderator now. I have to be a mod to be annoyed at your double posting nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I have to be a mod to be annoyed at your double posting nonsense? I thought you were just a drunk russian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Full settings are not for graphics, they are for resolution sizes, except for shadows.If you want to play all settings on high, it's pointless without a 2560 resolution. So, if you can push to that resolution, you're on your way. Otherwise, trust me, high settings are worthless and do nothing... Youre completely wrong, awful post dude, can you run it all maxed with your rig so you can test it ? You should test yourself something before posting bs . Yes, I can, and it is not bull. Sit in a car on a road that you can see far with - the view and detail settings get to a point where adding is just pointless. You are really dense for setting view and detail to 100 at 1680 - you cant even tell the difference because there is not enough pixels to even draw what you are forcing to draw. You even understand the concept of line of sight and the fact that the horizon has less and less pixels the smaller the resolution? Whatever - do you - but it is not good advice on anyone's part to pretend the fact isn't as simple as: Far clip distance is for Large Resolutions where you otherwise would see the LOD too close because too many pixels give it too much detail, so you raise the view further to complete the illusion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) K so post some screenshots running low GFX settings so we can compare to the ones i posted on page 1. Edited January 19, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) I can run the game at all high/very high settings, still doesn't change the fact that the game lags after a while and crashes alot as well as still looking like crap with no AA. At 1920X1200 with a Q6600, 8800GTX, 2GB of ram. 30ish FPS Will post pics if requested as well as benchmark. Edited January 19, 2009 by Irrati0nal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livilaNic Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Full settings are not for graphics, they are for resolution sizes, except for shadows.If you want to play all settings on high, it's pointless without a 2560 resolution. So, if you can push to that resolution, you're on your way. Otherwise, trust me, high settings are worthless and do nothing... Youre completely wrong, awful post dude, can you run it all maxed with your rig so you can test it ? You should test yourself something before posting bs . I think what he was trying to say? Was that at the res you play at. You don't get the MAX effect. Sure it might look amazing (which it does to me, whilst only having high textures does that), but really your not, ACTUALLY seeing what you think you are. Meaning your not seeing 100 view or 100 detail distance. EDIT: Damn you guys posting before I posted this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livilaNic Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I can run the game at all high/very high settings, still doesn't change the fact that the game lags after a while and crashes alot as well as still looking like crap with no AA. At 1920X1200 with a Q6600, 8800GTX, 2GB of ram. Will post pics if requested as well as benchmark. Your GTX have 512MB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I can run the game at all high/very high settings, still doesn't change the fact that the game lags after a while and crashes alot as well as still looking like crap with no AA. At 1920X1200 with a Q6600, 8800GTX, 2GB of ram. Will post pics if requested as well as benchmark. Your GTX have 512MB? No 768MB, GTA4 says i'm using 1500+ MB's of 721MB GPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livilaNic Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) I can run the game at all high/very high settings, still doesn't change the fact that the game lags after a while and crashes alot as well as still looking like crap with no AA. At 1920X1200 with a Q6600, 8800GTX, 2GB of ram. Will post pics if requested as well as benchmark. Your GTX have 512MB? No 768MB, GTA4 says i'm using 1500+ MB's of 721MB GPU. Ahh. Yeah I've tried that sh*t with my 8800 GT 512MB, and I got the ol' nv4_disp infinite loop error. I think it's fine to go over your resource limit by only so much until it borks out on ya. I haven't done any testing to confirm what I believe. But doing many tweaks and what not it's what i believe to be true...heh. EDIT: Been running with only availablevidmem 1.5 forever and a day. med, high, 35, 47, 25, 0. It's been sweet. I tried availvidmem 2.3 high, high, 35, 47, 25, 0, and it gave me the nv4_disp error. I might try lowering to like say 1.8 or something make sure. But it might be becuase i made it swap to much. Not sure though I'm a nub. Edited January 19, 2009 by livilaNic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) K so post some screenshots running low GFX settings so we can compare to the ones i posted on page 1. Alright, when I am that far (lost my saves when i was testing vista for troublshooting ) to be able to take shots in Algonquin I will take some shots. What you will notice is that the only difference, if any, is that a few skyscrapers seem slightly sharper. I know you like the play without the blur to get sharp goodness, so I'll be sure to keep it disabled I'll take shots at "below what I recommend" for 1680, shots at "just right, give or take a few increments of the slider" and then I'll take a full 100 draw distance shot (if you feel like doing this, you can save time, I just got done bad man's "follow this guy to the spot on foot" mission and Faustin is waiting for me at the club with Dimitri - so I am early in their arc even). What you will notice is that my "below" screen shot will look like ass toward the end of the "road" in sight, then the other two will differ barely at all, with the further draw distance being uglier with more aliasing than the "recommended" setting of 40 to 65. The issue is that I will not be able to set 100 draw distance and 1680 at the same time, but I can do it with detail (which should alwaysssss be further than view anyway) so maybe you should do the three. In fact, just, anyone who is wondering, go ahead and load up your game -> sit in a place you can see far -> bump up view and detail until it starts getting pointless and doesn't even matter (there is a point where even standard def objects might as well be an LOD because, again, they are only made of like 15 or 20 pixels by the time they are that far anyway - overkill to detail them, and pretty pointless, but then, you play without the blur too, which I know must killlll your eyes with all the rolling pixels on thin objects at a far clip - especially how far you draw them ) What he was trying to say Was that at the res you play at. You don't get the MAX effect. Sure it might look amazing (which it does to me, whilst only having high textures does that), but really your not, ACTUALLY seeing what you think you are. Meaning your not seeing 100 view or 100 detail distance. biggrin.gif Yes, that. It works, it runs good on your machine Thales, but you really aren't noticing a difference past 80 on anything more than huge standout objects, and really you'd have a much less aliased horizon if you let them be lod. Your screens don't show how wildly those pixels are fighting for screen space in the distance because there's no movement in sceens Like, there is a point where you're just adding more mess to your image because all of the sudden these far clip objects are fighting for pixel space, causing aliasing and stuff, while they end up looking the same anyway, just more jumbled, because they are so far away, and because of that distance, they are tiny, and pointless to be drawing high def models that don't even have enough pixels to be any better qaulity than low def objects. Edited January 19, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 (edited) At 1920X1200 with a Q6600, 8800GTX, 2GB of ram. 30ish FPS With a rig like yours its normal to have stutter (Q6600, its a low end quad, plus 8800 GTX, old card with small effective VRAM, and only 2 Gb of RAM, probably DDR 2) but here i have none at all. You play HIGH - VERY HIGH, pretty different from HIGH - HIGHEST. I also play at 100 - 100 - 100 - 16, plus the farclp tweaked to 3500, instead of original 1500. It looks great at these settings. Edited January 19, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Was that at the res you play at. You don't get the MAX effect. Sure it might look amazing (which it does to me, whilst only having high textures does that), but really your not, ACTUALLY seeing what you think you are. Meaning your not seeing 100 view or 100 detail distance. Oh really, just cause he says so ? Hahaha awful, i play it HIGH - HIGHEST - 100 - 100 - 100 - 16, thats all. If someone cant do that, its not my problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts