thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Alright, when I am that far (lost my saves when i was testing vista for troublshooting ) Please just tell me one thing, whats your rig config ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 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. No, just no. Thats at 3GHz, Thats at 2.4Ghz These are my settings. And the game runs fine mostly, although in Star Junction when riding in an infernus is may go down to around 13-20FPS mostly runs fine although it is a crap port that still crashes often and has many issues to be resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 No, just no. See , thats what i am telling you - you cant enjoy this game with 30 FPS at benchmark, thats 15 FPS in game. Thats why it looks like sh*t to you, a world called stutter and a city called Lag. Come on man, are you irrational or what ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 No, just no. See , thats what i am telling you - you cant enjoy this game with 30 FPS at benchmark, thats 15 FPS in game. Thats why it looks like sh*t to you, a world called stutter and a city called Lag. Come on man, are you irrational or what ? DO YOU READ?!? IF SO READ MY POST. The game runs fine, if I had a video recorder I would show you. Your arrogance shows you know nothing about computers or computer optimisation, you try to prove your claims now and that will be the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 DO YOU READ?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livilaNic 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. Nah, not cause he says so. You really will not be paying attention to that much in the distance. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anyone. But from what I have observed. I have not been able to see passed 45 view distance whilst playing the actual game @1920x1080. Sure you might be able to notice these things while standing still, but I really doubt your ACTUALLY noticing these while playing. If you think you are then, that's cool too. I'm just throwing that out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Nah, not cause he says so. If you really pay attention. You really will not be paying attention to that much in the distance. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anyone. But from what I have observed. I have not been able to see passed 45 view distance whilst playing the actual game @1920x1080. Sure you might be able to notice these things while standing still, but I really doubt your ACTUALLY noticing these while playing. If you think you are then, that's cool too. I'm just throwing that out there. K sounds good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Nah, not cause he says so. If you really pay attention. You really will not be paying attention to that much in the distance. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anyone. But from what I have observed. I have not been able to see passed 45 view distance whilst playing the actual game @1920x1080. Sure you might be able to notice these things while standing still, but I really doubt your ACTUALLY noticing these while playing. If you think you are then, that's cool too. I'm just throwing that out there. K sounds good. thaels100, have you tried putting that proc to stock clock and see how it effects your performance? Also, what is your CPU usage (average and per core)? Much obliged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 thaels100, have you tried putting that proc to stock clock and see how it effects your performance? Also, what is your CPU usage (average and per core)? Much obliged. Check these two benchmarks, same rig and GFX settings, just running the Qx9650 at stock 3 Ghz and at 4 Ghz. 3.0Ghz - no oc Statistics Average FPS: 48.68 Duration: 37.24 sec CPU Usage: 70% System memory usage: 70% Video memory usage: 58% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High 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: 185.20 Audio Adapter: Alto-falantes (2- Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Audio Card) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: Benchmark.cli 4.0 Ghz Statistics Average FPS: 56.37 Duration: 37.18 sec CPU Usage: 69% System memory usage: 73% Video memory usage: 58% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High 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: 185.20 Audio Adapter: Alto-falantes (2- Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Audio Card) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: Benchmark.cli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livilaNic Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 have you tried putting that proc to stock clock Something about this made me crack the f*ck up. You crack me up mkey82. That's not an insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 DO YOU READ?!? Underclock your CPU to 2.4Ghz as mine is and get a 1920X1200 Screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Underclock your CPU to 2.4Ghz as mine is and get a 1920X1200 Screen. No thanks, i want my game to run all max settings plus a nice FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Underclock your CPU to 2.4Ghz as mine is and get a 1920X1200 Screen. No thanks, i want my game to run all max settings plus a nice FPS. As i do, clock for clock there is no difference, perhaps you have having more ram makes a certain distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 As i do, clock for clock there is no difference, perhaps you have having more ram makes a certain distance. I am running my quad at 4 Ghz, my RAM is 4 Gb DDR 3 and my GPU a GTX 280, thats a BIG difference. Yours a low end rig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 As i do, clock for clock there is no difference, perhaps you have having more ram makes a certain distance. I am running my quad at 4 Ghz, my RAM is 4 Gb DDR 3 and my GPU a GTX 280, thats a BIG difference. Yours a low end rig. Another epic fail by you, at the same clock speeds there wouldn't be any difference also i run a much higher resolution than you . Once you l2computer come back please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Another epic fail by you, at the same clock speeds there wouldn't be any difference also i run a much higher resolution than you . Once you l2computer come back please. You loser have a sh*t rig, Q6600, 8800 + 2 Gb RAM, its a low end crap. You should run GTA 4 all low setings to get a decent FPS. You have a POS man, thats all - upgrade it and come back. Compare : Q6600 you ---- Qx9650 me 8800 you ---- GTX 280 me 2 Gb DDR2 you ---- 4 Gb DDR3 me Result = Youre a Loser !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irrati0nal Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Another epic fail by you, at the same clock speeds there wouldn't be any difference also i run a much higher resolution than you . Once you l2computer come back please. You loser have a sh*t rig, Q6600, 8800 + 2 Gb RAM, its a low end crap. You should run GTA 4 all low setings to get a decent FPS. You have a POS man, thats all - upgrade it and come back. Compare : Q6600 you ---- Qx9650 me 8800 you ---- GTX 280 me 2 Gb DDR2 you ---- 4 Gb DDR3 me Result = Youre a Loser !!!!! I have a 16 core, 74SAS drive server next to me. I work in a computer shop part time, you recieve a terrible frame rate for the amount of money you payed for your system. Learn to optimise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 have you tried putting that proc to stock clock Something about this made me crack the f*ck up. You crack me up mkey82. That's not an insult. Why is it funny? So thales100, for circa 33% higher clock you get some 16% performance improvement (as much as I don't trust that in-game benchmark). All in all, not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 So thales100, for circa 33% higher clock you get some 16% performance improvement (as much as I don't trust that in-game benchmark). All in all, not bad. Thats it, btw disabling two cores (affinity) i lose like 17 FPS in game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 So thales100, for circa 33% higher clock you get some 16% performance improvement (as much as I don't trust that in-game benchmark). All in all, not bad. Thats it, btw disabling two cores (affinity) i lose like 17 FPS in game. I was thinking of OC'ing my Q9300 from 2.5 to at least 3.0 GHz. This should be doable on stock cooling and should grant me some 8 to 10 percent gain. If I knew it would really help, I would go to 3.5 GHz with a nice cooler, but the damn low multiplier is getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharmingCharlie Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 I need to start paying more attention to this section. Look guys this section of the site is for trouble shooting, if you have a problem with the game or you are trying to help people with problems then you should be posting here. Anything else then use the main PC forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts