This is how looks and works perfection!

[kriller2]

Well.. I have done as ron suggested (and other tweaks around on this forum), but changed the commmandline to availablevidmem 1.2 and used the farclip 3500 tweak and now I can FINALY run the game with my old AMD dual core x5200 (decreased multiplier by one and overclocked FSB to 210) and 4 mb. ram + Radeon 3850 agp (512 mb vram) without texture problems.

 

I allso disabled the internet and shut down my firewall, getting 25 FPS with highest graphics 1280 x 1024,but view distance at 3 (you wont see much difference when the farclip tweak is used), detail at 20 and vehicles at 50.

 

The game looks absolutely stunning now and runs without any issues, what makes me think that the performance problems people are having with GTA4 could have been avoided if R* would have used more time to finetune the engine running GTA4.... and allso indicates that it should be possible to make a patch that fixes the problems in the future.

 

MODS running:

Realistic blur mod

Less glare mod

3x pedestrians mod

buses driving around the city and realistic blood mod.

xliveless

commercials on trucks changed to real commercials

all cars renamed to real names

Edited January 22, 2009 by kriller2

[Mouta]

3x pedestrians mod

sorry for the off topic but, where can i find this mod?

i searched but cant find it...

[expiorer]

runs like crap as I can see...

I wonder what is the highest framerate registered in this forum.

[kriller2]

3x pedestrians mod

sorry for the off topic but, where can i find this mod?

i searched but cant find it...

Hi Mouta,

Try this site: http://www.gtainside.com/en/download.php?d...tart=7&orderBy= it have alot of mods for GTA4

[~IV~]

As you can know, I am "RON123" for you, have always wanted to play perfectly GTA IV -the most difficult PC game to run on your computer.

Few days ago I found the last twick that will boost PFS for me, the one that will give me the best GTA IV experience that I have ever had.

 

Not only that I probably can play better then you and 99% of gamers, I am also getting one of the best quality frames in the world.

 

First of all the results: I able to play a very smooth gameplay in the next settings:

1920x1200 res, max settings gameplay + AA/8XQ (anti-aliasing of 8XQ for noobs).

 

 

GTA requirements:

 

First I must explain what high edge hardware GTA IV requires.

This is the only game in the market that

requires any 3-4 cores normal CPU and in addition high amount of VRAM.

As a result, one of the above is a common "bottleneck", It means that upgrading your rig without solving the bottleneck won't really improve performane.

I for example, OC my q6600 to 3.00 GHZ (while using the stock cooler) and did'nt get big improvement, and in addition OC my GPU:

core speed 600 to 642

Shader clock 1500 to 1605

memory clock 900 to 1070

Note: numbers in MHZ, OC while using the stock cooler

 

 

Dude you are getting 25fps. Look I run this game @ 1920x1200 with nothing in the cmd line settings med med view 100% detail 100% and get a solid 60 fps (vsync enabled 60Hz). I went into the Nvidia control and forced 16Q AA and nothing changed. AA is not an option. But with 181.20 drivers i do get about 15fps more and the fps doesn't drop when there is alot going on. even with everything at max settings i still get 30 to 35 fps solid. But it doesnt look much better.

 

X58 Mainboard

I7 920 @4.5GHz

GTX 280 SLI @ 725MHz

6gb DDR 3 @ 1800MHz

Watercooled

[Krailer]

 

...

1. Use windows XP/7 ,-Vista is killing the framerate (some 25%-50% in average).

...

That's absurd. Not that I'm a big fan of Vista, but suggesting one should change OS to play a video game, I mean, wow...

 

There is only one thing this game needs to run properly, and that is (or would have been) to be finished properly by the developers before release. 'nuff said.

[mkey82]

ook I run this game @ 1920x1200 with nothing in the cmd line settings med med view 100% detail 100% and get a solid 60 fps (vsync enabled 60Hz)

Can't you max the textures?

[ron123]

...

1. Use windows XP/7 ,-Vista is killing the framerate (some 25%-50% in average).

...

That's absurd. Not that I'm a big fan of Vista, but suggesting one should change OS to play a video game, I mean, wow...

 

There is only one thing this game needs to run properly, and that is (or would have been) to be finished properly by the developers before release. 'nuff said.

I didn;t send anyone to buy a new OS just for one game, I just say that it's better to avoid VISTA cause it's bad for gaming. If you want to buy (not pirate) a new OS, just wait to WIN7 release.

And I have 3 OS on my PC and vista is stable but worst for gameing.

[ron123]

 

 

Dude you are getting 25fps. Look I run this game @ 1920x1200 with nothing in the cmd line settings med med view 100% detail 100% and get a solid 60 fps (vsync enabled 60Hz). I went into the Nvidia control and forced 16Q AA and nothing changed. AA is not an option. But with 181.20 drivers i do get about 15fps more and the fps doesn't drop when there is alot going on. even with everything at max settings i still get 30 to 35 fps solid. But it doesnt look much better.

 

X58 Mainboard

I7 920 @4.5GHz

GTX 280 SLI @ 725MHz

6gb DDR 3 @ 1800MHz

Watercooled

This is worst reply I have ever get.

First, with your CPU anyone can get 60 fps on any settings even with a GPU of 9500gt 1 GB.

Second, you should try to max your settings, my guide should help you if you don't know to do it.

Third, I am getting 28-32 on max settings which is very smooth and looks better then your settings above, in other words my cheap rig kickass and your $$$$-rig is not.

 

Just check my screens in the first post.

[HatoXanadu]

Moderators, please lock this thread so that I don't have to keep reading retarded things.

[~IV~]

 

 

Dude you are getting 25fps. Look I run this game @ 1920x1200 with nothing in the cmd line settings med med view 100% detail 100% and get a solid 60 fps (vsync enabled 60Hz). I went into the Nvidia control and forced 16Q AA and nothing changed. AA is not an option. But with 181.20 drivers i do get about 15fps more and the fps doesn't drop when there is alot going on. even with everything at max settings i still get 30 to 35 fps solid. But it doesnt look much better.

 

X58 Mainboard

I7 920 @4.5GHz

GTX 280 SLI @ 725MHz

6gb DDR 3 @ 1800MHz

Watercooled

This is worst reply I have ever get.

First, with your CPU anyone can get 60 fps on any settings even with a GPU of 9500gt 1 GB.

Second, you should try to max your settings, my guide should help you if you don't know to do it.

Third, I am getting 28-32 on max settings which is very smooth and looks better then your settings above, in other words my cheap rig kickass and your $$$$-rig is not.

 

Just check my screens in the first post.

Ur pc is lol along with ur twix and aa

 

 

[nvr2fst]

...

1. Use windows XP/7 ,-Vista is killing the framerate (some 25%-50% in average).

...

That's absurd. Not that I'm a big fan of Vista, but suggesting one should change OS to play a video game, I mean, wow...

 

There is only one thing this game needs to run properly, and that is (or would have been) to be finished properly by the developers before release. 'nuff said.

I didn;t send anyone to buy a new OS just for one game, I just say that it's better to avoid VISTA cause it's bad for gaming. If you want to buy (not pirate) a new OS, just wait to WIN7 release.

And I have 3 OS on my PC and vista is stable but worst for gameing.

You guys and "Gaming is bad with Vista". Where in the hell do you come up with this crap? I had Vista, close to, from day one. Yes in the beginning there were the big driver issues and some hardware compatibility issues. They have been fixed a long time ago. As far as games are concerned it has run flawless for me.

 

You can say it is bad for games for YOU and YOUR hardware for whatever reasons, but dont generalize it in your statements that it is bad for gaming because you just dont know what you are talking about.

 

 

You are kind of in the same club as the GTA4 bashers because yes, the better your hardware, the better THEY run. Microsoft didnt keep it a secret that you needed good hardware to use Vista properly, nor did GTA4.

 

 

I have run all my games (Top titles) maxed over the past couple years without shutting down services, running a second monitor with the sidebar and a handfull of gadgets, Aero, FRAPS, Multimon, etc.

 

 

I use both monitors allways with multiple apps running on both @ 1680 x 1024 Native. I edit video with both monitors. Hell I play GTA4 while other things are open on the second monitor.

 

Last night I was collecting the Flying Rats so I had Intenet explorer opened on the other monitor with locations of the birds and jumps, etc.

 

 

Never had a BSOD or any other serious malfunction. Some minor issues in the begining.

 

 

 

Half of the time I also run the TV tuner on my second monitor while doing other things.

 

 

 

Gaming with Vista has been great for me. I could care less what OS I use, I am not a fanboy of any kind. I do have my preferences...Nvidia, Intel, and Vista .I had XP forever and it evolved into a nice OS but Vista just looks so much better and has things that XP cant offer. I use what I use only because they work. Extra functionality is what pushes me to the next.

 

 

I used AMD years ago because they were cheaper but in the long run Intel was much more reliable. I have had ATI a couple times but didnt have much luck with them. Tuner cards and the Video cards. Pretty sure I will never use them again. When the next OS comes out I will watch and see how it does and if it is good I will get it.

 

 

In the end Vista is good for gaming.

[DrFPS]

How long do you honestly expect MS to support XP. 08 was the last year. Hate to tell you that. You will hear more about that in the very near future. ? Why are the beta testing the next OS?

 

27FPS hardly lends it's self to a high speed car chase. You have sacrifice performance for quality. Nothing earth shattering there. Not even hard to do. Sorry.

[GTA_XP]

"Vista sucks for gaming" is a very bad statement!

In the begin were Vista comes out, it has sure trouble and issues.

But later Vista is nice and great to use.

 

 

For once:

 

 

GTA IV doesnt support any Anti-Aliasing!!!

Nor nVidia Control Panel, nor ATI options!!

[GTA_Vista]

XP sucked for me on GTA4, VISTA 64 made it all good, no lagging after a few minutes (or hours) anymore which really was my only bugbear on XP.

 

Your original (misnomer) post was very arrogant I felt and I got the impression of a spotty faced 13-14 year old who thought his rig was the greatest in the world yet had to go to a lot of trouble just to get this game working when all it may need is the correct OS for your system as it did for me. And that wasnt a statement telling everyone to go use Vista 64, just that it worked for me!

[Frakkon]

Change this: "Open regedit (from "run") and go to hkey local machine/system/current control set/control/session manager/memory management and change disablepagingexecutive and largesystemcache to 1"

 

This is the worse idea, to disable paging. Very noob idea. Same with largesystemcache, this will do nothing at current hardware.

 

Just to add, my vista performance was almost the same as xp. Around 40fps.

 

EDIT

 

Just to state the same, in case the reality is too dificult to accept:

 

GTAIV doesnt allow the AA. Deffered rendering could only theorically allow SuperSampling AA, with lots of performance kill.

 

So disable your AA to get improved FPS. Its not working but taking fps.

[GTA_XP]

 

XP sucked for me on GTA4, VISTA 64 made it all good, no lagging after a few minutes (or hours) anymore which really was my only bugbear on XP.

 

Your original (misnomer) post was very arrogant I felt and I got the impression of a spotty faced 13-14 year old who thought his rig was the greatest in the world yet had to go to a lot of trouble just to get this game working when all it may need is the correct OS for your system as it did for me. And that wasnt a statement telling everyone to go use Vista 64, just that it worked for me!

What the hell??

Are you my twin brother or something?

What you said, is exactley what I have experienced!

Vista x64 is amazing.

So its a bad statement, vista cant plays games good.

 

We know there is no proof wich GTA4 have AA.

So bustah! Straight bustah!

 

Becase GTA4 have no AA, I disabled in the nVidia panel, and got nice FPS.

It plays like pooping dog in the woods.

Edited January 22, 2009 by GTA_XP

[Frakkon]

...

1. Use windows XP/7 ,-Vista is killing the framerate (some 25%-50% in average).

...

That's absurd. Not that I'm a big fan of Vista, but suggesting one should change OS to play a video game, I mean, wow...

 

There is only one thing this game needs to run properly, and that is (or would have been) to be finished properly by the developers before release. 'nuff said.

I didn;t send anyone to buy a new OS just for one game, I just say that it's better to avoid VISTA cause it's bad for gaming. If you want to buy (not pirate) a new OS, just wait to WIN7 release.

And I have 3 OS on my PC and vista is stable but worst for gameing.

You guys and "Gaming is bad with Vista". Where in the hell do you come up with this crap? I had Vista, close to, from day one. Yes in the beginning there were the big driver issues and some hardware compatibility issues. They have been fixed a long time ago. As far as games are concerned it has run flawless for me.

 

You can say it is bad for games for YOU and YOUR hardware for whatever reasons, but dont generalize it in your statements that it is bad for gaming because you just dont know what you are talking about.

 

 

You are kind of in the same club as the GTA4 bashers because yes, the better your hardware, the better THEY run. Microsoft didnt keep it a secret that you needed good hardware to use Vista properly, nor did GTA4.

 

 

I have run all my games (Top titles) maxed over the past couple years without shutting down services, running a second monitor with the sidebar and a handfull of gadgets, Aero, FRAPS, Multimon, etc.

 

 

I use both monitors allways with multiple apps running on both @ 1680 x 1024 Native. I edit video with both monitors. Hell I play GTA4 while other things are open on the second monitor.

 

Last night I was collecting the Flying Rats so I had Intenet explorer opened on the other monitor with locations of the birds and jumps, etc.

 

 

Never had a BSOD or any other serious malfunction. Some minor issues in the begining.

 

 

 

Half of the time I also run the TV tuner on my second monitor while doing other things.

 

 

 

Gaming with Vista has been great for me. I could care less what OS I use, I am not a fanboy of any kind. I do have my preferences...Nvidia, Intel, and Vista .I had XP forever and it evolved into a nice OS but Vista just looks so much better and has things that XP cant offer. I use what I use only because they work. Extra functionality is what pushes me to the next.

 

 

I used AMD years ago because they were cheaper but in the long run Intel was much more reliable. I have had ATI a couple times but didnt have much luck with them. Tuner cards and the Video cards. Pretty sure I will never use them again. When the next OS comes out I will watch and see how it does and if it is good I will get it.

 

 

In the end Vista is good for gaming.

Completely agree. get Vista 64 + 4gb ram = stable system, same fps as xp, and have better stability. Only problem is with hardware audio, but there is alchemy.

 

Windows7 is faster, in a little better sense, but its still beta and im getting ocasional BSODs on certain tests.

 

XP isnt any super good over Vista. People have such fantasy that vista is horrible and drag 20% performance which is ridiculous.

[GTA_XP]

 

...

1. Use windows XP/7 ,-Vista is killing the framerate (some 25%-50% in average).

...

That's absurd. Not that I'm a big fan of Vista, but suggesting one should change OS to play a video game, I mean, wow...

 

There is only one thing this game needs to run properly, and that is (or would have been) to be finished properly by the developers before release. 'nuff said.

I didn;t send anyone to buy a new OS just for one game, I just say that it's better to avoid VISTA cause it's bad for gaming. If you want to buy (not pirate) a new OS, just wait to WIN7 release.

And I have 3 OS on my PC and vista is stable but worst for gameing.

You guys and "Gaming is bad with Vista". Where in the hell do you come up with this crap? I had Vista, close to, from day one. Yes in the beginning there were the big driver issues and some hardware compatibility issues. They have been fixed a long time ago. As far as games are concerned it has run flawless for me.

 

You can say it is bad for games for YOU and YOUR hardware for whatever reasons, but dont generalize it in your statements that it is bad for gaming because you just dont know what you are talking about.

 

 

You are kind of in the same club as the GTA4 bashers because yes, the better your hardware, the better THEY run. Microsoft didnt keep it a secret that you needed good hardware to use Vista properly, nor did GTA4.

 

 

I have run all my games (Top titles) maxed over the past couple years without shutting down services, running a second monitor with the sidebar and a handfull of gadgets, Aero, FRAPS, Multimon, etc.

 

 

I use both monitors allways with multiple apps running on both @ 1680 x 1024 Native. I edit video with both monitors. Hell I play GTA4 while other things are open on the second monitor.

 

Last night I was collecting the Flying Rats so I had Intenet explorer opened on the other monitor with locations of the birds and jumps, etc.

 

 

Never had a BSOD or any other serious malfunction. Some minor issues in the begining.

 

 

 

Half of the time I also run the TV tuner on my second monitor while doing other things.

 

 

 

Gaming with Vista has been great for me. I could care less what OS I use, I am not a fanboy of any kind. I do have my preferences...Nvidia, Intel, and Vista .I had XP forever and it evolved into a nice OS but Vista just looks so much better and has things that XP cant offer. I use what I use only because they work. Extra functionality is what pushes me to the next.

 

 

I used AMD years ago because they were cheaper but in the long run Intel was much more reliable. I have had ATI a couple times but didnt have much luck with them. Tuner cards and the Video cards. Pretty sure I will never use them again. When the next OS comes out I will watch and see how it does and if it is good I will get it.

 

 

In the end Vista is good for gaming.

Completely agree. get Vista 64 + 4gb ram = stable system, same fps as xp, and have better stability. Only problem is with hardware audio, but there is alchemy.

 

Windows7 is faster, in a little better sense, but its still beta and im getting ocasional BSODs on certain tests.

 

XP isnt any super good over Vista. People have such fantasy that vista is horrible and drag 20% performance which is ridiculous.

Because they never tried Vista, so they bitchin' Vista all the time.

[Frakkon]

Because they never tried Vista, so they bitchin' Vista all the time.

When i had poor machine vista worked bad at my computer, and i usually complained on vista. After upgrading vista is good or better.

 

People with outdated hardware usually claims that 'XP is superior', when on truth they only have bad hardware;

[CameO73]

How long do you honestly expect MS to support XP. 08 was the last year. Hate to tell you that. You will hear more about that in the very near future. ? Why are the beta testing the next OS?

Windows XP is supported until 2014. I've skipped Vista (since I never saw the need for that O/S), but am very excited for Windows 7. All my experiences with the (32-bit and 64-bit) betas are great.

 

My advice for anyone thinking about making the jump: wait for Windows 7 ... it's far less painful!

[bukkit]

I've skipped Vista (since I never saw the need for that O/S)ò

so i guess u never experienced a DX10 game , since XP wont run it

_______________

 

and i dont know whats the bitching on vista about , of course : its a crap, cause its from ms ...

but unstable ? maybe u guys have an unstable system. slow ? turn off the f**king aero theme

gta runs better under XP ? i doubt so... i tried it

i play it under vista 35-40 fps ...so please guys cut the crap

[Kurgen]

I've skipped Vista (since I never saw the need for that O/S)ò

so i guess u never experienced a DX10 game , since XP wont run it

_______________

 

and i dont know whats the bitching on vista about , of course : its a crap, cause its from ms ...

but unstable ? maybe u guys have an unstable system. slow ? turn off the f**king aero theme

gta runs better under XP ? i doubt so... i tried it

i play it under vista 35-40 fps ...so please guys cut the crap

/glances over at his 98-ified XP gaming system.

 

Yep, most people in the course of optimising their PC will gradually disable all the bells and whistles that Microsoft's marketing dept wax lyrical about in their sales blurb, and it seems that nothing has changed in that respect.

 

On my XP (32-bit) system, I have almost exactly 3GB free of the 3.25GB useable, due to the same process you describe; the surgical removal or disabling of extraneous glitz, and it's something that any Windows gamer should get used to. Black Viper's site (if it still exists) is a good place to start for anyone who isn't sure about this stuff.

 

 

[ron123]

I just explain few things about OS:

There is no such thing bad OS, they all work and they all stable, the difference is in overall speed, hardware requirement and tech.

 

Note:you can't compare 32bit to 64bit virsions.

 

Win xp tend to be a faster OS. however with high edge hardware you won't fill the difference, in additin, Vista looks nicer and it's easy to use it.

the big problem with Vista is that this OS requires high hardware just for using basic functions, which is bed for low-med market of PC's.

Vista only has the advantage of DX10 support.

 

with high hardware that makes all games playble for you, you won't be able to tell which is better OS because the results is good, but if you have low FPS rate on a DX9 game like GTA IV then you should test both on the same bit version and you will see that vista is slower in some 20%-40% then XP .

 

This is the reason for many gamers to hate vista.

 

And by the way win7 will be the best OS in speed ,look ,requirements,tech and performance.

[Kurgen]

 

There is no such thing bad OS, they all work and they all stable, the difference is in overall speed, hardware requirement and tech.

>coughs mouthful of wine over monitor<

 

Say what?!?

 

1) DOS 3.

 

2) Windows 3.

 

3) Win 98 FE.

 

4) Windows Millennium.

 

5) Win 2000 pre-sp3.

 

6) XP pre-sp1.

 

7) Vista pre-sp1 & final, reluctant co-operation between MS & hardware vendors.

 

You were saying..?

[bukkit]

 

have low FPS rate on a DX9 game like GTA IV then you should test both on the same bit version and you will see that vista is slower in some 20%-40% then XP .

bullsh*t .... first of all : vista isnt nicer ...the aero theme is terrible , so i set it to classic w98 look , it spares memory. i have XP too ...both 64x - no difference what so ever ... 20%-40% what the f**k ? where did u get those numbers

 

 

I just explain few things...

dont u think u 'explained' enough ? like 23fps is smooth, or forced AA (which looks smoother and colors r nicer) - good lord! , or that fraps (turned off )takes down 4-5 fps ? kid really . ur full of crap, so dont try to be in the centre of the attention and 'explain' something to people. cause every second word u say is a bullsh*t , far away of truth

 

so instead of recording your monitor with 'ron123' stickers and laggy gta, try to get a life.

ur stupid posts r getting repetitive and boring

Edited January 22, 2009 by bukkit

[nvr2fst]

 

 

 

And by the way win7 will be the best OS in speed ,look ,requirements,tech and performance.

Got it all figured out do ya? You building 7? How the hell do you know? It may very well be, but your intelligence just shines through when you make statements such as that when it isnt any where near finished or released.

 

You get dumber the more you say.

 

You are not one who should be giving technical advice in the least because you really do sound like you are about 12. If you are.....you are excused. If not, you need to keep your trap shut.

 

And for christs sake quit qouting percentages!

 

 

Even if you didnt make them up and found them on the web, that dont mean sh*t either.

[~IV~]

I think Aero shuts down like dreamscene when you launch fullscreen 3d apps.

[bukkit]

I think Aero shuts down like dreamscene when you launch fullscreen 3d apps.

dwm.exe is taking a lot more memory when in aero mode , than in classic mode

[BobbyV]

I think ron is not a human, he's an application without any human feelings. After a bunch of hostile posts calling him this and that 'it' is not discouraged for a one bit continuing the posting like nothing happened.

And by the way, some of his statements are poo to say the least, but some ideas are rather interesting and worth trying. I don't say those tweaks are his ideas but at least this was a decent effort to sort them clearly...