Build a computer to play GTA:IV at best ability

[heat84]

 

Back when I was really into first person shooters the difference between 72 fps and 100 fps was very apparent to me.

You mean like 2 months ago?

Even just staring at a CRT white screen with 60 Hz flicker is very noticeable.

How can you possibly see the difference between 72 and 100 FPS? Are an alien or an android? Genetic engineering perhaps?

Edited April 1, 2009 by heat84

[TimesTwo]

mine does

Probably getting close to 60FPS in the benchmark with those settings right?

Try using commandlines and really max everything and see where it drops too.

Although maybe some overclock on your CPU would help gain a good deal.

i'll try but im already enjoying the game in those settings so i guess no need.

[neilthecellist]

You can run the game at the maximum at 1680x1050 and above

Well for some people 40fps is like torture.

I'm one of those people. 60fps constant or I lose my mind.

You dont notice any difference, unless you got fraps turned on and staring at the FPS meter instead of enjoying the game.

 

30 fps & 60 fps, barely any difference. Or if youre some kinda OCD/ADHD kinda guy that needs to be spazmic when it comes to turning etc!

Back when I was really into first person shooters the difference between 72 fps and 100 fps was very apparent to me. Even just staring at a CRT white screen with 60 Hz flicker is very noticeable.

You were probably having microstuttering issues. I thought the same thing back when Counter-Strike was making differences between 100 and 120 FPS but it turns out it was micro micro stuttering (like barely noticeable).

 

Just get a new video card, and then 60 FPS or anything higher should look the same to you.

 

Now, as far as the 60 hz thing.... Not sure how that's possible. Are you Superman?

[pinky]

 

You can run the game at the maximum at 1680x1050 and above

Well for some people 40fps is like torture.

I'm one of those people. 60fps constant or I lose my mind.

You dont notice any difference, unless you got fraps turned on and staring at the FPS meter instead of enjoying the game.

 

30 fps & 60 fps, barely any difference. Or if youre some kinda OCD/ADHD kinda guy that needs to be spazmic when it comes to turning etc!

Back when I was really into first person shooters the difference between 72 fps and 100 fps was very apparent to me. Even just staring at a CRT white screen with 60 Hz flicker is very noticeable.

You were probably having microstuttering issues. I thought the same thing back when Counter-Strike was making differences between 100 and 120 FPS but it turns out it was micro micro stuttering (like barely noticeable).

 

Just get a new video card, and then 60 FPS or anything higher should look the same to you.

 

Now, as far as the 60 hz thing.... Not sure how that's possible. Are you Superman?

Fighter pilots have been tested to see up over 200FPS, saying you dont notice above 60FPS is bullsh*t.

That is one image in over 200 blanks that they have correctly identified, avarege people will see slightly less as they dont have the trained super reactions of the pilots but it is still way over 100FPS.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Edited April 2, 2009 by pinky

[mkey82]

 

Fighter pilots have been tested to see up over 200FPS, saying you dont notice above 60FPS is bullsh*t.

That is one image in over 200 blanks that they have correctly identified, avarege people will see slightly less as they dont have the trained super reactions of the pilots but it is still way over 100FPS.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Yes, but have those pilots been tested while playing games? Can they spot the difference between 100 and 120 (or whatever) FPS in COD4 (or whatever)?

 

I think we're talking about motion fluidity here, not shortest frames.

[aragond]

 

You can run the game at the maximum at 1680x1050 and above

Well for some people 40fps is like torture.

I'm one of those people. 60fps constant or I lose my mind.

Yeah, I find I get the same way whenever my FPS drop below six.

Just gets me irritable. ... ...

 

 

 

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Veeeery interesting. I don't care. I just want to stop playing a slideshow.

 

Some of us have smaller needs than others...

 

 

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814102826

Hmm, this is interesting. Is a 4870 X2 with 2GB better or worse than a SINGLE 4870 with 2GB? THAT is the question!

[pinky]

 

Fighter pilots have been tested to see up over 200FPS, saying you dont notice above 60FPS is bullsh*t.

That is one image in over 200 blanks that they have correctly identified, avarege people will see slightly less as they dont have the trained super reactions of the pilots but it is still way over 100FPS.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Yes, but have those pilots been tested while playing games? Can they spot the difference between 100 and 120 (or whatever) FPS in COD4 (or whatever)?

 

I think we're talking about motion fluidity here, not shortest frames.

No, I think you will find he was talking about seeing a 60Hz screen flicker.

 

Motion fluidity depends on how it is done as well, hence the blur used on the 30 FPS console versions of IV helps cover up a little for the low FPS.

On the PC we tend to not use the blur and need higher FPS to compensate.

I think if the absolute minimum stayed above 60 it would be harder to notice, but occasionally you get micro-stutter or just plain to much for your GFX to handle and even a drop to 59 from 60 is noticeable.

In the likes of IV, over 60 FPS really doesn't show much change. To get over 70FPS you usually have to be standing still so you wont really see or gain any benefit. But IV does show up FPS changes because it usually jumps from one extreme to the other.

In a lot of other games, fast paced first person shooters(normally called FPS but thing could get confusing) for example, you can see the difference more as you are still moving at a quick pace while the FPS is high.

it is not really just a visual thing though, it effects control fluidity and reaction times as well. The higher your average FPS the better, it means your machine is reacting faster, you react faster, the controls react faster and the visual quality is constantly smooth. Giving an overall impression on the mind that all is quicker.

 

I think we need higher frequency monitors to be produced before we can say for sure, right now we are limited by the refresh rates.

 

 

 

 

aragond  Posted on Apr 2 2009, 09:22

 

QUOTE (Vicetopia @ Mar 24 2009, 03:44)

QUOTE (hamzta09 @ Mar 23 2009, 12:39)

You can run the game at the maximum at 1680x1050 and above

 

Well for some people 40fps is like torture.

I'm one of those people. 60fps constant or I lose my mind.

 

Yeah, I find I get the same way whenever my FPS drop below six.

Just gets me irritable. lol.gif ... mercie_blink.gif mercie_blink.gif ... suicidal.gif

 

 

QUOTE (pinky @ Apr 2 2009, 17:27)

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

Veeeery interesting. I don't care. I just want to stop playing a slideshow.

 

Some of us have smaller needs than others... tounge2.gif

 

 

QUOTE (Vicetopia @ Mar 24 2009, 04:34)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814102826

 

Hmm, this is interesting. Is a 4870 X2 with 2GB better or worse than a SINGLE 4870 with 2GB? THAT is the question!

 

In the case of IV the 2gb single will be better as it has true 2gb per GPU wheras the 2gb X2 has 2x1gb per GPU.

Edited April 2, 2009 by pinky

[Nikkola bellic,Belgrade,Serbia]

Back when I was really into first person shooters the difference between 72 fps and 100 fps was very apparent to me.

You mean like 2 months ago?

Even just staring at a CRT white screen with 60 Hz flicker is very noticeable.

How can you possibly see the difference between 72 and 100 FPS? Are an alien or an android? Genetic engineering perhaps?

Yeah as far As I know human eye cant barely register more than 30 pictures per second no?

If you are not human then yes

[Samul]

GTA IV, technically, runs to the best of it's ability on any system that meets the requirements. With the proper settings for the resolution you are playing, and the proper resolution for your hardware.

 

Now, you want to play max? You can't afford it. Maybe you can, you could be rich as f*ck. So, if you are, your first start is one of these monitors:

 

http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&rls=o...F-8&sa=N&tab=wf

 

Next, you need a good AMD quad (intel quads have bugs, you need to apply a patch and you lose 10 percent - and I prefer intel and have yet to ever buy an AMD - so that says a lot that I am saying that, I suppose. If this is already fully fixed, by all means, I support Q6600)

 

An i7 will not outperform a quad in GTA IV, it will be barely noticeable difference. Maybe in the future when there are updates to the way the processor handles its work, but for now, it's not quite the stellar jump as going from a C2Duo to a Quad. Let some i7 users come in, they'll tell you (I saw one man post about worst gameplay with an i7 after have an e8xxx Core2Duo!!!!! )

 

 

Video card? ANY GFX card made in the past 2 years with a gig of ram will eat IV and sh*t it out over and over - my 512MB card is only used 38% on medium textures and high everything else and 1680x1050, an HD3850, and on high tex it even works with no slowdown except a breif pause once in each long travel (unless my system ram is at half speed, which I must do for stability, system wide [not just for GTA], so I am stuck at Medium - no biggie, really not missing much, and static shadows look better and not so sharp in medium anyway).

 

But you should wait because in 2 years, when VC is coming out, those monitors will be a mere 200 dollars, refurbished, and like 300 new.

Dude you have to be blind if you say a core i7 cant cut itoo GTA4... the i7 has 4 cores plus each core is hyper threaded so that means 4 cores (physical) 4 cores (virtual) I owns GTA4 cuz I have a crappy C2D and I can own this game at an exeptable fps...

 

Statistics

Average FPS: 38.77

Duration: 37.18 sec

CPU Usage: 97%

System memory usage: 33%

Video memory usage: 95%

 

Graphics Settings

Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)

Texture Quality: High

Texture Filter Quality: High

View Distance: 40

Detail Distance: 55

 

Hardware

Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate

Service Pack 1

Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280

Video Driver version: 182.46

Audio Adapter: Soundblaster X-Fi Platinum (2- Creative SB X-Fi)

Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz

 

File ID: benchmark.cli

[luceberg]

I just upgraded my cpu from an e6750 @ 3.4Ghz to a Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz. I was expecting quite an improvement and hoping to get rid of the occasional jerks and stutters, but actually there is very little difference. When I talk about jerks, I mean when you start the game and start driving fast, there is always one big jerk/pause and then a series of slight jerks for a while. Also if you take a helicopter to the top of the empire state building and decend into the city, there is jerking/stuttering. Of course, I am being critical and trying to make it happen and most of the time, the game runs smoothly.

 

It seems to me that the cpu is not the cause of this but rather the time it takes to load stuff from the hard drive into memory as there is hard drive activity when this happens.

 

So would one of those solid state hard drives or faster memory help iron out the stutters?

 

[Vicetopia]

I just upgraded my cpu from an e6750 @ 3.4Ghz to a Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz. I was expecting quite an improvement and hoping to get rid of the occasional jerks and stutters, but actually there is very little difference. When I talk about jerks, I mean when you start the game and start driving fast, there is always one big jerk/pause and then a series of slight jerks for a while. Also if you take a helicopter to the top of the empire state building and decend into the city, there is jerking/stuttering. Of course, I am being critical and trying to make it happen and most of the time, the game runs smoothly.

 

It seems to me that the cpu is not the cause of this but rather the time it takes to load stuff from the hard drive into memory as there is hard drive activity when this happens.

 

So would one of those solid state hard drives or faster memory help iron out the stutters?

What are your graphics settings and commandline?

[anus]

I just upgraded my cpu from an e6750 @ 3.4Ghz to a Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz. I was expecting quite an improvement and hoping to get rid of the occasional jerks and stutters, but actually there is very little difference. When I talk about jerks, I mean when you start the game and start driving fast, there is always one big jerk/pause and then a series of slight jerks for a while. Also if you take a helicopter to the top of the empire state building and decend into the city, there is jerking/stuttering. Of course, I am being critical and trying to make it happen and most of the time, the game runs smoothly.

 

It seems to me that the cpu is not the cause of this but rather the time it takes to load stuff from the hard drive into memory as there is hard drive activity when this happens.

 

So would one of those solid state hard drives or faster memory help iron out the stutters?

Can you post a benchmark with the settings you are using?

 

Also, if there is hard drive activity, your hard drive is probably fragmented. Try defragmenting with a programme like UltimateDefrag.

[luceberg]

My graphics settings are 1440 x 920 all high. Other 26 46 32 4.

 

With these settings and my E6750 @ 3.4, I benchmark about 40fps.

 

With the new Q6600 @ 3.4, same settings, slightly overclocked 4830, benchmark about 50fps.

 

I keep experimenting with commandlines. At present it's -nomemrestrict. None of them made any noticeable difference.

 

 

[anus]

I'm pretty sure that your HDD is fragmented. Did you try defragmenting with the programme I linked to?

[Spider-Vice]

Ohh, so that's why I have a sh*tload of HDD activity while playing. I'll try that program

And thanks for your 2 posts lol.

[luceberg]

Thanks for the defragger/optimizer link. That looks useful.

 

I have my XP at the outside of one hard drive and gta4 at the outside of another hard drive. I have used Contig in the gta folder. Also I defragment XP with diskeeper before I start the game and the gta4 partition stays degragged according to diskeeper. I have your UltimateDefrag working now, so will see if it helps in a while.

 

 

[anus]

You don't by any chance have Diskeeper set to always defrag do you? Coz it may be defragging the HDD while you're playing IV, which is NOT good.

 

Also try playing the game with medium textures instead of High.

 

Does this happen with all games or just IV?

 

@Spider, No problem . But the HDD activity could be because the game's leaking memory .

[luceberg]

I just tried the game after using ultimatedefragger and it does run smoother, still slight stuttering at the beginning but I was unable to induce any when helicoptering over the city. That is definitely an improvement. Thankyou.

 

ps.I run Diskeeper manual only.

 

I will give medium textures a go.

 

Yes, even with medium textures there is still some jerking. I am not quite sure how it works. The textures and stuff must come off the hard drive to Ram memory, then into video memory. Is that how it works? My Ram is not the fastest. Maybe that slows it too.

Edited April 6, 2009 by luceberg

[Kurgen]

 

Yeah  as far As I know human eye cant barely register more than 30 pictures per second no?

If you are not human then yes 

Common misconception, i.e. wrong. Read some of the links in the posts just before yours. The human eye can quite easily perceive disparity up to 150fps+, depending on several factors; the individual, the medium used, etc. Generally, for most people, 50/60fps or above is considered "smooth", i.e. no obvious "stepping".

[jplip]

LOOk at my specs below..

 

only 20FPS! damn..

 

Do i need to throw my PC now?

[jplip]

CORE2Duo E7300 2.66GHZ

4GB of RAM

Windows VISTA Ultimate sp1

NVIDIA Geforce 9500GT 1gB

1TB of Hard disk

ASUS P5SD2-VM

22wide LCD Chimei.. Made in CHina.haha hey its Reliable

 

 

DO I NEED TO UPGRADE TO???

INTEL CORE i7 extreme processor

NVIDIA GTX 295 graphics processor

 

 

 

OR is there something i can fix?

[Kurgen]

I suspect your video card is the issue here, although you don't say what settings you're running at; resolution, detail levels etc.

 

You've got a very similar system to mine, which I get about 30 - 40 fps from at recommended settings (med-high @ 1680 x 1050) :

 

C2D 7300 @ stock 2.66GHz

4GB RAM (in XP32, so only 3.25GB usable)

X2900XT (512MB)

 

I'm having a C2Q 6700 delivered today, which should improve things, but not hugely. Same clock-speed as the 7300, but with two more brains. Great thing is, it's relatively inexpensive (when you can buy at trade-price and I'll sell the C2D for about £70/£80), and fits straight into the existing mobo, no changes required. However, this is the last I'll be spending on this current system, with the possible exception of the vid-card. I may replace that soon, as it's getting distinctly creaky now.

 

 

[anus]

I just tried the game after using ultimatedefragger and it does run smoother, still slight stuttering at the beginning but I was unable to induce any when helicoptering over the city. That is definitely an improvement. Thankyou.

 

ps.I run Diskeeper manual only.

 

I will give medium textures a go.

 

Yes, even with medium textures there is still some jerking. I am not quite sure how it works. The textures and stuff must come off the hard drive to Ram memory, then into video memory. Is that how it works? My Ram is not the fastest. Maybe that slows it too.

Does it happen with all games or just IV?

 

@jplip, Overclock your CPU and change the video card. A GTX295 should be kickass if you can afford it.

 

@Kurgen, You should start overclocking. You're not really going to see a big difference at all with that quad at stock speeds. Overclock it to 3GHz or more and you should start seeing some big improvements. Same goes for your E7300. It's a waste to not overclock such overclock friendly chips like the Core 2s and the i7s.

[mkey82]

@jplip, Overclock your CPU and change the video card. A GTX295 should be kickass if you can afford it.

Wouldn't a 280 or 285 be better solution? Price wise they are the same, but 295 is a dual GPU. Yuck!

[anus]

For IV yeah, but I don't think he'll be playing ONLY IV forever .

 

So yeah, the 295 is a lot better in other games where the devs

actually make sure a game which runs best on "future hardware" is actually able to utilize the "future hardware".

[luceberg]

Warlord @ Apr 7 2009, 07:52

Does it happen with all games or just IV?

 

GTA4 is the only game I play!

[anus]

Well, after all this, I can only say it's the HDD. But I have a hard time believing this as I used to play IV on a 7200RPM IDE drive with 8MB cache and didn't have any jerkiness.

 

It's certainly not your RAM though, your RAM is fast enough.

 

What's the HDD you have?

 

You could also try formatting and installing a fresh copy of Windows if your installation is already old.

[E.R]

For IV yeah, but I don't think he'll be playing ONLY IV forever .

 

So yeah, the 295 is a lot better in other games where the devs

actually make sure a game which runs best on "future hardware" is actually able to utilize the "future hardware".

Not a lot better and you can run SLI and TRISLI with the 280/285. QuadSLI still just sucks in almost everything exept benchmarks until the support for QuadSLI has been inproved.

[anus]

I mean for a single card dual GPU solution, the 295 is the best. And for a single card single GPU solution 285 is the way to go.

[luceberg]

My hard drive is a Samsung 7200rpm sata, well two the same with XP on one and GTA4 on the other.

 

Funny thing is, it is jerky at first, then will smooth out, as if it needs to warm up or something.

 

Anyway. the reason I first posted was to say that the upgrade from a dual to a quad core did not have the stellar improvement that I expected. Over 3Ghz on a dual core was pretty decent for me.