Build a computer to play GTA:IV at best ability

[pinky]

 

Indeed, IV is also heavily reliant on VRAM. Pinky, what FPS count are you currently achieving in Crysis?

 

Here is a very current run with Crysis bench, 1900x1200 very high and DX10.

[Abel.]

Indeed, IV is also heavily reliant on VRAM. Pinky, what FPS count are you currently achieving in Crysis?

 

Here is a very current run with Crysis bench, 1900x1200 very high and DX10.

Cheers mate, very good FPS right there.

[Waynio]

Been running with 4ghz for a bit now and had a warm day recently so thought I would change my OC to see what I would be missing, I was a bit surprised with the outcome.

 

All runs done with

 

Enermax Galaxy 1000

Gigabyte p45-dq6

4x2GB OCZ platinum pc8500

Q9650 @ 4ghz 9x 450 FSB 8GB ddr2 900mhz 4,5,5,18 1:1 ratio

GTX285

100% everest torture test stable with cores no higher than 57c & memtest stable.

 

-----------------

 

GTA IV - test done using fraps benchmark and I drove from bohan safehouse taking a long route to the fun fare as if it was a race and it was raining and had police chasing.

 

Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)

Texture Quality: High

Texture Filter Quality: Very High

View Distance: 20

Detail Distance: 60

Vehicle Density: 40

Shadow Density: 10

evrything else on Max

 

4GHZ

Min, Max, Avg

28, 107, 46.522

 

same settings as above but with 8x muliplier for 3.6ghz and less volts = less heat, longer cpu life.

Min, Max, Avg

27, 105, 48.641

 

But still if I go on multiplayer fps are poorish, to get very smooth gameplay I have to set everything on low but keep the res at 1920x1200 I hardly ever go online with it now thou because of cheaters having there way with destroying the fun, still hoping rockstar implement proper anti cheat software. I still regard it as 1 of the best multiplayer games if it were not for rampant cheating.

 

-----------------

 

Left 4 Dead - played through 1st section

Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)

Everything maxed out

 

4ghz

Min, Max, Avg

55, 199, 107.419

 

3.6ghz

Min, Max, Avg

58, 201, 110.163

 

-----------------

 

So I will be sticking with 3.6ghz now on, seems the 12mb cache makes a fair difference compared to my q6600 which has 8mb.

 

I'm hoping I don't need to upgrade to I7 any time soon .

[heat84]

How is the FPS higher than the monitor's refresh rate?

Edited April 23, 2009 by heat84

[neilthecellist]

How is the FPS higher than the monitor's refresh rate?

I'd like to ask the same thing.

[mkey82]

 

How is the FPS higher than the monitor's refresh rate?

I'd like to ask the same thing.

AFAIK the extra FPS is lost and there can be some tearing in the process.

 

link

Edited April 23, 2009 by mkey82

[Waynio]

I just turned off vsync on both games and it unlocks higher than 60fps.

But I have been on lcd screens for atleast 6 years so kind of forgot about refresh rate, I still own an old lyama 21" 1600x1200 which has 120 or higher refresh rate but it looks like a goldfish bowl compared to my samsung 26" and takes up a huge portion of my desk, so I suppose I should have a 100hz refresh rate lcd, I will find out more if I can to see if my screen is only picking up on 60fps and report back, if it is I want to upgrade my lcd next.

 

Looks like your right, and sounds like I'm best off keeping the vsync on but I don't get why fraps says the high fps I'm going to try out my lyama crt to see the difference, although I think I'll go straight back to my samsung as it looks really nice for everything watching media, browsing net and gaming .

 

ps I'm still getting spam via PM from people with 0 posts.

 

Been looking round the net for 200hz screens but 40" at 1080p is stupid for a desktop monitor I think, if there was 27" or 32" at 200hz with 50,000:1+ contrast and 1080p I would definately consider it, the 30" 2560x1600 does not appeal to me.

 

Ah, I had to try my old liyama monitor, it actually went up to 1920x1440 I think it was but 85hz was as high as the refresh rate went up to, gaming was pretty good on it but really lacked the definition my samsung has, and trying to read text was hard and operating windows was hard so I just messed around with it for about an hour before putting it back in the cellar where it belongs hehe.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Waynio

[Skyforger]

I am telling you go big REALLY BIG get all youŗ mony you can get ask you mumm frends grandmother...

 

Get:

 

Intel core i7 Extreme Edition 3.2 Ghz get a good cooling like water cooling or freon even better clock the CPU to 5 Ghz

 

get 2 ASUS Readon HD4870 1gb and to it crosower.

 

 

and you will run the latest games on max for 2- 3 years.

[Vicetopia]

I am telling you really small that Extremes are a waste of money.

I'm over-exaggerating a little bit, sure, but being worth four times or five times as much as the standard edition? Nah.

[xxCrowTechxx]

^^ So very true, especially these days.

[IJM]

I am telling you really small that Extremes are a waste of money.

I'm over-exaggerating a little bit, sure, but being worth four times or five times as much as the standard edition? Nah.

I agree. When I was looking at Core2Quads last year, the Extreme's were stupid prices (and they still are). Over 1200GBP for the top one to get 3.2Ghz.

 

Instead I carefully looked at the Yorkfield range and identified where the prices started to make exponential jumps and picked one off the bottom of that point on the price/performance curve. It happened to be the first of the ones with 12Mb cache. The Q9450 running at 2.66Ghz which cost me 210GBP. I knew that later on I'd have the option of either getting a faster 775 socket processor if they ever got cheap enough (prices haven't moved yet; even after a year) or I could overclock the Q9450 I got.

 

I knew from reading that there was a good chance of easily getting at least 3.2Ghz out of a Q9450 without really hurting it's life too much, probably more. So I built a system around it to provide a foundation for overclocking it later if I wanted to. Far more cost effective than wasting stupid money on an Extreme.