emcax24 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 you couldnt be calling me a retard since that guy obviously doesnt know what hes talking about. lol pixels? wtf does that have to do with anything? the monitor is an output device all the rendering is done before you see it on the screen. im done talking with you IQ of less than 20 people. ill just end up driving myself mad trying to talk sense to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxot Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 there are some damn rich f*ckers in here so true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heat84 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Try playing it on a small lcd that's 4-5 years old, then you'll see I have a 4 year old monitor and the game looks fine on it. It only maxes out at 1280x1024 for some reason though. The monitor is capable of higher resolutions than that. There's no way the game knows what my monitor is or its specs. There would have to be a database somewhere in the GTA folder of every monitor in existence. It won't go any higher with my TV either which is only 2 years old and has a native resolution of 1360x768. I heard CRT's are actually better for gaming the LCD's. Is that true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chngdman Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) Dude, you have totally missed the point just like that eggcox dude or whatever that doofs name is. Your 1280 resolution, which is the whole point of why I brought up the monitor and max resolution of the game in first place, not only is a very small amount of pixels compared to the max resolution, but you can't enjoy the max settings of THIS game to their fullest potential without a very high resolution. You begin to draw things you cant even see, you begin to create very jagged and ugly horizons and LODs because the screen is fighting to decide what parts of any given edge (or hard lines in textures) to give screen space to. A 512 texture is HALF as wide as your screen, yet there are many smushed up all over the place and you think you are actually seeing them? You ought to run medium or low because high, you ain't seeing it, basically... 1024x768 and below will have no benefit to setting their textures to high. Minimal benefits to medium. There are not enough pixels on the screen to draw it all without creating a gritty-looking-in-a-bad-way picture. And with the Pblur on, like thales screens, mkey has pointed out clearly that the same image on different resolutions comes with different levels of details - a visual example that is perfect to explain why to play it on the max possible, you need to support the max resolution. On the resized, smaller picture, thats what LOW textures look like on my 1680. But that is what medium looks like for people playing on a small resolution like that - NOT only that, but quess what? Mkey's resizing uses, most likely, an optimized bicubic algorythm to make up for it - it actually looks way worse, jaggy, and less detailed in real-time play. Drop your resolution to 800x600 then argue that it looks anywhere close to what it did on whatever resolution you run on from 1280xw/e and up, and we'll all see a lie, basically. And just to drive the point home, here is a 640x480 (commandline.txt) resolution upscaled to my 1680x1050 native. Looks like ass, doesn't it? Well that's exactly what it looks like when you play it on that resolution... 800x600 ain't much better, and neither is anything else under 1280x720. As you can see by this pic, my mid to high range settings (that run awesome on my min spec at 1680, btw ) don't mean sh*t as all detail has been lost and it looks like I have low textures set... And for the sh*ts and giggles, this is what iv would look like on a PSP: Edited February 12, 2009 by chngdman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) thales image. mine H - VH - VH - VH - HIGHEST - 100 - 100 - 100 - 16 - OFF- ON --> 1280x1024 and 800x600 Tweaks: Farclip 3500 + Ultimate Blur n.6 --- Commandline: -norestrictions Edited February 12, 2009 by emcax24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 800x600 on a 15 inch monitor is the same as on a 32inch monitor. only on a 32inch monitor it looks worse because its taking a tiny image and stretching it to fit. you really should go read about this sh*t before you start talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 800x600 on a 15 inch monitor is the same as on a 32inch monitor. only on a 32inch monitor it looks worse because its taking a tiny image and stretching it to fit. you really should go read about this sh*t before you start talking. Who the f*ck is talking about screen sizes? We are talking about resolutions. Do you even know what resolution is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcax24 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 lol. im done with you "non smart people". for real this time. lol what does screen size have to do with resolution lololololroflmaocopterswaffles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNutjob Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 he was talking about you. the details are exactly the same in every screenshot you posted assuming its the same image just resized. i guess you are stupidly assuming that somehow when you play in lower resolutions the rest of the screen is blacked out and all you can see is a tiny window the size of the resolution which is absolutely LOL. in any resolution the image is the same size as your monitor. if your native resolution is 1280 everything will be nice and sharp in 1280, same goes for any other resolution. it doesnt just magically get better because you made the image larger. 800x600 on a 15 inch monitor is the same as on a 32inch monitor. only on a 32inch monitor it looks worse because its taking a tiny image and stretching it to fit. you really should go read about this sh*t before you start talking. Details exacly the same? WTF?!?! No they're not. Doesn't matter if he just made a bigger resolution picture smaller to explain his point. The detail level is not the same. All of your post just prove that you don't understand what anyone here is trying to tell you. Maybe you should read this topic through slowly and carefully, and you might even get something out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Eggcox is the best name for you really. Oh and you're a retard. One of the biggest retards I've ever come across. So congratulations for that. If you're done with us "non smart people", please f*ck off. GTAF doesn't want stupid sh*theads like you, especially in a section such as this. You honestly make me sick . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 H - VH - VH - VH - HIGHEST - 100 - 100 - 100 - 16 - OFF- ON Tweaks: Farclip 3500 + Ultimate Blur n.6 Nice settings, thats my favourite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.R Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 An i7 at stock speeds rapes any older quad even when they are overclocked to hell. Thats not true, we have compared performances in the forum for sometime, a quad at 4 Ghz will f*ck ass n p*ssy of a i7, like the 920, at stock clock. My QX f*cks overclocked i7s in vantage too. Wish I had bought two 295s and not 2 285s as I would now be the current world record holder. The current holders CPU, an i7 965 overclocked to 4.309GHz scores only 31669 for CPU and my QX scores a whopping 47264 for CPU. They are only in the top slot thanks to the score that two 295s will give you. http://service.futuremark.com/resultAnalyz...8&resultType=19 You cant compare a system running PhysX with a system not running PhysX. Official score in ORB is with PhysX disable, hence the lower score. With PhysX enable on the 280:s i get around 57900 CPU score and that rape a QXscore. in 2 way-sli that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 With PhysX enable on the 280:s i get around 57900 CPU score and that rape a QXscore. in 2 way-sli that is. I get 46K for CPU score with one GTX 280 + Qx9650 at 4 Ghz. I would like to see some GTA 4 benchies from you ER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.R Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 With PhysX enable on the 280:s i get around 57900 CPU score and that rape a QXscore. in 2 way-sli that is. I get 46K for CPU score with one GTX 280 + Qx9650 at 4 Ghz. I would like to see some GTA 4 benchies from you ER. OK, you asked for it: Statistics Average FPS: 65.30 Duration: 37.26 sec CPU Usage: 29% System memory usage: 62% Video memory usage: 100% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (59 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Very High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: Very High View Distance: 31 Detail Distance: 100 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 182.05 Audio Adapter: Speaker (Creative SB X-Fi) Intel® Core i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz Why it say Definition off and vsync on while i have it Vsync off and Definition on i do not know. For gameplay i always use Vsync on in any game. Note that this is with 2-way SLI as i cant use my third card aircooled on this MB/Case combo. That one comming later when it is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 An i7 at stock speeds rapes any older quad even when they are overclocked to hell. Thats not true, we have compared performances in the forum for sometime, a quad at 4 Ghz will f*ck ass n p*ssy of a i7, like the 920, at stock clock. My QX f*cks overclocked i7s in vantage too. Wish I had bought two 295s and not 2 285s as I would now be the current world record holder. The current holders CPU, an i7 965 overclocked to 4.309GHz scores only 31669 for CPU and my QX scores a whopping 47264 for CPU. They are only in the top slot thanks to the score that two 295s will give you. http://service.futuremark.com/resultAnalyz...8&resultType=19 You cant compare a system running PhysX with a system not running PhysX. Official score in ORB is with PhysX disable, hence the lower score. With PhysX enable on the 280:s i get around 57900 CPU score and that rape a QXscore. in 2 way-sli that is. Was wondering why it was scoring so low, I should try my PC without physx enabled to see how much it actually rapes my set-up then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 OK, you asked for it: Looking good. I would ask you to use 100 to view distance but at 1920 x 1200 it would crash that 1 Gb VRAM of the GTX 280 - im using -availablevidmem 1.6 to enable 100% to view distance, plus farclip tweaked to 3500, but i play at 1680 x 1050, and i sure its pretty the limit of the VRAM w/o any bs issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E.R Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 OK, you asked for it: Looking good. I would ask you to use 100 to view distance but at 1920 x 1200 it would crash that 1 Gb VRAM of the GTX 280 - im using -availablevidmem 1.6 to enable 100% to view distance, plus farclip tweaked to 3500, but i play at 1680 x 1050, and i sure its pretty the limit of the VRAM w/o any bs issues. I might try that when i do the tri-sli run but i suspect that it would not affect the FPS mutch on SLI-run either, CPU being the limit is just a big joke. 6-core/12-theaded westmere might be able to max this game out. Is commamndline working in 1.0.2? When i tried avalible mem 3 or 4 it would lock on lowest rez and lowest setting and saying i was over the limit even tho the game only wanted 200MB Vram, setting it at 2 crachet the bench at loading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 (edited) I might try that when i do the tri-sli run but i suspect that it would not affect the FPS mutch on SLI-run either, CPU being the limit is just a big joke. 6-core/12-theaded westmere might be able to max this game out. Is commamndline working in 1.0.2? When i tried avalible mem 3 or 4 it would lock on lowest rez and lowest setting and saying i was over the limit even tho the game only wanted 200MB Vram, setting it at 2 crachet the bench at loading. Nah dont think the 1 Gb VRAM can handle it all maxed at 1920 x 1200, itll certainly bottleneck the CPU causing RESC10 errors, pop / lazy textures and those bs issues common to low / medium end PCs. Yes commandline is working fine with second patch. Edited February 12, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 OK, you asked for it: Looking good. I would ask you to use 100 to view distance but at 1920 x 1200 it would crash that 1 Gb VRAM of the GTX 280 - im using -availablevidmem 1.6 to enable 100% to view distance, plus farclip tweaked to 3500, but i play at 1680 x 1050, and i sure its pretty the limit of the VRAM w/o any bs issues. I might try that when i do the tri-sli run but i suspect that it would not affect the FPS mutch on SLI-run either, CPU being the limit is just a big joke. 6-core/12-theaded westmere might be able to max this game out. Is commamndline working in 1.0.2? When i tried avalible mem 3 or 4 it would lock on lowest rez and lowest setting and saying i was over the limit even tho the game only wanted 200MB Vram, setting it at 2 crachet the bench at loading. That happened with me too, you only need to set it to 1.6 to max everything out completely on 1920x1200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenster Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Comparison of different CPUs for GTA IV: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,672004/...CPU-benchmarks/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Now or Never Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Wich is the best motherboard for gta iv? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maraca2020 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 First of all, I will NOT overclock I have a few questions: 1. What is the best motherboard for the following parts? 2. Should I get a quad core, a core 2 quad, or an i7. For either one, how nice should I go 3. For the video card, definetly a nvidia, probably a gtx 260 or 280. Good? 4. 4 gb of ram 5. segate 500 gb hd 6. anything else that I need? So what motherboard would you recommend. Also, what should I do for cooling? Also, keep in mind that I don't want to update this in 2 years, and it must be able to play gta 4 very well, with a great framerate, above 30 min., pref above 40. Thanks very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maraca2020 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) sorry, 1 more thing. Is the nforce 790i ultra sli mcp the best motherboard on the market for intels or are the asus better P6T Deluxe V2 Edited February 13, 2009 by maraca2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Can you give us a budget? I can try and put together the best system possible for your budget. Oh and also tell us where you live . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsbig Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I just rebuilt my computer and this is the results I got... Statistics Average FPS: 50.48 Duration: 37.25 sec CPU Usage: 63% System memory usage: 47% Video memory usage: 93% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Very High Water Quality: Low Shadow Quality: Very High View Distance: 19 Detail Distance: 100 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Video Driver version: 7.14.10.636 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) AMD Phenom II X4 940 Processor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maraca2020 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Can you give us a budget? I can try and put together the best system possible for your budget. Oh and also tell us where you live . thanks. I live in the us. Can you give me one the best stuff, but not outrageous, and then one around $1000, then one under $1000. thanks. Also, this is not including mouse, keyboard, monitor, or case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 (edited) No problem. Around $1000 build: Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD3R i7 920 Kingston HyperX 6GB (3X2GB) DDR3 2000 PowerColor HD4870X2 2GB GDDR5 Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7200RPM 32MB Cache SATAII Cooler Master eXtreme Power 550W Totals to $1,055.94. Under $1000 build: Same as the above build but with this video card. Totals to $983.94. The first build is better and worth the slightly increased cost though. It has a 4870X2 while the second has a 4830. The i7 would run IV with absolutely no problems, and you can overclock it for ewven more performance as these chips are great overclockers. Edited February 13, 2009 by Warlord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron123 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 First of all, I will NOT overclock I have a few questions: 1. What is the best motherboard for the following parts? 2. Should I get a quad core, a core 2 quad, or an i7. For either one, how nice should I go 3. For the video card, definetly a nvidia, probably a gtx 260 or 280. Good? 4. 4 gb of ram 5. segate 500 gb hd 6. anything else that I need? So what motherboard would you recommend. Also, what should I do for cooling? Also, keep in mind that I don't want to update this in 2 years, and it must be able to play gta 4 very well, with a great framerate, above 30 min., pref above 40. Thanks very much. 1. depends on the CPU 2. what is quad core? , core 2 quad (any model of 2.8-3.0GHZ for stock clocks use) is a good for GTAIV. 3. 280\285GTX or 4870 1 GB. 4. 4 GB of min 1066 MHZ 5. whatever you want, min 300GB. 6. PS of 600-800 Watt, DVDRW 7. I advice for GTA an extra air cooler, and OC quad of 3.6-3.8 GHZ. I didn't count money, this is the basics for GTAIV running in max settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron123 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 HIS Hightech Radeon HD4870 512MB Sorry to say it, but 512 MB of VRAM sucks for GTAIV . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now