Which GPU run San Andreas smoothly

[OG Viking]

I'm looking at new laptops and I want something that can run San Andreas on maximum graphic details very smoothly.

 

Don't give me advice on which computer to buy, please just tell me what GPU (mobile!) I want and I'll go from there.

 

I have experience with AMD Radeon HD6630M, and that GPU didn't run San Andreas well. I had to reduce the settings in order to maintain high FPS.

 

What do I need to get the most out of San Andreas on maximum settings?

 

The above is the most important question. But it's possible that I might get the PC versions of GTA IV and V some day, so if you know what it takes to run them very smoothly on maximum settings then please post those graphic cards as well.

 

I prefer Nvidia so unless an unusually good AMD deal pops up, I'll go for Nvidia.

Edited November 26, 2014 by OG Viking

[OverTheBelow]

Depends what your budget is really. You aren't going to get a laptop that runs GTA4 and 5 at highest settings smoothly for a cheap, but anything modern with a midrange graphics chip will have no problem with GTA SA. You'll need a high-end laptop if you're expecting to max next gen GTA games out smoothly.

 

I'm surprised you are having problems with GTA SA and the HD6630M in fact, that GPU should handle it fairly well. Have you updated your drivers and made sure youre not running the game using onboard chipset graphics?

[OG Viking]

Thanks.

 

I'm not sure how much I'm going to spend, it depends on how good a deal I can make. But for now I just want to know what it takes to run San Andreas very smoothly on maximum graphic details. (I'm not sure how many FPS it takes for it to be very smoothly, hence no FPS numbers mentioned.)

 

HD6630M did run GTA SA, but not well enough. I did not get enough FPS on maximum settings. On a game this old I won't accept to lower the settings. I don't remember how many FPS I got, but it didn't run smoothly.

 

I sold that laptop long ago. I'm aware of drivers so it would come natural to me to update them, though I have no memory of it now. It had AMD A8 series CPU with integrated graphics, and I do remember controlling which programs to use it or not. I certainly did use the HD6630M for San Andreas.

 

 

A mobile GPU that will run GTA IV very smoothly on maximum settings might perhaps be too expensive, but I would like to know the answer to this as well.

 

 

I don't have to buy a GPU that can run a particular game smoothly on max settings, but I can use it as a reference and buy a slightly cheaper GPU.

As an example, if the answer to one of my questions is GeForce GTX 860M, I can use this as a reference and consider a GPU that is somewhat cheaper.

 

 

 

 

but anything modern with a midrange graphics chip will have no problem with GTA SA.

Is it possible to be more specific? I don't know what counts as midrange. And "no problem with" is not necessarily the same as "maxing out"?

[OverTheBelow]

Something like a GT 750m is midrange and will probably be able to max SA out at 720p. Telling a midrange chip is fairly simple- the first number represents the generation, generally higher is better. The higher the next two numbers, the higher end model it usually is. Remember the processor is just as important for framerate on poorly coded games like SA, which might be what had caused low performance on your last laptop.

[OG Viking]

Something like a GT 750m is midrange and will probably be able to max SA out at 720p. Telling a midrange chip is fairly simple- the first number represents the generation, generally higher is better.

No shops I've seen sells laptops with 7-series GeForce. It seems like both the low-range and mid-range are in the 8-series. Less than 840M is rare, and there aren't many with 840M. By the look of it, the midrange is 850M - 860M, there's a lot of the latter.

 

 

 

Something like a GT 750m is midrange and will probably be able to max SA out at 720p.

I want to play on max resolution, not just 720 pixels.

750M is capable of 742.7 GFLOPS which is similar to that of 840M (790.3 GFLOPS). If this means 840M is only capable of running SA smoothly on low resolution, I have to get something much more powerful. 860M is affordable but I'm not sure it'll be sufficient.

 

List of Nvidia GPUs

 

 

 

Remember the processor is just as important for framerate on poorly coded games like SA, which might be what had caused low performance on your last laptop.

It's common knowledge that the CPU has little to do with FPS, but maybe poorly coded games are an exception. If you say so I have no reason to not believe you. I've heard that GTA games don't run as well on PC as on consoles, but I didn't know that the extra load fell on the CPU. My last laptop had an AMD A8-3530MX, 1.9 GHz quad-core.

 

What is considered good average FPS anyways? 60?

Edited November 29, 2014 by OG Viking

[OverTheBelow]

 

Something like a GT 750m is midrange and will probably be able to max SA out at 720p.

I want to play on max resolution, not just 720 pixels.

750M is capable of 742.7 GFLOPS which is similar to that of 840M (790.3 GFLOPS). If this means 840M is only capable of running SA smoothly on low resolution, I have to get something much more powerful. 860M is affordable but I'm not sure it'll be sufficient.

Depending on the budget of the laptop, you'll either get a 768p screen or a 1080p screen. I assumed you were on a budget and would end up with a laptop with a resolution of 1366x768, which is the 'max resolution' you'd be able to play at and is very similar to the amount of pixels rendered with 720p.

 

 

 

Remember the processor is just as important for framerate on poorly coded games like SA, which might be what had caused low performance on your last laptop.

It's common knowledge that the CPU has little to do with FPS, but maybe poorly coded games are an exception. If you say so I have no reason to not believe you. I've heard that GTA games don't run as well on PC as on consoles, but I didn't know that the extra load fell on the CPU. My last laptop had an AMD A8-3530MX, 1.9 GHz quad-core.

 

What is considered good average FPS anyways? 60?

 

What? Where on earth is it 'common knowledge' that CPU has little to do with FPS? Processor bottlenecks have been the bane of my life with PC gaming with a huge amount of games. It absolutely has a big effect on your framerate if your CPU is not up to par. Not to mention the emphasis on CPU is becoming much more frequent in PC games with a) the introduction of Mantle, b) the fact that next gen consoles have very strong processors to take advantage of (and thus, gets ported to PC cpu-heavy), and c) loads of games are poorly coded these days (thanks ubisoft, ea) and demand a lot out of a computer as a whole.

I'd say 60fps is the sweet spot between price/performance. Consoles generally run at 30fps.

http://30vs60.com/

Edited November 29, 2014 by OverTheBelow

[OG Viking]

Depending on the budget of the laptop, you'll either get a 768p screen or a 1080p screen. I assumed you were on a budget and would end up with a laptop with a resolution of 1366x768, which is the 'max resolution' you'd be able to play at and is very similar to the amount of pixels rendered with 720p.

Full HD is what I'm going for, but I don't want to spend more than necessary. If I need I powerful expensive GPU I can afford it, but I'll happily save some cash if I can. My budget isn't fixed it's flexible. I'll stretch it as far as necessary to get the most out of San Andreas, and maybe GTA IV too.

 

 

 

What? Where on earth is it 'common knowledge' that CPU has little to do with FPS? Processor bottlenecks have been the bane of my life with PC gaming with a huge amount of games. It absolutely has a big effect on your framerate if your CPU is not up to par. Not to mention the emphasis on CPU is becoming much more frequent in PC games with a) the introduction of Mantle, b) the fact that next gen consoles have very strong processors to take advantage of (and thus, gets ported to PC cpu-heavy), and c) loads of games are poorly coded these days (thanks ubisoft, ea) and demand a lot out of a computer as a whole.

 

I'd say 60fps is the sweet spot between price/performance. Consoles generally run at 30fps.

http://30vs60.com/

What I've heard many times is that for 3D gaming, the GPU means almost everything. But I might be misinformed.

Which CPU would not be a framerate bottleneck? Intel i5 dual core, or i7 quad core?

Thanks.

[OverTheBelow]

Which CPU would not be a framerate bottleneck? Intel i5 dual core, or i7 quad core?

Thanks.

 

I'd say these days a modern i5 quad core (4th gen, i5-4xxx) is pretty much all you need to be set for a good few years. The only difference to i7 quads is hyperthreading, which is rarely needed by games (if even utilised at all).

 

I've been on my 1st gen i5 for nearly 5 years and only now it's starting to vaguely show its age in the occasional game. I'll be upgrading it within the coming months.

[OG Viking]

So my last laptop was even worse than I thought it was, I didn't think the CPU had such a negative impact. I'll go with Intel this time.

 

If a modern (Haswell) i5 and a cheap GPU (like GeForce 840M) is enough to run SA at around 60 FPS, maybe I should aim higher and get something that can max out GTA IV at 60 FPS on maximum graphics settings. A GPU capable of that will probably run V at medium settings.

Am I making sense?

[sivispacem]

If a modern (Haswell) i5 and a cheap GPU (like GeForce 840M) is enough to run SA at around 60 FPS, maybe I should aim higher and get something that can max out GTA IV at 60 FPS on maximum graphics settings. A GPU capable of that will probably run V at medium settings.

You'll struggle to get 60fps at maximum in IV on a laptop. In fact, the game is so poorly optimised you struggle to get 60fps regardless of your build spec.

[Ducard]

Just a quick tip, if you want performance with IV on max settings, downgrade to patch 1.0.4.0, as the newest patch is very performance intensive. Either way though, I doubt you'll get smooth 60 FPS in IV on max settings, 30 itself is an achievement.

[OG Viking]

 

Perhaps what I would need for IV and V is GTX 970M, or even GTX 980M. They would run it well enough? 980M is way too expensive but 970M might be affordable if I wait some months. In the mean time I've got the PS2/PS3 versions.

[OverTheBelow]

Perhaps what I would need for IV and V is GTX 970M, or even GTX 980M. They would run it well enough? 980M is way too expensive but 970M might be affordable if I wait some months. In the mean time I've got the PS2/PS3 versions.

You'd need a highly clocked processor and one of those cards to max GTA4 out at 60fps probably. The game is heavily dependent on the CPU and is so poorly optimised that it can't actually utilise the full potential of processors with more than 3 cores. This makes clock speed (the ghz) and architecture very important, and is why I overclocked my own processor to 4.2ghz. It boosted my FPS massively.

 

If you're going to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a laptop with top notch specs, you might as well just get a desktop. Any laptop with specs enough to max GTA4 would be a brick and defeat the object of being a portable computer. And you'll save a ton of money getting a desktop PC over a laptop.

Edited December 3, 2014 by OverTheBelow

[OG Viking]

 

Perhaps what I would need for IV and V is GTX 970M, or even GTX 980M. They would run it well enough? 980M is way too expensive but 970M might be affordable if I wait some months. In the mean time I've got the PS2/PS3 versions.

You'd need a highly clocked processor and one of those cards to max GTA4 out at 60fps probably. The game is heavily dependent on the CPU and is so poorly optimised that it can't actually utilise the full potential of processors with more than 3 cores. This makes clock speed (the ghz) and architecture very important, and is why I overclocked my own processor to 4.2ghz. It boosted my FPS massively.

 

Few games can utilize 4 cores and it's not bad if IV can utilize 3. This part is better than I hoped for, so it's a shame that utilizing 3 cores can't make up for the inefficient code.

 

I can stretch my budget to an i7-4700 or i7-4710, they run at 2.4/2.5 GHz, and maximum 3.4/3.5 GHz in turbo mode (depends on number of cores in use). I don't really want to get into overclocking (especially not on a laptop), so please don't say GTA IV wants an overclocked i7.

 

 

 

If you're going to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a laptop with top notch specs, you might as well just get a desktop. Any laptop with specs enough to max GTA4 would be a brick and defeat the object of being a portable computer. And you'll save a ton of money getting a desktop PC over a laptop.

I've been thinking about it, but I need a new laptop anyway and modern gaming laptops aren't too heavy. So why not get one that can run GTA is what I'm thinking, but I'll still be considering my options. Thank you for the advice though.

 

 

 

Speaking about framerate, I think I remember reading something about issues when the FPS dropped below or got higher than a certain value, possibly 60 FPS (it could have been a different value). I don't remember what the issue was, just that it was more or less bad. Maybe it had to do with Nvidia SLI, or maybe not.

Anyone here who could help me remember?

Edited December 5, 2014 by OG Viking

[SilverRST]

GTAIV doesn't need an overclocked i7. I build my PC with an i7-4770, it's an un-overclockable CPU and GPU is a GTX780.

It does GTAIV runs very smoothly at 60FPS and when in dense city, dips goes to like 45FPS but never at 30FPS or under.

 

The CPU's you mentioned are fine. If are getting a new laptop, just make very sure you find a laptop with 2 cooling fans.

So CPU and GPU gets their OWN cooling fan. Laptops intends to start overheating after 2 or 3 years. I experienced this

and since my last laptop got new problem after the other, I'm done with them.

I really love laptops to game on it and I would've wanted the GTX980M. But they are a little pricey.

My gaming PC literally costs the half of a laptop with i7 and GTX980M and my rig will wipe the floor with the laptop brutally.

[OverTheBelow]

 

 

Perhaps what I would need for IV and V is GTX 970M, or even GTX 980M. They would run it well enough? 980M is way too expensive but 970M might be affordable if I wait some months. In the mean time I've got the PS2/PS3 versions.

You'd need a highly clocked processor and one of those cards to max GTA4 out at 60fps probably. The game is heavily dependent on the CPU and is so poorly optimised that it can't actually utilise the full potential of processors with more than 3 cores. This makes clock speed (the ghz) and architecture very important, and is why I overclocked my own processor to 4.2ghz. It boosted my FPS massively.

 

Few games can utilize 4 cores and it's not bad if IV can utilize 3. This part is better than I hoped for, so it's a shame that utilizing 3 cores can't make up for the inefficient code.

 

I can stretch my budget to an i7-4700 or i7-4710, they run at 2.4/2.5 GHz, and maximum 3.4/3.5 GHz in turbo mode (depends on number of cores in use). I don't really want to get into overclocking (especially not on a laptop), so please don't say GTA IV wants an overclocked i7.

It's a more and more common thing for games to utilise over 4 cores. Whether they actually need that remains the question; GTA4 definitely does. The problem with GTA4 is that the graphics options let you raise the settings too high for 3 cores to handle, and it ultimately ends up heavily restricting your performance unless you overclock (or wait a few years for an extremely efficient CPU architecture). Add this to the rest of the all-round poor optimisation and it becomes one of the most stubborn games to run at a solid 60fps at max settings.

 

 

 

Speaking about framerate, I think I remember reading something about issues when the FPS dropped below or got higher than a certain value, possibly 60 FPS (it could have been a different value). I don't remember what the issue was, just that it was more or less bad. Maybe it had to do with Nvidia SLI, or maybe not.

Anyone here who could help me remember?

Might be vsync? When the framerate drops below 60fps then vysnc can cause the framerate to halve in order to keep with your monitors refresh rate (causing jumps to 30fps when 60fps cannot be maintained). This usually only happens when vsync is lazily implemented, though.

[OG Viking]

The problem with GTA4 is that the graphics options let you raise the settings too high for 3 cores to handle, and it ultimately ends up heavily restricting your performance unless you overclock (or wait a few years for an extremely efficient CPU architecture). Add this to the rest of the all-round poor optimisation and it becomes one of the most stubborn games to run at a solid 60fps at max settings.

If GTA IV is this stubborn, wonder how V will be if they don't do a better job porting it...

But I guess they will port the PS4 or X1 version of V. I've heard the new consoles have hardware more similar to PCs, so if the PS4/X1 versions are optimized for the new consoles, we can hope the PC version will be optimized too.

 

 

 

 

Speaking about framerate, I think I remember reading something about issues when the FPS dropped below or got higher than a certain value, possibly 60 FPS (it could have been a different value). I don't remember what the issue was, just that it was more or less bad. Maybe it had to do with Nvidia SLI, or maybe not.

Anyone here who could help me remember?

Might be vsync? When the framerate drops below 60fps then vysnc can cause the framerate to halve in order to keep with your monitors refresh rate (causing jumps to 30fps when 60fps cannot be maintained). This usually only happens when vsync is lazily implemented, though.

 

It must have been VSync! Looking around I found a few "quick answers" on VSync, but this is by far the best article I found explaining it. Wikipedia have a very brief paragraph about it under the article "Screen tearing". Edited December 5, 2014 by OG Viking

[yoječ]

I'll just add that GeForce cards offer Adaptive VSync feature, which basically makes VSync turn off when framerate falls below refresh rate.

[Argonaut]

 

If a modern (Haswell) i5 and a cheap GPU (like GeForce 840M) is enough to run SA at around 60 FPS, maybe I should aim higher and get something that can max out GTA IV at 60 FPS on maximum graphics settings. A GPU capable of that will probably run V at medium settings.

You'll struggle to get 60fps at maximum in IV on a laptop. In fact, the game is so poorly optimised you struggle to get 60fps regardless of your build spec.

 

 

This, I agree with an i5 3570k and 8GB DDR3 RAM. It's still a darn sight better programmed than SA was..

 

 

 

The problem with GTA4 is that the graphics options let you raise the settings too high for 3 cores to handle, and it ultimately ends up heavily restricting your performance unless you overclock (or wait a few years for an extremely efficient CPU architecture). Add this to the rest of the all-round poor optimisation and it becomes one of the most stubborn games to run at a solid 60fps at max settings.

If GTA IV is this stubborn, wonder how V will be if they don't do a better job porting it...

But I guess they will port the PS4 or X1 version of V. I've heard the new consoles have hardware more similar to PCs, so if the PS4/X1 versions are optimized for the new consoles, we can hope the PC version will be optimized too.

 

 

 

How come a Desktop is out of your range? Say if you buy one and you suddenly want to upgrade your GPU, your practically screwed. A Gaming Laptop which will actually last as long as a Desktop performance-wise will drive an extremely high premium due to portability and I don't ever see this significantly changing- and by the time it is possible, the companies that make the Laptops will recognise that the public knows that so-called Gaming Laptops will always drive a high price and won't probably change this accordingly.

 

 

"I've been thinking about it, but I need a new laptop anyway and modern gaming laptops aren't too heavy. So why not get one that can run GTA is what I'm thinking, but I'll still be considering my options. Thank you for the advice though.

 

Modern Gaming Laptops aren't too heavy? Well, if you a buy a Alienware Top of the range notebook at above £2000 they aren't. "I need a new laptop anyway".. Literally for the price of buying a performance laptop you could buy a cheap work Laptop and buy a rig which focuses around having the best Motherboard for expandability so that you could get better parts when the money comes. However, you mentioned not being that skilled in dealing with computer hardware, so that rules it out of the bargain.

 

Point is, what your looking for is priced so high that so many more practical solutions arise.

I'll just add that GeForce cards offer Adaptive VSync feature, which basically makes VSync turn off when framerate falls below refresh rate.

 

But ATI are red and have cool cases

 

 

And I was so close to being able to get this case.. ah well.

[OverTheBelow]

^ ATI doesn't even exist any more. After being acquired by AMD, the brand was retired in 2010. That case must be pretty old.

[OG Viking]

@Argonaut

 

Desktops are of course not out of my range. But desktops are impractical if you want to take it with you occasionally, even if you've got a car. A heavy gaming laptop weighs no more than 4-5 kilos and fit in a bag, and some gaming laptops are barely 3 kilos. Alienware is nice but the performance doesn't match the price tag. Other brands offer much more bang for the buck. Acer, MSI, Samsung and Asus are examples.

 

I've not made up my mind and I'll consider my options. If I buy a laptop that can run the games mentioned, it'll be all I need for a few years. When I need more power I can then get a desktop and my laptop will still be useful for work and many games.

 

Or I can get a desktop and a crappy laptop at the same time for the same price I pay for one good laptop. Decisions decisions...

 

£2000 is too much for just one computer so a high-end Alienware is out of the question. £700-1100 is no problem and there's lots of laptops in that range. Maybe I have to go above £1000 to get something that can be called a gaming laptop.

Edited December 7, 2014 by OG Viking

[sivispacem]

Lenovo do some pretty perky ~£1k laptops with dedicated GPUs. They're really meant for graphic design or other high workload business applications (we use them at work for stuff like rainbow table and hashcat password cracking on the go) but work pretty well as gaming systems too.

[SilverRST]

@Argonaut

 

Desktops are of course not out of my range. But desktops are impractical if you want to take it with you occasionally, even if you've got a car. A heavy gaming laptop weighs no more than 4-5 kilos and fit in a bag, and some gaming laptops are barely 3 kilos. Alienware is nice but the performance doesn't match the price tag. Other brands offer much more bang for the buck. Acer, MSI, Samsung and Asus are examples.

 

I've not made up my mind and I'll consider my options. If I buy a laptop that can run the games mentioned, it'll be all I need for a few years. When I need more power I can then get a desktop and my laptop will still be useful for work and many games.

 

Or I can get a desktop and a crappy laptop at the same time for the same price I pay for one good laptop. Decisions decisions...

 

£2000 is too much for just one computer so a high-end Alienware is out of the question. £700-1100 is no problem and there's lots of laptops in that range. Maybe I have to go above £1000 to get something that can be called a gaming laptop.

2000 pounds, well I'm trying to find the pound symbol but can't find it lol. But 2000 pounds is really too much, it's around like €2800 or little.

You defintely can have one very good PC and also a good laptop. My gaming PC is with an i7-4770, GTX780 and 16GB RAM was really around €1300,

so plenty of room to get a nice good laptop with atleast GT750M which is a fine GPU. It is not really difference in your situation with pounds.

Gaming laptops tends to be overheating after 2 years and now opening the backplate differs from companies and some made it impossible to open

them to clean and remove the dust and replace the thermal paste with a new clean thermal paste. These are the reason why I really hate gaming

laptops. It is really a shame because I was a hardcore laptop fan the past 10 years. But after the bad experiences with overheating, no more.

However, times can change and now TSMC has started producing 16nm FinFET, nVidia GPU's will be very power-efficiency and therefore

less overheating. I'm not sure about AMD though as Global Foundries will be producing wafers for AMD.

[OG Viking]

Lenovo do some pretty perky ~£1k laptops with dedicated GPUs. They're really meant for graphic design or other high workload business applications (we use them at work for stuff like rainbow table and hashcat password cracking on the go) but work pretty well as gaming systems too.

Lenovo have a good reputation for durability, unless their quality have changed in the recent years. I've also heard about a brand named Clevo which make reasonably priced performance laptops, but I don't know anything about their build quality.

 

You crack passwords at work??? It sounds a little unsettling, but I guess it would be no less unsettling if it is a pastime activity...

 

 

 

 

plenty of room to get a nice good laptop with atleast GT750M which is a fine GPU.

I have no idea of what a GT 750M is capable of, but on paper (Wikipedia) it looks very weak compared to the ones that are more powerful. The 700M series is soon two years old, so if I could find a 760M or 770M I could perhaps make a bargain. But the 800M series is dominant, I can't remember seeing one 700M series.

I'm not really sure what the main difference is between the 700M and 800M series, both are fabricated 28nm.

 

 

 

Gaming laptops tends to be overheating after 2 years and now opening the backplate differs from companies and some made it impossible to open

them to clean and remove the dust and replace the thermal paste with a new clean thermal paste. These are the reason why I really hate gaming

laptops. It is really a shame because I was a hardcore laptop fan the past 10 years. But after the bad experiences with overheating, no more.

However, times can change and now TSMC has started producing 16nm FinFET, nVidia GPU's will be very power-efficiency and therefore

less overheating. I'm not sure about AMD though as Global Foundries will be producing wafers for AMD.

I've used laptops that were much older than that, up to 12 years old (mostly Compaqs), but they never overheated. We keep the air vents clean, and dusting off the desk now and then helps prevent problems. A bed or a similar environment is no good place for a laptop so that's always been avoided.

 

Why would you replace the thermal paste unless you also replace the CPU/GPU?

 

The current 900M series is power efficient. Not too cheap tho.

Edited December 9, 2014 by OG Viking

[OG Viking]

Remember the processor is just as important for framerate on poorly coded games like SA, which might be what had caused low performance on your last laptop.

I have got a MSI GP70 laptop and it runs SA surprisingly well! I get 100-140 FPS in cut scenes, and usually in the 65-80 range when I play. But I haven't been doing anything very "advanced" (like flying). But I do have all graphics settings maxed out at 1920 x 1080.

The new hardware:

- Intel i7-4710HQ, 2.5 GHz (3.5 GHz max)

- GT 840M, 2 GB (DDR3)

- 8 GB RAM

- 17.3" full HD

- Windows 8.1 (64 bit)

 

The i7-4710 and GT 840M combination is far superior to the former AMD A8-3530MX (1.9 GHz) and Radeon HD6630M combo that I told about earlier in this thread. (Even if the A8 is an APU and can work in CFX.) Even the PS2 was better at running SA than my former laptop.

 

I don't think of 840M as a powerful card, so perhaps it's thanks to the i7 that my new laptop leaves the other one in the dust at playing SA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking about framerate, I think I remember reading something about issues when the FPS dropped below or got higher than a certain value, possibly 60 FPS (it could have been a different value). I don't remember what the issue was, just that it was more or less bad. Maybe it had to do with Nvidia SLI, or maybe not.

Anyone here who could help me remember?

Might be vsync? When the framerate drops below 60fps then vysnc can cause the framerate to halve in order to keep with your monitors refresh rate (causing jumps to 30fps when 60fps cannot be maintained). This usually only happens when vsync is lazily implemented, though.

 

I have not seen anything about v-sync anywhere on my new laptop. Where can it be turned on and off? I've not seen it in the Nvidia control panel, and not in the game options either. Edited January 3, 2015 by OG Viking

[OverTheBelow]

Sounds like the processor may have been the bottleneck after all, then.

 

GTA SA doesn't support vysnc ingame, so if you havent made an effort to enable it via Nvidia CP then it's probably not on. It can be found in the graphics control panel under individual 3D settings for applications.

[OG Viking]

I have got a MSI GP70 laptop and it runs SA surprisingly well! I get 100-140 FPS in cut scenes, and usually in the 65-80 range when I play. But I haven't been doing anything very "advanced" (like flying). But I do have all graphics settings maxed out at 1920 x 1080.

The new hardware:

- Intel i7-4710HQ, 2.5 GHz (3.5 GHz max)

- GT 840M, 2 GB (DDR3)

- 8 GB RAM

- 17.3" full HD

- Windows 8.1 (64 bit)

 

The i7-4710 and GT 840M combination is far superior to the former AMD A8-3530MX (1.9 GHz) and Radeon HD6630M combo that I told about earlier in this thread. (Even if the A8 is an APU and can work in CFX.) Even the PS2 was better at running SA than my former laptop.

 

I don't think of 840M as a powerful card, so perhaps it's thanks to the i7 that my new laptop leaves the other one in the dust at playing SA.

The 840M showed its limitations as soon as I turned on a few things in the Nvidia control panel. With anti-aliasing (FXAA) on, the framerate often dropped down to 14, and the average was in the 20-30 range.

 

The frequent drops in FPS actually made driving difficult. I steer, nothing happens and then suddenly I find myself over-steering. I noticed that the wheels didn't turn when I pressed the button. I wouldn't have thought this would happen at 14 FPS!

 

I don't know if the game actually looks nicer with FXAA and other settings enabled (there are no such settings in-game), but it have such a negative impact on performance that I can't leave it on regardless of how nice it looks.

 

 

But 14 FPS is still a lot better than the Intel graphics are capable of... The i7-4710HQ with its HD Graphics 4600 only gave 4 FPS (FXAA off but all the in-game settings maxed out). It could however give 80-100 FPS with all settings disabled/minimized on the lowest resolution.

 

 

 

My conclusion is that GT 840M is okay for San Andreas, if you accept variations from 40 to 90 FPS. And you must leave everything in the Nvidia control panel at default settings which for the most part means OFF, and this is especially true for FXAA. But all the in-game settings can be maxed out at 1920x1080 and still give you 55-65 FPS on average. But you'll often see drops to around 40 FPS.

 

Sadly the game behaves a bit weird when the frame limiter is off, it's recommended to leave it on which means 25 FPS. So actually you'll do fine with a less powerful card than 840M.

Edited January 17, 2015 by OG Viking

[SilverRST]

FXAA is a horrible form of AA. Basically any nVidia AA is horrible and just nothing but marketing bullsh*t.

Why are you using FXAA? GTA SA's AA is already fine enough. You could do SSAA but the GT840M is basically sh*t.

Edited January 18, 2015 by SilverRST

[SilverRST]

I tried FXAA once when I got my new PC rig. It's a horrible looking AA and way too blurried.

It's just not a good form of AA. It's better to use the game's AA so you'll be sure the game will run better.

[sivispacem]

OG, sorry I accidently deleted your post. Stupid fat fingers.

 

FXAA is a pretty decent balance between processing performance and quality if you don't mind the softening of edges. More advanced AA produces a better result but the performance impact is generally far more significant.