x_orange90_x

bump i just ordered 2gb of new RAM, so hopefully i get the game running smoother. i did manage to come up with a fix for the textures issue, now i just need to get my FPS higher! http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820145486

thats an oddball resolution ur running that in, u'd prolly get better FPS if u run in 1024x768 at at least 85Hz. i just got 50 bones today, so im gettin 2gb of new RAM and then i'll be playing this game! i threw in 256mb (2x128) of matched PC3200 RAM in with my 1gb (512x2) and the game loads the textures, but not very fast, it frequesntly takes away everything it just drew so it can draw something somewhere else, its really odd. but i cant count on this config to run the game, cuz i OC'd my CPU and with the 256mb of Kingston in, it clocks my RAM down from 200MHz to 175MHz. but when i get more RAM i will let you all know how it runs.

yea i tried without it, thats how i installed it! my brother owns the game and he installed it for me last night, the only reason im using a crack right now is because he is playing it on his nice quad core with his Play disc! but all night last night i was using the disc, just my last post was the first time i used the crack. i have a legit installation and legit key and all, i just used the crack so i can continue to test the game and let you all kno how it is on my good ol P4! no worries man, its legit, just we cant both use the disc at the same time! here is a pic of my texture corruption:

well i got a working crack and was able to play for almost 2hrs with no crash or lockups.. but still with some really messed up textures. however, i sat in Roman's apartment and watched TV for almost an hour and went outside and all the textures were loaded for that area of the city, but after driving around and away from Roman's the textures messed up again and quit drawing all togethar. cant wait for some new RAM..

well here is an update.. i did that defrag and installed the extra gig of ram (single channel) and the textures were normal, no missing buildings or anything. but the lack of matched RAM and Dual Channel made my FPS drop by nearly half. so i shut down, took out the 1gig stick and OC'd my CPU 5% from 2.80GHz to 2.94GHz and it playes a hella-lot better and smoother, but with funked up textures.. so it was the RAM that was causing the textures to go wacky. now here is the stumper: the higher resolution i went the BETTER the game played. at 800x600 (more CPU dependant) the game ran around the teens for FPS. but going up to 1024x768 (a good middleground for CPU and GPU), i got some more frames. next i jumped it to 1280x1024 (GPU dependant) and it ran much better (than 800x600), and then up to 1440x900 and had roughly the same FPS as 1280x1024. so obviously my GPU was able to pick up the slack and take the load off of my CPU.. but that extra 140MHz on my CPU gave me much better performance. now im planning on buying 2gigs of brand new RAM and testing it again. and i think then it will be playable (around 30-40fps). now i was borrowing my brother's copy to do this, so i am awaiting a working noDVD so i can take some screens for you all and show you what i mean. @GTAWiseman lol, i dont have a Pentium D, i have a Pentium 4, a socket 478 P4 to be exact!

o he could play SA, if he gets a trainer (the Ultimate Trainer i think) he can use the option to reduce traffic and it will play fine. i used to play it on a 400MHz AMD K6-2 Compaq Presario 5340, 384mb mismatched-as-hell RAM, 6gb 5400RPM HDD, and a Geforce 2 GTS 64mb. instead of Ebay, y dont u find an alternative method of obtaining it? *wink* man, defraggin now and the whole drive was red after installing it and playing EDIT: and now the textures are fine after the defrag, either the defrag or another 1gig of ram i added, but it wasnt matched so it brought it down to single channel. but i really think the defrag was what made the textures clear up.

lol, gently put, no, no hope for that! lol, sorry but SA should run ok!

quite possible, whats ur specs?

well got the game installed, went to play and right off the bat i got an error before it would even start: GTA IV PC FATAL ERROR: RMN40 well, turned out i didnt have XP SP3 installed.. so i installed SP3 and the game started fine. it defaulted my settings at 1024x768@60Hz, the object and draw distance were set in the 20s, the texture settings (both) were set at High and Medium for the other. game played very well for a Pentium 4, i must say. now with the current bugs in the game being counted as a factor (in my book), it ran between 15 and 20 FPS. once again, NOT BAD for a P4. and here is my setup: Windows XP Black Pro SP3 Intel Pentium 4 HT 2.80GHz 800MHz FSB 512kb XFX Geforce 8600GT 512mb PCI-e x16 (mind you its limited at x4 because of my board) 1GB Crucial PC3200 DDR Dual Channel SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio ASUS P4V800D-X very surprising to me, as not even a Pentium D is mentioned for the minimum requirements.. the one problem i am encountering is texture drawing.. it is doing like the older GTAs (III and VC) where the textures would sometimes go blank or objects/textures wouldnt draw, but turning the draw distance up to 60 and the Texture Detail to Very High did help to keep my textures drawing faster. but as for gameplay overall, i must say, with 1 more gig of ram and the upcoming patch and possibly a CPU OC, i would definately consider the game playable. what other consider playable is usually nothing below 30fps, but i consider around 20 as playable, seeing as i grew up with outdated hardware even after each upgrade. but the fact that it is running at all is amazement to me, i was told no way in hell would it run, but it does. bash if you will, but after the patch (whether or not it fixes anything) i can maybe make a video or post some screens to proove my statement.

o no, he has a GeForce 6100, well over the mark for playing COD2. this is retarded, this guy is making a Intel vs AMD and ATI vs NVIDIA war and its not going anywhere. he has his mind set that the shit he uses is the best and there is nothing more. well its time to grow up and stop the flame wars. if the rest of the forum is this bad, i dont plan on coming back. there's plenty of other forums out there discussing the same topic without being arrogant pissants. this is damn rediculous..

All Pentium 4s are garbage All is what he said. i know a person with an Athlon 3000, doesnt even come close to my P4. i know someone with a Sempron (newer) that cant even run FEAR right, and has to turn the detail down in COD2 to make it run right. this mod obviously doesnt know what he is talking about. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...?i=2149&p=7 seems P4 EE is number 6 in the list, above each of the tested Semprons. hmm.. dont feel like looking for more. but one question for you: which 2 companies were about to go bankrupt and mergered at the last moment? o, thats right! AMD and ATI! neither one of them were making anything good for a while and each almost went bankrupt. so... they had to merger JUST to make something that would sell. has NVIDIA or Intel ever nearly went bankrupt? no. have they ever mergered to prevent from going bankrupt? umm, no!

lol, u poor thing. Semprons are truly garbage. Pentium 4 was THE gaming processor before the dual cores came out. ask anyone and they will tell you that P4s are not garbage. u must be a 12yo kid who doesnt research anything. honestly, go on Yahoo or Google and compare older CPUs (Athlons and P4s and Celerons). you will see. and why do u contradict everything? are you smarter than everyone here becuase you are a mod?! u are really pissing me off with this. and once again, you cant compare a Pentium 4 to ALL Athlons or Semprons. there are Athlon 300+, 2500+, 400+, etc. they all are different, so if you like comparing groups of things to one thing, go ahead, be my guest.

you wont get to far past low with PC2700 and a 6600. i got PC3200 (1GB) and 8600GT and the game is still not great past medium, even tho it shold be fine. but a P4 EE still out performs many new processors! i dont have one tho, too damn expensive!

Crysis is both a good and bad example. bad because the game was so poorly coded that there is no real existant setup that will run it correctly, and probably never will be, just as TES IV: Oblivion. good becuase if u can even run Crysis on lowest settings in the lowest res, you can rest assured that you will get a few frames out of GTA IV. now, i have updated my rig, so does anyone think i can pull of medium now? Windows XP Professional SP2 Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 Intel Pentium 4 HT 2.80GHz 800FSB 512k 1024MB DDR PC3200 Crucial Dual Channel XFX GeForce 8600GT 512mb PCI-e 16x SoundMax Digital Audio 120GB 7200RPM HDD i can now run UT3 maxxed, and that new game PURE maxxed. i am having much more confidence in how well my system will stand up to GTA IV now!

well than that settles it, you are just an ATI fan because thats what you use and praise. u never should have stated for that guy not to buy an NVIDIA card becuase they are junk. now he will think "oh, well this guy says they're junk so i'll buy an ATI." he will likely not buy an NVIDIA card just becuase of that, so he may not know what he is or isnt missing. that was a biased opinion. but anyway, i dont have the time nor will to argue about this, and im sure you dont either. i dont want to make bad with you, so lets just forget about this and get back to the topic. so... seeing as GTA IV will actually be coded to utilize multiple cores, multiple cores will obviously have better performance at higher settings. but with the newer cards that have a CPU built on the card, it will help take a small load of the processor if it is a single core or low-end dual core (Pentium D, Celeron DC). i am going to agree with chris on this one, i believe that both will play an important role seeing how this game will have so much to process at a time. also i feel the game will be very RAM dependant, for the same reason.

ok.. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2203 http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/01/qa-glit...ds-to-slip-out/ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39454/135/ http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?news...d=1&red=398 there are many things to say about each chipset manufacturer, and frankly this could go on all day. NVIDIA may have developed a faulty chip, but they paid to replace them all. all there is left to say is you like ATI, and i like NVIDIA. simple as that. but i have to suggest that you try a different NVIDIA card. ofcourse you can buy a 9600GT for around $50, but a junk one. if you had that cheap one, you will ofcourse have bad performance. but whats this? a BFG 9600GT costs over $100! thats becuase this one is quality, and will perform much much better than that cheaper $50 card offered by say, EVGA, PNY, etc. you may have bought cheap NVIDIA cards becuase they were inexpensive and that may have turned out to be your performance hitch. you cant say NVIDIA is crap unless you have tried the top-of-the-line reseller's product, such as BFG, or maybe even MSI. and i assume you are using a top-notch ATI card such as a Saphire or Chaintech or MSI. go buy the same card as the one you have, but by a no-name company for much cheaper than what you paid, and i assure you that you will find that one to perform very poor compared to your current one. its not about the chip really, its the distributer that counts. every reseller gets the same chipset for a certain card, but what they do with it is their own business, so if it fails or performs badly it is not NVIDIA's fault, its that reseller's. you are entitled to your opinion tho. but just remember, there are MANY factors to consider when you say a chipset is junk (vendor, compatibility with your other components, and the rest of your computer).

NVIDIA cards DO NOT suck. and neither do ATI. i take it you (chris82) are an ATI fan and use them for everything. go out and pick up a GX260 or 280 and pop that in your computer and see for yourself (unless you have a VIA chipset). even i have a VIA chipset paired with a 6800GT OC and get great performance despite the crappy chipset. i have had many NVIDIA cards over the years and never managed to mess any of them up. even one of them had no cooler on it and was gauging threw the roof in temps and it still worked fine. i have however had an ATI card of mine completely quit working (does nothing but a black screen on what is supposed to be the POST). yea there are some bad NVIDIA drivers, but one of the recent ForceWare drivers gave new life even to the 6 and 7 series cards, as well as the 8, 9, and 200 series. nearly 20% increase in performance for all games. Catalyst drivers, however, really are aweful. go on google and look up reviews for the Catalyst and you will see how many people are disgusted by them. forum after forum, people talk of their hate for the Catalyst. i will say this tho, NVIDIA chipsets are a no-go. any board with an NFORCE chipset is junk to me as they are a waste and have lots of problems. can i assume you are a big AMD fan too? seeing how many new AMD boards have ATI chipsets? not trying to be a jerk, but you really should do some research on whats crap and whats not. and p.s. you cant judge a card's performance based on ONE computer, not really even 2 or 3. the video card will only be as good as the biggest POS in your computer.

from what i know and have read, NO card utilizes a full 16x PCI-e slot to the fullest, not to mention PCI-e 2.0 is much more bandwith (still unutilized). so really, Crossfire and SLI are a waste of money, especially when you pay between $300-400 for a single card and then double, triple, or quadruple it. one day there may be a true benefit as to having these technologies, but as for now its just a selling feature that many fools buy into, making the companies more money.

yay thanks i take it that u got it working properly? if so, thats good!

im gonna take a stab at this one: it COULD be because of Windows XP 64bit. San Andreas AFAIK isnt 64-bit friendly. download a Virtual Workstation of some sort and install XP 32bit and put San Andreas on that. i'll bet it will run fine. or since you have a 500gb drive, make a new partition and just dual boot 64bit and 32bit. and why a XEON Quad Core? those are server processors, not really for gaming. edit: try this first: lauch the game after its loaded, ALT-TAB out CTRL-ALT-DELETE to open Task Manager find gta-sa.exe in the Proccesses right click it and click Set Affinity uncheck all but the first core click ok, close task manager and return to your game. this may work for you seeing how u have 4 cores and SA is a Single Core application.

then how do u explain such bad performance? u must have 1gb of PC2100 and a P4 without HT.. and even then it shouldnt be that low. i used to play it on a Dimension 4100 w/ P3 733MHz, 384mb PC2100, GF2 GTS 64mb, and Windows XP Pro on medium settings at 1024x768 with much better frames than 10-14. im not tryin to be an ass or anything, im just saying that u cant blame the video card for that low of performance when it can play Crysis on High in 1440x900 just fine. dude, its gotta be somethin in your computer that is causing it. is your game modded by any chance?

ya claude, u either have a crippled card or the world's worst chipset.. a 9600GT could handle 30+ San Andreas's at the sametime with no lag. or, maybe you confused the NVIDIA 9600GT with the ATI Radeon 9600? and for the post at the top, it IS possible to play Crysis on that setup. it is very close to my specs with a little faster CPU and i used to have the same card, the 6200 OC 256mb. the game ran on lowest settings at an avg. of 12-15fps. it is possible, just very very very laggy!

as long as the board is PCI-e x16 than the 9600GT should work for you. i too have an older ASUS board with a nearly 3 year old BIOS, the P4V800D-X to be exact. seems ASUS stops updating BIOSs for boards once they are a year or more old. but i would say u can play the game on low to medium, may be jerky with that 7950 (not dissing it, it just prolly wont perform the best with IV). consider the BFG 9600GT, very good card. i have to say that any computer that can run Crysis on low at 15-30fps should pull of GTA IV on low. keep in mind Crysis was very poorly coded, and R* usually codes their PC games very well. for example, San Andreas ran fine for me on a Geforce2 GTS 64mb (1024x768, medium settings). im sure it will be a big surprise to everyone when that game (IV) will run on systems with lower specs.. and where the hell are they with the Minimum reqs?! shouldnt be too much longer, my guess is sometime after the 1st.

if u already have a 9600GT why would you even waste money on a Quadro? no one here is lying to you, the Quadro series is NOT a gaming card and isnt ever planned to be. that would be a huge downgrade. HUGE. i tried an 8600GT in my pc but it was no better than my 6800GT, mainly cuz my PCI-e slot is only 4x, so ofcourse my 8x AGP 6800GT would win.

@Slyde, no no no, i didnt mean excellent FPS, i meant for my low specs it runs very well. i usually play it in 800x600 at medium and get a near 30fps all the time, bout 25fps in 1024x768.. but thanks for the response, any idea if GTAIV will run "good" on low? or just play, but very slowly?