gtafan09

it still remains a liar. I wish it lied to me like it did with you

I thought I had 25 fps. That's what the stupid benchmark told me. When I play, I tested it with fraps, and I get only 12 fps. This benchmark lies!

I don't think that slightly lower than that would be fine. Only if you play with all at minimum, but where's the beauty of the game in that? I have exactly a 2.4 AMD cpu with an ATI4850. Doesn't run as it should.

Just tried. Gained 1.2 fps.

Thank you. Hope it helps.

As retarded as the taxi drivers in the game, when you hire a cab. Thank you, I thought I was the only one thinking this. The benchmark is at night, and during daylight there is more to render, with shadows and shadings on metal cars and everything else. I got 25 fps on that benchmark, with low specs, but when I played it didn't look like that.

Yes, exactly that's what I meant with shadows highest settings, but really have they said that? What else are they going to put on market? I have a feeling that this is the wrong time to buy a new PC, especially now with i7 on the market and AMD that is going to launch Phenom II on January. Maybe I should just add an AMD 6000+ processor and 2 GB ram to my actual PC and try to be satisfied with what I get for another year. I'm still very confused, with all these options. But it just hurts not being able to play at full graphics a wonderfully detailed game like GTA IV. Anyways, below I'm posting what my benchmark on GTA IV said, in case anyone needs to compare his specs and understand if he can run GTA IV on his PC or not. And I was wrong before about 18 fps. All slides (shadows, detail etc) were at maximum, except View Distance, which demanded more than 512 MB of memory from the video card. And by the way, thank you very much guys, for the tip on ATI 4850. It's really the best you can get for the money. It's a pity that it doesn't share memory from ram, but it's still OK. And also for the tip on the motherboard, which I might buy, if I decide to get a quadcore. It was very helpful.

Hello, guys. Can anyone help me decide? I have an ATI HD 4850 Graphic Card. I am not pleased with my AMD 4600+ and 2 GB Ram PC. I tried to get a Q6600 but couldnt afford both processor and Mobo. Now, with Christmass Offers, I have two options to choose: There are two different PC-s on sale with good prices, with all the same specs, except processor. One has Intel C2D E7200 2.66 ghz and the other has Phenom X4 9550 2.2 ghz. Both 4 GB RAM and the Graphic Card doesn't matter, because I will put mine, ATI HD 4850 512 MB. Price almost the same. The e7200 PC is accer and the Phenom X4 9550 is Packard Bell. With my actual PC I'm getting about 18 fps with 1280x1224, highest rendering and shadows. Thank you.

Thank you. I just played the first hour. This is definitely the best game I have ever seen. It doesn't look like a game, but like a video. But however, very hard for my PC. With a resolution 1024x756, Medium Graphics and Medium rendering (which is after Low, and then is High and very high I can hardly play. I mean, I can play, but it's not satisfying. And the other options, like Distance Draw and number of objects on the scene, are set around 30% out of 100%. My PC is AMD 64 X2 4600+ 2.4 ghz, Ram 2GB 800 mhz, Motherboard ASUS M2N4-sli, VGA ATI HD4850 512 MB. So, if you want to know if your PC will play GTA IV, you must have at least... this hardware. If you want a decent gaming, you need more then this. Especially in graphic Card. I would like to know if I ad RAM, will it improve any better? Or it's everything about the graphics card?

Hello, I just got my ATI HD4850 512 MB. I have a CPU AMD 64X2 4600+ 2.4 ghz, and 2GB RAM Haven't installed VGA yet because I'm looking for a power supply. What frame rate should i get with this? Do I need to buy a new processor? I have found a 150 $ Core 2 Quad 6600 but for this I'll need a motherboard too, because mine is Asus M2N4-SLI and doesn't support quad. Should I stay with what I have or do I still need to upgrade? thank you.

OK, mystery raised by myself, solved by myself seems that the only game where ATI 3870 is better then ATI 4850 is exactly Assassin's Creed. 4850 is better for all the others. Strange, though. http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...e,735.html?prod[2121]=on∏[2116]=on

I saw this chart. Does anyone now why ATI Radeon HD 3870 is far more better than ATI Radeon HD 4850, both 512 MB? Isn't 4850 supposed to be better than 3870? here's the chart http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-...-v1-02,735.html

1. All GTA Releases 2. All COD releases 3. Pro Evolution Soccer 4. Age of Empires 5. Assassin's Creed and Bioshock

looks like? U kidding? If your rig won't max it out then only UFO's would. So, can anyone tell me if my processor AMD 64 X2 Athlon 4600+ 2.4 GHZ, (minimum required) with a ATI HD4850 can play at max graphics in 1280x1024?

OK, i saw the minimum requirements. Those were the recommended. Now, my processor, AMD X2 2.4 is the minimum requirement. Does this mean that I won't play the game on max graphics even if I have the ATI 4850? Isn't the video card who makes most of the work?

WTF!! A phenom?! Is this official? Do you think the AMD X2 4600+ 2.4 ghz will handle this game if Graphic Card is ATI 4850 and RAM 2 GB DDR2?

And about the territory, I read on the web that Far Cry 2 map size is less then the half of GTA IV map size. Is that true? I might be wrong on this.

Well I have to disagree with that. Look at Far Cry 2. Brand new game and runs fine on my brothers Old P4 and a 8600gt 1 Gig of ram with all the eye Candy and good FPS @ 1024x768. I realize that isnt the highest res today but its still a 17'' monitor standard. And Far Cry 2 is absolutely beautiful. Im sure GTA IV will run on a wide variety of of pc's just fine. Maybe not all the eye candy but still playable to say the least. Well, 8600GT is a DX10 card, isn't it? It should play the new generation's games at low graphics level. But like I said before, graphics are what makes today's games beautiful. Storylines and shooting are the same as in any other game. Except GTA, of course. For example, I can play very well Assassin's Creed with my actual PC by setting the graphic levels at minimum, but it was like playing a PS1 game. I hope GTA works with low requirements, but as you know, the vast open world space in GTA, those large dynamic cities, make GTA a very hard game to be handled by the PC. That's why GTA SA had such ugly graphics. But GTA IV is not SA. It has very good graphics, high resolution textures. And GTA IV isn't Far Cry 2 neither. Far Cry 2 has less objects to draw in the jungle scenes, and it's territory is not as big as GTAIV's territory. GTA IV has to draw dozens of pedestrians, cars, trees and buildings and other details simultaneously, in a much larger space than the scenes of Far Cry 2. There's a reason why GTA IV requires 18 GB of hard disk space. It's textures must be very large because of the high resolution. Large textures can't be easily played by a simple graphic card, and those shadows and reflexions can't be played without shader model 3.0 or better. Yuor card has a SM3.0, i guess? The 8600gt being DX10 has jack to do with it. That is a buget card now and runs the game fine. How do you figure Far Cry 2 has less objects to draw in the jungle? Have you actually played that game. It has tons of stuff to draw and all the moving and hi-res foliage is what normaly kills you FPS. Sorry to tell ya but the graphics are better on Far Cry 2 than the console version at least of GTAIV. And if you ever notice GTAIV has really crappy draw distance too. Both 360 and PS3. O and as for the territory not being as big.....LOL R U KIDDING ME. My point is there is new state of the art games that run fine on older and buget PC's. If a P4,1gig of ram, and a budget 8600gt, can pull off highest settings on new games like Far Cry 2 and Pure im sure GTAIV will be atleast playabe for those people on medium to lower settings. When it comes to eye candy on GTAIV I will guess it to be like all other games...., the higher the res the less FPS. But that dont mean you cant have all the eye candy on at a more moderate res. Rockstar know what there doin and they have been through this before. They know how to program very well. Look how hard it was to tell the difference between the PS3 and 360 versions wich are two totally different platforms to develop for. And PS3 supposedly being such a pain in the A$$ to develop for. I think everyone is WAY WAY OVERESTIMATING what that game will actually require. I run a Quad Core Q9550, 4Gigs of ram, And a GTX 260 and people on other forums have had the nerve to say maybe you will get medium to medium high settings with that setup lol. SERIOUSLY. 8600 pulls off the highest graphic level on Far Cry 2? Really? I thought you meant that you played it with low graphics and resolution. Are you sure you put shadows level at high? If yes, it's a hell of a card, and by normal cards I don't mean that kind, but DX9 ones. 8600 might be the lowest of the new generation, but there's e big difference between Vista's DX10 and XP-s DX9. Since you have tried both; a quad supercomp with best VGA on market, and a simple P4 PC with 1 GB Ram and 8600GT, you must know better than anyone the difference between playing these games on lowest graphics level and highest. I mean, with lowest graphics, Pure is just a racing game. You can find games like that on free PS1 roms on the web. Graphics makes it special. I haven't played GTA IV PC, but you haven't neither. I haven't played Far Cry 2, but I have tried a lot of things with Crysis and Assassins Creed, and I don't think that animated folliage kills FPS more then a busy city full of animated interactive objects and dynamic lights and shaders. I mean, with Crysis, I could set all graphics to High, and only shaders at low, and I could get 20 FPS. But if I tried the contrary, all specs at Low, and only shaders at High, I couldn't get more then 8 FPS. So shaders make all the big difference on new gen's games, and folliage doesn't use shader as much as a city with cars that reflex on their metal everything that goes by, with water that looks like real and with lights and shadows that change on a human body following the slightest move.

Well I have to disagree with that. Look at Far Cry 2. Brand new game and runs fine on my brothers Old P4 and a 8600gt 1 Gig of ram with all the eye Candy and good FPS @ 1024x768. I realize that isnt the highest res today but its still a 17'' monitor standard. And Far Cry 2 is absolutely beautiful. Im sure GTA IV will run on a wide variety of of pc's just fine. Maybe not all the eye candy but still playable to say the least. Well, 8600GT is a DX10 card, isn't it? It should play the new generation's games at low graphics level. But like I said before, graphics are what makes today's games beautiful. Storylines and shooting are the same as in any other game. Except GTA, of course. For example, I can play very well Assassin's Creed with my actual PC by setting the graphic levels at minimum, but it was like playing a PS1 game. I hope GTA works with low requirements, but as you know, the vast open world space in GTA, those large dynamic cities, make GTA a very hard game to be handled by the PC. That's why GTA SA had such ugly graphics. But GTA IV is not SA. It has very good graphics, high resolution textures. And GTA IV isn't Far Cry 2 neither. Far Cry 2 has less objects to draw in the jungle scenes, and it's territory is not as big as GTAIV's territory. GTA IV has to draw dozens of pedestrians, cars, trees and buildings and other details simultaneously, in a much larger space than the scenes of Far Cry 2. There's a reason why GTA IV requires 18 GB of hard disk space. It's textures must be very large because of the high resolution. Large textures can't be easily played by a simple graphic card, and those shadows and reflexions can't be played without shader model 3.0 or better. Yuor card has a SM3.0, i guess?

COD 4 San Andreas Bioshock how was it?

Pretty close, it's called a "power supply" in English. And I'd recommend a 500w or higher for that card. Check the card's requirements. Thank you... you're right. I googled with "power supply" and it's more than 450 W. So, other money to spend on googeling for this, i found an interesting thing called power supply calculator

Pretty close, it's called a "power supply" in English. And I'd recommend a 500w or higher for that card. Check the card's requirements. Are GTA IV graphics better than Assassin's Creed?

It's impossible to launch good visuals with low requirements. Even if they manage to do something like that, they won't tell. They will always find a way to make you upgrade and spend more on your PC, but never less.

One last question, please. I found an ATI HD 4850 and I might buy it next week, but don't know if I have to upgrade the power feeder... I don't know the exact term in english. It's the stuff where you put the electricity plug. In italian is called allimentatore. Mine is 350W. With the new video card, will I be obliged to upgrade it? If not, what's the risk? If it's obligatory, how many wats are needed? I tried to google it but i guess i couldn't find the right words for the search.

I have no idea about skinning in san andreas. In vice city i remember that there was an accessible bitmap file. I even photoshoped my own face on it. But SA didn't have a bitmap file. Guess it's much more complicated with this. And you have even changed his face expression. Is it a downloadable mod?