Can my PC run GTA IV?

[_Ray]

Just out of curiosity, how many weeks would it take to load 1 frame on my PC if I bypassed all the restrictions? (With every setting on MAX)

Assuming that the game ran (which it wouldn't) you would still be waiting for the first frame to load by the time GTA 5 comes out.

Yeah, lol, that's what I thought.

Technically, you might pass

Not with that graphics card he won't. It's not supported and it's very poor anyway.

Yeah, that's his weakest point.

With a Pentium-D 2.8GHz, it might perform almost as well as a Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz, but I still wouldn't reccomend a Pentium to anybody looking for a good system. Only to people looking for cheaper systems (Under $600 or so) do I say Pentium. NEVER would I say Celeron or AMD Athlon/Sempron.

Edited February 16, 2009 by raybob95

[davesta]

What's wrong with AMD Athlon? I've got an AMD Athlon X2 6000+ 3.1GHz. It's really quick and runs every game I throw at it smoothly and at high settings.

And I would never reccomend a pentium, even for someone looking for a cheap system. Core 2s are quite cheap now, if you go for a lower speed one.

[_Ray]

What's wrong with AMD Athlon? I've got an AMD Athlon X2 6000+ 3.1GHz. It's really quick and runs every game I throw at it smoothly and at high settings.

And I would never recommend a Pentium, even for someone looking for a cheap system. Core 2s are quite cheap now, if you go for a lower speed one.

I just don't like Athlons. But let me revise that, I would recommend an Athlon only in the same situation I might recommend a Pentium. But I always say Intel.

And at the moment, low-end Pentiums are better for their money than a low-end Core 2 Duo.

Pentium E5200: 2MB L2 Cache, 2.50GHz, Dual Core, 800MHz FSB, 45nm Tech $73

Core 2 Duo E4600: 2MB L2 Cache, 2.40GHz, Dual Core, 800MHz FSB, 65nm Tech ~$128

Edited February 16, 2009 by raybob95

[davesta]

I just don't like Athlons. But let me revise that, I would recommend an Athlon only in the same situation I might recommend a Pentium. But I always say Intel.

Actually, Intel has very little advantage over AMD when it comes to dual core processors. Yes, the Athlon equivalent of a Core 2 will have a higher speed, but it will also be slightly cheaper. It is stupid to just say 'I don't like Athlons'. However, all of this is irrelevant if the person in question is using an Intel mobo.

And at the moment, low-end Pentiums are better for their money than a low-end Core 2 Duo.

Pentium E5200: 2MB L2 Cache, 2.50GHz, Dual Core, 800MHz FSB, 45nm Tech $73

Core 2 Duo E4600: 2MB L2 Cache, 2.40GHz, Dual Core, 800MHz FSB, 65nm Tech ~$128

That's because you need a high-end Pentium, not a low-end Pentium, for it to be as good as a low-end Core 2. The reason the Core 2 example you gave is so much more expensive than the Pentium, is because it's that much better. a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo is far better than a 2.5GHz Pentium Duo. On top of that, a 2.4GHz Core 2 is hardly low-end.

I think that you need to do some research on processors before you advise people on what to buy.

Edited February 16, 2009 by davesta

[_Ray]

I just don't like Athlons. But let me revise that, I would recommend an Athlon only in the same situation I might recommend a Pentium. But I always say Intel.

Actually, Intel has very little advantage over AMD when it comes to dual core processors. Yes, the Athlon equivalent of a Core 2 will have a higher speed, but it will also be slightly cheaper. It is stupid to just say 'I don't like Athlons'. However, all of this is irrelevant if the person in question is using an Intel mobo.

And at the moment, low-end Pentiums are better for their money than a low-end Core 2 Duo.

Pentium E5200: 2MB L2 Cache, 2.50GHz, Dual Core, 800MHz FSB, 45nm Tech $73

Core 2 Duo E4600: 2MB L2 Cache, 2.40GHz, Dual Core, 800MHz FSB, 65nm Tech ~$128

That's because you need a high-end Pentium, not a low-end Pentium, for it to be as good as a low-end Core 2. The reason the Core 2 example you gave is so much more expensive than the Pentium, is because it's that much better. a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo is far better than a 2.5GHz Pentium Duo. On top of that, a 2.4GHz Core 2 is hardly low-end.

I think that you need to do some research on processors before you advise people on what to buy.

Actually, it's the lowest Core 2 Duo they offer.

And how, specifically, is the Core 2 Duo Better? From the specs I wrote, the Pentium looks like the superior CPU. And I did say that I only recommend Pentiums on low-end systems.

Edited February 16, 2009 by raybob95

[davesta]

A Core 2 processor simply runs more efficiently, which means that it will be quicker even with a lower clock speed, in the same way that an AMD Athlon is more efficient than a Semperon. Notice how, in the game's requirements, is specifies a higher clock speed for the Athlon than it does for the Core 2. This is also because the core 2 is more efficient at the same speed.

Also, I should mention that the minimum requirements for GTA IV specify a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo. Not a pentium.

Edited February 17, 2009 by davesta

[_Ray]

A Core 2 processor simply runs more efficiently, which means that it will be quicker even with a lower clock speed, in the same way that an AMD Athlon is more efficient than a Semperon. Notice how, in the game's requirements, is specifies a higher clock speed for the Athlon than it does for the Core 2. This is also because the core 2 is more efficient at the same speed.

Also, I should mention that the minimum requirements for GTA IV specify a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo. Not a pentium.

True, but a 2.8GHz Pentium-D is almost the equivalent of a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo.

Well, actually it's equivalent to about a 1.5GHz Core 2 Duo.

So yeah, the CPU, as I said before, will likely not meet the requriements.

And thank you for proving my point of how Core 2 Duos are far superior to the Athlon. The only thing I like better about the Athlon is that it typically has a wider voltage range.

And just to say, the main processor I'd recommend right now for someone looking for a fast, reliable solution that's even decent in gaming, is this for it's outstanding value and performance:

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819115037

Above that, I'd recommend Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400/9450.

I wouldn't recommend a Core 2 Extreme at this point, and for gamers, I'd say i7.

Edited February 17, 2009 by raybob95

[davesta]

True, but a 2.8GHz Pentium-D is almost the equivalent of a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo.

Well, actually it's equivalent to about a 1.5GHz Core 2 Duo.

And how, specifically, is the Core 2 Duo Better? From the specs I wrote, the Pentium looks like the superior CPU. And I did say that I only recommend Pentiums on low-end systems.

Make your mind up. First you compare a Core 2 and a Pentium and say that they are similar, now you're agreeing with me?

And thank you for proving my point of how Core 2 Duos are far superior to the Athlon. The only thing I like better about the Athlon is that it typically has a wider voltage range.

I didn't prove that Core 2 Duos are superior, simply that they are slightly more efficient. However, they are also far more expensive than their equivalent AMD processor, so therefore I would say that for their price, an Athlon would be a better processor to buy, unless you want to spend a lot of money.

Anyway, this is pointless. AMD are cheaper. Pentiums suck. You can't argue with that.

Shall we get back on topic?

Edited February 17, 2009 by davesta

[_Ray]

True, but a 2.8GHz Pentium-D is almost the equivalent of a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo.

Well, actually it's equivalent to about a 1.5GHz Core 2 Duo.

And how, specifically, is the Core 2 Duo Better? From the specs I wrote, the Pentium looks like the superior CPU. And I did say that I only recommend Pentiums on low-end systems.

Make your mind up. First you compare a Core 2 and a Pentium and say that they are similar, now you're agreeing with me?

And thank you for proving my point of how Core 2 Duos are far superior to the Athlon. The only thing I like better about the Athlon is that it typically has a wider voltage range.

I didn't prove that Core 2 Duos are superior, simply that they are slightly more efficient. However, they are also far more expensive than their equivalent AMD processor, so therefore I would say that for their price, an Athlon would be a better processor to buy, unless you want to spend a lot of money.

Anyway, this is pointless. AMD are cheaper. Pentiums suck. You can't argue with that.

Shall we get back on topic?

I said that I would recommend a Pentium only to someone who's looking for cheap, decent, reliable PC, which Pentiums are prefect for.

Correct, I can't argue with that.

Absolutely.

[chris82]

I said that I would recommend a Pentium only to someone who's looking for cheap, decent, reliable PC, which Pentiums are prefect for.

AMDs are better for that purpose to a certain point. Currently you should go with Intel for gaming UNLESS you already have an AMD AM2+ motherboard.

[Spookeh]

Processor: Intel Core Duo 1.8ghz

Graphics: Intel GMA950 256mb (Yes, I'm on a laptop )

RAM: 4GB

OS: Vista

[davesta]

Processor: Intel Core Duo 1.8ghz

Graphics: Intel GMA950 256mb (Yes, I'm on a laptop )

RAM: 4GB

OS: Vista

While you have more than enough RAM and your processor is (just) good enough, there is no way that you will ever get the game running on integrated Intel graphics, sorry.

Since it's a laptop, I'm not sure if you can replace the graphics card or not, someone else will have to confirm this.

[Sabin]

Looks like alot of you dudes are running old hardware. Good luck playing this game becuase I built my first PC last month.

Windows Vista home Premium

AMD Phenom Quad Core 9500 2.2Ghz

4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM

Radeon HD 3450 512MB

Doesn't run GTA IV very well. Only on 800 x 600 Resolution and some medium low settings I can get a decent FPS. I think my video card is the problem. other then that my pc is very fast. I used to have an old crappy PC also with like 512MB RAM , 1 core and some obselote onboard graphics. PC gaming on something like that is imppossible to enjoy becuase of the low FPS. you'll have to build a gaming PC and it'll cost around $1500. But ya I don't like consoles.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Sabin

[davesta]

I built my PC last month.

Thermaltake Tsunami Clear side tower. - $160

Biostart TA790GX A+ Motherboard - $140

Generic PSU 500W - $60

WD 160GB Harddrive - $80

Windows Vista home Premium - $259

AMD Phenom Quad Core 9500 2.2Ghz - $119

4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM - $80

Radeon HD 3450 512MB - $100

shipping - $100

Tax - 15%

Cost $1,000, and it BARELY runs GTA 4. I can run it in. Resolution: 800 x 600. with pretty much everything on low settings....

I think the video card is sh*t. I probably need to get a HD 4870 but thats another $500 I dont have right now. the fucking sales tax is killing me btw, dont move to canada you''ll get raped by the gov here.

Yeah, that's the graphics card that's letting you down, sorry. You don't need a 4870, that's overkill. You'll want either a 3850 or a 3870. Just make sure you buy the 512mb version. With that processor and RAM, the game should run beautifully at high resolution. If you can afford it, a 4850 is good too, but 3850s are pretty cheap and run the game well.

[Spookeh]

Processor: Intel Core Duo 1.8ghz

Graphics: Intel GMA950 256mb (Yes, I'm on a laptop )

RAM: 4GB

OS: Vista

While you have more than enough RAM and your processor is (just) good enough, there is no way that you will ever get the game running on integrated Intel graphics, sorry.

Since it's a laptop, I'm not sure if you can replace the graphics card or not, someone else will have to confirm this.

I thought that would be the case And I don't think you can replace it, I'm fairly sure it's built right in with the motherboard, & I don't really wan't to replace that as I'm getting a new computer soon anyway.

[davesta]

I thought that would be the case And I don't think you can replace it, I'm fairly sure it's built right in with the motherboard, & I don't really wan't to replace that as I'm getting a new computer soon anyway.

Well, post the specs of the computer that you're looking at buying and we'll tell you whether or not it'll run the game or not, and advise you on better hardware to buy.

[Sabin]

I built my PC last month.

Thermaltake Tsunami Clear side tower. - $160

Biostart TA790GX A+ Motherboard - $140

Generic PSU 500W - $60

WD 160GB Harddrive - $80

Windows Vista home Premium - $259

AMD Phenom Quad Core 9500 2.2Ghz - $119

4GB DDR2 800MHz RAM - $80

Radeon HD 3450 512MB - $100

shipping - $100

Tax - 15%

Cost $1,000, and it BARELY runs GTA 4. I can run it in. Resolution: 800 x 600. with pretty much everything on low settings....

I think the video card is sh*t. I probably need to get a HD 4870 but thats another $500 I dont have right now. the fucking sales tax is killing me btw, dont move to canada you''ll get raped by the gov here.

Yeah, that's the graphics card that's letting you down, sorry. You don't need a 4870, that's overkill. You'll want either a 3850 or a 3870. Just make sure you buy the 512mb version. With that processor and RAM, the game should run beautifully at high resolution. If you can afford it, a 4850 is good too, but 3850s are pretty cheap and run the game well.

I have doubts about that a 3870 with 512MB VRAM could play on max settings either. The texture setting itself on max would take that whole 512MB VRAM leaving no room for the other stuff. So I think you would card with at least 1GB of ram and somewhere around 800 Stream processors to actually play this g game on real max settings.

Maby this one would be a better choice.

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/Sea...&CatId=3669

But I'm planning to buy this or this later on next month. I figure it'll be good for a few years to come..

Oh here is my Gaming rig I builtn

Edited February 20, 2009 by Sabin

[_Ray]

Would this be able to run GTAIV with every setting as high as possible (MAX) and a resolution of 2560x1600?

GPU: NVIDIA 10-9950GTX2 (800 Cores, 2200MHz Graphics Clock, 3400MHz Processor Clock, 2700MHz Memory Clock, 8GB VRAM, 2048-bit Memory Width)

CPU: Intel Core 3 Extreme (16 Cores, 60MB L2 Cache, 2133 FSB, 3.66 GHz, OC'd to 4.45GHz)

RAM: 48GB DDR4 SDRAM (6Channel) @ 3200 MHz

HDD: 8TB SATA III 8.5Gb/s HDD

OS: 128-bit Windows 8 (Full 64/32-bit Vista/7 Compatibility)

Edited February 20, 2009 by raybob95

[Spaz The Great]

Are you making shit up or just making typos?

Nevermind, you're making shit up for no apparent reason. There is no point to ask this shit. You know half of that doesn't exist, and if it did, yes, it would be able to run GTA IV. Can you stop spamming the place up with shit that doesn't need to be posted?

[_Ray]

Are you making shit up or just making typos?

Nevermind, you're making shit up for no apparent reason. There is no point to ask this shit. You know half of that doesn't exist, and if it did, yes, it would be able to run GTA IV. Can you stop spamming the place up with shit that doesn't need to be posted?

Yes, it was a bit silly, but I was actually asking what type of hardware would be needed to put it all on MAX, because I heard that no modern hardware could do that, and even new gaming PC's could only do medium at 1920x1200, or medium-high at 1440x900

[Spaz The Great]

I'm sure there is someone out there that can run it on maxed settings. Remember, there's super-nerds that make their PCs do things you'd never assume could be done, or would even NEED to be done.

[_Ray]

I'm sure there is someone out there that can run it on maxed settings. Remember, there's super-nerds that make their PCs do things you'd never assume could be done, or would even NEED to be done.

With an amazing GPU, this could do it:

http://blog.800hightech.com/cpu-overclock-...techncian/2261/

[Spaz The Great]

Yeah, they can way kill CPU's by cooling with liquid nitrogen. However, I'm pretty certain liquid nitrogen is quite dangerous.

[Sabin]

Would this be able to run GTAIV with every setting as high as possible (MAX) and a resolution of 2560x1600?

GPU: NVIDIA 10-9950GTX2 (800 Cores, 2200MHz Graphics Clock, 3400MHz Processor Clock, 2700MHz Memory Clock, 8GB VRAM, 2048-bit Memory Width)

CPU: Intel Core 3 Extreme (16 Cores, 60MB L2 Cache, 2133 FSB, 3.66 GHz, OC'd to 4.45GHz)

RAM: 48GB DDR4 SDRAM (6Channel) @ 3200 MHz

HDD: 8TB SATA III 8.5Gb/s HDD

OS: 128-bit Windows 8 (Full 64/32-bit Vista/7 Compatibility)

You must of came from the future.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Sabin

[_Ray]

Would this be able to run GTAIV with every setting as high as possible (MAX) and a resolution of 2560x1600?

GPU: NVIDIA 10-9950GTX2 (800 Cores, 2200MHz Graphics Clock, 3400MHz Processor Clock, 2700MHz Memory Clock, 8GB VRAM, 2048-bit Memory Width)

CPU: Intel Core 3 Extreme (16 Cores, 60MB L2 Cache, 2133 FSB, 3.66 GHz, OC'd to 4.45GHz)

RAM: 48GB DDR4 SDRAM (6Channel) @ 3200 MHz

HDD: 8TB SATA III 8.5Gb/s HDD

OS: 128-bit Windows 8 (Full 64/32-bit Vista/7 Compatibility)

You must of came from the future.

Absolutely. March 2009.

Yeah, they can way kill CPU's by cooling with liquid nitrogen. However, I'm pretty certain liquid nitrogen is quite dangerous.

Well, it's not poisonous or anything, just pretty cold at below -200 degrees F, and therefore could do some damage.

(thanks raybob for filling up this thread with useless crap again).

You're Welcome.

Edited February 21, 2009 by raybob95