Can my PC run GTA IV?

[Captain318]

AS for nVidia sucking, they absolutely do, horrible drivers and a high defectiveness rate. Also not very many things support PhysX, it's a fail technology IMO.

Well I guess we will agree to disagree then but im afraid you are horribly wrong on this issue being i have been using Nvidia cards for many years now. (Cough and Ati's Drivers are great) lol Nope fraid not. If you were right and they are crap then try to tell that to bout 60% of probably all PC gamers and they will laugh at you. Its just preference I think and like I said I got nothing against ATI at all but to say Nvidia is crap with bad drivers and worst of all Reliability issuses I have to stick up for them from my own experince not to mention I am a PC Technition of many years and most of my clients, (Many Gamers) all use and want Nvidia and come back to Nvidia when upgrading. Sorry I just dont see where your getting the idea that they are not reliable.

Also Physix are just taking off and more and more games are taking advantage of it like U3 for example and its here to say im afraid to tell ya. And as for Intel chipsets say what you want but ive been using them for years as well with great performance. Dont confuse Integrated Intel Graphics for a Intel chipset on a high end board. Of course onboard sucks as im sure we both can agree on.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Captain318

[x_orange90_x]

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.

[Captain318]

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.

Well I dont think all of the nforce chipsets are junk but some did have some issuses like the 680i I think it was. But im talkin bout their cards in general. And the ATI 4870x2 is a bad ass card and it would be cool if I could afford two of them to try crossfire on my "(crappy) Intel X38 chipset" lol. But my Nvidia is workin like a charm for the moment.

[chris82]

lol?

ATI's drivers are excellent...not the CCC of course, but I don't install that anyway.

In your experience nVidia cards have been great? I'm happy for you, but the opposite has been true for me and there are quite frequently news stories about defective nVidia parts being common, like here and also here.

And "60% of gamers" aren't loyal to nVidia either, hence the popularity of the 4000 series.

You call PhysX support taking off? The Unreal engine blows and the Quake engine (and derivatives of it, such as the Source and GoldSrc engines, which makes it the most popular engine in existence for first person shooters) doesn't support it.

Sure, there are a fair amount of games which use the Unreal 3 and 4 engines, but how many of those games actually make heavy use of physics? For that matter, how many of those games are even played frequently?

There are currently around 250 people playing Unreal Tournament 3.

There are currently around 58,000 people playing Counter-Strike, 25,000 people playing Counter-Strike: Source, 8,500 playing Team Fortress 2, 17,000 playing Call of Duty 4, 7,500 playing Battlefield 2, and those are easily the most popular online first person shooters. Until it's used in more than just the Unreal engine, GG PhysX.

And when I say Intel graphics chipset I obviously mean integrated graphics. And even if I didn't, it's irrelevant, xoonky's DXDIAG reported it as being an Intel graphics chipset. Would it report that if he had an nVidia or ATI graphics card? No.

Yes, I am an ATI fan, because every nVidia graphics card I've owned has either overheated or performed badly.

I'm an AMD fan as well. Same reasons. Not that Intel's current processors are bad. I'm not going to go and buy a new motherboard just to use one, but they aren't bad.

Yes, the Catalyst Control Center is horrible. Not the drivers themselves. You don't HAVE to install CCC.

A GTX 260/280? No thanks, I currently have a 3870 and if I did pick up a new graphics card soon, it would be a 4870 because IT'S BETTER AND CHEAPER.

Yes, a 4870 will in some cases outperform the 280 which costs over $100 more. Even if the 280 wins by a few FPS in certain games, I would still rather save money that could go towards a better processor or more RAM.

[Captain318]

lol?

ATI's drivers are excellent...not the CCC of course, but I don't install that anyway.

In your experience nVidia cards have been great? I'm happy for you, but the opposite has been true for me and there are quite frequently news stories about defective nVidia parts being common, like here and also here.

And "60% of gamers" aren't loyal to nVidia either, hence the popularity of the 4000 series.

You call PhysX support taking off? The Unreal engine blows and the Quake engine (and derivatives of it, such as the Source and GoldSrc engines, which makes it the most popular engine in existence for first person shooters) doesn't support it.

Sure, there are a fair amount of games which use the Unreal 3 and 4 engines, but how many of those games actually make heavy use of physics? For that matter, how many of those games are even played frequently?

There are currently around 250 people playing Unreal Tournament 3.

There are currently around 58,000 people playing Counter-Strike, 25,000 people playing Counter-Strike: Source, 8,500 playing Team Fortress 2, 17,000 playing Call of Duty 4, 7,500 playing Battlefield 2, and those are easily the most popular online first person shooters. Until it's used in more than just the Unreal engine, GG PhysX.

And when I say Intel graphics chipset I obviously mean integrated graphics. And even if I didn't, it's irrelevant, xoonky's DXDIAG reported it as being an Intel graphics chipset. Would it report that if he had an nVidia or ATI graphics card? No.

Yes, I am an ATI fan, because every nVidia graphics card I've owned has either overheated or performed badly.

I'm an AMD fan as well. Same reasons. Not that Intel's current processors are bad. I'm not going to go and buy a new motherboard just to use one, but they aren't bad.

Yes, the Catalyst Control Center is horrible. Not the drivers themselves. You don't HAVE to install CCC.

A GTX 260/280? No thanks, I currently have a 3870 and if I did pick up a new graphics card soon, it would be a 4870 because IT'S BETTER AND CHEAPER.

Yes, a 4870 will in some cases outperform the 280 which costs over $100 more. Even if the 280 wins by a few FPS in certain games, I would still rather save money that could go towards a better processor or more RAM.

Well both companys have their troubles. I like both and just because I use Nvidia I would never hate on ATI. And BTW the 3870 is a great card too. Its just matter of preference I say. Performance wise I think its stupid people always argue bout a few FPS difference between ATI and Nvidia. I may buy a ATI in the future when finances permit. But anyrate I dont want you to hate me now or nothin and there is no sense in beating a dead horse just I had to make it clear to other readers on the forums that Nvidia doesnt suck. Like them or not they make great products. And physix on U3 engine was just an example there is more to come you will see that soon enough. And personally I dont see why anyone wouldnt like that engine as its absolutely beautiful and U3 is a fun game. But buy what you like just dont tell other people that one or the other sucks is what I always say. That always looks like Biased comments to people and starts flame wars lol. Like what you like.

[ZohanJohan]

What i want to know is if this game will be heavier on the GPU or the CPU. I only have a single core paired with a 9600 GT. For those that wonder i'm only at 1152x864 resolution so the playing at 25x or 19x resolution is a nonissue

[x_orange90_x]

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).

[chris82]

Like them or not they make great products. And physix on U3 engine was just an example there is more to come you will see that soon enough. And personally I dont see why anyone wouldnt like that engine as its absolutely beautiful and U3 is a fun game.

Ok, I don't like them precisely because they don't make great products. But that isn't always the case. When the P4 was Intel's flagship, Intel was effectively horrible. Now they're on top. You may think U3 is fun, a lot of others don't. And there are several reasons why Source is the best engine for first person shooters, namely:

1. Scalability. Runs decently on shitty computers, runs amazingly and looks amazing on amazing computers.

2. Upgradability. The code is modular. Engine updates, graphical or otherwise can be slipped in without causing major breaks in backward compatibility.

As for the Unreal engine becoming viable in the future, should be fun.

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 of those articles are either old or concern OLD hardware. The Diamond one is related to the reseller. Yes, some resellers are better than others, but that mainly affects reliability and cooling components, not performance. I've used nVidia cards and it hasn't affected what I think; I'm not going to buy one because I'd rather have a card that performs similarly for less money.

What i want to know is if this game will be heavier on the GPU or the CPU. I only have a single core paired with a 9600 GT. For those that wonder i'm only at 1152x864 resolution so the playing at 25x or 19x resolution is a nonissue

Historically with GTA, the GPU has mattered more, but in this case I'm not sure, I'd say they will both be important. You shouldn't have drastic issues with a single-core processor, it probably just won't do as well as a multi-core.

[x_orange90_x]

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.

Edited October 15, 2008 by x_orange90_x

[ZohanJohan]

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.

What does higher settings mean though. my resolution is conservative compared to the average gamer but can i max the settings out? An 11x8 resolutio that will prob. turn 12x9 if i get a non widescreen 21 inch lcd. At the least i made a hell of a choice changing from 7950 GT to 9600 GT KO. TF2 and HL 2 kicked relative ass at max settings for a single core CPU

[chris82]

Not resolution, settings like texture quality, draw distance, shadows, etc...

Half-Life 2 does not support multi-core at all yet but the Orange Box version of the engine does, but it's disabled by default, so you wouldn't see any benefits from a dual-core there yet.

[DON 3993]

Ram : 1gb

Processor : 2.00ghz centrino duo

OS : Windows XP sp2

video card : I dont know much about this but I think it is Nvidia Gforce Go 7300 512mb (please tell me about this)

Its a laptop

[Mabuba]

Hey, people! Dont foolish ourselves now. People who got the similar pc like me can be ready to give up now. Because I ve been struggling with myself for the last several weeks just for finding out whether my laptop can be qualified to run this goddamn game. I ve looked through almost all the website that I can think of to collect the information about GTA4 pc version. It is simply driven by my curiousity and also excitement about the game. But Things surpirsed me is that my pc, which is:

DuoT545, 160GBharddrive,2GBmemory,Vistahome,ATI raden HD2400,VRAM128mb.

Is absolutely hopeless to make this game run. You know what?? in order to know this, I tried to play Crysis which is considered a high-requeriment game in recent days. But ended up with 800*600 and the lowest settings can just, and I mean just, okay to make it run. Considering GTA4 is not a holy piece of garbage that definitely need similar high requirement like Crysis. SO....I have to quit and forget about gta4 with some sort of disappointment!

[WRX22B1998]

Card name: Mobile Intel® 965 Express Chipset Family

No. Any graphics chipsets made by Intel are horrible.

Also the 4850 is a lot better than the 9600. Please don't make a mistake and put envidya parts in your system.

ahaha intel graphics = fail

but a 9600gt (here at least) is just about $100 cheaper than a 4850 (9600 = $119, 4850= $215) , is the 4850 actually that much better? like..in benchmarks, games etc

DON 3993, i dont know if it'd work, i'd be doubtful. i have geforce 7300 go too, and i cant even run nfs carbon on anything better than 640x480 medium settings otherwise it lags bad. i assume gta4 will have a much higher requirement. sure my cpu is only 1.66 core 2, but since iam running it at 640, it is using the cpu more than the video card (so i've heard) so yeah. i'd be leaning towards a no.

mabuba, since you said you could run crysis on 800x600 low, maybe you can run gta4 on similar settings. (or lower)...

Edited October 15, 2008 by WRX22B1998

[Shortbus]

Hey guys I'm having to skimp on prices, so I'm looking at the first combo deal in this list:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductCombo...=10&page=1-

Whatcha think? I'd be happy with just about anything if I could play my games (and new games, L4D, Fl3, GTA4 are the main ones. Not worried about playing high graphics games like crysis since it sucks anyway) at half medium half high graphics and keep above 30 FPS.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Shortbus

[chris82]

Very nice fan on that card, by all means get it, but keep in mind you'll be sacrificing a little performance because it has GDDR3 memory instead of GDDR4 or 5.

[x_orange90_x]

Hey, people! Dont foolish ourselves now. People who got the similar pc like me can be ready to give up now. Because I ve been struggling with myself for the last several weeks just for finding out whether my laptop can be qualified to run this goddamn game. I ve looked through almost all the website that I can think of to collect the information about GTA4 pc version. It is simply driven by my curiousity and also excitement about the game. But Things surpirsed me is that my pc, which is:

DuoT545, 160GBharddrive,2GBmemory,Vistahome,ATI raden HD2400,VRAM128mb.

Is absolutely hopeless to make this game run. You know what?? in order to know this, I tried to play Crysis which is considered a high-requeriment game in recent days. But ended up with 800*600 and the lowest settings can just, and I mean just, okay to make it run. Considering GTA4 is not a holy piece of garbage that definitely need similar high requirement like Crysis. SO....I have to quit and forget about gta4 with some sort of disappointment!

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!

[cosbuster]

Hey, people! Dont foolish ourselves now. People who got the similar pc like me can be ready to give up now. Because I ve been struggling with myself for the last several weeks just for finding out whether my laptop can be qualified to run this goddamn game. I ve looked through almost all the website that I can think of to collect the information about GTA4 pc version. It is simply driven by my curiousity and also excitement about the game. But Things surpirsed me is that my pc, which is:

DuoT545, 160GBharddrive,2GBmemory,Vistahome,ATI raden HD2400,VRAM128mb.

Is absolutely hopeless to make this game run. You know what?? in order to know this, I tried to play Crysis which is considered a high-requeriment game in recent days. But ended up with 800*600 and the lowest settings can just, and I mean just, okay to make it run. Considering GTA4 is not a holy piece of garbage that definitely need similar high requirement like Crysis. SO....I have to quit and forget about gta4 with some sort of disappointment!

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!

The 8600 should be good enough for med but not really sure about your proccessor , p4 is really old..

[RoGuE]

After someone mentioned Crysis being a high requirement game I downloaded the demo and I haven't played with the settings much but on all low at 800x600 it runs flawlessly. I will see how high I can go with the settings, but right now I am a little happy.

Athlon XP 3000+

1024MB PC2700 RAM

MSI 6600GT AGP

[x_orange90_x]

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.

The 8600 should be good enough for med but not really sure about your proccessor , p4 is really old..

but a P4 EE still out performs many new processors! i dont have one tho, too damn expensive!

Edited October 16, 2008 by x_orange90_x

[chris82]

but a P4 EE still out performs many new processors!

What? All Pentium 4s are garbage, Athlons and even Semprons beat the shit out of them.

[x_orange90_x]

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.

[ZohanJohan]

After someone mentioned Crysis being a high requirement game I downloaded the demo and I haven't played with the settings much but on all low at 800x600 it runs flawlessly. I will see how high I can go with the settings, but right now I am a little happy.

Athlon XP 3000+

1024MB PC2700 RAM

MSI 6600GT AGP

I have a single core like yours but it's much better

Athlon 64 3500

2 GB dual PC3200 DDR ram

9600 GT KO

I have the free demo to try out myself later at my favorite 19 inch viewable resolution 1152x864. It'll fly on the lowest settings and I think it can take medium settings

[Shortbus]

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.

This guy makes me lol. Obviously Chris means Athlons and Semprons in the same time-scale as your current P4.

Chris- I'm getting that combo. I've decided to stop looking at graphics cards completely and stop visiting Tigerdirect and Newegg so something else does not catch my eye and I become skeptical of my previous choice.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Shortbus

[x_orange90_x]

but a P4 EE still out performs many new processors!

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!

Edited October 16, 2008 by x_orange90_x