Jump to content

Can my PC run GTA IV?


Chris
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sounds like a graphics processing problem, as the graphic texture detail has nothing to do with the CPU

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Your friend's PC (Mainly GPU) is crap anyway if it cant run COD2, that's an old ass game.

EDIT: The date on that test is August 4th, 2004....A little outdated test don't you think? Besides, P4 is below FIVE other AMD processors. AND the P4 is only beating the lower model Semprons, if you take a look the Sempron 3100+ kicks the shit out of EIGHT of the TWELVE intel P4 processors. Your little researched items proved YOU wrong, so just scamper a long and fanboy somewhere else.

Oh and another big part of the test is that it is testing on how well the processors run with Doom 3, not the overall statistics and power of each one.

Edited by Shortbus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, last words for me, so I'll just prove you wrong with your own article. If you will go to the next page you will see the reviewers of the products saying only cons for the Intel, and both pros and cons for AMD

Con for Intel P4:

"On the Pentium 4 side of things, if you've got anything with less than 512KB of cache it's time for you to upgrade. Prescott owners will be happy that their chips are finally faster than Northwood in something thanks to larger caches. "

(They don't even mention P4 but once, they go on to review both Athlon and XP)

Pro for AMD Athlon:

"AMD owners have much more of a reason to rejoice: the Athlon 64 runs Doom perfectly. It's almost as if the game was built to run best on an Athlon 64; maybe AMD should invest some marketing dollars in their own "The way it's meant to be played" campaign."

Con for AMD XP:

The Athlon XP is much less impressive under Doom 3 thanks to its lack of an on-die memory controller; unless you have a Barton based Athlon XP, it may be time to bite the bullet and upgrade to an Athlon 64. That being said, the entry level Sempron 3100+ offers very competitive performance at a price point that's low enough to make the transition to a Socket-754 platform relatively painless.

I think the evidence of this is that: Some intel chips are better than some AMD chips and some AMD chips are better than some intel's chips, and that Athlon does indeed kick the shit out of the Intel P4, but not as much could be said for the Sempron judging by this article and how well the CPU takes Doom 3.

Edited by Shortbus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Here's advice to Rogue on your Crysis testing. It's best you keep graphics settings low

I just went through a 45 minute Crysis demo run on my computer and the max graphics i got on 1152x864 is all Medium and no AA.

According to Fraps, the lowest FPS was 23 on my setup and the highest was 43. If you use the exact same settings i did on your computer, you'll struggle to break the 20's. 1152x864 on my setup on medium and no AA is the highest quality playable frame rate i got on Crysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

hurrimadurrp4sux.jpg

Yes, Semprons were the lower end processors. That doesn't mean they were bad. How the hell was the Pentium 4 THE gaming processor? That would be the Athlon 64, which, according to the lovely graph you provided, beats the everliving shit out of the Pentium 4s. Now I'm not saying EVERY Athlon beat EVERY Pentium 4, but the fact that a Sempron at 1.8GHz matches the performance of a Pentium 4 at 3GHz? How does that make the Pentium 4 a better processor? Give me one good reason the Pentium 4's architecture wasn't absolute shit and I'll show you my dangly parts.

I'm not right because I'm a moderator, I'm right because I build PCs and I know which ones are shit and which ones aren't. Pentium 4 = horrible.

You're the one who needs to grow up. If I didn't like what components I had, I wouldn't have them would I? I built this machine with the components I chose because they are good. Not the best, but suitable for what I do. My next processor? Probably a Phenom. My next video card? Probably a 4870. Just because you have a bad processor (which you admit to), you shouldn't feel bad. I used to have a Pentium 4 and it was pig disgusting.

Oh and you want to talk about poor financial performance? nVidia is doing just phenomenal financially.

nvidiaisawesome.png

Another thing, the nVidia 6100 is an INTEGRATED GRAPHICS CARD.

As in, your friend might as well have Intel integrated graphics, you are obviously going to do better when you have a 6800GT.

So, by your logic, him having a much worse graphics card equates to you having a much better processor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol the athlon 64 was tons better than the p4 according to that graph. even the extreme edition, which costs tons (werent they like $500+ or something) gets beaten by a athlon 64 3500+ . they had to stop pentium 4 and try something else (like multicore) cos p4 made so much heat..

arent a lot of stocks going down due to the whole economic crysis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Pentium is old if you didn't know mate. Probably back in the day when GTA3 was released, it would've been a decent processor. But yes, pentium processors are truly shit now since they do tend to get heated up.

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..

Well for one you DID start this up by fighting back, so you shouldn't have even done it in the first place. And note, Chris probably says ATI is better the NVIDIA because he obviously has used it before, and has seen it's performance, so you can't hit on a person about their experiences, expectations and opinions can you?

I for one believe that it is wrong to flame on that ATI is better then NVIDIA, but sometimes people who have used these before have been let down, so you will expect people on the net to say stuff like this whether you like it or not.

It's your call whether you leave or not, but in the end of the day, some of us are right to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official System:

Windows XP Home 32x

@ 1024x768, Dual monitors, 15 in. LCD VGA (I'll be playing on this one), 17 in. CRT VGA.

Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 512MB

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz

3GB DDR667 RAM

60 GB of free hardware space (This will fill up quickly with L4D, Fallout 3, and GTA 4 sadly, I'll have to delete my porn D:)

So?

Edited by Shortbus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

System

systemlv7.png

Display

displayfe6.png

Official System:

Windows XP Home 32x

@ 1024x768, Dual monitors, 15 in. LCD VGA (I'll be playing on this one), 17 in. CRT VGA.

Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 512MB

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz

3GB DDR667 RAM

60 GB of free hardware space (This will fill up quickly with L4D, Fallout 3, and GTA 4 sadly, I'll have to delete my porn D:)

So?

High and high, although Windows XP Professional >>>>>> Home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

asshole, yeah, not even a chance. i would think that would lag on gta san andreas...

Lol, the 2 other machines in my house, one is a AMD Athlon XP 2800+, the other a Pentium 4 2.0aGHz (dont ask whats the a for i dunno), the p4 has 1gb ram, the amd 512, but to get to the point, at times the p4 is really really laggy, even with the windows interface, i dunno why. the amd one is fine, never laggy at all.

sure your gonna say "but its 2800+" but still, for some reason the p4 lags with just opening some stuff, like you click firefox, then its 10 seconds before it opens...maybe its spyware / virus, but ive scanned like twice in the past 2 weeks and removed all (it kept finding viruses in c:\system volume information)...

i remember a friend always saying the AMD processors were way ahead than P4, in everything except video encoding cos it didnt have SSE or one of those instruction sets...

wut about my laptop lolz

1.66 core 2

1gb ddr2 ram

120gb hd (only 10gb free, but gonna

move some porn

free some space...

nvidia geforce go 7300 (total 512mb memory, 384 is assigned from ram, 128 onboard)

Edited by WRX22B1998
Link to comment
Share on other sites

System

systemlv7.png

Display

displayfe6.png

Official System:

Windows XP Home 32x

@ 1024x768, Dual monitors, 15 in. LCD VGA (I'll be playing on this one), 17 in. CRT VGA.

Gigabyte Radeon HD 4850 512MB

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ 2.6GHz

3GB DDR667 RAM

60 GB of free hardware space (This will fill up quickly with L4D, Fallout 3, and GTA 4 sadly, I'll have to delete my porn D:)

So?

High and high, although Windows XP Professional >>>>>> Home

I have a windows XP pro CD over there in a box in my closet, I just need an external HD first to save stuff on so I don't have to redownload/reinstall everything. I'll probably switch to XP pro eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want GTA IV that much but if I get enough memory to spare then I may think of gettin it for the novelty of having anotha gta game.

System: Windows Professional SP2 or somethin, 1024x768, 80GB HD Space (LOL), 512MB RAM - AMD Athlon XP, MMX, 3DNow, 1.20 GHz - Page File: 2089MB Available - System Manufacturer: MSI

Graphics: Nividia GeFORCE 6200 AGP, Dual RAMDACs: 400MHz, AGP 8X, Core Clock: 350 MHz, OpenGL 1.5

(If I'm reading properly, the video card aint even supposed to work on my PC xD)

Well Maintained

I know my computer would seem slow to some with 512MB RAM, but it's faster than my friends 3GB Ram Machine xD

I can run San Andreas with the highest settings + 2x Draw distance mod (Possibly 10x, but I don't like the look of how far it goes... Unrealistic) Firefox downloading (Firefox which is the highest memory drainer on my PC), MSN, Dreamweaver and another game on a secondary desktop (Yeah, I got multiple desktops too :P) and San Andreas will only just start to slow down - And that's only usually when cars are crashin alot and blowin up :) - Oh yeah and I have alot of effects mods in San Andreas + high qual weapon mods...

The only weird thing is that San Andreas will slow down if I minus the extra game and add FRAPS... But I guess FRAPS must take up alot of video memory or summet...

Edited by Deji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know my computer would seem slow to some with 512MB RAM, but it's faster than my friends 3GB Ram Machine xD

I can run San Andreas with the highest settings + 2x Draw distance mod (Possibly 10x, but I don't like the look of how far it goes... Unrealistic) Firefox downloading (Firefox which is the highest memory drainer on my PC), MSN, Dreamweaver and another game on a secondary desktop (Yeah, I got multiple desktops too :P) and San Andreas will only just start to slow down - And that's only usually when cars are crashin alot and blowin up :) - Oh yeah and I have alot of effects mods in San Andreas + high qual weapon mods...

Little bit off topic but, it doesn't really goes that far, only if you stand on 4 Dragons and do max zoom with the camera, you will see LS buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want GTA IV that much but if I get enough memory to spare then I may think of gettin it for the novelty of having anotha gta game.

System: Windows Professional SP2 or somethin, 1024x768, 80GB HD Space (LOL), 512MB RAM - AMD Athlon XP, MMX, 3DNow, 1.20 GHz - Page File: 2089MB Available - System Manufacturer: MSI

Graphics: Nividia GeFORCE 6200 AGP, Dual RAMDACs: 400MHz, AGP 8X, Core Clock: 350 MHz, OpenGL 1.5

(If I'm reading properly, the video card aint even supposed to work on my PC xD)

Well Maintained

I know my computer would seem slow to some with 512MB RAM, but it's faster than my friends 3GB Ram Machine xD

I can run San Andreas with the highest settings + 2x Draw distance mod (Possibly 10x, but I don't like the look of how far it goes... Unrealistic) Firefox downloading (Firefox which is the highest memory drainer on my PC), MSN, Dreamweaver and another game on a secondary desktop (Yeah, I got multiple desktops too :P) and San Andreas will only just start to slow down - And that's only usually when cars are crashin alot and blowin up :) - Oh yeah and I have alot of effects mods in San Andreas + high qual weapon mods...

The only weird thing is that San Andreas will slow down if I minus the extra game and add FRAPS... But I guess FRAPS must take up alot of video memory or summet...

Well, if you ever do get a chance to upgrade, make sure to upgrade your RAM at least to 1GB. 512mb is like shit, plus anything below sucks too since I had 256mb RAM in my old Rig. I don't see how your PC is fast lol, I mean processor speed is slow, but not too sure about the processor though, never known alot about AMD.

Probably might want to also upgrade the HDD to at least 120GB. As well, GFX Card won't stand a chance against GTA IV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you ever do get a chance to upgrade, make sure to upgrade your RAM at least to 1GB. 512mb is like shit, plus anything below sucks too since I had 256mb RAM in my old Rig. I don't see how your PC is fast lol, I mean processor speed is slow, but not too sure about the processor though, never known alot about AMD.

Probably might want to also upgrade the HDD to at least 120GB. As well, GFX Card won't stand a chance against GTA IV.

Oh well... There will be a total conversion for San Andreas anyway :P Probably like it more too, I don't like the 'gray' graphics that they put in games. Makes it dull and miserable :( Cartoons are colourful for a reason :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...