Gta 4 hates my m8800gtx

[Phizinza]

I have a Sager NP5793 with 512mb M8800GTX, T9300 and 4GB Ram.

In the lowest widescreen settings (848x480 or something) with everything on low I get between 15 and 30fps.

You can't tell me its the computer, the graphics are worse then GTA3 which runs fine btw.

There's basically no cars and barely anyone on the street because of the low settings so it can't be AI screwing over the CPU surely.

Also with the update I now have no sound effects, only the radio.

Oh, and heres what a real pc game is like,

1920x1200, medium-high settings, antilasing, and still 60fps (admittedly it does drop down to 35 every so often.)

[Shortbus]

Something must've gone wrong with the update.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Shortbus

[WRX22B1998]

no, dude. look around these forums, heaps of people are saying this is the most resource hungry game even more than crysis, thats been a bit of a problem for most. i can imagine how you feel though, id be pretty cut. nice laptop btw

but make sure all your video drivers are updated, defrag, etc. the video drivers will probably make a difference, nvidia made new ones. not sure if it will be for 8800GTX(m) but yeah.

[Phizinza]

Yes, I got the latest drivers, no difference

Of cause I had to use the Laptopvideo2go mod to make the new drivers work on my M gforce. The standard Sager ones are getting on for 6 months old now

It can't be possible that the game is that resource hungry. It has to be a flaw in the code... Surely... It doesn't even look that good in high settings, or on a PS3 for that matter compared to other games.

[WRX22B1998]

sux for you man

what about me my laptop only has a geforce go 7300 and 1.66 core 2

no chance lol.

[Mehhh]

I tried to do a quick google search and I thought cool this is like his, it ref'd a post you made at "notebook forums" lol

WRX, I remember seeing the vid-your avatar-you think that was a race version of - "its off through the woods to Grandmothers house we go", LOL but it had to hurt!)

WRX is right but I think its less hungry more like starving, certainly at more optimal settings.. Have you lookt at the RECOMMENDED specs, these are not "exceeding recommended", gheez, how about a system w/ 5 top of the line DDR5 cards, 10 quad core cpu's, 1 TB DDR4 ram, that might run it a lil better..

Still, quite a few ppl have been complaining about framerate and everybody wants it to look stunning but jus leme tell ya, I was immensely pisst when I got mine the day it was released, I had preordered over a month AND traded in some other games as a credit.. Then to get it and 4 days later I still wasnt able to play it w/ out this

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/8364/gtash2copysi7.jpg

&

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/6201/gtashagainmt1.jpg

It really suckt, I know we want it "perfect" but to deal w/ those issues I dealt w/ & some folks sayin, I'm gettin 38 fps instead of 40/60, I feel like, freakin-eyy, leme jus get to play where I can SEE the road & buildings b4 I run into em.. I seemt to have fixt all that now .. http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/9762/gtahuh1gv4.jpg

I dont run the game in that high of settings now, I did back them down some, I dont have all that high framerate but I'm jus glad to be able to see where the heck I'm goin .. And ofcourse mod

Was there any difference in the game before or after that game patch Phiz ? I noticed quite a few ppl complained of new problems AFTER installing the patch .. I havent yet, I'm into modding and some reported problems associated w/ that.

I agree, poor coding can certainly create problems but again so can having hardware thats not up to the standards w/ which the software was designed to work w/ at "x" settings. I dont think you can really compare (GTAIII) to this'n. Its not far from saying, why doesnt Vice City run as well on my pc when "pac man" runs perfect.

I take it you're getting your fps from the in-game benchmark, I'm jus not sure how reliable the benchmark is .. The benchmark test lookt much better than the in-game play.. :: shrugs :: I've only ran it twice, I had 22 & 24, pretty low I guess, specially compared to "I have 38 instead of 60"... It runs about as I expect considering ..

Edited December 15, 2008 by Mehhh

[MrLlamaLlama]

I'mma go right ahead and say this:

Rockstar fucked up. Right up. So in a way i'm glad my HDD's broken, otherwise i'd have bought this on release date. I'm waiting till they release the v2 retail version, methinks. RAGE and PC need to learn to be friends.

Yeah, the main problem with having a farking huge screen like yours is that you have to bring the settings down a notch. I settled for a slightly smaller monitor (22") so i could keep getting great graphics out of my 9600GT.

Either carry on playing like you are, or wait for moar updates.

[breathemetal]

im running a 8800gtx, e6600 @ 3.4ghz, 4 gbs ram, and vista 64bit

rez is @ 1900x1200

most of my in game settings are pushed to the brim (im even in the red zone of mem usage) and it plays perfect for me.

and that is w/o the patch.

[Phizinza]

im running a 8800gtx, e6600 @ 3.4ghz, 4 gbs ram, and vista 64bit

rez is @ 1900x1200

most of my in game settings are pushed to the brim (im even in the red zone of mem usage) and it plays perfect for me.

and that is w/o the patch.

I bet its your CPU thats allowing you to play like that.

No I'm not using the benchmark to judge fps, it gives me around 29fps. I'm using me 10 years of gaming (mainly FPS) experience.

I'm just wondering.. What kind of computers did Rockstars developers use to test this game before release?

[WRX22B1998]

a server running windows 2003 with 2 x quadcore overclocked to 4GHZ per core, and tri-sli GTX280? still probably lagged a little...hehe

its insane though. ahah lol, gotta love that ava. i saw the vid , i had like 2 years ago. and im like "omgz thatd make a mad ava"

[Mehhh]

a server running windows 2003 with 2 x quadcore overclocked to 4GHZ per core, and tri-sli GTX280? still probably lagged a little...hehe

its insane though. ahah lol, gotta love that ava. i saw the vid , i had like 2 years ago. and im like "omgz thatd make a mad ava"

Nah, I bet it dint lag at all WRX, they proly had it on

800x600

low

: all values defaulted to "1" :

lol

Actually I briefly saw an article that AMD was OC "Phenom II" to 5GHz, I think thats the triple core cpu .. It seems that all the hardware/software developers need to get together to take advantage of all the available technology & keep up w/ one another. Like, why design hardware that promises "x" performance & use that as a selling point for this costly product when the software can't take advantage of it till some time in the future & thats ONLY IF software developers even plan to support it, the same w/ software. Develop this great new software that does so much but then you can't obtain hardware that supports these nice lil capabilities cuz it doesnt exist yet and may never !!

Anyways, I'm surprised the game runs pretty decent on my system finally. Its sucky that so many problems exist but despite my troubles & how PO'd I got, I still can say I'm glad I did get the game.. Frankly I was curious of its graphics but also wanted it for modding ..

Sorry I can't offer a fix Phiz ..