GTA IV max settings part 1

Dampkring

I just wanted to know if I could run GTA IV on very high with this config:

AMD Phenom II X6
Radeon HD 5970 2GB
6GB Corsair Dominator

thanx

smarteyeball

Not maxed out - there will still be a few settings you will have to lower, but you should be able to find a decent compromise between decent IQ and smooth frame rates.

It also depends on your resolution.

Dampkring

1280x1024 res.
what does this game need to run at max? xD
I saw videos on youtube where it runs everything on max, and their config is not so high, fake?

Everlong

You can add an extra parameter to a GTA IV shortcut that removes the limit, so you can set the max settings regardless of how much VRAM you have. I have max settings on mine without that extra parameter, at 1920x1080 res and I think it uses around 1.1GB VRAM, and my card has just under 1.3GB.

Dampkring

so I could run all max with 1280x1024 res. without any problems?
I will get a Radeon HD 5970 2GB instead of the HD 5870.

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

so I could run all max with 1280x1024 res. without any problems?
I will get a Radeon HD 5970 2GB instead of the HD 5870.

you are getting 5970 with 2gb and your display is still 17"? O_O

madtownidiot

GTA 4 probably wouldn't even run at max settings if you had a gtx 480. It wasn't very well written.

Dampkring

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Seven Eleven

you are getting 5970 with 2gb and your display is still 17"? O_O

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

GTA 4 probably wouldn't even run at max settings if you had a gtx 480. It wasn't very well written.

What was not very well written?
HD 5970, GTX 480, kinda same thing, for me ATI > Nvidia anyway


Whatever, enough of this topic, this is only speculation...

madtownidiot

either way.. it's not anything wrong with the hardware. Just a poorly written graphics engine

Wishmaster

at 1280x1024 I would think eve 512Mb vram would be plenty.

1Gb certainly is.

As odd as it sounds, you may do just as well or better performance wise, moving up to higher res monitor.

Most of the modern cards arent really working that much at that low of res.
Really need at least 1680x1050 or more before they really start helping.

madtownidiot

At max settings GTA 4 uses about 1.8 GB of vRAM.

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Wishmaster

at 1280x1024 I would think eve 512Mb vram would be plenty.

1Gb certainly is.

at 1280x720 with everything on high, except distance, cars and details, it eats over 700mb.

so 512mb is not enough. 1gb is absolute minimum nowadays.

RST101

The game is so buggy it is not worth bothering with. When it was first released the devs came out with the poor excuse that it was optimised for future computers, how they got away with selling it as a finished product is unbelievable.

Good luck with that

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by RST101

The game is so buggy it is not worth bothering with. When it was first released the devs came out with the poor excuse that it was optimised for future computers, how they got away with selling it as a finished product is unbelievable.

Good luck with that

Wonder if that was Microsoft's excuse for Vista

rixto003

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

so I could run all max with 1280x1024 res. without any problems?
I will get a Radeon HD 5970 2GB instead of the HD 5870.

you are getting 5970 with 2gb and your display is still 17"? O_O

ot: 1280x1024 isnt allways 17" (my 19" crahp)

Everlong

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

At max settings GTA 4 uses about 1.8 GB of vRAM.

It's around 1.1GB. I play with everything on max.

And getting a 5970 won't make any difference. It's 2GB per core, and GTA will still only list it as 1GB total usable.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by RST101

The game is so buggy it is not worth bothering with. When it was first released the devs came out with the poor excuse that it was optimised for future computers, how they got away with selling it as a finished product is unbelievable.

Good luck with that

It's actually a lot better now they've updated it quite extensively.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

either way.. it's not anything wrong with the hardware. Just a poorly written graphics engine

Nothing wrong with the graphics engine. It was just a poor port to PC.

smarteyeball

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

so I could run all max with 1280x1024 res. without any problems?
I will get a Radeon HD 5970 2GB instead of the HD 5870.

If you are sticking with your current monitor - stay with a 5870.

To fully drive (utilise) a 5970 you'd need to have a CPU clock of 3.4ghz - 3.6ghz and as already mentioned, a resolution of 1680x1050+

Otherwise a 5970 wont offer you any real advantage over a 5870 in GTA IV, or any other games.


At lower resolutions, you are still essentially CPU bound. It's only at resolutions above 1680x1050 that the GPU starts to take the majority of the load.


Unfortunately, GTA IV will never be a truly 'smooth' game to play with max IQ settings, at least not with any hardware available atm.


With my specs at 1920x1200, GTA IV is smoother overall - but it still suffers from a lot of min FPS drops depending on in game time and area.

At 5760x1200 (Eyefinity) it makes both me and PC cry

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Everlong

�� Quote: Originally Posted by RST101

The game is so buggy it is not worth bothering with. When it was first released the devs came out with the poor excuse that it was optimised for future computers, how they got away with selling it as a finished product is unbelievable.

Good luck with that

It's actually a lot better now they've updated it quite extensively.

It's definitely improved, but it's still not the most stellar performing game

Dampkring

Well, thanx a lot for all the info

I have a Samsung 740bf 17" screen for the moment but I will upgrade to a 19" soon, that's why I prefered choose the HD 5970. Btw, any suggestions for a good 19" monitor? I heard ViewSonic are very nice for games.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by smarteyeball

To fully drive (utilise) a 5970 you'd need to have a CPU clock of 3.4ghz - 3.6ghz

Many professionals, also friends told me that Ghz don't really do the difference because it depends on the CPU build.
AMD and Intel Ghz are never equal, like an AMD chip operating at 2.8GHz would process data faster than an Intel chip running at 4.0GHz...

I first decided to upgrade my computer for StarCraft II (to run all on ultra), but I was tempted to finally get GTA IV because I'm a fan, so I guess I will wait a little longer before I buy GTA IV on PC, it seems really to be very bad optimized for nowadays hardware, pity... because it's kinda a lying advertise for the PC version, if it can't run well with these extra settings...

Uber Philf

�� Quote: Originally Posted by smarteyeball

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

so I could run all max with 1280x1024 res. without any problems?
I will get a Radeon HD 5970 2GB instead of the HD 5870.

If you are sticking with your current monitor - stay with a 5870.

To fully drive (utilise) a 5970 you'd need to have a CPU clock of 3.4ghz - 3.6ghz and as already mentioned, a resolution of 1680x1050+

Otherwise a 5970 wont offer you any real advantage over a 5870 in GTA IV, or any other games.


At lower resolutions, you are still essentially CPU bound. It's only at resolutions above 1680x1050 that the GPU starts to take the majority of the load.


Unfortunately, GTA IV will never be a truly 'smooth' game to play with max IQ settings, at least not with any hardware available atm.


With my specs at 1920x1200, GTA IV is smoother overall - but it still suffers from a lot of min FPS drops depending on in game time and area.

At 5760x1200 (Eyefinity) it makes both me and PC cry

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Everlong

�� Quote: Originally Posted by RST101

The game is so buggy it is not worth bothering with. When it was first released the devs came out with the poor excuse that it was optimised for future computers, how they got away with selling it as a finished product is unbelievable.

Good luck with that

It's actually a lot better now they've updated it quite extensively.

It's definitely improved, but it's still not the most stellar performing game

Is that really true?

So me running my GTA4 at 800x600 res is basically being run by the CPU?

I have all my settings to the lowest it can go, all the bars set at 1, and running 800x600 @ 60MHZ, and the best FPS i can get is like 40, and it also varies on whats going on in the game, like rain ill go down to like 20-15 fps... :/

rixto003

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Uber Philf

Is that really true?

So me running my GTA4 at 800x600 res is basically being run by the CPU?

I have all my settings to the lowest it can go, all the bars set at 1, and running 800x600 @ 60MHZ, and the best FPS i can get is like 40, and it also varies on whats going on in the game, like rain ill go down to like 20-15 fps... :/

urs 40 normally and 20-15 is like a dream for me, i get about 3 max and on rainy days its 10 or less... had to complete the game with weather cheat :S

AllMac

These are settings I play "GTA IV - The Ballad of Gay Tony." Shadows and view distance are the only ones not maxed out. Frames I get range from 30, to average of 41, to as high as 60, monitored with Fraps.

EDIT: Some proper testing.

Min Max Avg
35 ,57 ,47.65

Min Max Avg
30 ,56 ,45.483

Min Max Avg
31 ,56 ,46.3

Min Max Avg
34 ,56 ,47.433

Uber Philf

Just having a look around, i found this.

It worked for me

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

Well, thanx a lot for all the info

I have a Samsung 740bf 17" screen for the moment but I will upgrade to a 19" soon, that's why I prefered choose the HD 5970. Btw, any suggestions for a good 19" monitor? I heard ViewSonic are very nice for games.

yep ViewSonic is very nice. i just upgraded to one and am very satisfied.
btw you can start here by doing some research. under product face-offs click on "lcd computer monitor".

Quote:

Many professionals, also friends told me that Ghz don't really do the difference because it depends on the CPU build.
AMD and Intel Ghz are never equal, like an AMD chip operating at 2.8GHz would process data faster than an Intel chip running at 4.0GHz...

thing is those 6 cores you got will not be always fully utilised... for example game uses only 1 or 2 or 3 max (like GTAIV) and those few utilised cores by them selves can't feed your powerful gpu because they got less MHz then cpus with fewer cores. if game uses all cores than it's awesome.

Quote:

I first decided to upgrade my computer for StarCraft II (to run all on ultra), but I was tempted to finally get GTA IV because I'm a fan, so I guess I will wait a little longer before I buy GTA IV on PC, it seems really to be very bad optimized for nowadays hardware, pity... because it's kinda a lying advertise for the PC version, if it can't run well with these extra settings...

you could wait forever. because it looks like in the near future there will not be any performance updates.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by smarteyeball

Is that really true?

So me running my GTA4 at 800x600 res is basically being run by the CPU?

I have all my settings to the lowest it can go, all the bars set at 1, and running 800x600 @ 60MHZ, and the best FPS i can get is like 40, and it also varies on whats going on in the game, like rain ill go down to like 20-15 fps... :/

basically at such a low resolution your cpu is idling because gpu is too slow to process all that gfx.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by rixto003

urs 40 normally and 20-15 is like a dream for me, i get about 3 max and on rainy days its 10 or less... had to complete the game with weather cheat :S

ahh classic transparency slowdown. slow graphic card. upgrade.

smarteyeball

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

I heard ViewSonic are very nice for games.

Viewsonic has a good rep. For games, a monitor with a low ms response time is one of the things you need to look for.

Monitors with a high response time have a 'lag input' feel to them (a noticeable delay between moving the mouse and the movement on the screen) - but it's something that you can become used to quite easily. Some don't even notice it at all.

Although older LCD's and those with really high response times can also suffer from 'ghosting'. That's when you make a movement and there is a slight 'ghost' of the movement. That is noticeable.

For example, my monitors have a few different modes.

The 'normal' modes have a "6ms" response time which is perfectly acceptable. There is no ghosting, but I can discern the input lag. It does become apparent when I switch to Game mode which has a "0ms" response time, you can instantly notice how much more 'snappy and responsive' it feels.

But in either setting, it doesn't really detract from the experience.

Quote:

Many professionals, also friends told me that Ghz don't really do the difference because it depends on the CPU build.
AMD and Intel Ghz are never equal, like an AMD chip operating at 2.8GHz would process data faster than an Intel chip running at 4.0GHz...

To a certain degree that is correct, depending on the model. One advantage some newer AMD chips have are that they tend to have a better 'higher average minimum framerate' than intel chips, even highly clocked ones.

That's one reason that makes them good for gaming, despite being noticeably slower at other tasks.

But a higher hz is always beneficial, regardless of architecture.

Quote:

I first decided to upgrade my computer for StarCraft II (to run all on ultra), but I was tempted to finally get GTA IV because I'm a fan, so I guess I will wait a little longer before I buy GTA IV on PC, it seems really to be very bad optimized for nowadays hardware, pity... because it's kinda a lying advertise for the PC version, if it can't run well with these extra settings...

One thing that GTA IV engine does reasonably well is that it scales pretty well in the image quality area.

Sure, there is a noticeable difference between max IQ and low settings, but compared to some games - it isn't absolutely butt ugly on low. And with that chip and a 5870, you won't have to go low.

It's also quite 'playable' at low framerates to a certain degree. Although sub 20fps is brutal...

You will be able to find a compromise between IQ and playability. So despite it's flaws, don't let it put you off buying it.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Uber Philf

Is that really true?

So me running my GTA4 at 800x600 res is basically being run by the CPU?

I have all my settings to the lowest it can go, all the bars set at 1, and running 800x600 @ 60MHZ, and the best FPS i can get is like 40, and it also varies on whats going on in the game, like rain ill go down to like 20-15 fps... :/

'fraid so. At that res, your card is basically twiddling it's thumbs

RST101

I might dig it out and see what it's performing like now. The last time I had it installed it was was up to v1.04 but it looks like it's up to v1.07 now.

It had the potential to be a brilliant game but sadly rockstar suck at porting games or just don't give a toss knowing most will buy it because of it's title.

Dampkring

Yea my Samsung is at 2ms and is pretty good, I found this one: ViewSonic VA926 19", but with only 5ms, good enough? I didn't found a 19" ViewSonic lower than 5ms though...

Oh I forgot to ask if this PSU is suitable for my specs: Hiper Type-R II 880W

craney5

�� Quote: Originally Posted by AllMac

These are settings I play "GTA IV - The Ballad of Gay Tony." Shadows and view distance are the only ones not maxed out. Frames I get range from 30, to average of 41, to as high as 60, monitored with Fraps.

EDIT: Some proper testing.

Min Max Avg
35 ,57 ,47.65

Min Max Avg
30 ,56 ,45.483

Min Max Avg
31 ,56 ,46.3

Min Max Avg
34 ,56 ,47.433

What mod you using there all mac? police cars looks kinda cool

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

Yea my Samsung is at 2ms and is pretty good, I found this one: ViewSonic VA926 19", but with only 5ms, good enough? I didn't found a 19" ViewSonic lower than 5ms though...

there are lots of confusion about all those timings... every manufacturer writes what he wants. from what i was researching: 2 ms is gray to gray and 5 ms is black to black. so different measurements.

btw there are 19" 2ms ViewSonics... for example this one and this.
for gaming you need their gaming range that model name starts with VX.... they have 2ms.

VA926 is VA value range. so its main point is that it's cheap.

mine is VG and it is multimedia range display. it has 5ms "typical" response time (writen in spec sheet). by researching i found out that it has CMO LCD panel with 120hz refresh rate. and games and movies are without ghosting and lag.

Dampkring

Is there a way to get a 19" 2ms without widescreen, are the entire gaming monitors in ws now?

AllMac

Quote:

What mod you using there all mac? police cars looks kinda cool

You mean because it looks pink?

I'm not using any mods. I'm playing the 2nd expansion to GTA IV (Ballad of Gay Tony) and they made it look like that. You play as a different character for a gay businessman.

smarteyeball

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

Oh I forgot to ask if this PSU is suitable for my specs: Hiper Type-R II 880W

Not familiar with it, but some quick reviews rate it as a good/decent PSU

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

Is there a way to get a 19" 2ms without widescreen, are the entire gaming monitors in ws now?

Tbh, I haven't checked - but I'm sure there are still some 5:4 monitors floating around.

Although, do you have any particular reason for not going WS?

Dampkring

Well, I guess I'm just ignorant is WS really good? Seems to be the standard nowadays...
I play mostly strategy and FPS, would you recommend me a ViewSonic 19" WS then or would be, as you mentioned, a 1680�1050 VX2268wm better?

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Seven Eleven

btw there are 19" 2ms ViewSonics... for example this one and this.
for gaming you need their gaming range that model name starts with VX.... they have 2ms.

I would be interested in the VX1932wm 2ms, but it seems that on ViewSonic Europe you can only have the VX1932wm-LED...

Well, I boggle between VX1932wm-LED and VX2268wm... 1440�900 or is 1680�1050 a better choice because of the GPU?

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

Well, I guess I'm just ignorant is WS really good? Seems to be the standard nowadays...
I play mostly strategy and FPS, would you recommend me a ViewSonic 19" WS then or would be, as you mentioned, a 1680�1050 VX2268wm better?

2268wm is 3D gaming monitor
and most things now are widescreen. i upgraded from old 17" 5:4 to 24" 16:9 and it's like night and day. so much more space... and all movies and latest games use full widescreen and everything without black bars is so much bigger.

Quote:

I would be interested in the VX1932wm 2ms, but it seems that on ViewSonic Europe you can only have the VX1932wm-LED...

Well, I boggle between VX1932wm-LED and VX2268wm... 1440�900 or is 1680�1050 a better choice because of the GPU?

you can read this VX2268wm review

here is Samsung 2233RZ and ViewSonic VX2268wm Input Lag Testing

Viewsonic VX1932wm review.


and higher resolution is of course better

though for that 3D thing you need nvidia's 3d vision hardware.

Uber Philf

I'm happy my my new 24' has a 2ms response

Seven Eleven

found out more info about models

Model / Response Time / Panel
ViewSonic VX2268wm / 2ms G2G + 120Hz / 22"WS TN Film
ViewSonic VX1932wm / 2ms G2G / 19"WS TN Film
ViewSonic VX1932wm-LED / 5ms / 19"WS TN Film

looks like LED version has slower response time.

btw excellent site
Monitor Panel Search Database

Dampkring

Is there a big difference between 1440�900 and 1680�1050 concerning the amount of resources needed?
Not interested in 3D at all, don't wanna throw up

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

Is there a big difference between 1440�900 and 1680�1050 concerning the amount of resources needed?
Not interested in 3D at all, don't wanna throw up

not much for modern cards. for example in some games i tried, no noticeable slowdown at 1920x1080 vs 1280x720 on my 5770.

Dampkring

mmmhK, think I'm gonna pick up the VX2268wm then, is it good also if you dont wanna use 3D?

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

mmmhK, think I'm gonna pick up the VX2268wm then, is it good also if you dont wanna use 3D?

don't know for sure, i got completely different model

btw cnet review

i recommend reading this before choosing any monitor. see for yourself how widescreen affects gaming.
FAQ - WSGFWiki

for example in GTAIV on new widescreen i see much more then on old 5:4. field of view is much better.

great info
List of games with widescreen support - Widescreen Gaming Wiki

Dampkring

I'm only afraid that some games could be stretched

madtownidiot

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

Is there a big difference between 1440�900 and 1680�1050 concerning the amount of resources needed?
Not interested in 3D at all, don't wanna throw up

Video and graphics bandwidth (and the resources needed to generate them) increase at an exponential rate to screen resolution.. for 2d graphics it's approximately the square of the difference in vertical x horizontal resolution and for 3d it's cubed.

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

I'm only afraid that some games could be stretched

check that list.

and i think all latest games support widescreen.

Everlong

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

I'm only afraid that some games could be stretched

They'll only look out of proportion if you run a resolution that isn't native to the screen ratio, such as if you try running a 16:9 resolution on a 16:10 monitor.

smarteyeball

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

I'm only afraid that some games could be stretched

As already mentioned, all new games support widescreen resolutions and aspects.

Only much older titles without WS/ratio support will be stretched.

If you did have an old title that does display this behaviour, a lot of monitors have a 1:1 option that will display the aspect ratio correctly. (adds black borders to side and bottom to maintain a 1:1 ratio)

Dampkring

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

Video and graphics bandwidth (and the resources needed to generate them) increase at an exponential rate to screen resolution.. for 2d graphics it's approximately the square of the difference in vertical x horizontal resolution and for 3d it's cubed.

does it means yes there is a huge difference and the amount of resources is much greater? Seven Eleven states "not much for modern cards"... true?

So what is better for gaming, 16:9 or 16:10? Should I actually take a 1920�1080 screen or is 1680�1050 good enough? I just wanna pick up the best ViewSonic screen for my specs, knowing I wanna run everything on native resolution without any problems. I fear the VX2268wm is not the good option because of the 3D, which I don't wanna use at all. The VX2260wm seems to be a much better choice, it's 1920�1080 with 2ms...
help

madtownidiot

you can get a pretty accurate estimate of the difference in required resources between two resolutions by doing the math. Seven Eleven is correct. With 2d graphics it doesn't matter much because nearly all newer GPUs can handle any desktop resolution most available monitors are capable of. It really only matters with 3D gaming. If you know a certain game requires 2 GB of graphics memory at 1680 x 1050, it's going to need about 3.2 GB to run at the same settings @ 1920*1080

Dampkring

But what should I go for 16:9 or 16:10?
The VX2268wm (1680 x 1050) could be a good option I guess, even if I don't use 3D

madtownidiot

Personally, I'd go with 1920*1080 (16x9).. I use the same for everything except the most graphics intense games.. Crysis 2 @ 1280x720 works pretty well on my gaming rig at max settings, but starts to lag when I increase the resolution any further.

Dampkring

I found this one wich seems to be very good: LG W2286L

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

I found this one wich seems to be very good: LG W2286L

lol they write that it supports Full HD 1080p but it's only 1680x1050

in my opinion anything less than 24" but with full HD resolution (1920x1080) is a no go.
desktop elements (fonts, icons etc) will be too small to comfortably look at.

madtownidiot

I use a 47" hp LD4700 monitor @ 1920x1080.. not exactly optimal for gaming performance, but still a lot of fun to play games with, and very easy on the eyes.

Dampkring

I don't wanna go 1920x1080, need also to work with my monitor, and for coding, programming, 16:9 is awful

Seven Eleven

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

I don't wanna go 1920x1080, need also to work with my monitor, and for coding, programming, 16:9 is awful

imo 16:9 is awesome

all apps i work in now got 2x screen space. all tools now on sides of the screen and center is free, clear workspace. no more hiding-unhiding-moving tool palettes.

and yesterday i was playing Mafia II demo and it was gorgeous in full HD

Dampkring

16:9 is awesome for movies and rts indeed ^^
Look at some game studios photos, often they have 16:10... Robot, Raven, etc...
16:9 is also a way for monitor industry lobbies to produce less surface and make some extra money

smarteyeball

16:9 is okay - but I personally prefer 16:10 for a monitor.

�� Quote: Originally Posted by Dampkring

16:9 is also a way for monitor industry lobbies to produce less surface and make some extra money

16:9 is becoming the norm simply because the panels are cheaper to produce.

Dampkring

�� Quote: Originally Posted by smarteyeball

16:9 is okay - but I personally prefer 16:10 for a monitor.

agreed

�� Quote: Originally Posted by smarteyeball

16:9 is becoming the norm simply because the panels are cheaper to produce.

that's what I said yea

Crazymike

�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot

GTA 4 probably wouldn't even run at max settings if you had a gtx 480. It wasn't very well written.

I know this thread is old, but i just came across this and wanted to say, that you are right, it will run for 5mins and crash.