PDA

View Full Version : Should I even get this game?


Pr3cise
03-18-2010, 09:11 PM
Running an

intel 2.50 ghz dual core proc
2 gb ram
8800 gt oc nvidia graphics
vista ultimate 64

I haven't really heard much about this game either, but I enjoyed SA alot. Also reading alot of threads how this game needs alot of cpu power?

I'd like your opinions thanks

OmegaXtreme420
03-18-2010, 09:36 PM
don't think that comp would handle it well and more ram since your running the resource hog that is vista

Pr3cise
03-18-2010, 09:46 PM
ok thanks for the input. I'll think about getting a better proc and more ram if i decide to get that game.

OmegaXtreme420
03-18-2010, 10:29 PM
i will show u my benchmark later haven't reinstalled game quad core 2.8ghz 9800gt 4gb ram 1680x1050 win7 home premium

Deadly_Target
03-19-2010, 04:07 AM
Your computer should be able to run it decently. My computer runs it at low settings (I have shadows set to high, though) with 20-25 fps, at 1024x768 resolution.

My Specs
Nvidia GeForce 8600GT
1GB RAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ @ 2.51Ghz
Windows XP

By the way, it's a really good game.

stonefish
03-19-2010, 06:00 AM
Basically, good performance on GTA4 has only one system requirement:

Luck

spyrochaete
03-19-2010, 07:12 AM
Running an

intel 2.50 ghz dual core proc
2 gb ram
8800 gt oc nvidia graphics
vista ultimate 64

I haven't really heard much about this game either, but I enjoyed SA alot. Also reading alot of threads how this game needs alot of cpu power?

I'd like your opinions thanks

Your CPU is almost identical to mine and I've greatly enjoyed playing GTA4. The only difference is that my CPU is Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz, I have 6GB of RAM, and I'm using Windows 7 Ultimate x64.

I think you'll have a very good experience playing this game. Go ahead and buy it!

Dragunovhun
03-19-2010, 07:20 AM
@OP: The CPU might be pulling you back mate. Other than that you should be fine.

Your CPU is almost identical to mine and I've greatly enjoyed playing GTA4. The only difference is that my CPU is Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66GHz,

An intel dual core is by far not identical to a core 2 duo. Theyjust both have two cores, that's where the similiarities end.

trek554
03-19-2010, 10:39 AM
Your computer should be able to run it decently. My computer runs it at low settings (I have shadows set to high, though) with 20-25 fps, at 1024x768 resolution.

My Specs
Nvidia GeForce 8600GT
1GB RAM
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ @ 2.51Ghz
Windows XP

By the way, it's a really good game.so you run everything on low yet turn one of the biggest framerate killers to high? wouldnt it more sense to turn shadows down especially since the rest of the games is already looking pretty ugly on low? also I dont see how you get by with only 1gb of memory in this or many other games.

FunkNasty420
03-19-2010, 01:17 PM
Yeah seems to me you should be OK with that.

Butch_N
03-20-2010, 10:10 AM
Hi
You should be fine with 2GB of ram.
more ram since your running the resource hog that is vistaVista isn't a hog, it uses memory based on how much it sees the system has. More ram, it uses more, less and it scales back. It handles memory better than any other Windows OS prior to it.
Don't let anyone that doesn't understand how Vista memory management works tell you any different. They are mistaken.

LTCHIPS
03-20-2010, 11:01 AM
ok thanks for the input. I'll think about getting a better proc and more ram if i decide to get that game.

I'd recommend at least a Quad core for this game if you want to run it well. How much video memory does your graphics card have?

I have a BFG Geforce 9800GT with 1Gb of video memory, and that does fine for the game, but it would DEFINETLY do better if I get rid of my crappy Pentium D. I run the game at Xbox 360 settings, at 1280x1024, and get an average of 28 FPS on the benchmark tool. I do know that the benchmark tool for the game isn't that good, but my system with a bit of tweaking on Crysis can pull off 35 FPS on the benchmarks. Just goes to show you how bad the port was done for this game.

spyrochaete
03-20-2010, 11:33 AM
An intel dual core is by far not identical to a core 2 duo. Theyjust both have two cores, that's where the similiarities end.

Intel had another dual core CPU line other than Core 2?

trek554
03-20-2010, 11:56 AM
Intel had another dual core CPU line other than Core 2?

Pentium D was a dual core that was basically two Pentium 4 on same die

Pentium Dual Core was a butchered Core 2 Duo cpu

Core 2 Duo was the top of the line dual core but still came with various cache and fsb over the years

Dragunovhun
03-20-2010, 01:32 PM
Intel had another dual core CPU line other than Core 2?

Yes, several. In addition to what trek554 said, there are even some dual core Celerons out there.

Deadly_Target
03-20-2010, 07:33 PM
so you run everything on low yet turn one of the biggest framerate killers to high? wouldnt it more sense to turn shadows down especially since the rest of the games is already looking pretty ugly on low?
Well, my framerate doesn't have any noticeable increase when I turn off shadows. I'm always getting around 20 fps.

Besides, the game looks much better with shadows.

jorbazz
03-21-2010, 05:49 PM
Hmm, dunno, I guess multiplayer is boring now because of the security update

spyrochaete
03-21-2010, 07:08 PM
Pentium D was a dual core that was basically two Pentium 4 on same die

Pentium Dual Core was a butchered Core 2 Duo cpu

Core 2 Duo was the top of the line dual core but still came with various cache and fsb over the years

Just double checked you on Wikipedia and it looks like you're right. +rep for teaching me something new!

BTW I just realized the OP never mentioned which game he's asking about :)

airblad3
03-21-2010, 07:44 PM
Yeah seems to me you should be OK with that.

I agree with him too.

OmegaXtreme420
03-26-2010, 02:49 PM
Hi
You should be fine with 2GB of ram.
Vista isn't a hog, it uses memory based on how much it sees the system has. More ram, it uses more, less and it scales back. It handles memory better than any other Windows OS prior to it.
Don't let anyone that doesn't understand how Vista memory management works tell you any different. They are mistaken.

it sucked when i had it but i got win7 now

Butch_N
03-27-2010, 02:33 AM
it sucked when i had it but i got win7 now

Could have been any number of things. Driver not working correctly, some software causing issues, etc.

I just find it ironic how some people complain when Vista uses the ram they put in their systems. Kinda funny, in a way.
What would really 'suck', would be if it DIDN'T use memory like it does.

I have seen post by some folks saying things like;
'I have 8GB of ram and Vista used 1.4GB on a fresh boot!'

Well, that is exactly what it should do, that is what ram is there for. Personally I wouldn't mind if it used 2.5-3GB. If it can make use of it, do so. It doesn't need that much for most users, or it would use it, (again, based on how much the system has).
Think about it,,,, you have a all that ram,,,,, shouldn't the OS (the heart of the system) make use of it?

True Win7 has brought some improvements, but it really just brings more features than anything else. It uses ram the same way Vista does, with minor improvements. Actually, there is very little Win7 brings to the table in regrads to what Vista already offers. The main one being its kernal advancements, the other stuff is really just fluff.

And no, I don't work for microsoft.
Come to think about it,, if I did,,, I would be saying;
'You are absolutely correct, sir. Vista is garbage, throw it away and go buy Windows 7. Oh and sir,, be sure to buy the Ultimate version.'
LOL

OmegaXtreme420
03-27-2010, 06:36 PM
Could have been any number of things. Driver not working correctly, some software causing issues, etc.

I just find it ironic how some people complain when Vista uses the ram they put in their systems. Kinda funny, in a way.
What would really 'suck', would be if it DIDN'T use memory like it does.

I have seen post by some folks saying things like;
'I have 8GB of ram and Vista used 1.4GB on a fresh boot!'

Well, that is exactly what it should do, that is what ram is there for. Personally I wouldn't mind if it used 2.5-3GB. If it can make use of it, do so. It doesn't need that much for most users, or it would use it, (again, based on how much the system has).
Think about it,,,, you have a all that ram,,,,, shouldn't the OS (the heart of the system) make use of it?

True Win7 has brought some improvements, but it really just brings more features than anything else. It uses ram the same way Vista does, with minor improvements. Actually, there is very little Win7 brings to the table in regrads to what Vista already offers. The main one being its kernal advancements, the other stuff is really just fluff.

And no, I don't work for microsoft.
Come to think about it,, if I did,,, I would be saying;
'You are absolutely correct, sir. Vista is garbage, throw it away and go buy Windows 7. Oh and sir,, be sure to buy the Ultimate version.'
LOL
lol too true but win7 is quite the improvement

ChronicIntel
03-29-2010, 01:42 PM
I played GTA IV on my Core 2 Duo laptop for a while and was getting about 20-25 fps. I backed it up and deleted it, but plan on playing it again once I get a capable quad-core desktop because it seems like the CPU is the main determining factor for performance in this particular game.