Low FPS in GTA IV ?

[bL1nd3R]

Hi, i have GTA IV ( 1.0.7.0 original steam version ) with iCEnhancer 2.1 Final and i have low fps, why ?
Here's my spec :
Mobo : ASRock 970 PRO3 R2.0
CPU : FX-6300
GPU : Asus R9 270 DirectCU II
Memory : CMZ4GX3M1A1600C9 (1x4)
HDD : WD10EZEX

Here's a benchmark :
Statistics
Average FPS: 23.64
Duration: 37.14 sec
CPU Usage: 28%
System memory usage: 68%
Video memory usage: 38%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1080 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Shadow Quality: Very High
Reflection Resolution: Very High
Water Quality: Very High
Texture Filter Quality: Anisotropic x16
Night Shadows: Very High
View Distance: 100
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: AMD Radeon R9 200 Series
Video Driver version: 8.17.10.1280
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio)
AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor

And this is my command line :
-percentvidmem 100 -nomemrestrict -norestriction -novblank -availablevidmem 2.0

 

[Ferrum Master]

Crappy port. Usually it was CPU bound...

oh with iCEnhancer 2.1

Whole different story... That GPU is too weak for that.

 

[bL1nd3R]

Crappy port. Usually it was CPU bound...

oh with iCEnhancer 2.1

Whole different story... That GPU is too weak for that.

I played GTA IV without iCEnhancer 2.1 and still screen was frozing from 2 in 2 secs...

 

[Ferrum Master]

I played GTA IV without iCEnhancer 2.1 and still screen was frozing from 2 in 2 secs...

The benchmark? I remember it too hiccuping... better use real life save game and compare FPS.

Just reduce the distance and other stuff a bit. The custom cars look awesome, yes. Had a bit fun too.

 

[bL1nd3R]

The benchmark? I remember it too hiccuping... better use real life save game and compare FPS.

Just reduce the distance and other stuff a bit. The custom cars look awesome, yes. Had a bit fun too.

Real life save game ?

 

[Steevo]

Your CPU is holding it back. Try overclocking and raising the NB speed.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Don't run shadows that high with a GPU that low. Your spec is barely more powerful than a PS4, and very high shadows in GTA IV at 1080p are VERY demanding.

 

[TheHunter]

Buy another 4gb stick.
4gb is too low, that's why it has pauses.. Either use medium textures and lower both detail and distance to 50 or yeah get more ram

And use both shadows at high, especially normal shadows!


ps GTA4 likes fast per core performance.
I know I played it on my old Q9450 vs now 4770k,

Although Im playing vanilla v1.07 for MP, but need to use both shadows at high or its too much for my gpu now, normal v.high shadows are a gpu killer.. Really! and that 270x isn't much better then my OC'ed 580gtx.



Also dont use any extra commands, like norestriction etc.. That was mostly for older gpu's with little vram.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

...that 270x isn't much better then my OC'ed 580gtx.

It's not even a 270x, just a 270.

 

[bL1nd3R]

Does GTA IV has more powerfull graphics than cryisis 3 and COD : Ghosts ?

 

[Ferrum Master]

Does GTA IV has more powerfull graphics than cryisis 3 and COD : Ghosts ?

No it doesn't, is just never meant to be used on windows... it is monkeycoded worst ever console port on PC.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It's not just poor coding. It's also that it has a fairly large city map with no load screens and when you're traveling it fast in a vehicle there's lots of shadows off buildings and such that play havoc with performance when shadows are on highest settings.

I was able to play it on my GTS 250 with reasonable settings. It's actually more optimized than Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony, which I couldn't run at all on that GPU.

Compared to other games, GTA IV is not exactly well optimized, but it's really only a problem on extremely high settings.

 

[Ferrum Master]

It actually is POOR CODING in any of your mentioned cases .

The same similar Sleeping dogs, or Mafia ran miles better... not mentioning some more cluttered Far Cry 3.

 

[WhiteNoise]

I've been meaning to play through this game. Bought on some steam sale a LONG time ago. I have it for the PS3 as well but it looks terrible.

 

[newtekie1]

It actually is POOR CODING in any of your mentioned cases . The same similar Sleeping dogs, or Mafia ran miles better... not mentioning some more cluttered Far Cry 3.

More cluttered Far Cry 3? Have you actually played any of these games? Far Cry 3 was lucky to have 3 vehicles on screen at any time...

 

[Ferrum Master]

More cluttered Far Cry 3? Have you actually played any of these games? Far Cry 3 was lucky to have 3 vehicles on screen at any time...

Actually have played a lot, and din't have any kind of serious issues with those ones... Seeing your specs I see the obvious problem thou... I also had a SLI setup for a while... never again... and no one pushes you to use all setting sliders to the max and make conclusions afterwards that something does not work.

Never the less, how more or less buggy all of them are, euphoria engine is not meant for PC platform.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It actually is POOR CODING in any of your mentioned cases.

Not when you consider what it takes to render the level of shadow detail it has on max settings with a map like that. The game looks plenty good without max shadows. Some people just want slightly better visuals, even if you can barely tell the difference.

Like I said, TBoGT and TLaD were far worse optimized, and Far Cry 3 artifacted horribly with the slightest of OCs. Far Cry 3 is a game that will easily be solid at 60 FPS with max settings on any decent high end GPU, and look excellent when late afternoon HDR sets in, then you'll have places where it will get choppy and places where there's lots of texture flickering.

There are plenty worse examples of poor coding than GTA IV. It's unfairly singled out for that really, and probably just because haters like to pick on big successful dev/pub teams more than any others.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

It actually is POOR CODING in any of your mentioned cases .

The same similar Sleeping dogs, or Mafia ran miles better... not mentioning some more cluttered Far Cry 3.

Sure the game is coded pretty bad to run on PC, but its kind of a different game compared to others. Not many games have that much AI, that high of draw distances, etc. Its just a demanding game be it poorly coded or not.

 

[Steevo]

It actually is POOR CODING in any of your mentioned cases .

The same similar Sleeping dogs, or Mafia ran miles better... not mentioning some more cluttered Far Cry 3.

Sounds like you were butthurt over the lack of vmem and processing horsepower it too k to run the complexity of the game. I think we have had this discussion before many times, GTA4 wasn't poorly written or a console port as much as you say, it was just made to be played for a long time and take advantage of newer hardware when it came out. Just because a new game can't be played on max setting with current generation hardware at release doesn't instantly mean is a bad port. The new streaming architecture of the world was revolutionary for its time and still holds games with load screens up to a higher standard.

 

[Ferrum Master]

I guess you guys haven't really got the point... of poor coding engine wise. Nor the the AI nor the physics engine is something worth to praise really(especially for the development COST$$$$$$). I had no problems running Crysis during that time when GTA4 came out, so I was frustrated.

It still looks like any source based game really, but on the contrary... source games just RUN any crap hardware, just like Mafia(streaming architecture my ass) did... i ran it on damn slow Voodoo Banshee 16MB card... and it didn't cause such problems as this did... and none can touch that game in this genre department, GTA4 is the worst of all GTA's, and I have played them all.

This game is worth as a real example of harassing PC players. If you make a poll in gamer forums, it will end up in top3 worst optimized games, together with cryostasis, Stalker(okay the dev didn't have money) and some other ports... They brang out a product, without real proper testing, use their costumers as beta testers for the products they just sold as final gold code. Then half year passes through, numerous patches and then mayyybe, you can risk playing the game normally? You call that entertainment and normal business practice? I guess if they are a leading game studio they deserve even more bashing of doing so and unfortunately most of studios does just like that.

This critter still struggles on MAX on mid spec PC just exactly as OP has. For a game that came out 5 years ago? That's not logical, it is a pure engine flaw.

From my experience, use only 1.0.4 patch only, without AA and all sliders at 30%...

 

[newtekie1]

The truth of the matter is that all they need to do to "optimize" the game in your eyes(and most others) would have been to limit the sliders to half of what they allowed. BAM optimized game!

People bitched because they couldn't max the game out on current hardware, but Rockstar said they released the game knowing that. They didn't hold back the engine, they allowed the player to max out the sliders know. This is actually a good thing, but it ended up causing all the idiots out there to bitch about the game being unoptimized.

But really, the test of how optimized a game is really comes down to how it runs on lower end hardware. When GTAIV was released for PC I played it on an Athlon X2 4400+ and an HD4670. It played perfectly fine and looked better than the console version. Hell, at the time the CPU was 3 years old, practically ancient by PC standards. Sure the graphics card was only a few months old, but it was a mid-range card that didn't even match the high-end cards from the previous generation(it was slower than an HD3850).

 

[arskatb]

those graphic settings witht that gpu.. still wondering why fps low?

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I guess you guys haven't really got the point... of poor coding engine wise. Nor the the AI nor the physics engine is something worth to praise really...

If you're going to make statements like that, I have to assume you really don't know the complexity of the game coding. GTA IV is one of the few games, and one of the first for that matter, to use Euphoria layered over their own physics engine, which dramatically improves the realism of model physics, especially when you get in a wreck and the bodies tumble vs flop, as if they have a skeletal system.

Honestly, I don't know why more devs don't use Euphoria, and why so many gamers don't appreciate the attention to detailed realism it offers.

 

[xenocide]

If you're going to make statements like that, I have to assume you really don't know the complexity of the game coding. GTA IV is one of the few games, and one of the first for that matter, to use Euphoria layered over their own physics engine, which dramatically improves the realism of model physics, especially when you get in a wreck and the bodies tumble vs flop, as if they have a skeletal system.

Honestly, I don't know why more devs don't use Euphoria, and why so many gamers don't appreciate the attention to detailed realism it offers.

Because as was stated, people would rather have a game cut off at the knees just so they can max it out than have forward looking game that looks good at medium settings. It's the Crysis effect as I would call it. People don't appreciate how amazing a game can be if they can't run it "maxed out" out of the box. Crysis is still praised for how amazing it looks with mods, and for good reason, but "Can it play Crysis" was a joke for something like 4 years because of how demanding the game was. GTA4 isn't a whole lot different. It uses a lot of CPU power, is multithreaded, stresses GPU's, and has full mod tools and support. The game is the best case scenario for a Console port, yet people still consider it "poorly optimized" because they can't max it on a TI83.

 

[THE_EGG]

If you're going to make statements like that, I have to assume you really don't know the complexity of the game coding. GTA IV is one of the few games, and one of the first for that matter, to use Euphoria layered over their own physics engine, which dramatically improves the realism of model physics, especially when you get in a wreck and the bodies tumble vs flop, as if they have a skeletal system.

Honestly, I don't know why more devs don't use Euphoria, and why so many gamers don't appreciate the attention to detailed realism it offers.

Is it bad that I enjoyed driving on sidewalks for this reason?

I never had a problem with GTAIV. I mean sure it was demanding on hardware but it looked pretty nice (especially for it's time imo). Also I really enjoyed the soft body models for the cars where you could basically turn a car inside out which was pretty badass and I also thought the driving physics were pretty good, far better than GTAV imo. The only thing that did irritate me was driving at speed and you crash into something invisible only for the cement barrier to load a second or two later. When I first bought the game I was running it off an 8600GT so no surprise really. This game actually got me into building my own PC so I could run the game nicely.