GTA IV Performance

[newtekie1]

I picked the game up last night, and I think the problem is that PC gamers expect more from PC games than consoles.

On my setup(Q6600, 4GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12, SLI-9600GSO's) the game is smooth, looks better than the PS3 version and maintains better framerates. I wouldn't call that a crappy port, I would consider that a good port.

Resolution plays a huge part in this issue. If you look at the resolution the game is being rendered at on the consoles, it is 720p, or 1366x768. Thats only 1,049,088 pixels that need to be rendered. Now you have people starting to play the game on PCs, a standard 1280x1024 LCD means you are now rendering 1,310,720 pixels. Thats 25% more pixels rendered on the PC vs. the Consoles. So even with the settings lowered to make the PC version look like the Console version(which for me seemed to be all medium or low settings), the PC version is still rendering more pixels, so of course it is going to be more demanding. Moving up to 1680x1050 means you are rendering ~68% more pixels.

Add to that, the fact that it is much harder to optimize games for PCs than it is for Consoles. With Consoles, you have to optimize the game for, maybe, 3 different setups. With PCs there is an infinite number of configurations.

Of course PC gamers expect a little bit more. They expect to play all their games at high settings, at much higher resolutions than console gamers. So many will complain if they can't play the game at maximum resolutions and high settings and call it a shitty port.

Any port that looks better than the console and runs as smooth or smoother on mid-range PCs at 1366x768 is a sucessful port, IMO. From what I have experienced in the GTA:IV on the PC, Rockstar has managed to do this.

[Steevo]

I can has 1Gb Vmem and quad core, please tell me this is a multithread game.

[newtekie1]

I would assume it is multi-threaded, it would almost have to be on the consoles since the only way to get good performance out of their CPUs it to multi-thread. So I would hope they did the same on the PC port.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by Steevo

I can has 1Gb Vmem and quad core, please tell me this is a multithread game.

Considering they recommend a amd tri or intel quad core and minimum states a dual I would imagine it uses at least three threads.

[Steevo]

Dan is here, and always with the logic of looking and thinking, Why I oughtaaaa.

[ktr]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

You could see that by the colors of the pixels? Care to explain it?

As I stated, this is the first pc game to use RAGE and Euphoria. I didn't say that the game is impossible to be ported, but it is gonna take a lot of work to do so. And R* pulling this off in 6 months is a very short time, for such an ambitious game with an ambitious array of technology. They are moving from a 8-thread PPC cpu to a no more than 4-thread x86 cpu (excluding the recently released the 8-thread i7). Atm, they done a great job, and that is possibly the reason why R* put the disclaimer stating that current hardware will not max out the game. As for the video cards, that just bad coding...both on part of R* and current drivers/hardware (I am saying hardware because to max out the game in texture detail, draw distance, and rendering quality you need VRAM greater than the typical 512mb...perhaps around 1gb).

[DaMulta]

I believe they already have programs to convert coding into direct x from ps3. To make games easier to port over to other systems.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by ktr

As I stated, this is the first pc game to use RAGE and Euphoria. I didn't say that the game is impossible to be ported, but it is gonna take a lot of work to do so. And R* pulling this off in 6 months is a very short time, for such an ambitious game with an ambitious array of technology. They are moving from a 8-thread PPC cpu to a no more than 4-thread x86 cpu (excluding the recently released the 8-thread i7). As for the video cards, that just bad coding...both on part of R* and current drivers/hardware.

No, you stated you could see it would be a lot of work to port by playing the game on a console. I have no clue how those engines are build or anything. The fact that it hadn't be ported yet doesn't mean that much though. Unless you could enlighten me there I'm failing to get your point. Why would this be more work to port than any other random engine? The amount of threads isn't that relevant as it'll work just fine. Besides, are they even utilizing 8 threads efficiently on the PS3?

[DaMulta]

ps3 is a cell chip and process the data differently.

More like a GPU than anything, and I think if you mixed ATi/Nvidia cores with the right program you could do what the ps3 does, and almost just the same on how it runs it.

In fact I think if you ran a ATi card for direct memory access/stream
http://ati.amd.com/developer/techrep...06_Sketch).pdf

From back 1900xt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_parallelism

http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.d....html#setupgl1

And we all know what cuda(nvidia physics) is I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_processing_unit


PS3 GPU overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

[erocker]

Originally Posted by EviLZeD

As i posted on another gta thread

rockstar posted this info on their site somewere help tweak some settings

Originally Posted by newtekie1

I picked the game up last night, and I think the problem is that PC gamers expect more from PC games than consoles.

On my setup(Q6600, 4GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12, SLI-9600GSO's) the game is smooth, looks better than the PS3 version and maintains better framerates. I wouldn't call that a crappy port, I would consider that a good port.

Resolution plays a huge part in this issue. If you look at the resolution the game is being rendered at on the consoles, it is 720p, or 1366x768. Thats only 1,049,088 pixels that need to be rendered. Now you have people starting to play the game on PCs, a standard 1280x1024 LCD means you are now rendering 1,310,720 pixels. Thats 25% more pixels rendered on the PC vs. the Consoles. So even with the settings lowered to make the PC version look like the Console version(which for me seemed to be all medium or low settings), the PC version is still rendering more pixels, so of course it is going to be more demanding. Moving up to 1680x1050 means you are rendering ~68% more pixels.

Add to that, the fact that it is much harder to optimize games for PCs than it is for Consoles. With Consoles, you have to optimize the game for, maybe, 3 different setups. With PCs there is an infinite number of configurations.

Of course PC gamers expect a little bit more. They expect to play all their games at high settings, at much higher resolutions than console gamers. So many will complain if they can't play the game at maximum resolutions and high settings and call it a shitty port.

Any port that looks better than the console and runs as smooth or smoother on mid-range PCs at 1366x768 is a sucessful port, IMO. From what I have experienced in the GTA:IV on the PC, Rockstar has managed to do this.

First read what EvilZed posted. Newtekie pretty much sums it up nicely too. The game IS a successful port. It runs better on my PC than a Xbox360 or PS3 using the same settings as they use in the console version. Plus Rockstar was kind enough to include settings that only the best PC's can run. What in the hell is wrong with that? Of course, most of the people I see hear bashing Rockstar don't even own the game! Some people need to get off of thier high and mighty high-chair and start gaming. (The last comment isn't directed towards anyone in particular.. but you know who you are) I'm sucked into this game, I played it for hours last night and was late to work today...

[ktr]

Originally Posted by DanTheBanjoman

No, you stated you could see it would be a lot of work to port by playing the game on a console. I have no clue how those engines are build or anything. The fact that it hadn't be ported yet doesn't mean that much though. Unless you could enlighten me there I'm failing to get your point. Why would this be more work to port than any other random engine? The amount of threads isn't that relevant as it'll work just fine. Besides, are they even utilizing 8 threads efficiently on the PS3?

In term of "a lot of work" as in taking a ambitious game, with new technology to a platform that hasn't been developed before.

Previous console-to-pc ports uses engines that have already been initially developed for the PC, such as the unreal, id tech4/5, source, havok, etc. Now if R* used those engines, and ported the game within 6 months, then I would understand. But not when the RAGE was designed initially for the consoles, and then ported within 6 months to the PC (when the game was like 4-5 years in development). Euphoria is also a new thing for the PC. Star Wars: FU got canceled for the PC...due to the amount of work and short time frame.

I am assuming that 8 threads are being used, for the game was delayed 6 months for more work for the ps3...and the ps3 power piece is its 8-core cell cpu.

Any ways, with the short time...R* did a decent job. What I am going against is that disclaimer that they put in the readme.txt. They pulled off another crysis...

Originally Posted by DaMulta

ps3 is a cell chip and process the data differently.

More like a GPU than anything, and I think if you mixed ATi/Nvidia cores with the right program you could do what the ps3 does, and almost just the same on how it runs it.

In fact I think if you ran a ATi card for direct memory access/stream
http://ati.amd.com/developer/techrep...06_Sketch).pdf

From back 1900xt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_parallelism

http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.d....html#setupgl1

And we all know what cuda(nvidia physics) is I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_processing_unit


PS3 GPU overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

http://www.ps3forums.com/showthread.php?t=22858

^^this is a good post regarding the PS3 hardware, in compare with the 360.

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by ktr

In term of "a lot of work" as in taking a ambitious game, with new technology to a platform that hasn't been developed before.

Previous console-to-pc ports uses engines that have already been initially developed for the PC, such as the unreal, id tech4/5, source, havok, etc. Now if R* used those engines, and ported the game within 6 months, then I would understand. But not when the RAGE was designed initially for the consoles, and then ported within 6 months to the PC (when the game was like 4-5 years in development). Euphoria is also a new thing for the PC. Star Wars: FU got canceled for the PC...due to the amount of work and short time frame.

I am assuming that 8 threads are being used, for the game was delayed 6 months for more work for the ps3...and the ps3 power piece is its 8-core cell cpu.

That still doesn't explain why this would be harder than any other port. If an engine is developed for multiple platforms at once it's not really porting it anymore is it? Nor does it explain how playing it on a console shows this.
I think porting anything between completely different platforms is a crap job. I doubt GTA was any harder or easier.

Your logic of 8 cores being used because it was delayed 6 months doesn't make much sense either. I'd say it was delayed because they simply weren't done. Just like most games, I'd say there are two main threads or something and several things on the size, hardly causing a load on the other cores.
Would be interesting to check CPU usage on the PC version though, I see no reason why the engine is changed so much that the threads got changed.

Besides, PS3 only has 7 cores, not that that changes anything

[erocker]

The car and npc density is run off of the CPU. With car density set to 100, my q6600 at 3ghz is being used 78% (4 cores) during the benchmark. Actually GPU is 80%, RAM 60%. It seems to be using most of my system. I'm quite sure Rockstar has been working on the PC version of this game before they launched it on the consoles.

[pagalms]

Two words - EPIC FAIL

[DanTheBanjoman]

Originally Posted by erocker

The car and npc density is run off of the CPU. With car density set to 100, my q6600 at 3ghz is being used 78% (4 cores) during the benchmark. Actually GPU is 80%, RAM 60%. It seems to be using most of my system. I'm quite sure Rockstar has been working on the PC version of this game before they launched it on the consoles.

And if you lower that density?

[erocker]

With car density set to 50 my quad is being used 62%. I'll try it even lower once I'm home.

Originally Posted by pagalms

Two words - EPIC FAIL

Two words: GIVE REASON?!! I completely disagree with your empty statement.

[ktr]

Originally Posted by erocker

The car and npc density is run off of the CPU. With car density set to 100, my q6600 at 3ghz is being used 78% (4 cores) during the benchmark. Actually GPU is 80%, RAM 60%. It seems to be using most of my system. I'm quite sure Rockstar has been working on the PC version of this game before they launched it on the consoles.

You can adjust car and npc density? That is fucking lame. That goes against how R* wanted to perceive the game to its audience. So turning them lower just to play the game will result in a different experience...the look and feel. One think I liked about gta4 was how dense downtown gets with cars and peeps.

Now turning then all to 100%, does it differ to the console version?

[erocker]

Originally Posted by ktr

You can adjust car and npc density? That is fucking lame. That goes against how R* wanted to perceive the game to its audience. So turning them lower just to play the game will result in a different experience.

Now turning then all to 100%, does it differ to the console version?

Yes, 100% is close to rush hour traffic everywhere. I think all this game needs is a better way (perhaps dumber) of setting your settings. It would be nice if it had a Ps3 or Xbox360 setting for graphics for easy comparison. The settings I'm playing at look much better than the console version. Draw distance can be set from 0-100. On consoles that setting is at 22. That's what I know so far.

Actually EvilZed posted this earlier:

Originally Posted by rockstar?
Most users using current PC hardware as of December 2008 are advised to use medium graphics settings. Higher settings are provided for future generations of PCs with higher specifications than are currently widely available.

Graphics settings are limited by system resources by default. 256MB video cards force minimum settings by default. If a user bypasses these safety measures using command line arguments and exceeds their system resources, the users gaming experience may be compromised.


Video Mode
Resolution scaling effects water, reflections, shadows, mirrors and the visible viewable distance. The resolution settings relate to the amount of available video memory. At 2560*1600 the game will require 320MB of video memory in addition to all the memory required for content. At 800*600 the game will require 32MB of video memory in addition to the content. Medium resolution settings are recommended for most users as higher settings are only usable if there is available video memory.

Texture Quality
Texture quality affects the visual quality of the content of the game. High setting for textures will require 600MB of video memory at a setting of 21 View Distance in addition to the memory taken by the Video Mode. A medium texture setting is recommended for most users.

Render Quality
Render quality is the texture filter quality used on most things in the world rendering. Most people would know this as anisotropic filtering. Medium settings are recommended for most users and will provide filtering beyond what the console versions can execute.

View Distance
View distance scales the distance in which different objects in the world such as building and cars are seen. Raising this option increases the distance in which high quality objects must be loaded and will increase the memory it requires. Restrictions are established to ensure the game runs optimally for most users. A setting of 22 or more will provide PC users an enhanced experience over the console versions.

Detail Distance
Detail distance scales aspects of the environment that the View Distance setting does not including vegetation, trash and other moveable objects. A setting of 10 would be the equivalent to the performance on a console. This setting has little effect on memory.

Vehicle Density
Vehicle density scales the traffic density of the traffic in the game. It has no effect on the mission vehicles or difficultly of the game, but can have a significant impact on CPU performance

Shadow Density
Shadow Density controls the number of shadows generated for positional lights in exterior environments. These shadows are exclusive to the PC version and can have a major impact on CPU and GPU performance.

Crossfire/SLI
With the latest ATI driver (8-11 series) the game supports crossfire modes (ie. 4870x2)
SLI is currently unsupported. Support will be added through a future game patch as well as an updated Nvidia driver.


NOTE: Background Processes
Certain background processes can have a detrimental effect on system performance when playing GTA IV, especially on systems with minimum required system memory. Users should ensure they disable their Virus scans (especially “on-access” type scans) when running the game to maximize performance.

[ktr]

Originally Posted by erocker

Yes, 100% is close to rush hour traffic everywhere. I think all this game needs is a better way (perhaps dumber) of setting your settings. It would be nice if it had a Ps3 or Xbox360 setting for graphics for easy comparison. The settings I'm playing at look much better than the console version. Draw distance can be set from 0-100. On consoles that setting is at 22. That's what I know so far.

Actually EvilZed posted this earlier:

Wow, I wonder what would be the difference when settings it at 100 for draw distance. I thought the console version was high enough, it kinda reproduced the human eye IMO...as in farther objects will look blurry...a bit blue-ish.

[erocker]

For a while I was playing with a draw distance of 14, and missing buildings and the like weren't noticable at all from the ground. Flying in a helicoptor, things are deffinitely more noticable. My 512mb vid card just doesn't have enough vram to draw more textures at a greater draw distance using 1920x1200.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by erocker

Yes, 100% is close to rush hour traffic everywhere. I think all this game needs is a better way (perhaps dumber) of setting your settings. It would be nice if it had a Ps3 or Xbox360 setting for graphics for easy comparison. The settings I'm playing at look much better than the console version. Draw distance can be set from 0-100. On consoles that setting is at 22. That's what I know so far.

Actually EvilZed posted this earlier:

I wish they would release exactly what the settings need to be to match the console's. We know view distance of was set at 21 for the consoles. Just by comparing the two on the same screen at the same resolution, it seems like Medium settings on the PC side with the draw distance at 22 gives a better experience than the PS3 version.

I didn't even realize that SLI wasn't supported, so it is only using one of my 384MB 9600GSO's and it handles the game just fine at those settings.

[W1zzard]

does it have a benchmark mode?

Originally Posted by W1zzard

does it have a benchmark mode?

yes, I know what you are thinking

[pagalms]

Originally Posted by erocker

With car density set to 50 my quad is being used 62%. I'll try it even lower once I'm home.



Two words: GIVE REASON?!! I completely disagree with your empty statement.

It has poor graphics with insane requirements. For example GRID - great graphics with friendly requirements, but here...
I will wait for some patches and hope they'll optimize the game.

[Katanai]

Originally Posted by W1zzard

does it have a benchmark mode?

Hehe looking out for a Crysis type of beast to ad to the suite?