GTA IV Performance

[pepsi71ocean]

interesting, i'll have to pick up a copy of GTA IV at Best buy and see how it works on my rig.

[AsRock]

Originally Posted by miloshs

Oh sorry forgot about those...
Heres bench with my rig...

with 4850 in the rig
Statistics
Average FPS: 35.85
Duration: 37.24 sec
CPU Usage: 71%
System memory usage: 51%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 71
Detail Distance: 100


with 4870 in my rig
Statistics
Average FPS: 37.36
Duration: 37.10 sec
CPU Usage: 65%
System memory usage: 47%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 71
Detail Distance: 100

with 4870+4850 CF in the rig
Statistics
Average FPS: 38.87
Duration: 37.15 sec
CPU Usage: 68%
System memory usage: 48%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 71
Detail Distance: 100


not much of a gain, eh? Im guessing it would show much more gain from CF if i was able to play on a Full HD monitor/tv... but i just had so little time, and wanted to test it out at the same settings as mine...

I heard CF is not working earlier on in this thread.

[Viorel]

Originally Posted by erocker

Ok, so all you do is drop the commandline.txt file into the GTAIV folder? Why in the heck isn't it working for me? I don't need to do it or anything, it's the principal of it all.

I don't have Steam, but my commandline doesn't work if I use this (like the txt's in the previous page):
-command1 -comm2 -comm3

And work if I use:
-command1
-comm2
-comm3

Have you tried in both ways?

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by Viorel

I don't have Steam, but my commandline doesn't work if I use this:
-command1 -comm2 -comm3

And work if I use:
-command1
-comm2
-comm3

Have you tried in both ways?

programs work linear, so each command is read per line, thus why it does work in the first set, ony the one where you having it go down.

[D3mon_Hunt3r]

My commandline.txt is written in the second way too.

[Arciks]

strange latly i dont get any game problems.all go fine.atleast now i can play longer than hour and dont get kicked out of game like always was.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by Arciks

strange latly i dont get any game problems.all go fine.atleast now i can play longer than hour and dont get kicked out of game like always was.

is that in multiplayer?


i finally bough both GTA IV, and COD WAW, and i had to choose which game to take now, and which to hold till christmas, so i chose to keep GTA till Christmas, so i'll report what the game does FPS and what not wise then. it will be interesting to see none the less.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by Viorel

And work if I use:
-command1
-comm2
-comm3

Have you tried in both ways?

That works, and I have to start the game using a shortcut instead of through Steam. So here's a video with everything maxed out 1920x1200 resolution using the 2nd system in my specs. The E8600 is at 4ghz and the card is at 700/1400/1100

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW0jT0V3D_Q

-Be sure to sign in and select "watch in high quality"

[newconroer]

The best thing to do, is to not use the -unrestricted commands, but rather setup the game with all your visual quality, but at a lowly resolution, like 800X600, then save it. This means that you're only using a portion of your available memory capacity, that's how the game sees it.

Exit the game.

Setup a command.txt or command line in your executable shortcut, that specifies the resolution you want, i.e. 1920X1200. When you enter the game, it will run at that resolution, and the game will not scale automatically because it still thinks your using resources for 800X600.

This is a better, though more long-winded approach, to using "-unrestricted" variables, because the game will still scale automatically, no matter if a restriction is in place or not.


Never the less, the shadows still look like crap, and the performance isn't impressive.


The worst thing is how the patch broke all controller use, except the Xbox 360; it seriously does seem like a Microsoft sabotage, and I usually don't bite on those types of conspiracies.

[oli_ramsay]

Does anyone think they'll every fix the lack of AA? ;_;

[newconroer]

Doubtful Ramsay...at least we know it's not a priority.

Apparently there was an off-comment made by Rockstar regarding something to do with consoles not having DX10, and therefor no AA????

They obviously know DX10 is not a requirement for anti-aliasing, but maybe rather should have expanded to say that because of console limitations, and subsequentley, a bad port job, the PC was not graced with AA.

[Black Panther]

Playing on desktop in system specs:
I created the txt file to be able to get into high textures.
Leaving all other settings the same, I think the fps is quite good considering I'm using 800MB+ vram when my card only has 512MB.

Statistics
Average FPS: 41.79
Duration: 37.07 sec
CPU Usage: 94%
System memory usage: 48%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 34
Detail Distance: 49

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz (oc'd to 4.0Ghz)


I really hate the lack of antialiasing though... I'll be checking what happens if I force it through the Nvidia control panel...

I have to read about to see what difference 'view distance' and 'detail distance' make to the game, or try them out myself.

Also, I find it kinda shocking that it uses a whopping 94% CPU power considering it's an E8400 @ 4.0Ghz... even though temperature-wise I'm at a very safe 44 degrees ingame/benchmark max.

Edit: Just read the previous posts on this page --- What do you mean lack of AA?!?!?
You mean you can't force it in the control panel??? (oh noes!)

[erocker]

Originally Posted by oli_ramsay

Does anyone think they'll every fix the lack of AA? ;_;

It's up to ATi and Nvidia if they can make their cards force AA in the game. There is no AA in the XBox or PS3 versions and I'm quite sure they left it out of the game all together.

[eidairaman1]

they do that because their hardware cant be upgraded and it degrades performance so low for those consoles that it makes the games run at snail speed. TVs tend to stick to a 60Hz Refresh and it doesn't matter if its the HD tvs or not thats reason console games tend to run better than PC parts because if you have the hardware you can run the PC game at higher Detail and maintain a 60 FPS. Greatest Example for me was Need for Speed Underground on a 15.4 Screen laptop, Running on a 9800 256 Mobility vs XB on a TV, I could pump the Graphics Up to Max without it affecting the PC in Multiplayer. People would walk by and notice how great the game looked on PC and i said that's the advantage the PC has over console.

[warup89]

I found this on GTA forums, i havent test it yet but it looks pretty nifty

Enable GTA to use system ram for VRAM

Originally Posted by psx2p

this comes from the ultimate guide that's stuck to the forums, i noticed that if you double you multiplier the game will use ll the on board ram on your GPU as well as system ram,

don't use this if your already maxing out your system ram and your Vram.
(i have 4 gigs system RAM and 512mb VRAM gta does not use all my system ram, so i use the left over system ram for Vram)

the code for the command is: -availablevidmem (multiplier)

if you were to put: -availablevidmem 2.0
that would double you VRAM

for example lets say i have a 512mb card, i want to make gta think i have 1024Mb i would use the code: -availablevidmem 2.0

the multiplier 2.0 will double the ram, 3.0 will triple it and so on and so forth.

doing this also thrashes your HD's like crazy, as you have taken away system ram so it doubles up on caching

my friend has done this and he is able to play high textures at 1440 x 900

this beats using the no restrictions command because this actually allows more VRAM,


ONE last quick tip: i found that setting the GTA4 process in task manager to high priority seems to make the game run a bit smoother, not any FPS gain but more constant.
O and also overclocking. that makes a difference, my CPU is OC'd to 3.4Ghz and i gain average of 5-7FPS
i figure any advice is helpfull.

source

EDIT:
btw even though i haven't used this yet I noticed that GTA uses more than half of my 8gb RAM (taking to account this is a 32b app. meaning it fully used 4gb's, not counting OS and the rest)

[Nick89]

Originally Posted by miloshs

Oh sorry forgot about those...
Heres bench with my rig...

with 4850 in the rig
Statistics
Average FPS: 35.85
Duration: 37.24 sec
CPU Usage: 71%
System memory usage: 51%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 71
Detail Distance: 100

With my 4850 all I get is:

Statistics
Average FPS: 21.62
CPU usage: 86%
System memory usage: 82%
Video memory usage: 96%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280x1024 (60 hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 28
Detail Distance: 60

Using cats 8.12 BTW

My Cpu is over clocked to 3.2ghz and my ram is doing 533mhz(1066Mhz) my 4850 wont OC at all. WTF

I have all my settings WAY lower and I get 15 less FPS? with the same card? WTFH

[xubidoo]

Warup, i did try that myself and found for me at least its pretty much useless as it causes my game to crash after a couple of minutes

judging by how much my HD was thrashing it "DOESN'T make normal ram act as vram ,more like makes your pagefile act as vram.

i have 4gb ram and 896 vram ,after enabling that command it let me pick up to 1752 vram and it simply thrashed my hd ,and made the game crash ,b4 it crashed ,my normal ram usage for the game was around 75% usage which is wat i normally get with no switch active.

normally i can play the game for hours with no crashes ,nice idea but for me it just doesnt work.

Statistics
Average FPS: 49.04
Duration: 37.19 sec
CPU Usage: 73%
System memory usage: 68%
Video memory usage: 91%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Very High
View Distance: 32
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Video Driver version: 180.84
Audio Adapter: Z-10 (2- Z-10 USB Speaker)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz @3.2ghz

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

which is why 1GB is the new 512

Your right......it is

[Tatty_One]

Cannot quite understand the need for the command line mentioned earlier to free up unused "system" ram as VRam, I though that is what happens in any case if the VRAM is insufficient???

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by erocker

It's up to ATi and Nvidia if they can make their cards force AA in the game. There is no AA in the XBox or PS3 versions and I'm quite sure they left it out of the game all together.

I thought the game blurred edges so that AA wasn't needed.

[D3mon_Hunt3r]

Originally Posted by Nick89

With my 4850 all I get is:

Statistics
Average FPS: 21.62
CPU usage: 86%
System memory usage: 82%
Video memory usage: 96%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280x1024 (60 hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 28
Detail Distance: 60

Using cats 8.12 BTW

My Cpu is over clocked to 3.2ghz and my ram is doing 533mhz(1066Mhz) my 4850 wont OC at all. WTF

I have all my settings WAY lower and I get 15 less FPS? with the same card? WTFH

Not to mention the resolution. I have a 4870X2 and i don't understand it either...

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by Nick89

With my 4850 all I get is:

Statistics
Average FPS: 21.62
CPU usage: 86%
System memory usage: 82%
Video memory usage: 96%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280x1024 (60 hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 28
Detail Distance: 60

Using cats 8.12 BTW

My Cpu is over clocked to 3.2ghz and my ram is doing 533mhz(1066Mhz) my 4850 wont OC at all. WTF

I have all my settings WAY lower and I get 15 less FPS? with the same card? WTFH

Wierd I get more fps at 1680 x 1050 and I have a worse card than you

[Black Panther]

Statistics
Average FPS: 42.19
Duration: 37.26 sec
CPU Usage: 95%
System memory usage: 48%
Video memory usage: 100%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
View Distance: 68
Detail Distance: 100

Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Home Premium
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
Video Driver version: 180.48
Audio Adapter: Speakers (Creative SB X-Fi)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz

File ID: benchmark.cli

_________________________________________________

Duh I think I'm giving up on this game for now.

I am running it everything maxed out - view distance 68 and fps 42.19 in the benchmark, and it's milky smooth during gameplay.

I can't understand how people with much better hardware than mine are gettting lower benchmark fps maybe it's a driver issue? (I'm playing it on the desktop with the single 8800GT 512MB and not with the laptop sli). Maybe the oc'd E8400 helps? I dunno...

What makes me give up for now however (it's otherwise a great game) is the lack of AA. There are so many jaggies I'm not accustomed to that, the game actually makes me dizzy and sick at the stomach - it's like playing a game in the 90's...

I'd much prefer having to put textures on medium rather than high, and at least some AA just to be kinder on my eyes.

Duh I did try to force AA in the Nvidia control panel - tried 2xAA (normally I find that enough for 1680x1050), 4xAA and 8xAA -- no difference at all. I.t. j.u.s.t. d.o.e.s. n.o.t. w.o.r.k.

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread just in case someone figures out how to get a decent AA, or maybe a patch comes out, or a Nvidia driver which enables the forcing of AA through the nvidia cp...

I've been thinking of installing the game on the lappie to get rid of the AA issue - I mean the lappie's 1920x1200 and it's only 17" to render those pixels... but I dunno... I wouldn't want to go through the trouble and get crappy graphics again...

The only feedback I can give to this thread is that I discovered that actually putting the shadows on the lowest possible makes them neater for me. Putting them on lowest makes them look like real life shadows, not like a million ants crawling on the floor. Also, pressing P ingame makes the game look neater & softens the far-away jaggies (though not the nearer ones).

Tbh, I don't think that the game engine is that great.
I mean, if I can game at a playable 40+ fps at the above settings, I should have the option to lower some settings and increase AA and still get a playable game. But this is not possible.
It also makes no sense increasing shadow quality, still get 40+ fps and getting dizzying scurrying ants on the floors rather than proper shadows. I think the shadows are just broken, the same way that self-shadows (on the characters' faces) are broken in Oblivion. Shadows only appear at their best if you lower the slider all the way down.

Edit: I just saw my previous post on this same page - duh so using higher settings give me a higher fps in the benchmark?!? Now that's really something which doesn't make sense....

[warup89]

seemingly the game prefers quad cores and up, I think since it has to run the physics engine, and all the different kind of IA going around.

[spearman914]

Originally Posted by warup89

seemingly the game prefers quad cores and up, I think since it has to run the physics engine, and all the different kind of IA going around.

Yep. GTA IV is optimized to take the full advantage of quads.