1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GTA IV Performance

Discussion in 'Games' started by MaxAwesome, Dec 4, 2008.

  1. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,839 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,944
    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.
    Exeodus, farlex85 and AsRock say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  2. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,226 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,149
    I can has 1Gb Vmem and quad core, please tell me this is a multithread game.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  3. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,839 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,944
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  4. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    Considering they recommend a amd tri or intel quad core and minimum states a dual I would imagine it uses at least three threads.
  5. Steevo

    Steevo

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,226 (2.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,149
    Dan is here, and always with the logic of looking and thinking, Why I oughtaaaa.
    10 Million points folded for TPU
  6. ktr

    ktr

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,407 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    687
    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).
  7. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,119 (5.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    I believe they already have programs to convert coding into direct x from ps3. To make games easier to port over to other systems.
  8. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    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?
  9. DaMulta

    DaMulta My stars went supernova

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    16,119 (5.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,454
    Location:
    Oklahoma T-Town
    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/techre...el_Virtual_Machine_for_GPUs(SIG06_Sketch).pdf

    From back 1900xt

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

    http://www.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de/~goeddeke/gpgpu/tutorial.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)
  10. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,602 (13.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,991

    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...
  11. ktr

    ktr

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,407 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    687

    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...:p

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

    ^^this is a good post regarding the PS3 hardware, in compare with the 360.
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2008
    DaMulta says thanks.
  12. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    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 :)
  13. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,602 (13.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,991
    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.
  14. pagalms

    pagalms New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    783 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Location:
    Latvia
    Two words - EPIC FAIL
  15. DanTheBanjoman Señor Moderator

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,553 (2.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,383
    And if you lower that density?
  16. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,602 (13.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,991
    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.
  17. ktr

    ktr

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,407 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    687

    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?
  18. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,602 (13.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,991
    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:
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2008
  19. ktr

    ktr

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    7,407 (2.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    687
    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.
  20. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    39,602 (13.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,991
    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.
  21. newtekie1

    newtekie1 Semi-Retired Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,839 (6.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5,944
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU More than 25k PPD
  22. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,788 (3.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,490
    does it have a benchmark mode?
  23. wolf2009 Guest

    yes, I know what you are thinking :D
  24. pagalms

    pagalms New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    783 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Location:
    Latvia
    It has poor graphics with insane requirements. For example GRID - great graphics with friendly requirements, but here... :shadedshu
    I will wait for some patches and hope they'll optimize the game. :)
  25. Katanai

    Katanai

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    943 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Hehe looking out for a Crysis type of beast to ad to the suite?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page