Friday, October 31st 2008

GTA IV for PC Delayed Until December 2nd

Rockstar has confirmed that the PC version of GTA IV will be delayed by more than a month until December 2nd. The reason behind this delay remains unknown, but the game maker has at least released the minimum and recommended system requirements for the game. Check them out below.

Minimum System Requirements
  • OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
  • Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4Ghz
  • Memory: 1.5GB, 16GB Free Hard Drive Space
  • Video Card: 256MB NVIDIA 7900 / 256MB ATI X1900
Recommended System Requirements
  • OS: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3
  • Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz, AMD Phenom X3 2.1Ghz
  • Memory: 2GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
  • 18GB Free Hard Drive Space
  • Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870
Source: Rockstar Games
Add your own comment

29 Comments on GTA IV for PC Delayed Until December 2nd

#1
EviLZeD
awww man this sucks this is the main game i was waiting for over far cry 2, fallout 3 and all others :( hmm thats odd Recommended an intel quad and an amd x3 then a nvidia 8600 vs an ATI 3870 bit of a difference there
Posted on Reply
#3
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
Dang, i posted this in the forums.
Posted on Reply
#4
CDdude55
Crazy 4 TPU!!!
[I.R.A]_FBi said:
WTF! isnt the game made already?
Not for the PC.
Posted on Reply
#5
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
EviLZeD said:
haha my processor is minimum i wonder why they require that sorta processor for minimum when they got it to run on consoles which i think have weaker processors compared to the minimums here
Judging by it recommending X3 instead of X4, I suspect it runs no less than 3 major threads.

The reason why consoles can get away with less is because they are all the same--there is no "x" factor. If it runs well on one console, it will work on all. Since PCs have heavy operating systems and a lot of background tasks, the requirements are naturally greater but that also works to the PCs advantage. The average gaming computer has a whole lot more memory (system and video) than consoles and the same goes for hard drive capacity. That means bigger textures and fewer load screens.
Posted on Reply
#6
alexp999
Staff
Dont forget that the the PS3 and Xbox 360 are multi-threaded. Both support three threads IIRC. So I can understand quad or X3, but to suggest an 8600 WTF? Suggests to me this is a heavily CPU dependant game.
Posted on Reply
#7
PCpraiser100
Holy crap, EPIC COMPATIBILITY FAIL. Welcome to the quad-core generation people.
Posted on Reply
#8
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
alexp999 said:
Dont forget that the the PS3 and Xbox 360 are multi-threaded. Both support three threads IIRC. So I can understand quad or X3, but to suggest an 8600 WTF? Suggests to me this is a heavily CPU dependant game.
Well, ya gotta admit that Grand Theft Auto never looked the best so that's probably true. Graphics were never its appeal.
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
The recommended specs seem a little off to me.

Why a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad, but only a 2.1GHz Phenom? The phenom should need to be clocked slightly higher to match the Core 2.

And why a 8600 and a 3870? The 3870 runs circles around the 8600. Is the game really going to be that much more optimized for nVidia cards?
Posted on Reply
#10
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
newtekie1 said:
Why a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad, but only a 2.1GHz Phenom? The phenom should need to be clocked slightly higher to match the Core 2.
My guess is it makes heavy use of SSE which Phenom has a major advantage compared to Core 2.


newtekie1 said:
And why a 8600 and a 3870? The 3870 runs circles around the 8600. Is the game really going to be that much more optimized for nVidia cards?
My guess is because of architecture. GeForce goes at everything with brute transistor count while Radeon goes at things with a smarter, fewer transistor approach. The game may subscribe to the GeForce way of thinking rather than Radeon. Most likely, it is probably just because NVIDIA ponied up and AMD didn't...
Posted on Reply
#11
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
heavy requirements for a GTA game :confused:
Posted on Reply
#12
Mussels
Moderprator
my guess would be age. who said the guys who made these specs up, were techies?

"oh whats intels oldest quad core - the Q6600"

Sure its faster than the modern 45nm ones (the budget ones) but its older, so to the masses that means slower.

8600 + 3870... yeah i dont see a match there either. 9600 + 3870 maybe, for reccomended.
Posted on Reply
#13
PCpraiser100
FordGT90Concept said:
My guess is it makes heavy use of SSE which Phenom has a major advantage compared to Core 2.
I agree, the memory bandwidth on the Phenom is far higher than the Core 2s so thats explainable. The Core 2 however will still outperform the Phenom many thanks to its high L2 cache and low-latency micro-architecture.
Posted on Reply
#14
xubidoo
looks like a lot of people are going to be disappointed when they see those minimum specs :(

A friend of mine is going to be gutted as he only has a 7600GT ,with looks it either wont run on that or will be unbearably slow...
Posted on Reply
#15
Mussels
Moderprator
considering how old an 7600GT is, and how cheap a 9600GT is... i dont think many people have room to complain.
Posted on Reply
#16
..'Ant'..
Funny thing is that not only GTA IV is delayed but also Saints Rows 2 again but in Jan,2009.
Posted on Reply
#17
jbunch07
This sucks! I was going to by this for my birthday! :( ehh maybe undercover is still on schedule :)
Posted on Reply
#18
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
FordGT90Concept said:
My guess is because of architecture. GeForce goes at everything with brute transistor count while Radeon goes at things with a smarter, fewer transistor approach. The game may subscribe to the GeForce way of thinking rather than Radeon. Most likely, it is probably just because NVIDIA ponied up and AMD didn't...
Brute transitor count? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

The HD3870 has about 3 times the transistor count compared to the 8600. Most would argue that ATi's current approach is very wasteful in terms of transistor count. With the majority of their shaders being virtually useless simple shaders. Meaning an 800 Shader RV770 based cards, only really has 160 useable shaders. But either way, transistor count has little to do with performance.
Posted on Reply
#19
ktr
Hopefully the port is good. That bully for pc was absolute CRAP!
Posted on Reply
#20
grynnan
Hm...

ktr said:
Hopefully the port is good. That bully for pc was absolute CRAP!
We can only hope that that is one of the reasons for the delay.
The console to PC ports, are usually rubish.

What I hope for is, better controls. Better graphics (like shaders etc)


But that's just what I'm hoping for.
But what we probably get is an unfinished port, with some extremely annoying copy protection crap, that will piss buyers off, and get the TPB a few 100k new users.
Posted on Reply
#21
Wozzer
Forking ell' - There already wanting the quad-core generation....Jeee !!!

Is there any point in me getting a duo, I might jump to the Q6600. It'll pay off
Posted on Reply
#22
Hayder_Master
wow high recommended specs , seems we go enjoy with high details
Posted on Reply
#23
TheGuruStud
Wasley said:
Forking ell' - There already wanting the quad-core generation....Jeee !!!

Is there any point in me getting a duo, I might jump to the Q6600. It'll pay off
Why not? The Q6600 is dirt cheap and unless you get a crappy chip, you should be able to pull off 3.5-3.6 (but apparently some of these newer G0s suck. One buddy can't get past 3.2 w/o cranking the juice beyond making it a crematory lol)
Posted on Reply
#24
Baum
arg x1900 as minimum req. that's bad ;-( time for a new GPU i guess
Posted on Reply
#25
Bjorn_Of_Iceland
Seriously.. you people look at the minimum/required specs given by publishers? :pimp:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment