• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Isn't Mass Effect 3 a good example of optimized PC Game?

Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
77 (0.04/day)
Likes
7
System Name Assembly Line
Processor Intel Core i5 2300 @2.8Ghz
Motherboard Intel DH61WW (B3)
Cooling 80mm Molex Fan (Local Branded)
Memory Corsair Value Select 8GB 1600mhz RAM (Dual Channel, Running at 1333mhz max. supported by MOBO)
Video Card(s) Zotac GTX 750 Ti 2GB
Storage Seagate Barracuda 1TB+2TB; WD Blue 500GB; 1TB Dell Portable USB 3.0
Display(s) Dell ST2220M Full HD LED 21.5"
Case iBall Piano 441
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD (onboard)
Power Supply Circle 500W APFC
Mouse Digiflip GM001
Keyboard Dell KB212 Business
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
#1
I just played this game in hd even with frap at 1280x720 res. i was getting about 21-25 fps and no real lag but when i compared this to LA Noire with average graphics. It just make the developers look unprofessional, isn't it?
I played it for 3 hrs, the gameplay is very nice, although i had this game since the release but didn't played as i was busy in other things.
But i would like to know how come Rockstar and most of the brands make such poorly coded games whereas a few are well optimized?
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
5,868 (1.83/day)
Likes
3,156
Location
Cybertron aka Canada
Processor Intel Core i5-3570K
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory 8GB Mushkin Blackline DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 670
Storage Intel 520 60GB, Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB
Display(s) BenQ 24" XL2420T
Case Corsair 550D
Audio Device(s) Sennheiser HD600, Audeze LCD-3F, Mytek Stereo 192 DSD, La Figaro 339, Burson HA-160, Geek Pulse X
Power Supply Corsair AX650
Mouse steelseries Sensei MLG edition
Keyboard Cooler Master QuickFire Pro
Software Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium
#2
I just played this game in hd even with frap at 1280x720 res. i was getting about 21-25 fps and no real lag but when i compared this to LA Noire with average graphics. It just make the developers look unprofessional, isn't it?
I played it for 3 hrs, the gameplay is very nice, although i had this game since the release but didn't played as i was busy in other things.
But i would like to know how come Rockstar and most of the brands make such poorly coded games whereas a few are well optimized?
time and money.
 

AsRock

TPU addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
15,310 (4.00/day)
Likes
4,717
Location
US
Processor 2500k \ 3770k
Motherboard ASRock Z68 \ Z77
Memory Samsung low profile 1600
Video Card(s) XFX 6770 \ XFX R9 290X
Storage Intel 80Gb (SATA2) WD 250Gb \ Team SSD+Samsung Evo 250Gb+500Gb+ 2xCorsair Force+WD250GbHDD
Display(s) Samsung 1080P \ Toshiba HDTV 1080P
Case HTPC400 \ Thermaltake Armor case ( original ), With Zalman fan controller ( wattage usage ).
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V475 \ Marantz SR5008 Tannoy Mercury MKII Paradigm 5SE + Tannoy Mercury F4
Power Supply PC&Power 750w \ Seasonic 750w MKII
Mouse MS intelimouse \ Logitech G700s + Steelseries Sensei wireless
Keyboard Logitech K120 \ ROCCAT MK Pro ( modded amber leds )
Benchmark Scores Meh benchmarks.
#3
I just played this game in hd even with frap at 1280x720 res. i was getting about 21-25 fps and no real lag but when i compared this to LA Noire with average graphics. It just make the developers look unprofessional, isn't it?
I played it for 3 hrs, the gameplay is very nice, although i had this game since the release but didn't played as i was busy in other things.
But i would like to know how come Rockstar and most of the brands make such poorly coded games whereas a few are well optimized?
Rockstar like adding more of what others don't really add or much of Physics. And their is what bumblebee said..

Lag ? well did they nor update the game for more to PC standard ? and your running a 8400 lolz. Which on the PS3 it lagged a tiny bit.

EDIT: With playing it on the PS3 already not tried the PC version which i will one day when it's cheap enough just for the heck of it so it might be just crappy or it could be that 8400 you say you have.

Mass Effect optimized ?. haha if you want a optimized game it's called Skyrim or even Metro.
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
77 (0.04/day)
Likes
7
System Name Assembly Line
Processor Intel Core i5 2300 @2.8Ghz
Motherboard Intel DH61WW (B3)
Cooling 80mm Molex Fan (Local Branded)
Memory Corsair Value Select 8GB 1600mhz RAM (Dual Channel, Running at 1333mhz max. supported by MOBO)
Video Card(s) Zotac GTX 750 Ti 2GB
Storage Seagate Barracuda 1TB+2TB; WD Blue 500GB; 1TB Dell Portable USB 3.0
Display(s) Dell ST2220M Full HD LED 21.5"
Case iBall Piano 441
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD (onboard)
Power Supply Circle 500W APFC
Mouse Digiflip GM001
Keyboard Dell KB212 Business
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
#4
actually, i also have la noire on my ps3.. but it wasn't my fault to get it add up on my build. It was due to stupid assembler who couldn't understand what is Gaming rig.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
697 (0.20/day)
Likes
70
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Processor C2D E8400@3.9GHz (488x8, 1.4v :( )
Motherboard Abit IP35-E
Cooling Thermaltake Sonic Tower+120mm fan
Memory 2GB kingmax ddr1066@976MHz 5-5-5-15
Video Card(s) Radeon X1800GTO @700/1400MHz with Accelero S1+Glacialtech fancard
Storage 2xSeagate Barracuda 7200.10 160GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster 793s... just you laugh...
Case some Aplus case
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC888
Power Supply Chieftec 450W
Software Win7 x64
#5
db.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,906 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,000
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#6
I just played this game in hd even with frap at 1280x720 res. i was getting about 21-25 fps and no real lag but when i compared this to LA Noire with average graphics. It just make the developers look unprofessional, isn't it?
I played it for 3 hrs, the gameplay is very nice, although i had this game since the release but didn't played as i was busy in other things.
But i would like to know how come Rockstar and most of the brands make such poorly coded games whereas a few are well optimized?
It's designed for slow-ass consoles. It is not optimized at all--it's hardware requirements are simply low:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/01/19/m...s-released-render-reaper-invasion-on-2gb-ram/

Unlike EA, Rockstar likes to upgrade the game to make use of the hardware resources in computers. For example, Rockstar consistently makes high resolution textures available for graphics cards with a lot of VRAM.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,275 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,363
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#7
Unlike EA, Rockstar likes to upgrade the game to make use of the hardware resources in computers. For example, Rockstar consistently makes high resolution textures available for graphics cards with a lot of VRAM.
Indeed, people tend to call any game that doesn't max out on a mid-range rig unoptimized.

GTA:IV is a great example. When Rockstar released the PC version they unlocked the engine to the max, and at max settings it looked awesome but ran like crap. Everyone bitched, but when the game was run at reasonable settings it still looked better than anything else available, and ran great. All rockstar would have had to do to "optimize" the game was lower what the maximum settings were for the engine, but they didn't want to do that, they wanted the game to be wide open and really show off what the engine was capable of.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
3,046 (0.91/day)
Likes
684
System Name Has and is well
Processor i7 4770K
Motherboard ASUS B85
Cooling Corsair H100
Memory TEAM 1866mhz 8GBx2 16GB
Video Card(s) MSI 980ti Gold Edition
Storage Intel 520 120GB + Seagate 2TB 7200RPM
Display(s) DELL U2713HM 2560x1440 Monitor
Case Corsair 350D
Power Supply EVGA 850W Gold
Software Win 10
#8
I just played this game in hd even with frap at 1280x720 res. i was getting about 21-25 fps and no real lag but when i compared this to LA Noire with average graphics. It just make the developers look unprofessional, isn't it?
I played it for 3 hrs, the gameplay is very nice, although i had this game since the release but didn't played as i was busy in other things.
But i would like to know how come Rockstar and most of the brands make such poorly coded games whereas a few are well optimized?
You can't compare ME3 to an open sandbox game like GTA IV on PC as Mass Effect 3 is a linear staged game and originally was made for PC anyway. GTA was just a good example for how lazily console games are ported onto PC, either way getting good hardware will alleviate those problems.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,906 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,000
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#9
Mass Effect was made for Windows and ported to console. Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 were made for consoles and ported to Windows. Enivronments were quite large and detailed on Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2, they got smaller but more detailed and even smaller and more detailed on Mass Effect 3. If consoles were out the equation, environments would have stayed large, perhaps getting larger, and detail would increase due to how cheap RAM has gotten (average system had 1-2 GiB back in 2007 and today that's moved to 4-8 GiB). That didn't happen because the amount of RAM consoles have hasn't changed. EA demands better graphics of Bioware so Bioware's only solution was to cut environment size.

Take, for example, SSV Normandy, there was no load screens when changing decks. The entire ship was likely loaded into memory the entire time the player is on it. SR-2, every floor is effectively an entirely different map.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,275 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,363
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#10
You can't compare ME3 to an open sandbox game like GTA IV on PC as Mass Effect 3 is a linear staged game and originally was made for PC anyway. GTA was just a good example for how lazily console games are ported onto PC, either way getting good hardware will alleviate those problems.
Actually, GTA:IV was an example of a lot of work going into porting to the PC, and how a port should be done. Allowing huge ranges of settings to adjust how the game runs, while allowing such massive settings way beyond what consoles or most other PC games allowed at the time.

People judge games like GTA:IV or Crysis because on max settings they push hardware, but the fact is that they run extremely well on huge ranges of hardware, all the way down to low end hardware and look good on low end hardware at the same time, and that is the true sign of an optimized game. A lazy port is the ones that just essentially transfer the console settings for the engine over to the PC, or just give BS settings like "Low/Medium/High" for graphics and don't allow any tuning. That isn't optimization, but it will give the result you are looking for, a game that runs smoothly on "max" settings, and people would praise these types of games as being optimized all the time.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
5,868 (1.83/day)
Likes
3,156
Location
Cybertron aka Canada
Processor Intel Core i5-3570K
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory 8GB Mushkin Blackline DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 670
Storage Intel 520 60GB, Seagate Barracuda XT 2TB
Display(s) BenQ 24" XL2420T
Case Corsair 550D
Audio Device(s) Sennheiser HD600, Audeze LCD-3F, Mytek Stereo 192 DSD, La Figaro 339, Burson HA-160, Geek Pulse X
Power Supply Corsair AX650
Mouse steelseries Sensei MLG edition
Keyboard Cooler Master QuickFire Pro
Software Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium
#11
Rockstar doesn't give a sh*t about the PC. Midnight Club, Bully, Manhunt, LA Noire, all the 3D Grand Theft Auto games are console ports.
 
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
1,088 (0.35/day)
Likes
232
Location
Latvia
System Name Personal \\ Work - HP EliteBook 840 G1
Processor i7-4790K \\ i7-4600U
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Intel stock for now
Memory Corsair Vengeance Pro 32GB 2400 MHz \\ 16GB DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) ASUS 290X DirectCU II OC \\ Intel 4400 HD
Storage Samsung 850 Pro 512GB, WD Black 2 TB \\ Micron 256GB SSD
Display(s) BenQ XL2411Z \\ FullHD + 2x HP ZR2440w external screens via docking station
Case Fractal Design Define Arc Midi R2 with window
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150 with Logitech Z323
Power Supply Corsair AX860i
Software Windows 10
#12
Unreal Engine 3 is optimised by default, if I am allowed to say that.
Plus, lack of HD textures (DAMN THE SHEPARDS JACKET AT THE START OF GAME WTF IS THAT S...!!!) and spectacular effects helps with this. Still looks good enough.
P.S.
Dont get me started on endings though. xD
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,455 (1.08/day)
Likes
708
System Name Money Hole
Processor Core i7 970
Motherboard Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Cooling Noctua UH-D14
Memory 2133Mhz 12GB (3x4GB) Mushkin 998991
Video Card(s) Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290X
Storage Samsung 1TB 850 Evo
Display(s) 3x Acer KG240A 144hz
Case CM HAF 932
Audio Device(s) ADI (onboard)
Power Supply Enermax Revolution 85+ 1050w
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Logitech G710+
Software Windows 10 Professional x64
#13
Actually, GTA:IV was an example of a lot of work going into porting to the PC, and how a port should be done. Allowing huge ranges of settings to adjust how the game runs, while allowing such massive settings way beyond what consoles or most other PC games allowed at the time.
I'm just going to cut this out and ask did you actually get the game when it came out?

Optimized is not what I or anyone else would call it. The reason everyone bitched was because the game ran the same whether on a 4670 or a GTX 285. What made the difference was the number of cores you had. Since consoles lack the GPU horsepower that we had in the PC at the time, most of the physics and open environment stuff was rendered on the CPU. The PS3 cell architecture, for example, can handle something like 6 to 8 threads. This was about a month or two after Nehalem came out. I moved from a C2Q at 3.2Ghz to my i7 920 and even the 920 at stock clocks kicked my overclocked Q9400 to the curb and laughed at it. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I literally doubled my frame rate with that one simple upgrade. It was at ~25-30 with the Q9400, the i7 920 was ~50. New or old OS did not matter.

GTA IV was anything but optimized and a perfect example of the crap we get from the consoles when the publisher puts zero effort in to it. Even now it is unoptimized though a lot better then it was. It's a matter of what the game engine is designed for. GTA IV is designed to use a lot of CPU resources to make up for the GPU weakness in the consoles. They just rewrote the code to work on x86, end of story. There's not any real optimization any developer can do short of rewriting the engine to make use of more GPU resources instead of leaving them all on the CPU.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,275 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,363
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#14
I'm just going to cut this out and ask did you actually get the game when it came out?

Optimized is not what I or anyone else would call it. The reason everyone bitched was because the game ran the same whether on a 4670 or a GTX 285. What made the difference was the number of cores you had. Since consoles lack the GPU horsepower that we had in the PC at the time, most of the physics and open environment stuff was rendered on the CPU. The PS3 cell architecture, for example, can handle something like 6 to 8 threads. This was about a month or two after Nehalem came out. I moved from a C2Q at 3.2Ghz to my i7 920 and even the 920 at stock clocks kicked my overclocked Q9400 to the curb and laughed at it. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I literally doubled my frame rate with that one simple upgrade. It was at ~25-30 with the Q9400, the i7 920 was ~50. New or old OS did not matter.

GTA IV was anything but optimized and a perfect example of the crap we get from the consoles when the publisher puts zero effort in to it.
Yes, I bought it the day it came out, and oddly enough I had an HD4670 and a GTX285 at the time. It most certainly did not play the same on the two, 1080p was unplayable on the HD4670, as was most of the other advanced graphics settings, but it still did look better than the console version. To turn the settings up or run at 1080p I had to use the GTX285. And the HD4670 machine had a Athlon X2 in it, and it ran fine with more detail than the console. Of course GTA needs CPU horse power, when you max it out there is a shit load of stuff going on that the CPU has to manage. AI for every pedestrian, physics for every vehicle, and there are a shitton of them when you up the settings.

And the biggest CPU load was caused by the Clip Capture feature, which basically recorded all your gameplay, so essentially the equivalent of FRAPS running constantly while playing the game. A feature the console versions obviously didn't even think of having. Once that feature is turned off, the CPU becomes a lot less important. No one talks about that though...
 
Last edited:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
20,906 (6.24/day)
Likes
10,000
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2015
Processor Intel Core i7-6700K (4 x 4.00 GHz) w/ HT and Turbo on
Motherboard MSI Z170A GAMING M7
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-2133 8 GiB
Video Card(s) PowerColor PCS+ 390 8 GiB DVI + HDMI
Storage Crucial MX300 275 GB, Seagate 6 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster T240 24" LCD (1920x1200 HDMI) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW 19" LCD (1440x900 DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek Onboard, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
#15
Remember, Xbox 360 ran GTA4 at 720p and PS3 ran GTA4 at 630p. Neither console could handle 1080p.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,455 (1.08/day)
Likes
708
System Name Money Hole
Processor Core i7 970
Motherboard Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Cooling Noctua UH-D14
Memory 2133Mhz 12GB (3x4GB) Mushkin 998991
Video Card(s) Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290X
Storage Samsung 1TB 850 Evo
Display(s) 3x Acer KG240A 144hz
Case CM HAF 932
Audio Device(s) ADI (onboard)
Power Supply Enermax Revolution 85+ 1050w
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Logitech G710+
Software Windows 10 Professional x64
#16
The game didn't even run 1080p textures. It scaled up a lower resolution texture for the high resolutions that the PC could run.

Yes, I bought it the day it came out, and oddly enough I had an HD4670 and a GTX285 at the time. It most certainly did not play the same on the two, 1080p was unplayable on the HD4670, as was most of the other advanced graphics settings, but it still did look better than the console version. To turn the settings up or run at 1080p I had to use the GTX285. And the HD4670 machine had a Athlon X2 in it, and it ran fine with more detail than the console. Of course GTA needs CPU horse power, when you max it out there is a shit load of stuff going on that the CPU has to manage. AI for every pedestrian, physics for every vehicle, and there are a shitton of them when you up the settings.
Did you have another CPU other then the Athlon X2?

Yes the CPU takes care of the AI, but if you turn down the draw distance and detail then also turn down the demand on the CPU, not the GPU like it should be. Even AMD disables anything more then 2 GPUs since the game demands so much out of the CPU already (that's their statement not mine). nVidia does not and it shows as scaling stops at 2 GPUs and gets worse the more you add.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,275 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,363
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#18
Did you have another CPU other then the Athlon X2?

Yes the CPU takes care of the AI, but if you turn down the draw distance and detail then also turn down the demand on the CPU, not the GPU like it should be. Even AMD disables anything more then 2 GPUs since the game demands so much out of the CPU already (that's their statement not mine). nVidia does not and it shows as scaling stops at 2 GPUs and gets worse the more you add.
Most definitely, my main rig with the GTX285 was either a Q6600 or a X3370(Q9650), I can't remember which it was at the time.

Yes, turning down the draw distance lowers the number of AI objects the CPU has to control. It isn't a hard concept to understand. Turning down the detail most definitely affected the GPU, not the CPU. The draw distance affected CPU because of the number of AI objects the CPU is controlling.

Here is a shocker, they actually coded the game to us multiple cores very well. Lets see some of those other "optimized" games do that. Oh, and they managed to simulate several city block worth of people and vehicles around the player at all times, in real time. What other games have you seen manage that with lower CPU load? Hell what other games have you seen manage that at all? Oh, and of those, which also have the gameplay being recorded constantly in the background with a FRAPS like style?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,455 (1.08/day)
Likes
708
System Name Money Hole
Processor Core i7 970
Motherboard Asus P6T6 WS Revolution
Cooling Noctua UH-D14
Memory 2133Mhz 12GB (3x4GB) Mushkin 998991
Video Card(s) Sapphire Tri-X OC R9 290X
Storage Samsung 1TB 850 Evo
Display(s) 3x Acer KG240A 144hz
Case CM HAF 932
Audio Device(s) ADI (onboard)
Power Supply Enermax Revolution 85+ 1050w
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Logitech G710+
Software Windows 10 Professional x64
#19
Again I just return to my statement that AMD made that the game is more CPU demanding then GPU demanding to the point that they disabled more then 2 GPUs.

If the draw distance and detail effected the GPU so much, then why does the GPU memory usage not move with those two settings?

I see BF3 on the opposite side of what GTA IV was, though they are far from the same but I think close enough to be similar to compare to.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,275 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,363
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#20
Again I just return to my statement that AMD made that the game is more CPU demanding then GPU demanding to the point that they disabled more then 2 GPUs.

If the draw distance and detail effected the GPU so much, then why does the GPU memory usage not move with those two settings?

I see BF3 on the opposite side of what GTA IV was, though they are far from the same but I think close enough to be similar to compare to.
I'll restate, draw distance affects the CPU because of the number of AI objects the CPU has to control in that distance. It has an affect on GPU, but the affect on CPU is much larger, making the GPU difference unimportant.

Why don't the affect GPU memory? Because there aren't any more textures being loaded into memory with either of those settings. The textures are already loaded into the memory, the only thing that is changing is polygon count and number of AI objects, which have no real affect on amount of GPU memory.

However, turning down the detail did affect the GPU performance greatly, just not GPU memory(please tell me you aren't basing your argument on amount of GPU memory used alone...). The GPU usage definitely goes up when detail is raised, the GPU has more polygons to draw.

And no, BF3 doesn't come close to GTA:IV when it comes to AI being controlled by the CPU, not close at all.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
2,628 (0.81/day)
Likes
521
Location
Brisbane, Australia
System Name MRCOMP!
Processor Amd 1090T @ 4200 mhz
Motherboard Gigabyte 890FX UD5
Cooling CNPS Extreme
Memory 32GB OCZ Reapers 1600mhz 6-8-6-24 1.65v
Video Card(s) GTX560 TI 26% overclock
Storage 60GB OCZ vertex 3, 2x1TB Raid 0 2x 640GB Raid 0
Display(s) 30" LG lcd
Case No Case... just sitting on cardboard :D
Audio Device(s) Nvida HDMI - Sony MU TE KE 7.2 1695Rms
Power Supply Silverstone 700watts.
#21
Most definitely, my main rig with the GTX285 was either a Q6600 or a X3370(Q9650), I can't remember which it was at the time.

Yes, turning down the draw distance lowers the number of AI objects the CPU has to control. It isn't a hard concept to understand. Turning down the detail most definitely affected the GPU, not the CPU. The draw distance affected CPU because of the number of AI objects the CPU is controlling.

Here is a shocker, they actually coded the game to us multiple cores very well. Lets see some of those other "optimized" games do that. Oh, and they managed to simulate several city block worth of people and vehicles around the player at all times, in real time. What other games have you seen manage that with lower CPU load? Hell what other games have you seen manage that at all? Oh, and of those, which also have the gameplay being recorded constantly in the background with a FRAPS like style?


This +1

i often find myself agreeing with 60%+ of Newtekie1's posts :p
 

Gaybacon

New Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#22
What made the difference was the number of cores you had. Since consoles lack the GPU horsepower that we had in the PC at the time, most of the physics and open environment stuff was rendered on the CPU. The PS3 cell architecture, for example, can handle something like 6 to 8 threads. This was about a month or two after Nehalem came out. I moved from a C2Q at 3.2Ghz to my i7 920 and even the 920 at stock clocks kicked my overclocked Q9400 to the curb and laughed at it. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I literally doubled my frame rate with that one simple upgrade. It was at ~25-30 with the Q9400, the i7 920 was ~50. New or old OS did not matter.
I think this may have been one of the few times I've ever heard someone complain about a game taking advantage of multi-threading. :laugh: Honestly though, I agree to some extent, but I have to wonder if their software was ever truly taking advantage of the cell architecture since they developed for the 360 as well. If they really wrote the engine correctly, then the PS3 version wouldn't be rendered at a lower resolution.


The game didn't even run 1080p textures. It scaled up a lower resolution texture for the high resolutions that the PC could run.
By the way, there are no such thing as "1080p textures." Texture resolution is independent of screen rendering resolution.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,275 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,363
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#23
I think this may have been one of the few times I've ever heard someone complain about a game taking advantage of multi-threading. Honestly though, I agree to some extent, but I have to wonder if their software was ever truly taking advantage of the cell architecture since they developed for the 360 as well. If they really wrote the engine correctly, then the PS3 version wouldn't be rendered at a lower resolution.
Different cames prefer the different memory configurations. GTA likes the 512MB shared setup of the Xbox, and other games like FFXIII like the 256/256MB dedicated setup of the PS3. The resolution is pretty irrelevant to the problems that people complain about on the PC version though. That really does come down to the GPU performance, it is the other settings that start to hammer the CPU. And like I said, a major one was the fact that the PC version recorded all gameplay by default. We all know how much doing that really kills systems, and puts a strain on the CPU. Turning that feature off made the game a lot less CPU intensive.
 

Gaybacon

New Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
2 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
#24
Different cames prefer the different memory configurations. GTA likes the 512MB shared setup of the Xbox, and other games like FFXIII like the 256/256MB dedicated setup of the PS3. The resolution is pretty irrelevant to the problems that people complain about on the PC version though. That really does come down to the GPU performance, it is the other settings that start to hammer the CPU. And like I said, a major one was the fact that the PC version recorded all gameplay by default. We all know how much doing that really kills systems, and puts a strain on the CPU. Turning that feature off made the game a lot less CPU intensive.
You keep comparing the recording system to FRAPS, but it's entirely unlike it because it records the actions of the objects in the environment rather than saving images of the frames. That's why camera angles can be changed on the fly within the replay editor.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,275 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,363
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#25
You keep comparing the recording system to FRAPS, but it's entirely unlike it because it records the actions of the objects in the environment rather than saving images of the frames. That's why camera angles can be changed on the fly within the replay editor.
Very true, still very CPU intensive regardless.