| Page 42 of 156 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | I disabled vblank and gained a bit of performance, but not much. Disabling the ingame recorder didn't give any noticable benefits. |
what is vblank?
you put that in the commandline? like -vblank ?
|| Case: TJ05S-T || Psu: Seasonic S12-600 || Mobo: EVGA 750i Sli || Proc: Q6600 || Gfx: 2 x 8800GT SLI || Ram: 4 GB ||
|| Hdd: 2 x 74 GB Raptor Raid0 + 1 x SS 1TB + 1 x WD 250 GB + 1 x WD 400 GB || CRT: P225F || KEYB: G15 || Os: Win 7 x64 || XFI-Platinium
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:28 Post subject: |
|
|
put
-novblank
to disable vsync ingame.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:28 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:30 Post subject: |
|
|
Same with me, bud. I've got the 360 version and I've already finished it. I only wanted the PC one so I could play it again looking gorgeous (hah! dream on Sabin, because I'll be damned before I upgrade my comp AGAIN just for a shittily made console port) and my own custom music.
No biggy, I've still got the 360 version (and I prefer SR2 anyway)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:31 Post subject: |
|
|
No prob. But I read that a lot of peeps expected 2GB with 4870x2, and that is not possible as
| Quote: | | *all* dual gpu/pcb cards use memory cloning so a 2gb 4870x2 can effectively only use 1gb |
To get 2GB you need to go SLI or Crossfire proper.
Been thinking to get another 4870x2...but it's another 400€  .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:33 Post subject: |
|
|
Ah! I was thinking of the older dual-gpu cards (the 7950GX2 states 1GB, but it's really 2x512MB)
Thanks for the clarification. Incidently, your comp is pretty beefy - how's the performance in GTA4?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:41 Post subject: |
|
|
With mine, it goes;
CPU: 71%
MEM: 80%
VMEM: 76%
.. wtf? It's not even utilising my machine properly and it STILL runs bad! I *want* it to be 100/100/100, because at least then I'd know my machine was working for it!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | Ah! I was thinking of the older dual-gpu cards (the 7950GX2 states 1GB, but it's really 2x512MB)
Thanks for the clarification. Incidently, your comp is pretty beefy - how's the performance in GTA4? |
Pretty good, As I run a 30" Dell I can run at 2560x1600, but if I do that I can only run at textures set at medium, still good FPS around 35-45 or so. If I lower to let's say
1920x1080 I can run pretty much all maxed, FPS around 35-40.
Last edited by CaptainCox on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:50; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:47 Post subject: |
|
|
Damn, that's niiiiiiiiiiiice!
I'm no graphics whore, bud, I just want the game to look at least as good as the console version -- and have smooth framerates. Shame I can't have my cake AND eat it, eh? Smooth framerate only on minimal settings .. and my PC is by far no slouch either. Stoopid Cockstar.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:53 Post subject: |
|
|
if you want more FPS, just start it in safe mode, i dont care about graphics, at least im playing the game with 30 FPS now!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 17:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| R0drigU wrote: | | if you want more FPS, just start it in safe mode, i dont care about graphics, at least im playing the game with 30 FPS now! |
*gets curious about what the game looks like in Safe Mode*
Be right back, heh.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73419
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | *gets curious about what the game looks like in Safe Mode* |
To me, with SM, it looked like SA minus the style with a lot of distracting pop-ins.
Last edited by LeoNatan on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:05; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24711
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*slaps R0drigU*
Bad, R0drigU, bad!
That was taking "fugly" to a whole new meaning and level. It looked WORSE than SA, far worse, and still had horrific pop-up issues thanks to the ridiculously low 1meter view distance.
.... framerate was 38-50fps smooth as butter, at 1280x1024, though >_>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73419
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:08 Post subject: |
|
|
Well Sabin, what do you want more? The PCs of today are just not powerful enough to handle all that amazing engine! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24711
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Here's what happens when I run the benchmark after selecting "Autoconfigure" for the settings (except for View Distance. Hitting auto puts the view distance to THIRTY NINE! Fuck that, I actually wanna see more than 10fps - so I lowered it to 25, 3 above the console version)
| Quote: |
Statistics
Average FPS: 40.27
Duration: 37.18 sec
CPU Usage: 93%
System memory usage: 85%
Video memory usage: 67%
Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: Medium
Render Quality: High
View Distance: 25
Detail Distance: 37
Hardware
Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate
Service Pack 1
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Video Driver version: 7.14.10.630
Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7200 @ 2.53GHz
File ID: benchmark.cli
|
That framerate is AWESOME and I'd be happy with that, as the benchmark is smooth -- buuuuuuuuuuut, as we all know; the benchmark is a steaming, festering, pile of shit. Any framerate you get in the benchmark should be discounted because you'll get HALF of that when you actually play the game. Growl.
In game the framerate is between 15 and 40 .. and it stutters. A lot. Constantly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:25 Post subject: |
|
|
Tried setting distances to lowest? Those are the most demanding for me at least.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, but it's just too damned ugly to play. Seeing objects/props pop into existence 1mtr from your car is jarring to say the least.
HOWEVER! I've just had a VERY fun experience .. and, this is a first for Sabin, no sarcasm either! After I ran the benchmark, I continued into the game and hit F11 for the FRAPS benchmark. From the second I left the apartment, for a few minutes drive around the city, until a spectacular crash in the middle of the highway -- the framerate was low (it felt low) but SMOOTH and the best thing? Without actually SEEING that number in the corner, it FELT better! Here's the report from FRAPS benchmark.
| Quote: |
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
6133, 213709, 15, 73, 28.698
|
With these settings;
 Spoiler: | |
Not at any time did it FEEL like 15fps .. but it didn't feel like 73fps either, lol. Honestly? I'm more impressed now than I was a few days ago (check my posts on a popular NZB site for some Pure Awesome Epic Ranting©)
Bottom line? It doesn't look AS good as the console version (urgh textures.. whomever says there's barely any difference between high and medium DEFINITELY hasn't played with high settings) -- but it's smoothish and VERY playable ... last thing? TURN OFF ANY FRAMERATE DISPLAYS!! Seeing the low numbers is like a thorn in the brain and WILL hamper gaming.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 18:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | Meh. "Current PC hardware is insufficient to play OUR game with high settings. Those are reserved for future, unreleased, hardware" -- Cockstar are the new CryTek it seems. |
Rockstar is not the new Crytek. Crysis looks insane when maxed out so you can justify high requirements. GTA4 looks like shit and runs like shit.
C2D E6750 @ 3.2Ghz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2 4-4-4-12, GeForce GTX 260 c216 OC 896MB, 3.2TB, Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Xbox 360 Elite, PS2 Slim, Xbox
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 19:00 Post subject: |
|
|
hey i have a 9800 gx-2 and it says only 512 mb video usage and i use sli on this card
so musn't that be 1 gb then? :s
I know sli isn't working but will this be resolved in the next patch ?
and also does that mean that my card is using half of the resources it can use?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 19:02 Post subject: |
|
|
9800GX2-1GB is two 8800GTS's each with 512MB. As I said above, cards that say "1GB" aren't 1GB, they're 2x512MB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 19:05 Post subject: |
|
|
mmmm how does it come then that i only can select medium details as max?
because with 8800 gtx i can use high and i know for sure 9800 gx-2 is faster then 8800 gtx?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 19:10 Post subject: |
|
|
The 9800GX2, when running as a single GPU, isn't more powerful than the 8800GTX.. and since GTA4 doesn't have SLi support yet; it IS running as a single GPU. An 8800GTS to be precise.
The 8800GTX has 768MB of dedicated VRAM built on a 384bit mem bus. The 9800GX2 has 512MB of dedicated mem (1GB mirrored) and only 256bit bus. It's also a LOT slower clocked.
The game doesn't care about anything but mem AMOUNT and mem SPEED.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 19:16 Post subject: |
|
|
Still no patch ???
Some say its out, but cant find it...Owell...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 11th Dec 2008 19:19 Post subject: |
|
|
runs ok on mine..
only problem i have is that after about 20 to 30 mins of play... the textures on leaves on trees and bushes suddenly goes into huge green squares...so the trees and bushes look like a mass of green squares instead of leaf textures. After a restart of the game it is fine again for a bit
Intel Core2 Quad Q8300
Asus P5N-E SLI
Asus ENGTX 480
4GB 6400
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 42 of 156 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
