GTA IV + my computer = JUST enough to be playable?

Forums › Desktop computing › GTA IV + my computer = JUST enough to be playable?

Aaroona

:)
2876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 85

Subscriber

Topic # 30207 1-Feb-2009 17:19

Is anyone here able to help me with this. im sure there are others out here with similar builds like mine;

I have;
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+ (2.4Ghz, running standard)
ATI 4670 (512MB) graphics card. [sapphire]
4gb DDR2 1066 (but effectively only 533 or 800.. not enitrely sure.. current CPU doesnt support 1066)
and an ASUS MB.

do you think this would be enough to run the game (even if on low settings) reasonably well?
Dont wanna' go ahead and buy the game, only to find i wont be able to play it.

According to the GTA website, technically speaking. I meet basically nearly all of the recommended requirements.. except my CPU, which does however meet the minimum requirements.

so... help?

eXDee

4025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1076

Trusted

Reply # 193262 1-Feb-2009 17:58

See here: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=64&TopicId=29418

The game is pretty much broken. Avoid unless you really want to play it, your 4670 might manage 20fps on low settings.
Minimum requirements are a load of crap. Recommended requirements are a better guide but generally still lie a bit also. Its best to research benchmarks on the internet.

No computer seems to run this game silky smooth, no matter how flash, just due to the fact its badly made.

If possible get the console version.

Aaroona

:)
2876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 85

Subscriber

Reply # 193268 1-Feb-2009 18:41

eXDee: See here: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=64&TopicId=29418

The game is pretty much broken. Avoid unless you really want to play it, your 4670 might manage 20fps on low settings.
Minimum requirements are a load of crap. Recommended requirements are a better guide but generally still lie a bit also. Its best to research benchmarks on the internet.

No computer seems to run this game silky smooth, no matter how flash, just due to the fact its badly made.

If possible get the console version.

oh right.. not quite possible unfortunately. and i played the console version and persoanlly felt that there was issues as far as lagging went.
(I tried it on a PS3)

Aaroona

:)
2876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 85

Subscriber

Reply # 193276 1-Feb-2009 19:42

oh crap. not looking good.

stevenz

2782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Reply # 193287 1-Feb-2009 20:44

The gaming podcasts I listen to lambasted the game for running poorly even on some of their ridiculous hardware. Until they release a fairly substantial performance-patch, I'd say you're going to be out of luck.

And as for the RAM, it'll pretty much always use a much lower speed than the FSB as in most cases you halve the FSB speed to get the necessary rated speed for DDR2 RAM, hence a 1066Mhz FSB only requires DDR2-533 RAM, 1333 needs DDR-2 667 etc. I usually like to go one speed higher than ness so there's a bit of extra potential stability, plus some headroom for overclocking.

This can vary if you've adjusted the (usually) default 2:1 FSB:RAM ratio in the BIOS though, so YMMV.

Ragnor

8025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 387

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 193320 2-Feb-2009 01:13

They released a patch in december, no idea how it changed performance didn't try it yet.

Aaroona

:)
2876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 85

Subscriber

Reply # 193480 2-Feb-2009 18:15

Looks like they REALLY messed up with the PC version of this game then..

Which sucks ass. Because technically speaking, i should be able to run this game OK. But it doesnt sound like i'll be able to, and i'm not risking $80-$100 just to prove myself right or wrong..

Guess i'll just have to keep at eye out.

JimmyLizar

321 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 193485 2-Feb-2009 18:54

Yep I am giving it a miss also. Would have really liked to buy this game but not going to bother after the research I did said it was a bit of a dogs breakfast.

MY PC:
E8500 3.16 GHz
4 GB RAM
512MB 8800GT
320GB HDD

.....c'mon sucker lick my battery........
binary solo...0000110000110000111...

Aaroona

:)
2876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 85

Subscriber

Reply # 193534 2-Feb-2009 21:58

JimmyLizar: Yep I am giving it a miss also. Would have really liked to buy this game but not going to bother after the research I did said it was a bit of a dogs breakfast.

MY PC:
E8500 3.16 GHz
4 GB RAM
512MB 8800GT
320GB HDD

It's bloody annoying to think that they didnt work it out before they released it.

They NEED to fix it.

It's a shame though, because I really liked GTA I, II, III, etc.

but they really have killed it now.. Even the console versions aren't to great as far as i'm concerned.

Kookoo

307 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Reply # 194798 8-Feb-2009 20:59

Well, it depends on whether you have an AMD (ATI) or Nvidia graphics card. ATi had poor experience on release due to driver incompatibility, but since the latest release the playability of the game improved significantly. It's still not bug free, but my current system allows me to play it on mid settings on a 22'' monitor.

CPU: AMD 5000+ x2 Black edition
Mobo: ASUS M2N
RAM: 3GB DDR2 800
VGA: HIS Radeon 3850 IceQ Turbo 512

The only problem I am experiencing is delayed rendering on some smaller objects. Examples: running into a flower pot which becomes visible half a second later, crashing into an invisible lamp post which renders after the crash. And then there are the trees which gain details while you are watching, which makes the whole experience a bit surreal - like watching a tree grow within a second or two, getting trunk, then leaves... However, the FPS is surprisingly tolerable. So, if the little annoyances like the slow-rendering objects are not a problem for you, should be ok. If not, wait for the next installations in the series (like San Andreas was for GTA3) and let's hope they fix it by then...

Hello, Ground!