The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread

Ugh... I bought on disc, and still had to download 5GB. Took almost 3 hrs :S

 

I guess my FRAPS version was VERY outdated lol :S

So far, I haven't seen it dip below 50FPS. 60 seems pretty common. And I have X2AA. But my GPU memory is very maxed out. And naturally, even if it had more, the GPU itself would become overly taxed the higher the settings go. So in this game, I've just about found the happy medium for my rig. Which is a good thing, too! I'm gonna be moving in a couple months, so the GPU purchase just got put on the back burner. I'm scared and happy about this LOL!
This buggy is a climbing beast!!!


Guess I'm gonna have to play with the reflection slider lol

 

Had a good laugh in GTA Online with a couple of friends last night for an hour or two, one of the highlights being a boxing match standing in the back of a speeding powerboat to see who can get the most punches off before they get catapulted out of the boat by a wave. I think the online idea is sound, though when stacked on top of the long loading times, it can take quite considerable time to get a lobby going for competitive races, deathmatches etc.

It took over an hour to get through the online tutorial which I was a bit miffed about, but once I had that way I managed about 45 mins of gameplay before my game install fell over with this fault (though the opposite way round to the original poster):
http://gtaforums.com/topic/785989-gta-v-crashes-every-single-time-it-opens/

Seemingly the graphics engine in GTA5 is quite unstable and certain features can simply crash the game instantly if called after a certain amount of playtime. People have had it found by changing some of the game's DLL files, by fiddling with PhysX, by putting it in windowed mode, by turning tesselation off, by coming out of DX11 entirely, and in that guy's case, switching from Story to Online and back to Story.
I managed to fix my issue with (bear in mind this has to be done in the config.xml as the game does not launch in this state) changing to windowed mode - seeing 'Grand Theft Auto V' in an orange bar at the top of the screen is rather distracting but otherwise works for now - one wonders for how long.

The issue appears to affect nvidia and AMD users equally judging from forum threads I found so it looks like this is just bugs in the game engine rather than any hardware-specific issue. Still, for all the complaints, that isn't something I had with GTA4. Just putting that out there...

 

I suspect it's gonna take them some time to get ALL the bugs worked out. I imagine it's difficult to account for all contingencies in the test lab Shoot, my second time running the game Wednesday or Thursday, It had to update Social club, 50+MB, and the game over 300MB. Suffice to say, I couldn't play for over 20 min! I guess I knew this could happen. GTA IV was riddled with problems out the gate. Frankly, I still think GTA V is performing better than IV did in similar time frame. But I believe my hardware is also more powerful by comparison. The AMD 940 black quad, and 8600GT could barely run IV at all. The GTX 260 unlocked substantially more potential. But I'd say the 570 runs 'V' wayy better than the 260 could run 'IV'.

If you find the weapons cheat, please let me know LOL! Haven't found anything for the PC version yet

 

Yeah I saw the 300MB patch come through steam, it didn't seem to take long to install fortunately. Even though GTA4 was a CPU hog, I don't think the 940 would have been your weakness in 4, it would have been the 8600GT. In late 2008 when the PC version came out the 940 was only about 20% behind the most popular 'high-end' CPU of the day, the i7 920 - the i5 didn't even exist as an entity. Graphics-wise, however, the top single GPUs of the day were the HD4870 and GTX280. The 8600GT was around 13% of the performance of the GTX280, or about an eighth. Running an 8600GT at the time of GTA4's PC release would be like running an 8800GTX now in GTA5. How does that sound?

By contrast the GTX260 was around 80% of the 280 in its original form, the 216-core (which came out after 4 was released on the PC as I recall) was around 90% of a 280, so that'd have been like using a GTX970 now, or better.

Yet here I am using a 970 in GTA5 at 4K, and my frame rate's got to be around the 50s in many parts now I've turned FXAA and postprocessing off. All the high-res textures and lighting are there, just not quite the full LoD options I don't think. You're right to point out that a 260 wouldn't achieve this in 4 - the reason is fairly simple, in this case 6 1/2 years of graphics development has outpaced the increase in hardware demand from GTA titles. People might also be balking at the 60GB install size, but wasn't GTA4 something like 25GB? Back in late 2008, the 1TB drive was king and Seagate had just unveiled their new 1.5TB offering. Nowadays 6TB has been around for quite some times, yet the game install size has 'only' a little bit more than doubled.

 

That certainly puts things in perspective! We've definitely come a long way. It was the 216 core I had. It was admirable, but it averaged 45FPS in IV. Sometimes it would float in the mid 50s. VERY playable however.

GTA IV is currently using 15GB where 'V' is using 60.5GB.

 

Ah OK, I wonder what I'm thinking of with 25GB then...

 

Rage was 25GB. Wolfenstein New Order on my HDD is 43.6GB. GTAV is the new king at 60.6GB.

 

Mm no, definitely wasn't thinking of Rage. I remember Age of Conan being 25GB but I don't think I'm thinking of that either. Ah well. Either way, a 'retrospective' GTA4 bench has gone up at GameGPU:
http://gamegpu.ru/retro-test-gpu/grand-theft-auto-iv-2008-retro-test-gpu.html

 

Hmmm turns out I can max Far Cry 4 perfectly at native res as long as I don't use soft shadows. Everything else all max or Nvidia Settings. Obviously no AA but I really don't NEED it anymore

 

Suit yourself. Even at 140dpi of 2160p on a 31.5" I still want AA. it annoys me needing to turn it off, but the performance benefits speak for themselves. If it enables me to run a game smoothly at 2160p which I otherwise can't (as has been the case on several occasions) then so be it. The need for no jaggies is lessened at higher-dpi but it wouldn't be absent altogether until silly dpi, like the 300-450 you see on current smartphones. It just hurts a little less having it off. Also, I really don't find FXAA / MLAA that effective in most of the titles I've seen them used in.

 

I want high dpi But naturally, expensive.

 

Well not really:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA24G2KG1626
THAT is high dpi. Not sure I could use the windows desktop at that sort of dpi - if I could, I'd already own one

 

Expensive is relative I suppose. It is to me! That's 3 weeks worth of paychecks :S

 

a little under 2 here (not bragging, but just perspective) - the UP3214Q I use now cost me 6 weeks pay though. So, by comparison, nah that's not all that expensive - Back then though, if you wanted 4K you were looking at £2500+, I was fortunate not to have to pay that much. Here we are 18 months later and you get a 60Hz SST one with an IPS panel for a fifth of that. Just not at 31.5" sadly. Hopefully soon, though...

 

I wouldn't have thought that you were bragging. I like to think I communicate with people, that have an evolved sensibility And besides, I made my bed. I've passed up advancement twice. I firmly believe, there's more to life than money. Money is simply icing on the cake. I'm patient. One day, I'll have my cake, and I can eat it too

 

As someone who passed on a prospective job opportunity paying 50% above what I earn now, I fully understand and agree with that sentiment

 

Sam, my current display nearly eliminates the need for AA imo. As far as type, good old CSAA(Regular AA) or MSAA are where it's at when they work well. Nvidia's TXAA is absolutely fantastic, and 2x TXAA is comparable to 4x MSAA. But the performance hit is significant.

MLAA and FXAA are post processing AA modes. FXAA adds a full screen blur filter, and MLAA adds an adaptive edge blur filter. They aren't technically AA but a very simple shader effect. Out of the two I like MLAA at low levels a lot more than FXAA at any level. FXAA is like putting vaseline on a camera lens. I prefer no AA over both though. Much crisper and cleaner image. I don't want smooth, I want sharp.

I just don't view AA as essential. More of a gratuity really. If I can run it, great. But I don't consider it essential to maxing a game. I can run GTA V with every setting absolutely maxed, but without AA. I consider that max settings.

BTW GTA V is graphically AMAZING considering the scope of the world. Like reading the labels on the front of the VCR in some random house amazing. Like reading the jacket of a book someone is currently holding amazing. They've given it the 4K treatment. First person mode meshes well with the graphical upgrades. It looks truly nice as an FPS. Rockstar have outdone themselves on this game, especially considering how beautifully optimized it is. It's Crysis-level impressive. They've definitely justified the delayed release. The PC version isn't just a cranked console version like GTA4 was. It's a drastically better looking game. Like orders of magnitude better. The consoles versions pale in comparison, don't even hold a candle or a ghost fart's chance in the wind. I am impressed by the minute detail in every aspect of the game. The car interiors are another draw. Beautifully modeled and textured to the point of reading your current radio station on the dash. Even the guns have crisp printing on the sides. Remember this is a 3rd person game first and foremost. 3rd person games usually do not have this kind of detail.

This game has truly been re-built from the ground up to give the best possible experience for PC. The port wasn't an afterthought this time, but a priority. A major development team has scoured this game from top to bottom looking for areas to improve. Rockstar can walk tall after this release. The PC community owes them big time for the time and money invested to make a port of this caliber possible. They could have easily skipped PC entirely and still made money hand over fist. But instead, they have given us an absolutely superior version of the game. Color me very impressed. The GTA4 port is very sad indeed in comparison.

This game competes for best graphics ever in my book. The sheer density of the detail is impressive, but they go several steps further. The graphics are as close to technically perfect as they get.

 

Looking back at GTA III sure makes me appreciate the more modern releases lol

 

GTA III was a masterpiece. One of the games that firmly established the PS2 as king of its generation. The Xbox got an enhanced version, but the PS2 did it before anyone else. I remember being highly impressed by the game when it came out. Now I can run GTA III and Vice City full tilt on my smartphone.