Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

GTA IV PC System Specs

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 4, 2008 11:10:57 AM

(Forgive me if this is old news)

Check out these minimum and recommended system specs! :ouch: 
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Quote -

"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: 2 GB (Windows XP) 2.5 GB (Windows Vista)
18 GB Free Hard Drive Space
Video Card: 512MB NVIDIA 8600 / 512MB ATI 3870"

More about : gta system specs

November 4, 2008 11:58:25 AM

Interesting that they make a difference between dual and quad core CPUs - finally a game that gives something meaningful for the 3rd and fourth cores to do?

I do hope they use the PCs potential graphics horsepower advantage to make a much better engine - I was sorely dissapointed with the PS3 version (went and replayed San-Andreas instead)
November 4, 2008 3:00:48 PM

WOW wtf those are some ridiculously high recommended requirements

of course, i never understood the meaning of recomended... is that where gameplay hits a constant of 30fps or something?
Related resources
November 4, 2008 3:41:04 PM

They should scrap the current system and just put the specs needed for 25/30fps at the 4 main resolutions. (1024x768, 1200x1024, 1680x1050, 1900x1200)

So the label could read:

for 25fps minimum:
1024x768- x2 3000 nvid 7900
1200x1024 - x2 3000 nvid 8600 gt
1680x1050 - x2 4600 nvid 9800 gtx
1920x1200 - x4 9650 nvid gtx260

although obviously with intel/ati and RAM as well...
(don't know why i went for the manfacturers I don't have! lol)
November 4, 2008 3:42:10 PM

I suppose if your PC was bloated you might not get the quoted frame-rates.
A good idea in principal I guess...
November 5, 2008 10:21:08 AM

how can they be recommending a 512mb nvidia 8600 and a ati 3870, when the 3870 is about twice as powerful as a 512mb 8600gts

November 5, 2008 10:26:39 AM

The people that come up with PC specs clearly know nothing about PC's. This has been the case for many years.
On the plus side the system used (especially EA's) is very simple and easy to understand...i think if you start throwing even something as straightfoward as resolutions in this may well put people off buying PC over console.
November 5, 2008 10:28:21 AM

True. I guess if you know enough to want to look at specific resolutions, you can probably make an educated guess from the information they already give.
November 5, 2008 10:42:28 AM

" Interesting that they make a difference between dual and quad core CPUs - finally a game that gives something meaningful for the 3rd and fourth cores to do? "

i doubt that. gta isn't the kind of game that'd do that, IMO.
November 5, 2008 11:09:35 AM

Deadstar said:
" Interesting that they make a difference between dual and quad core CPUs - finally a game that gives something meaningful for the 3rd and fourth cores to do? "

i doubt that. gta isn't the kind of game that'd do that, IMO.


I don't know, with all the other people, cars, etc. it'd probably run a lot smoother to offload some of the AI stuff to another core.
November 5, 2008 11:48:34 AM

I'm sure an my e6750 and HD 4870 will max this game out with 4x AA at 1680x1050 and probably 1920x1080 as well. I'm looking forward to playing this one. I really liked vice city and san andreas on the PC. I do hope it's easier in this game to play your own music in game, i.e. you can choose what folder you want the game to look in rather than having to do shortcuts in pre determined folder.
November 5, 2008 12:02:51 PM

Deadstar said:
" Interesting that they make a difference between dual and quad core CPUs - finally a game that gives something meaningful for the 3rd and fourth cores to do? "

i doubt that. gta isn't the kind of game that'd do that, IMO.


At risk of starting a tangent....what sort of game would you consider to benefit more from quad cores, bearing in mind we are talking about a sandbox game over an expansive environment with quality graphics and high AI requirements. In my mind this is the perfect candidate.
November 5, 2008 3:17:14 PM

^^ I think most modern games could benefit from multi cores if used right. Any 3d games could ofload physics to seperate cores, other games could use extra cores for ai improvements.

I think the trouble is it is hard to code multi threaded apps so most of the time those extra cores will sit idle
November 18, 2008 5:33:41 PM

Well, I was going to take my Q9550 back and switch out for the E8600, but after seeing their recommended settings, maybe I will keep it. I got the Q9550 mostly for FSX and to be honest going from the e6600 2.4 I didn't notice a gosh darn difference. Frustrating. I think my computer started up slightly faster. Yay! So what. I want game performance for the money. So maybe the high hopes of Quads working for games is starting to come true. Hopefully.

Hey did anyone catch the minimum saying Windows Vista as well as the recommended? The only clue they are giving that XP will work is where they said 2GB or ram for XP. Weird. So can we use XP 32-bit for this game or not?
November 24, 2008 11:45:30 AM

Guys this games minimum is almost the recommended system requirements of crysis. Are we gonna see some ray tracing if maxed out ? :p 
November 24, 2008 4:13:46 PM

Spitfire7 said:
Well, I was going to take my Q9550 back and switch out for the E8600, but after seeing their recommended settings, maybe I will keep it. I got the Q9550 mostly for FSX and to be honest going from the e6600 2.4 I didn't notice a gosh darn difference. Frustrating. I think my computer started up slightly faster. Yay! So what. I want game performance for the money. So maybe the high hopes of Quads working for games is starting to come true. Hopefully.

Hey did anyone catch the minimum saying Windows Vista as well as the recommended? The only clue they are giving that XP will work is where they said 2GB or ram for XP. Weird. So can we use XP 32-bit for this game or not?


For the record, if a game uses exactly two cores, a 3.0 Quad = 3.0 Duo. CPU's in gaming mainly drive the GFX cards these days; once the CPU is powerful enough to fully drive the card, extra CPU power has limited impact on performance.

Hence, why i7 does so well with SLI/CF setups.
November 24, 2008 4:14:03 PM

this is the first game i have seen that actually asks for people to run quad cores... wtf is rockstar thinking? :non:  :non:  but for the enthusiasts i guess it can be a sign of hope seeing as how theres a new 'crysis' to dominate.
November 24, 2008 5:44:53 PM

Apparently Intel as well as Crytek are saying that the first Crysis after patches I believe does use all 4 cores. I checked if it was running all my cores and it was. Interesting. I still had lower performance going from the e6600 2.4 to the Q9550. Performance dropped when I got my Quad. No idea why. Benchmarks show the E8600 blowing ever other CPU away too for that game.
November 24, 2008 8:43:23 PM

dual cores will run games for the next year or two. THEN quads will take over.
November 24, 2008 9:38:58 PM

Spitfire7 said:
Apparently Intel as well as Crytek are saying that the first Crysis after patches I believe does use all 4 cores. I checked if it was running all my cores and it was. Interesting. I still had lower performance going from the e6600 2.4 to the Q9550. Performance dropped when I got my Quad. No idea why. Benchmarks show the E8600 blowing ever other CPU away too for that game.


I will believe that GTA4 needs all 4 cores when I see some benchmarks and not before. Currently my E8400 @ 4.0 GHz w/4870 x2 ,25.5" Samsung pulls an average of 45FPS on the TH test "Crysis Contact 1680x1050 on high settings". My PC has a 25% FPS advantage over a quad core clocked @3.67 GHz.

I don't believe that Crysis benefits from Quad cores.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4870-x2,2...

Today's games rarely touch the second core, let alone 3rd and 4th.

That being said..... I hope that game companies take the leap into multi core gaming soon. But as of today the best choice for gaming is the E8600 which can be easily overclocked to 3.8-4.0 GHZ. This processor, once overclocked, will match the best Quads for less money. Money that could be better spent on a better video card or better memory.

I personally will skip today's quads and move to an I7 machine once my machine proves obsolete.

I don't think that GT4 will be the game that does it.
November 25, 2008 12:10:29 AM

Keither,

From the benchmarks it looks like all the Quad processors still were better then anything else. Is that not right?
November 25, 2008 1:59:29 AM

I just bought the 4870 x2 so i didn't pay much attention to Nvidia.

Most (not all) were better but not by much and certainly not worth $1000 compared to a E8500@$200. I get 45FPS doing the same test on the same settings.

Toms test results look a little off to me. Why does a $200 processor have a higher FPS (1920x1200 hd4870 x2 Crysis on high) than a Quad Extreme. Once you add AA and AF in there it is still better. How come my machine beats the test by 10 FPS? I am in the 50's about 15% of the time. I clocked my machine to 3.6 and still averaged 43FPS. The reason I use Crysis as an example is that 278FPS compared to 89 FPS means nothing...... COD4

Save $800 and put it towards an hd4870x2 or two gtx 280's

If you buy a lesser quad, you lose overclocking ability. E8500 at 4.0 = no problem. Q6600 (about the same price as E8500) @ 4.0 would be a neat trick.



My point is that I doubt that any game benefits alot from Core 2 Quad core enough to justify the price. Today's games benefit from higher GHz more so than an extra 2 cores.

I am skipping C2 quad all together.

Next step
64 bit and go from 4gigs DDR3 1066 to 8 gigs. (within 6 months)
Then once the prices come down. ( hopefully within a year)
pull the ram buy a I7 board and $300 cpu and maybe a second hd4870 x2.

Then I am back on top.

No offense to anyone who bought a Quad. When I bought my E8400 the quads were extremely overpriced. Q6600 @ $500+. The 9550 is not a bad deal right now.
November 25, 2008 2:33:05 AM

So Keither, if I just get a GTX 280 and keep my Q9550 will I then be seeing a dramatic improvement? Or should I still take take back the Q9550 and get the E8600?

Can I just get the E8500 or E8400 and overclock to 4Ghz just as easy and it will be the same thing as the E8600?
November 25, 2008 3:18:06 AM

I'm usually wrong when speculating but let me join in and call **** on R*'s quad core game of pretend, those people simply don't know their turf and don't want to get too deeply into defining CPUs technologies so they make it easier for them selfs like always, the E8400 will top Q6600 imho. this is just a 360 mod and there's nothing new for the DX9.c in it.
November 25, 2008 3:33:26 AM

You won't notice any difference. The 8600 tests better than a 8400. They are pretty much the same chip.
This post was about GTA4 recommending a Quad cpu, and I find that hard to believe. If true, it is a big step forward. I feel that Rockstar has rocks in it's head if they don't recommend higher GHz over more cores. I hope they show me something different.

I should clarify something I said early. Q6600 (about the same price as E8500) @ 4.0 would be a neat trick if stable while playing games.


I can clock my cpu up to 4.8 but I wouldn't risk playing a game on it at 4.8

Keep your Q9550 and overclock it. You should easily hit 4.0, if you have good cooling.

Gtx 280 or 4870x2 both are good cards.

November 25, 2008 7:03:44 AM

well im not sure. right now im very skeptical but the trend usually is this:
better graphics card > faster processor when it comes to games. could this be one of the few exceptions (supreme commander style) only time will tell.
November 25, 2008 7:26:10 AM

Ok, I need your help. I got my CPU now clocked to 4Ghz. Still I dont notice any difference. Maybe 2 frames at most, but this just cant be. Its gotta be my GPU is at its max bottle necking my CPU. Right? A GTX 280 would let my CPU at 4Ghz fly like an eagle right? So now I know I can OC my CPU to 4ghz stable for the most part. It gets up to 60 degrees C under max load in Crysis. Not the best, but decent. I also have the case open and a fan blowing cold air from outside right on it.

Guys I am creating a new thread needing some help on overclocking for this exact issue, but am going to move it over to the OC forum. Please join me.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/249866-29-q9550-4ghz-...
December 2, 2008 11:26:00 PM

I have a feeling that this game will run better on ati than nvidia....

after all- This game was designed for the 360's xenos- and ati shares that architecture doesn't it?

However- the 2000s and 3000s by ATI will probably die again as usually under AA.
December 3, 2008 10:37:51 AM

I average about 30fps @ 1680x1050. It is a bit laggy at times and I have it on medium settings (one is medium and the other is high but I cannot remember the names. I have yet to have any loading times unlike GTA games of the past. Of course this is the first PC version I have owned so I don't know if that makes a difference.

I have a radeon 3870 oc'ed to 850/1241 and an e6400 @ 2.9
December 3, 2008 4:08:58 PM

Hey how are peoples frames with a E8500 or 8600?

The game says it recommends a Quad, but are you Quad ownser really seeing a big difference?
December 4, 2008 4:45:40 PM

Should just say it that everything is about the graphicmemory in GTA:IV sofar. If you have 256Mb you might get at a maximum 1280x1024, but then lacking in texture quality...
I myself have a 8800GTS 320Mb, at that cant go higher than 1440x900. I am used too play Farcry2, Crysis and other games att 1680x1050, but GTA won´t let me go higher than 1440x900.

So to sum up people who have for instance a 8600GT 1Gb, will be able to choice higher resolutions than 8800GTS320Mb, 8800GTS640MB, 8800GTX768MB.
December 5, 2008 6:38:20 PM

Yeah I just got a XFX GTX 260 core 216 OCed to 700core/1215mem with a Q9550 at 3.83Ghz and I have to play on medium settings for 30fps. There better be a patch soon.
December 6, 2008 10:19:31 AM

eklipz330 said:
WOW wtf those are some ridiculously high recommended requirements

of course, i never understood the meaning of recomended... is that where gameplay hits a constant of 30fps or something?


We all know minimum is to just get the game to run with uber low and crap details (Crysis aside they broke the 5th wall on that one).

Recommended I would think is for decent settings at 30FPS.

If you have above the Recommended that usually means you can play at better settings.

Problem is that I blow all of the recommended settings out of the water and the game still runs slow for me. But thats with everything at max settings. I plan to lower them a bit and try again.

Funny thing is ppl keep getting a error for low VRAM. I got it too even with a 1GB GPU.

Strange really. Hope they release a patch or tow for it soon.
December 6, 2008 4:39:32 PM

Recommended settings have typically been the true minimum you'd ever want to try to play a game on, and minimum would give you a near unplayable experience, while still technically running the game.
December 6, 2008 7:05:00 PM

I have a E8400 currently clocked @ 3.6 with Hd 4870 X2 and 4 gigs of DDR3 ram.

I hit 40 FPS on High High with a 25.5 inch LCD. It looks great! Not sure if you need a quad processor.

You do need lots of video memory. This game is a hog.
December 9, 2008 10:53:11 PM

I have a Pentium 4 3.4 3gigs of Ram and an Nvidia 8800gtx and the game is a slideshow. My CPU is completely overloaded. I thought it might run even though minimum requirements say you need a least a duel core. It looks like I will have to wait for a new PC.
December 10, 2008 4:12:00 AM

keither5150 said:
I have a E8400 currently clocked @ 3.6 with Hd 4870 X2 and 4 gigs of DDR3 ram.

I hit 40 FPS on High High with a 25.5 inch LCD. It looks great! Not sure if you need a quad processor.

You do need lots of video memory. This game is a hog.


So it looks like GTA4 is liking the ATI cards over the Nvidia. In many cases my GTX 260 Black Edition outperformas the 4870X2 by a great margin. Apparently not in this game. I do only have XP, so I am getting about 2.5GB system ram. Thats a factory too.

Keirther, what OS do you have?
September 15, 2010 12:21:24 AM

Could i play this?

AMD Athlon II X2 running at 2.8Ghz
4gb of RAM
500gb HDD
NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE with 256mb
September 15, 2010 1:06:17 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!