Game still lagging although it meets the minimum requirement

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Gamerkhoi0611 (9 posts) -
So i have decided to play some games on my old pc ( I mostly play games on my xbox 360) ,and i played GTA 4 ,here's the game requirement :CPU Minimum: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4GHz I Have: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz CPU Speed Minimum: 1.8 GHz I Have: 3.0 GHz Performance Rated at: 5.4 GHz RAM Minimum: 1 GB for Windows XP / 1.5 GB for Windows Vista) I Have: 3.6 GB OS Minimum: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3 / Windows 7 I Have: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition Service Pack 1 (build 7601), 32-bit Click here for the latest Windows drivers. Video Card Minimum: 256MB NVIDIA 7900+ / 256MB ATI X1900+ I Have: GeForce 9500 GT 1GB Sound Card Minimum: Yes I Have : Realtek High Definition Audio Click here for the latest Sound Card drivers. Free Disk Space Minimum: 16 GB I Have: 26.7 GB But However,the FPS is only about ~20 ,i have switched everything to "low" and i play it on a low resolution (1280*1024)
#2 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

GTA IV loves quad-core CPUs, and you have a dual-core.  However, I don't think that's your biggest issue.  You have a 9500GT, which was a rubbish GPU for gaming when it came out.  A 7900gt is faster in most games, and that's listed as the minimum required GPU.  No offense intended.  These are just facts.  

#3 Posted by Gamerkhoi0611 (9 posts) -
I know , I said it : It's my old PC,i'm gonna buy a new one
#4 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

GTA IV loves quad-core CPUs, and you have a dual-core.  However, I don't think that's your biggest issue.  You have a 9500GT, which was a rubbish GPU for gaming when it came out.  A 7900gt is faster in most games, and that's listed as the minimum required GPU.  No offense intended.  These are just facts.  

hartsickdiscipl

That's not really the point, an i3 ivy bridge is also a dual core but it doesn't even break a sweat running gta IV, this is still game from 2008 and that dual core can manage it, he would benefit from overclocking though.

#5 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

So i have decided to play some games on my old pc ( I mostly play games on my xbox 360) ,and i played GTA 4 ,here's the game requirement :CPU Minimum: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz, AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4GHz I Have: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz CPU Speed Minimum: 1.8 GHz I Have: 3.0 GHz Performance Rated at: 5.4 GHz RAM Minimum: 1 GB for Windows XP / 1.5 GB for Windows Vista) I Have: 3.6 GB OS Minimum: Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 / XP - Service Pack 3 / Windows 7 I Have: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition Service Pack 1 (build 7601), 32-bit Click here for the latest Windows drivers. Video Card Minimum: 256MB NVIDIA 7900+ / 256MB ATI X1900+ I Have: GeForce 9500 GT 1GB Sound Card Minimum: Yes I Have : Realtek High Definition Audio Click here for the latest Sound Card drivers. Free Disk Space Minimum: 16 GB I Have: 26.7 GB But However,the FPS is only about ~20 ,i have switched everything to "low" and i play it on a low resolution (1280*1024)Gamerkhoi0611

You could really benefit from overclocking that cpu allthough it will still run gta IV.

The gpu is just not enough and minimum system requirements can be rather optimistic.. You'll still manage to run the game because of your decent cpu (especially for a 2008 game) but a 70$ videocard would already do wonders especially combined with a cpu overclock , you could even overclock the gpu:). You'll be able to play any game, even recent ones.

That cpu is not as bad as you think, don't expect any high end gaming but that cpu was built to last.

#6 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

GTA IV loves quad-core CPUs, and you have a dual-core.  However, I don't think that's your biggest issue.  You have a 9500GT, which was a rubbish GPU for gaming when it came out.  A 7900gt is faster in most games, and that's listed as the minimum required GPU.  No offense intended.  These are just facts.  

evildead6789

That's not really the point, an i3 ivy bridge is also a dual core but it doesn't even break a sweat running gta IV, this is still game from 2008 and that dual core can manage it, he would benefit from overclocking though.

 

Did you not notice this?

#7 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

GTA IV loves quad-core CPUs, and you have a dual-core.  However, I don't think that's your biggest issue.  You have a 9500GT, which was a rubbish GPU for gaming when it came out.  A 7900gt is faster in most games, and that's listed as the minimum required GPU.  No offense intended.  These are just facts.  

hartsickdiscipl

That's not really the point, an i3 ivy bridge is also a dual core but it doesn't even break a sweat running gta IV, this is still game from 2008 and that dual core can manage it, he would benefit from overclocking though.

 

Did you not notice this?


Biggest issue or not, that's not saying it's a small issue, you make him consider upgrading his cpu, while that's not needed.

The e 8400 is a fast core 2 duo cpu which outmatches a lot of quad cores. He's not packing an e6200. The minimum system requirement is a core 2 duo @1.8 ghz

upgrading his gpu is his only issue

:P

#8 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] That's not really the point, an i3 ivy bridge is also a dual core but it doesn't even break a sweat running gta IV, this is still game from 2008 and that dual core can manage it, he would benefit from overclocking though.

evildead6789

 

Did you not notice this?


Biggest issue or not, that's not saying it's a small issue, you make him consider upgrading his cpu, while that's not needed.

The e 8400 is a fast core 2 duo cpu which outmatches a lot of quad cores. He's not packing an e6200. The minimum system requirement is a core 2 duo @1.8 ghz

upgrading his gpu is his only issue

:P

 

Give me a list of quad-core CPUs that the E8400 will beat in GTA IV.  There might be a few, but not many.  I know what the E8400 can do.. I used to have one that was clocked to 3.8ghz.  It was a good chip, but my Phenom II X4 kicked it's ass in GTA IV.  

#9 Posted by kraken2109 (13211 posts) -

The 9500GT is a re-badged 8600GT which was low-mid range in 2006.

#10 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Did you not notice this?

hartsickdiscipl


Biggest issue or not, that's not saying it's a small issue, you make him consider upgrading his cpu, while that's not needed.

The e 8400 is a fast core 2 duo cpu which outmatches a lot of quad cores. He's not packing an e6200. The minimum system requirement is a core 2 duo @1.8 ghz

upgrading his gpu is his only issue

:P

 

Give me a list of quad-core CPUs that the E8400 will beat in GTA IV.  There might be a few, but not many.  I know what the E8400 can do.. I used to have one that was clocked to 3.8ghz.  It was a good chip, but my Phenom II X4 kicked it's ass in GTA IV.  


Well I gladly share my knowledge, padawan

Athlon II X4 620, 631
Phenom II X4 905e, 805
Core 2 Quad Q8200
Phenom X4 9950
Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600
Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e
Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e

The first 3 rows may have been faster in gta IV because you're right about the fact that gta IV like quad cores more than dual cores, but e 8400 manages gta IV quite well. That's 's why i said it's not an issue

The e8400 beats all these cpu's in most of the other games though.

#11 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]


Biggest issue or not, that's not saying it's a small issue, you make him consider upgrading his cpu, while that's not needed.

The e 8400 is a fast core 2 duo cpu which outmatches a lot of quad cores. He's not packing an e6200. The minimum system requirement is a core 2 duo @1.8 ghz

upgrading his gpu is his only issue

:P

evildead6789

 

Give me a list of quad-core CPUs that the E8400 will beat in GTA IV.  There might be a few, but not many.  I know what the E8400 can do.. I used to have one that was clocked to 3.8ghz.  It was a good chip, but my Phenom II X4 kicked it's ass in GTA IV.  


Well I gladly share my knowledge, padawan

Athlon II X4 620, 631
Phenom II X4 905e, 805
Core 2 Quad Q8200
Phenom X4 9950
Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600
Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e
Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e

The first 3 rows may have been faster in gta IV because you're right about the fact that gta IV like quad cores more than dual cores, but e 8400 manages gta IV quite well. That's 's why i said it's not an issue

The e8400 beats all these cpu's in most of the other games though.

 

Padawan?  Why is it that you must come across as arrogant and condescending?  How long have you been building and modding PCs?  I've been doing it since 1998.  I don't know everything, but I doubt there is anyone on this board who could justify calling me "padawan" when it comes to PC hardware as pertains to gaming.  Kindly stop talking down to me.    

You basically listed the weakest quad-core CPUs ever made.  I owned an overclocked E8400 and played GTA IV on it.  It was less than ideal when the action got heavy.  That's not to say that the E8400 is crap, because it's not.  Yes, there are some newer i3 dual-cores that can play the game much more smoothly, and better than some older quads.  However, the game is coded to use 3-4 cores, and runs noticeably better on even a 2.4-2.5ghz C2Q than a 3ghz C2D.

Back to the TC's issue-  Is his GPU the biggest issue?  Yes.  I indicated that in my first post.  Is his CPU a possible issue for this game?  Absolutely.  It's common knowledge that GTA IV can be murder on older dual-cores.  This was established 4+ years ago.       

#12 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Give me a list of quad-core CPUs that the E8400 will beat in GTA IV.  There might be a few, but not many.  I know what the E8400 can do.. I used to have one that was clocked to 3.8ghz.  It was a good chip, but my Phenom II X4 kicked it's ass in GTA IV.  

hartsickdiscipl


Well I gladly share my knowledge, padawan

Athlon II X4 620, 631
Phenom II X4 905e, 805
Core 2 Quad Q8200
Phenom X4 9950
Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600
Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e
Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e

The first 3 rows may have been faster in gta IV because you're right about the fact that gta IV like quad cores more than dual cores, but e 8400 manages gta IV quite well. That's 's why i said it's not an issue

The e8400 beats all these cpu's in most of the other games though.

 

Padawan?  Why is it that you must come across as arrogant and condescending?  How long have you been building and modding PCs?  I've been doing it since 1998.  I don't know everything, but I doubt there is anyone on this board who could justify calling me "padawan" when it comes to PC hardware as pertains to gaming.  Kindly stop talking down to me.    

You basically listed the weakest quad-core CPUs ever made.  I owned an overclocked E8400 and played GTA IV on it.  It was less than ideal when the action got heavy.  That's not to say that the E8400 is crap, because it's not.  Yes, there are some newer i3 dual-cores that can play the game much more smoothly, and better than some older quads.  However, the game is coded to use 3-4 cores, and runs noticeably better on even a 2.4-2.5ghz C2Q than a 3ghz C2D.

Back to the TC's issue-  Is his GPU the biggest issue?  Yes.  I indicated that in my first post.  Is his CPU a possible issue for this game?  Absolutely.  It's common knowledge that GTA IV can be murder on older dual-cores.  This was established 4+ years ago.       

 The e 8400 is more than good enough especially overclocked and combined with a good gpu.  Top end gaming is besides the point here.

In his first post he said 'So i have decided to play some games on my old pc', after you replied to him he was already talking about buying a new one , that seems like bad advice when you know that e8400 is still viable for gaming. He can get lot better quality than his x360, if he upgrades his videocard.

 Who cares about that the quad core will be better at maxing out the game at full hd,  all the  money he spends beneath 350$ he should spend on his gpu and psu first. After that we're speaking about basically a new build.

I don't think that was his plan when he posted the specs of his old pc here, not if it's still possible to use his old pc. The fact is his pc will run it just as well as on the x360 and when he upgrades his videocard , even with a 70$ videocard, he will have better quality than the x360.

Like I said , everything you said about the cpu is besides the point, it's also the reason why I called you padawan because it's obvious he ain't gonna buy a new system when he doesn't need to.



 

#13 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]


Well I gladly share my knowledge, padawan

Athlon II X4 620, 631
Phenom II X4 905e, 805
Core 2 Quad Q8200
Phenom X4 9950
Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600
Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e
Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e

The first 3 rows may have been faster in gta IV because you're right about the fact that gta IV like quad cores more than dual cores, but e 8400 manages gta IV quite well. That's 's why i said it's not an issue

The e8400 beats all these cpu's in most of the other games though.

evildead6789

 

Padawan?  Why is it that you must come across as arrogant and condescending?  How long have you been building and modding PCs?  I've been doing it since 1998.  I don't know everything, but I doubt there is anyone on this board who could justify calling me "padawan" when it comes to PC hardware as pertains to gaming.  Kindly stop talking down to me.    

You basically listed the weakest quad-core CPUs ever made.  I owned an overclocked E8400 and played GTA IV on it.  It was less than ideal when the action got heavy.  That's not to say that the E8400 is crap, because it's not.  Yes, there are some newer i3 dual-cores that can play the game much more smoothly, and better than some older quads.  However, the game is coded to use 3-4 cores, and runs noticeably better on even a 2.4-2.5ghz C2Q than a 3ghz C2D.

Back to the TC's issue-  Is his GPU the biggest issue?  Yes.  I indicated that in my first post.  Is his CPU a possible issue for this game?  Absolutely.  It's common knowledge that GTA IV can be murder on older dual-cores.  This was established 4+ years ago.       

 The e 8400 is more than good enough especially overclocked and combined with a good gpu.  Top end gaming is besides the point here.

In his first post he said 'So i have decided to play some games on my old pc', after you replied to him he was already talking about buying a new one , that seems like bad advice when you know that e8400 is still viable for gaming. He can get lot better quality than his x360, if he upgrades his videocard.

 Who cares about that the quad core will be better at maxing out the game at full hd,  all the  money he spends beneath 350$ he should spend on his gpu and psu first. After that we're speaking about basically a new build.

I don't think that was his plan when he posted the specs of his old pc here, not if it's still possible to use his old pc. The fact is his pc will run it just as well as on the x360 and when he upgrades his videocard , even with a 70$ videocard, he will have better quality than the x360.

Like I said , everything you said about the cpu is besides the point, it's also the reason why I called you padawan because it's obvious he ain't gonna buy a new system when he doesn't need to.



 

 

E8400 is hardly "viable for gaming" now.  It's viable for playing most older games, but there are a lot of newish ones that will punish it.  Clearly we agree that the 9500gt is the weakest link.  That was the original point being made in my first post here anyways.  You just don't seem to realize that GTA IV is one of the few 2008-09 games that will hammer a fast C2D.  Sure, an i3 Sandy/Ivy can handle it a lot better, but that's not what he has.  

#14 Posted by C_Rule (9812 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] That's not really the point, an i3 ivy bridge is also a dual core but it doesn't even break a sweat running gta IV, this is still game from 2008 and that dual core can manage it, he would benefit from overclocking though.

evildead6789

 

Did you not notice this?


Biggest issue or not, that's not saying it's a small issue, you make him consider upgrading his cpu, while that's not needed.

The e 8400 is a fast core 2 duo cpu which outmatches a lot of quad cores. He's not packing an e6200. The minimum system requirement is a core 2 duo @1.8 ghz

upgrading his gpu is his only issue

:P

Have you ever tried playing GTA IV with a C2D?
#15 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Padawan?  Why is it that you must come across as arrogant and condescending?  How long have you been building and modding PCs?  I've been doing it since 1998.  I don't know everything, but I doubt there is anyone on this board who could justify calling me "padawan" when it comes to PC hardware as pertains to gaming.  Kindly stop talking down to me.    

You basically listed the weakest quad-core CPUs ever made.  I owned an overclocked E8400 and played GTA IV on it.  It was less than ideal when the action got heavy.  That's not to say that the E8400 is crap, because it's not.  Yes, there are some newer i3 dual-cores that can play the game much more smoothly, and better than some older quads.  However, the game is coded to use 3-4 cores, and runs noticeably better on even a 2.4-2.5ghz C2Q than a 3ghz C2D.

Back to the TC's issue-  Is his GPU the biggest issue?  Yes.  I indicated that in my first post.  Is his CPU a possible issue for this game?  Absolutely.  It's common knowledge that GTA IV can be murder on older dual-cores.  This was established 4+ years ago.       

hartsickdiscipl

 The e 8400 is more than good enough especially overclocked and combined with a good gpu.  Top end gaming is besides the point here.

In his first post he said 'So i have decided to play some games on my old pc', after you replied to him he was already talking about buying a new one , that seems like bad advice when you know that e8400 is still viable for gaming. He can get lot better quality than his x360, if he upgrades his videocard.

 Who cares about that the quad core will be better at maxing out the game at full hd,  all the  money he spends beneath 350$ he should spend on his gpu and psu first. After that we're speaking about basically a new build.

I don't think that was his plan when he posted the specs of his old pc here, not if it's still possible to use his old pc. The fact is his pc will run it just as well as on the x360 and when he upgrades his videocard , even with a 70$ videocard, he will have better quality than the x360.

Like I said , everything you said about the cpu is besides the point, it's also the reason why I called you padawan because it's obvious he ain't gonna buy a new system when he doesn't need to.



 

 

E8400 is hardly "viable for gaming" now.  It's viable for playing most older games, but there are a lot of newish ones that will punish it.  Clearly we agree that the 9500gt is the weakest link.  That was the original point being made in my first post here anyways.  You just don't seem to realize that GTA IV is one of the few 2008-09 games that will hammer a fast C2D.  Sure, an i3 Sandy/Ivy can handle it a lot better, but that's not what he has.  

There's isn't any game that you can't run on an e8400, not everyone is aiming for max settings, 1080p and 4xaa. (especially people on a budget) You combine it with a hd 7850 and it will run everything smoothly on medium-high settings, some even max settings. The e8400 won't bottleneck a hd 7850 (or hardly anyway). I think you really underestimate the e8400. It beats an i3-550 at stock.
#16 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

 The e 8400 is more than good enough especially overclocked and combined with a good gpu.  Top end gaming is besides the point here.

In his first post he said 'So i have decided to play some games on my old pc', after you replied to him he was already talking about buying a new one , that seems like bad advice when you know that e8400 is still viable for gaming. He can get lot better quality than his x360, if he upgrades his videocard.

 Who cares about that the quad core will be better at maxing out the game at full hd,  all the  money he spends beneath 350$ he should spend on his gpu and psu first. After that we're speaking about basically a new build.

I don't think that was his plan when he posted the specs of his old pc here, not if it's still possible to use his old pc. The fact is his pc will run it just as well as on the x360 and when he upgrades his videocard , even with a 70$ videocard, he will have better quality than the x360.

Like I said , everything you said about the cpu is besides the point, it's also the reason why I called you padawan because it's obvious he ain't gonna buy a new system when he doesn't need to.



 

evildead6789

 

E8400 is hardly "viable for gaming" now.  It's viable for playing most older games, but there are a lot of newish ones that will punish it.  Clearly we agree that the 9500gt is the weakest link.  That was the original point being made in my first post here anyways.  You just don't seem to realize that GTA IV is one of the few 2008-09 games that will hammer a fast C2D.  Sure, an i3 Sandy/Ivy can handle it a lot better, but that's not what he has.  

There's isn't any game that you can't run on an e8400, not everyone is aiming for max settings, 1080p and 4xaa. (especially people on a budget) You combine it with a hd 7850 and it will run everything smoothly on medium-high settings, some even max settings. The e8400 won't bottleneck a hd 7850 (or hardly anyway). I think you really underestimate the e8400. It beats an i3-550 at stock.

 

I don't underestimate it.  I used to own one.  :?  I upgraded because more and more games were not running properly on it due to the shift to multithreaded apps and/or demand for better per core performance.  It seemed like either a game wouldn't run quite right because it wanted more cores, or it wanted better clock for clock performance.  There are games out there that just won't run fast enough on a C2D.. even a fast one.  If the E8400 is faster than an i3-550, I'm sure that applies to that chip as well.  After all, we're talking about an entry-level LGA 1156 i3 here.  That's pretty weak too.  Of course there are some games where an E8400 will get it done.  GTA IV happens to be one of the worst games for it.    

#17 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

E8400 is hardly "viable for gaming" now.  It's viable for playing most older games, but there are a lot of newish ones that will punish it.  Clearly we agree that the 9500gt is the weakest link.  That was the original point being made in my first post here anyways.  You just don't seem to realize that GTA IV is one of the few 2008-09 games that will hammer a fast C2D.  Sure, an i3 Sandy/Ivy can handle it a lot better, but that's not what he has.  

hartsickdiscipl

There's isn't any game that you can't run on an e8400, not everyone is aiming for max settings, 1080p and 4xaa. (especially people on a budget) You combine it with a hd 7850 and it will run everything smoothly on medium-high settings, some even max settings. The e8400 won't bottleneck a hd 7850 (or hardly anyway). I think you really underestimate the e8400. It beats an i3-550 at stock.

 

I don't underestimate it.  I used to own one.  :?  I upgraded because more and more games were not running properly on it due to the shift to multithreaded apps and/or demand for better per core performance.  It seemed like either a game wouldn't run quite right because it wanted more cores, or it wanted better clock for clock performance.  There are games out there that just won't run fast enough on a C2D.. even a fast one.  If the E8400 is faster than an i3-550, I'm sure that applies to that chip as well.  After all, we're talking about an entry-level LGA 1156 i3 here.  That's pretty weak too.  Of course there are some games where an E8400 will get it done.  GTA IV happens to be one of the worst games for it.    

I ran gta Iv on an i5-530 and a hd 5770 quite well. Not on max settings, but significantly better than the x360. Not everyone can or is willing to afford hardware that will show every last bell and whistle on a game.

Maybe it's the hyperthreading but I don't think so, i have seen benchmarks that show max detail with an average of 30 fps on 1280x1024 with a e8400 and a gtx 280.

Your system couldn't run it at max settings (or not high enough for your liking) but that doesn't mean it isn't playable.

#18 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] There's isn't any game that you can't run on an e8400, not everyone is aiming for max settings, 1080p and 4xaa. (especially people on a budget) You combine it with a hd 7850 and it will run everything smoothly on medium-high settings, some even max settings. The e8400 won't bottleneck a hd 7850 (or hardly anyway). I think you really underestimate the e8400. It beats an i3-550 at stock.evildead6789

 

I don't underestimate it.  I used to own one.  :?  I upgraded because more and more games were not running properly on it due to the shift to multithreaded apps and/or demand for better per core performance.  It seemed like either a game wouldn't run quite right because it wanted more cores, or it wanted better clock for clock performance.  There are games out there that just won't run fast enough on a C2D.. even a fast one.  If the E8400 is faster than an i3-550, I'm sure that applies to that chip as well.  After all, we're talking about an entry-level LGA 1156 i3 here.  That's pretty weak too.  Of course there are some games where an E8400 will get it done.  GTA IV happens to be one of the worst games for it.    

I ran gta Iv on an i5-530 and a hd 5770 quite well. Not on max settings, but significantly better than the x360. Not everyone can or is willing to afford hardware that will show every last bell and whistle on a game.

Maybe it's the hyperthreading but I don't think so, i have seen benchmarks that show max detail with an average of 30 fps on 1280x1024 with a e8400 and a gtx 280.

Your system couldn't run it at max settings (or not high enough for your liking) but that doesn't mean it isn't playable.

 

Average of 30fps?  Not acceptable.  I'm not one of those people who dumps $600-1000 on a GPU or CPU.  I have less than $500 invested in my CPU and GPU combined.  However, 30fps average isn't cutting it.  Especially not when you're only running at 1280x1024.  Do you have a link for that benchmark?

#19 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I don't underestimate it.  I used to own one.  :?  I upgraded because more and more games were not running properly on it due to the shift to multithreaded apps and/or demand for better per core performance.  It seemed like either a game wouldn't run quite right because it wanted more cores, or it wanted better clock for clock performance.  There are games out there that just won't run fast enough on a C2D.. even a fast one.  If the E8400 is faster than an i3-550, I'm sure that applies to that chip as well.  After all, we're talking about an entry-level LGA 1156 i3 here.  That's pretty weak too.  Of course there are some games where an E8400 will get it done.  GTA IV happens to be one of the worst games for it.    

hartsickdiscipl

I ran gta Iv on an i5-530 and a hd 5770 quite well. Not on max settings, but significantly better than the x360. Not everyone can or is willing to afford hardware that will show every last bell and whistle on a game.

Maybe it's the hyperthreading but I don't think so, i have seen benchmarks that show max detail with an average of 30 fps on 1280x1024 with a e8400 and a gtx 280.

Your system couldn't run it at max settings (or not high enough for your liking) but that doesn't mean it isn't playable.

 

Average of 30fps?  Not acceptable.  I'm not one of those people who dumps $600-1000 on a GPU or CPU.  I have less than $500 invested in my CPU and GPU combined.  However, 30fps average isn't cutting it.  Especially not when you're only running at 1280x1024.  Do you have a link for that benchmark?

Yeah but that's at max detail setting, 1280 x 1024 is still higher than 720 p. And this is a gtx 280.

link

#20 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] I ran gta Iv on an i5-530 and a hd 5770 quite well. Not on max settings, but significantly better than the x360. Not everyone can or is willing to afford hardware that will show every last bell and whistle on a game.

Maybe it's the hyperthreading but I don't think so, i have seen benchmarks that show max detail with an average of 30 fps on 1280x1024 with a e8400 and a gtx 280.

Your system couldn't run it at max settings (or not high enough for your liking) but that doesn't mean it isn't playable.

evildead6789

 

Average of 30fps?  Not acceptable.  I'm not one of those people who dumps $600-1000 on a GPU or CPU.  I have less than $500 invested in my CPU and GPU combined.  However, 30fps average isn't cutting it.  Especially not when you're only running at 1280x1024.  Do you have a link for that benchmark?

Yeah but that's at max detail setting, 1280 x 1024 is still higher than 720 p. And this is a gtx 280.

link

 

Your link did nothing but prove what I have been saying.  The writer repeatedly states that GTA IV works far better on even slower-clocked quad-cores, and harps on how poorly Core 2 Duos and dual-core CPUs in general perform in that game.  The E8400 is only averaging 27 fps and hitting as low as 23.  Clearly it's not enough CPU for that game.  Also- the resolution being higher than 720p has nothing to do with CPU performance.  That's all GPU.  We can see that the GTX 280 is capable of putting out better framerates than it does with the dual-cores by looking at the higher-clocked quads in that test.  Same GPU, better frame rates.  That means that the GTX 280 isn't holding the C2D back.  

Can we please stop this silliness now?  Even the 3.6ghz C2D couldn't manage to maintain an average of 30fps.  

#21 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Average of 30fps?  Not acceptable.  I'm not one of those people who dumps $600-1000 on a GPU or CPU.  I have less than $500 invested in my CPU and GPU combined.  However, 30fps average isn't cutting it.  Especially not when you're only running at 1280x1024.  Do you have a link for that benchmark?

hartsickdiscipl

Yeah but that's at max detail setting, 1280 x 1024 is still higher than 720 p. And this is a gtx 280.

link

 

Your link did nothing but prove what I have been saying.  The writer repeatedly states that GTA IV works far better on even slower-clocked quad-cores, and harps on how poorly Core 2 Duos and dual-core CPUs in general perform in that game.  The E8400 is only averaging 27 fps and hitting as low as 23.  Clearly it's not enough CPU for that game.  Also- the resolution being higher than 720p has nothing to do with CPU performance.  That's all GPU.  We can see that the GTX 280 is capable of putting out better framerates than it does with the dual-cores by looking at the higher-clocked quads in that test.  Same GPU, better frame rates.  That means that the GTX 280 isn't holding the C2D back.  

Can we please stop this silliness now?  Even the 3.6ghz C2D couldn't manage to maintain an average of 30fps.  

You're making the wrong assumptions. The e 8400 @ 3ghz dishes out the same as the q6600 @2.4ghz so the cpu role is not as big as you think and it's not because gta IV runs better on quads or eats cpu power that a stronger gpu won't up the framerates.

That e8400 isn't bottlenecking the gtx 280 (which is like a hd 7750).A stronger card would still get better framerates , maybe no huge differences but still significant enough

Besides the link I posted is at max detail settings. I already told you that not everyone is aiming for max detail settings. If he would choose medium settings and play at 720 p then it would already be a big difference with something like the hd 7750.

If he would put a hd 7850 in there and overclock his cpu, he would run this game smoothly on pretty high settings.

Here you have gta IV benchmarks from different people, so different systems. If you're not aiming for max detail and/or 1080p gta IV is not as demanding as you think.

#22 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

Yeah but that's at max detail setting, 1280 x 1024 is still higher than 720 p. And this is a gtx 280.

link

evildead6789

 

Your link did nothing but prove what I have been saying.  The writer repeatedly states that GTA IV works far better on even slower-clocked quad-cores, and harps on how poorly Core 2 Duos and dual-core CPUs in general perform in that game.  The E8400 is only averaging 27 fps and hitting as low as 23.  Clearly it's not enough CPU for that game.  Also- the resolution being higher than 720p has nothing to do with CPU performance.  That's all GPU.  We can see that the GTX 280 is capable of putting out better framerates than it does with the dual-cores by looking at the higher-clocked quads in that test.  Same GPU, better frame rates.  That means that the GTX 280 isn't holding the C2D back.  

Can we please stop this silliness now?  Even the 3.6ghz C2D couldn't manage to maintain an average of 30fps.  

You're making the wrong assumptions. The e 8400 @ 3ghz dishes out the same as the q6600 @2.4ghz so the cpu role is not as big as you think and it's not because gta IV runs better on quads or eats cpu power that a stronger gpu won't up the framerates.

That e8400 isn't bottlenecking the gtx 280 (which is like a hd 7750).A stronger card would still get better framerates , maybe no huge differences but still significant enough

Besides the link I posted is at max detail settings. I already told you that not everyone is aiming for max detail settings. If he would choose medium settings and play at 720 p then it would already be a big difference with something like the hd 7750.

If he would put a hd 7850 in there and overclock his cpu, he would run this game smoothly on pretty high settings.

Here you have gta IV benchmarks from different people, so different systems. If you're not aiming for max detail and/or 1080p gta IV is not as demanding as you think.

 

You are analyzing the data incorrectly.  Keep backpedaling.. you seem to be good at it.  Notice that the 3.6ghz C2Q is significantly quicker than the 4ghz C2D in the first link that you posted.  Did you conveniently ignore that? 

In the 2nd link that you posted, the person had a 4.2ghz i7 and only ran a 37 second benchmark.  What is that supposed to show me?

#23 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Your link did nothing but prove what I have been saying.  The writer repeatedly states that GTA IV works far better on even slower-clocked quad-cores, and harps on how poorly Core 2 Duos and dual-core CPUs in general perform in that game.  The E8400 is only averaging 27 fps and hitting as low as 23.  Clearly it's not enough CPU for that game.  Also- the resolution being higher than 720p has nothing to do with CPU performance.  That's all GPU.  We can see that the GTX 280 is capable of putting out better framerates than it does with the dual-cores by looking at the higher-clocked quads in that test.  Same GPU, better frame rates.  That means that the GTX 280 isn't holding the C2D back.  

Can we please stop this silliness now?  Even the 3.6ghz C2D couldn't manage to maintain an average of 30fps.  

hartsickdiscipl

You're making the wrong assumptions. The e 8400 @ 3ghz dishes out the same as the q6600 @2.4ghz so the cpu role is not as big as you think and it's not because gta IV runs better on quads or eats cpu power that a stronger gpu won't up the framerates.

That e8400 isn't bottlenecking the gtx 280 (which is like a hd 7750).A stronger card would still get better framerates , maybe no huge differences but still significant enough

Besides the link I posted is at max detail settings. I already told you that not everyone is aiming for max detail settings. If he would choose medium settings and play at 720 p then it would already be a big difference with something like the hd 7750.

If he would put a hd 7850 in there and overclock his cpu, he would run this game smoothly on pretty high settings.

Here you have gta IV benchmarks from different people, so different systems. If you're not aiming for max detail and/or 1080p gta IV is not as demanding as you think.

 

You are analyzing the data incorrectly.  Keep backpedaling.. you seem to be good at it.  Notice that the 3.6ghz C2Q is significantly quicker than the 4ghz C2D in the first link that you posted.  Did you conveniently ignore that? 

In the 2nd link that you posted, the person had a 4.2ghz i7 and only ran a 37 second benchmark.  What is that supposed to show me?

ok, now we gonna say grass is blue?

that doesn't work like that, it's not because the game is asking for a lot of cpu power you can automatically assume better videocards won't give better framerates especially when there's no bottleneck.

You're comparing a 3.6 ghz quad with a 4 ghz dual. That's 14.4 ghz vs 8 ghz. In a game that supports quad cores it's only normal it's quicker and these quads are extreme versions (so the enthousiast series).

After all that it dishes out 15 percent more frames. It doesn't prove that the e8400 wouldn't get better framerates when combined with a hd 7850 (which is more than double the performance of a gtx 280) and isn't bottlenecked. If the game was as cpu/quad core dependent as you think the q6600 would perform a lot better in this game. The q6600 is the stronger cpu and there's hardly any difference with the e8400 in a game that prefers quad cores, which proves your assumption is wrong. Try again

The link I posted have numerous people posting benchmarks with different systems. I'm sure you can press next page... The benchmark is the in-game benchmark to see if the game will be playable or not, if you don't think it's good then it's noted...

And for the last time, the op wasn't asking for max settings, he said his game was lagging and that 9500 gt is the only reason.

#24 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

You're making the wrong assumptions. The e 8400 @ 3ghz dishes out the same as the q6600 @2.4ghz so the cpu role is not as big as you think and it's not because gta IV runs better on quads or eats cpu power that a stronger gpu won't up the framerates.

That e8400 isn't bottlenecking the gtx 280 (which is like a hd 7750).A stronger card would still get better framerates , maybe no huge differences but still significant enough

Besides the link I posted is at max detail settings. I already told you that not everyone is aiming for max detail settings. If he would choose medium settings and play at 720 p then it would already be a big difference with something like the hd 7750.

If he would put a hd 7850 in there and overclock his cpu, he would run this game smoothly on pretty high settings.

Here you have gta IV benchmarks from different people, so different systems. If you're not aiming for max detail and/or 1080p gta IV is not as demanding as you think.

evildead6789

 

You are analyzing the data incorrectly.  Keep backpedaling.. you seem to be good at it.  Notice that the 3.6ghz C2Q is significantly quicker than the 4ghz C2D in the first link that you posted.  Did you conveniently ignore that? 

In the 2nd link that you posted, the person had a 4.2ghz i7 and only ran a 37 second benchmark.  What is that supposed to show me?

ok, now we gonna say grass is blue?

that doesn't work like that, it's not because the game is asking for a lot of cpu power you can automatically assume better videocards won't give better framerates especially when there's no bottleneck.

You're comparing a 3.6 ghz quad with a 4 ghz dual. That's 14.4 ghz vs 8 ghz. In a game that supports quad cores it's only normal it's quicker and these quads are extreme versions (so the enthousiast series).

After all that it dishes out 15 percent more frames. It doesn't prove that the e8400 wouldn't get better framerates when combined with a hd 7850 (which is more than double the performance of a gtx 280) and isn't bottlenecked. If the game was as cpu/quad core dependent as you think the q6600 would perform a lot better in this game. the q6600 is the stronger cpu and there's hardly any difference with the e8400 in a game that prefers quad cores, which proves your assumption is wrong. Try again

The link I posted have numerous people posting benchmarks with different systems. I'm sure you can press next page... The benchmark is the in-game benchmark to see if the game will be playable or not, if you don't think it's good then it's noted...

And for the last time, the op wasn't asking for max settings, he said his game was lagging and that 9500 gt is the only reason.

 

How the hell can you say that the 9500gt is the "only reason" the game is lagging, when you posted benchmarks that show the game still lags like hell with an E8400 pushing a GTX 280?!  I mean, WTF?!  A GTX 280 is no slouch.  It's just shy of a GTX 460 in DX9 games.  

Look at this.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10nwibdQHz8

Here we have a GTX 275 maxing the game out pretty smoothly with a 3.5ghz i7-920.  All it takes is a proper CPU and a GPU that you can get for $70-80 today.  

In the next link, you will find a stock i7-920 with a GTX 280 running GTA IV at 52fps.  

http://peteroy.blogspot.com/2009/08/benchmarking-core-i7-920-gtx-280-dx58so.html

Unless you can find some real benchmarks or game tests where someone is running an E8400 with a GPU more powerful than that and getting results anywhere in that neighborhood, you have proven nothing.  

I don't even know why I'm having this discussion with you.  This matter was settled back in 2009ish.  Either you weren't around for it, or you didn't get the message.  The general consensus has always been that GTA IV needs at least 3 cores to run properly when talking about a CPU with per core performance on par with Core 2 or Phenom II.  4+ cores is really the way to go for that game when taking OS overhead into account.  It's a horribly optimized mess of a port.  

Even if OP doesn't care to run at max detail settings, he will still be disappointed by the performance he gets by upgrading just his GPU for playing GTA IV.  

#25 Posted by EraofWar (49 posts) -
Going to make this simple suggestion.... It's really time for an upgrade. Especially now with the new Intel processors out.
#26 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You are analyzing the data incorrectly.  Keep backpedaling.. you seem to be good at it.  Notice that the 3.6ghz C2Q is significantly quicker than the 4ghz C2D in the first link that you posted.  Did you conveniently ignore that? 

In the 2nd link that you posted, the person had a 4.2ghz i7 and only ran a 37 second benchmark.  What is that supposed to show me?

hartsickdiscipl

ok, now we gonna say grass is blue?

that doesn't work like that, it's not because the game is asking for a lot of cpu power you can automatically assume better videocards won't give better framerates especially when there's no bottleneck.

You're comparing a 3.6 ghz quad with a 4 ghz dual. That's 14.4 ghz vs 8 ghz. In a game that supports quad cores it's only normal it's quicker and these quads are extreme versions (so the enthousiast series).

After all that it dishes out 15 percent more frames. It doesn't prove that the e8400 wouldn't get better framerates when combined with a hd 7850 (which is more than double the performance of a gtx 280) and isn't bottlenecked. If the game was as cpu/quad core dependent as you think the q6600 would perform a lot better in this game. the q6600 is the stronger cpu and there's hardly any difference with the e8400 in a game that prefers quad cores, which proves your assumption is wrong. Try again

The link I posted have numerous people posting benchmarks with different systems. I'm sure you can press next page... The benchmark is the in-game benchmark to see if the game will be playable or not, if you don't think it's good then it's noted...

And for the last time, the op wasn't asking for max settings, he said his game was lagging and that 9500 gt is the only reason.

 

How the hell can you say that the 9500gt is the "only reason" the game is lagging, when you posted benchmarks that show the game still lags like hell with an E8400 pushing a GTX 280?!  I mean, WTF?!  A GTX 280 is no slouch.  It's just shy of a GTX 460 in DX9 games.  

Look at this.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10nwibdQHz8

Here we have a GTX 275 maxing the game out pretty smoothly with a 3.5ghz i7-920.  All it takes is a proper CPU and a GPU that you can get for $70-80 today.  

In the next link, you will find a stock i7-920 with a GTX 280 running GTA IV at 52fps.  

http://peteroy.blogspot.com/2009/08/benchmarking-core-i7-920-gtx-280-dx58so.html

Unless you can find some real benchmarks or game tests where someone is running an E8400 with a GPU more powerful than that and getting results anywhere in that neighborhood, you have proven nothing.  

I don't even know why I'm having this discussion with you.  This matter was settled back in 2009ish.  Either you weren't around for it, or you didn't get the message.  The general consensus has always been that GTA IV needs at least 3 cores to run properly when talking about a CPU with per core performance on par with Core 2 or Phenom II.  4+ cores is really the way to go for that game when taking OS overhead into account.  It's a horribly optimized mess of a port.  

Even if OP doesn't care to run at max detail settings, he will still be disappointed by the performance he gets by upgrading just his GPU for playing GTA IV.  

But those benchmarks are on max settings.

look here's one from the link i posted

Statistics
Average FPS: 48.45
Duration: 37.38 sec
CPU Usage: 77%
System memory usage: 75%
Video memory usage: 93%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1920 x 1080 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filter Quality: High
View Distance: 41
Detail Distance: 69

Hardware
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
Video Driver version: 260.99
Audio Adapter: Speakers (High Definition Audio Device)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8400 @ 2.66GHz (3.26GHz)

The q8400 is about the same as a q6600 in performance but this one is overclocked. Even then It's not as fast as the qx6850 @ 3,6 ghz is in performance, still it has 10 fps more It get's an average of 48 fps,while the qx6850 has only like 38 fps.

Why? The gtx 460 will help and the detail setting is set to high but the res to 1080p.

This is another one with the phenom X3 which is slower than the e8400, in any case even with the triple core.

Statistics
Average FPS: 51.50
Duration: 37.28 sec
CPU Usage: 85%
System memory usage: 68%
Video memory usage: 74%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 800 x 600 (75 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filter Quality: Very High
View Distance: 30
Detail Distance: 60

Hardware
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series
Video Driver version: 8.14.1.6095
Audio Adapter: Speakers (VIA High Definition Audio)
AMD Phenom(tm) II X3 710 Processor

The thing is that at 1400x1050 im getting the same averege FPS.

You can check em in the link yourself

Can't you see where this is going. His cpu will take him a long way, even on gta IV.

#27 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You are analyzing the data incorrectly.  Keep backpedaling.. you seem to be good at it.  Notice that the 3.6ghz C2Q is significantly quicker than the 4ghz C2D in the first link that you posted.  Did you conveniently ignore that? 

In the 2nd link that you posted, the person had a 4.2ghz i7 and only ran a 37 second benchmark.  What is that supposed to show me?

hartsickdiscipl

ok, now we gonna say grass is blue?

that doesn't work like that, it's not because the game is asking for a lot of cpu power you can automatically assume better videocards won't give better framerates especially when there's no bottleneck.

You're comparing a 3.6 ghz quad with a 4 ghz dual. That's 14.4 ghz vs 8 ghz. In a game that supports quad cores it's only normal it's quicker and these quads are extreme versions (so the enthousiast series).

After all that it dishes out 15 percent more frames. It doesn't prove that the e8400 wouldn't get better framerates when combined with a hd 7850 (which is more than double the performance of a gtx 280) and isn't bottlenecked. If the game was as cpu/quad core dependent as you think the q6600 would perform a lot better in this game. the q6600 is the stronger cpu and there's hardly any difference with the e8400 in a game that prefers quad cores, which proves your assumption is wrong. Try again

The link I posted have numerous people posting benchmarks with different systems. I'm sure you can press next page... The benchmark is the in-game benchmark to see if the game will be playable or not, if you don't think it's good then it's noted...

And for the last time, the op wasn't asking for max settings, he said his game was lagging and that 9500 gt is the only reason.

 

How the hell can you say that the 9500gt is the "only reason" the game is lagging, when you posted benchmarks that show the game still lags like hell with an E8400 pushing a GTX 280?!  I mean, WTF?!  A GTX 280 is no slouch.  It's just shy of a GTX 460 in DX9 games.  

Look at this.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10nwibdQHz8

Here we have a GTX 275 maxing the game out pretty smoothly with a 3.5ghz i7-920.  All it takes is a proper CPU and a GPU that you can get for $70-80 today.  

In the next link, you will find a stock i7-920 with a GTX 280 running GTA IV at 52fps.  

http://peteroy.blogspot.com/2009/08/benchmarking-core-i7-920-gtx-280-dx58so.html

Unless you can find some real benchmarks or game tests where someone is running an E8400 with a GPU more powerful than that and getting results anywhere in that neighborhood, you have proven nothing.  

I don't even know why I'm having this discussion with you.  This matter was settled back in 2009ish.  Either you weren't around for it, or you didn't get the message.  The general consensus has always been that GTA IV needs at least 3 cores to run properly when talking about a CPU with per core performance on par with Core 2 or Phenom II.  4+ cores is really the way to go for that game when taking OS overhead into account.  It's a horribly optimized mess of a port.  

Even if OP doesn't care to run at max detail settings, he will still be disappointed by the performance he gets by upgrading just his GPU for playing GTA IV.  

And if you really want youtube videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcqRL0Pu7rk

That gts 250 is like a 9800 gtx. Slower than a gtx 280. And A lot faster than a 9500 gt.

#28 Posted by ionusX (25716 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] ok, now we gonna say grass is blue?

that doesn't work like that, it's not because the game is asking for a lot of cpu power you can automatically assume better videocards won't give better framerates especially when there's no bottleneck.

You're comparing a 3.6 ghz quad with a 4 ghz dual. That's 14.4 ghz vs 8 ghz. In a game that supports quad cores it's only normal it's quicker and these quads are extreme versions (so the enthousiast series).

After all that it dishes out 15 percent more frames. It doesn't prove that the e8400 wouldn't get better framerates when combined with a hd 7850 (which is more than double the performance of a gtx 280) and isn't bottlenecked. If the game was as cpu/quad core dependent as you think the q6600 would perform a lot better in this game. the q6600 is the stronger cpu and there's hardly any difference with the e8400 in a game that prefers quad cores, which proves your assumption is wrong. Try again

The link I posted have numerous people posting benchmarks with different systems. I'm sure you can press next page... The benchmark is the in-game benchmark to see if the game will be playable or not, if you don't think it's good then it's noted...

And for the last time, the op wasn't asking for max settings, he said his game was lagging and that 9500 gt is the only reason.

evildead6789

 

How the hell can you say that the 9500gt is the "only reason" the game is lagging, when you posted benchmarks that show the game still lags like hell with an E8400 pushing a GTX 280?!  I mean, WTF?!  A GTX 280 is no slouch.  It's just shy of a GTX 460 in DX9 games.  

Look at this.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10nwibdQHz8

Here we have a GTX 275 maxing the game out pretty smoothly with a 3.5ghz i7-920.  All it takes is a proper CPU and a GPU that you can get for $70-80 today.  

In the next link, you will find a stock i7-920 with a GTX 280 running GTA IV at 52fps.  

http://peteroy.blogspot.com/2009/08/benchmarking-core-i7-920-gtx-280-dx58so.html

Unless you can find some real benchmarks or game tests where someone is running an E8400 with a GPU more powerful than that and getting results anywhere in that neighborhood, you have proven nothing.  

I don't even know why I'm having this discussion with you.  This matter was settled back in 2009ish.  Either you weren't around for it, or you didn't get the message.  The general consensus has always been that GTA IV needs at least 3 cores to run properly when talking about a CPU with per core performance on par with Core 2 or Phenom II.  4+ cores is really the way to go for that game when taking OS overhead into account.  It's a horribly optimized mess of a port.  

Even if OP doesn't care to run at max detail settings, he will still be disappointed by the performance he gets by upgrading just his GPU for playing GTA IV.  

And if you really want youtube videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcqRL0Pu7rk

That gts 250 is like a 9800 gtx. Slower than a gtx 280. And A lot faster than a 9500 gt.

correction the gts 250 is simply a low power 9800gtx+

#29 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You are analyzing the data incorrectly.  Keep backpedaling.. you seem to be good at it.  Notice that the 3.6ghz C2Q is significantly quicker than the 4ghz C2D in the first link that you posted.  Did you conveniently ignore that? 

In the 2nd link that you posted, the person had a 4.2ghz i7 and only ran a 37 second benchmark.  What is that supposed to show me?

hartsickdiscipl

ok, now we gonna say grass is blue?

that doesn't work like that, it's not because the game is asking for a lot of cpu power you can automatically assume better videocards won't give better framerates especially when there's no bottleneck.

You're comparing a 3.6 ghz quad with a 4 ghz dual. That's 14.4 ghz vs 8 ghz. In a game that supports quad cores it's only normal it's quicker and these quads are extreme versions (so the enthousiast series).

After all that it dishes out 15 percent more frames. It doesn't prove that the e8400 wouldn't get better framerates when combined with a hd 7850 (which is more than double the performance of a gtx 280) and isn't bottlenecked. If the game was as cpu/quad core dependent as you think the q6600 would perform a lot better in this game. the q6600 is the stronger cpu and there's hardly any difference with the e8400 in a game that prefers quad cores, which proves your assumption is wrong. Try again

The link I posted have numerous people posting benchmarks with different systems. I'm sure you can press next page... The benchmark is the in-game benchmark to see if the game will be playable or not, if you don't think it's good then it's noted...

And for the last time, the op wasn't asking for max settings, he said his game was lagging and that 9500 gt is the only reason.

 

How the hell can you say that the 9500gt is the "only reason" the game is lagging, when you posted benchmarks that show the game still lags like hell with an E8400 pushing a GTX 280?!  I mean, WTF?!  A GTX 280 is no slouch.  It's just shy of a GTX 460 in DX9 games.  

Look at this.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10nwibdQHz8

Here we have a GTX 275 maxing the game out pretty smoothly with a 3.5ghz i7-920.  All it takes is a proper CPU and a GPU that you can get for $70-80 today.  

In the next link, you will find a stock i7-920 with a GTX 280 running GTA IV at 52fps.  

http://peteroy.blogspot.com/2009/08/benchmarking-core-i7-920-gtx-280-dx58so.html

Unless you can find some real benchmarks or game tests where someone is running an E8400 with a GPU more powerful than that and getting results anywhere in that neighborhood, you have proven nothing.  

I don't even know why I'm having this discussion with you.  This matter was settled back in 2009ish.  Either you weren't around for it, or you didn't get the message.  The general consensus has always been that GTA IV needs at least 3 cores to run properly when talking about a CPU with per core performance on par with Core 2 or Phenom II.  4+ cores is really the way to go for that game when taking OS overhead into account.  It's a horribly optimized mess of a port.  

Even if OP doesn't care to run at max detail settings, he will still be disappointed by the performance he gets by upgrading just his GPU for playing GTA IV.  

I think this is the video that you're looking for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow7NuPbx5Ms
#30 Posted by Gamerkhoi0611 (9 posts) -
Here's the benchmarks when i'm playing the game : Statistics Average FPS: 19.52 Duration: 11.98 sec CPU Usage: 91% System memory usage: 59% Video memory usage: 38% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Low Render Quality: Low View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 65 Hardware Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT Video Driver version: 311.06 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz File ID: Benchmark.cli
#31 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -
[QUOTE="Gamerkhoi0611"]Here's the benchmarks when i'm playing the game : Statistics Average FPS: 19.52 Duration: 11.98 sec CPU Usage: 91% System memory usage: 59% Video memory usage: 38% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Low Render Quality: Low View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 65 Hardware Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT Video Driver version: 311.06 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz File ID: Benchmark.cli

Have you downloaded the latest patches? Still, you need to get another videocard if you want to play gta IV on that system. What's your budget?
#32 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

How the hell can you say that the 9500gt is the "only reason" the game is lagging, when you posted benchmarks that show the game still lags like hell with an E8400 pushing a GTX 280?!  I mean, WTF?!  A GTX 280 is no slouch.  It's just shy of a GTX 460 in DX9 games.  

Look at this.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10nwibdQHz8

Here we have a GTX 275 maxing the game out pretty smoothly with a 3.5ghz i7-920.  All it takes is a proper CPU and a GPU that you can get for $70-80 today.  

In the next link, you will find a stock i7-920 with a GTX 280 running GTA IV at 52fps.  

http://peteroy.blogspot.com/2009/08/benchmarking-core-i7-920-gtx-280-dx58so.html

Unless you can find some real benchmarks or game tests where someone is running an E8400 with a GPU more powerful than that and getting results anywhere in that neighborhood, you have proven nothing.  

I don't even know why I'm having this discussion with you.  This matter was settled back in 2009ish.  Either you weren't around for it, or you didn't get the message.  The general consensus has always been that GTA IV needs at least 3 cores to run properly when talking about a CPU with per core performance on par with Core 2 or Phenom II.  4+ cores is really the way to go for that game when taking OS overhead into account.  It's a horribly optimized mess of a port.  

Even if OP doesn't care to run at max detail settings, he will still be disappointed by the performance he gets by upgrading just his GPU for playing GTA IV.  

ionusX

And if you really want youtube videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcqRL0Pu7rk

That gts 250 is like a 9800 gtx. Slower than a gtx 280. And A lot faster than a 9500 gt.

correction the gts 250 is simply a low power 9800gtx+

thx for splitting the hairs for me :)
#33 Posted by kraken2109 (13211 posts) -

GTA4 still regularly dips below 20fps for me, and that's with a phenom II X4 and a GTX 275.

#34 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

GTA4 still regularly dips below 20fps for me, and that's with a phenom II X4 and a GTX 275.

kraken2109
maybe you should lower your detail settings and resolution that gtx 275 is not all that anymore and did you use the latest patches?
#35 Posted by Gamerkhoi0611 (9 posts) -
[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="Gamerkhoi0611"]Here's the benchmarks when i'm playing the game : Statistics Average FPS: 19.52 Duration: 11.98 sec CPU Usage: 91% System memory usage: 59% Video memory usage: 38% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Low Render Quality: Low View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 65 Hardware Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT Video Driver version: 311.06 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz File ID: Benchmark.cli

Have you downloaded the latest patches? Still, you need to get another video card if you want to play gta IV on that system. What's your budget?

I'm gonna buy a new one at the end of the year,my budget will be around 700$ , I think i'm going to get the following PC : Case : Thermaltake V4 Black Edition CPU : Intel Core i5-3450 Processor Mainboard : Gigabyte GA-Z77-DS3H Graphic card : AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB Ram : 2GB x 4 - DDRam3 1600MHz Power Thermaltake Litepower 400W HDD Hdd 1Tb - 7200rpm sata3 x DVD DVD-ROM SATA 18X Cooler Thermaltake Contac 30 How many FPS is it going to be if i play GTA 4 on this system ?And do you think it's a good pc to play game like battle field 3,far cry 3,... ?
#36 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="Gamerkhoi0611"]Here's the benchmarks when i'm playing the game : Statistics Average FPS: 19.52 Duration: 11.98 sec CPU Usage: 91% System memory usage: 59% Video memory usage: 38% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Low Render Quality: Low View Distance: 32 Detail Distance: 65 Hardware Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9500 GT Video Driver version: 311.06 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz File ID: Benchmark.cliGamerkhoi0611
Have you downloaded the latest patches? Still, you need to get another video card if you want to play gta IV on that system. What's your budget?

I'm gonna buy a new one at the end of the year,my budget will be around 700$ , I think i'm going to get the following PC : Case : Thermaltake V4 Black Edition CPU : Intel Core i5-3450 Processor Mainboard : Gigabyte GA-Z77-DS3H Graphic card : AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB Ram : 2GB x 4 - DDRam3 1600MHz Power Thermaltake Litepower 400W HDD Hdd 1Tb - 7200rpm sata3 x DVD DVD-ROM SATA 18X Cooler Thermaltake Contac 30 How many FPS is it going to be if i play GTA 4 on this system ?And do you think it's a good pc to play game like battle field 3,far cry 3,... ?

The graphics card isn't good enough for that build, for 700$ i can make you a great pc that will max out any game and give you good fps.

But you can already play games on decent quality (crysis you would even be able to max out) if you do an upgrade of your graphics card.

Gta 4 would run like a charm if you buy this and put it in your pc

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161428

and you need a psu to power it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139005

Then you can use this card in your new system. And it wil run games like bf3, far cry 3, gta 4 fairly well (gta 4 will be best because the other two are much heavier on the system). An overclock on the cpu would even make it all better :)

I'm just giving examples, I don't know what your budget is right now, but do realize that right now, you can have a gaming pc, if you upgrade your graphics card. Even a 100$ gpu would already do wonders (and you wouldn't need a new psu to power it)

#37 Posted by Gamerkhoi0611 (9 posts) -
Thank you alot!
#38 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -
Thank you alot!Gamerkhoi0611
No problem, make sure you tell us what you're going to do, so we can help you
#39 Posted by kraken2109 (13211 posts) -
[QUOTE="kraken2109"]

GTA4 still regularly dips below 20fps for me, and that's with a phenom II X4 and a GTX 275.

evildead6789
maybe you should lower your detail settings and resolution that gtx 275 is not all that anymore and did you use the latest patches?

It's on steam so up to date, a lot of the settings make no difference, it's just GTA4 being GTA4.
#40 Posted by metacritical (2535 posts) -
[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

Did you not notice this?

C_Rule


Biggest issue or not, that's not saying it's a small issue, you make him consider upgrading his cpu, while that's not needed.

The e 8400 is a fast core 2 duo cpu which outmatches a lot of quad cores. He's not packing an e6200. The minimum system requirement is a core 2 duo @1.8 ghz

upgrading his gpu is his only issue

:P

Have you ever tried playing GTA IV with a C2D?

i used to play GTA IV with an E8400 and it ran it fine, though it was overclocked to 3.9Ghz. i also had an GTX285 rather than the 9500 which probably helped.
#41 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="evildead6789"]


Biggest issue or not, that's not saying it's a small issue, you make him consider upgrading his cpu, while that's not needed.

The e 8400 is a fast core 2 duo cpu which outmatches a lot of quad cores. He's not packing an e6200. The minimum system requirement is a core 2 duo @1.8 ghz

upgrading his gpu is his only issue

:P

metacritical

Have you ever tried playing GTA IV with a C2D?

i used to play GTA IV with an E8400 and it ran it fine, though it was overclocked to 3.9Ghz. i also had an GTX285 rather than the 9500 which probably helped.

Well,  seems that I'm right again :lol:

raad_muismatten-r08b49333ae414e24929a6a1

#42 Posted by C_Rule (9812 posts) -

[QUOTE="metacritical"][QUOTE="C_Rule"] Have you ever tried playing GTA IV with a C2D?evildead6789

i used to play GTA IV with an E8400 and it ran it fine, though it was overclocked to 3.9Ghz. i also had an GTX285 rather than the 9500 which probably helped.

Well,  seems that I'm right again :lol:

raad_muismatten-r08b49333ae414e24929a6a1

You're never right. You're a moron.
#43 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -
[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="metacritical"]i used to play GTA IV with an E8400 and it ran it fine, though it was overclocked to 3.9Ghz. i also had an GTX285 rather than the 9500 which probably helped.C_Rule

Well,  seems that I'm right again :lol:

raad_muismatten-r08b49333ae414e24929a6a1

You're never right. You're a moron.

Havin' a bad day?
#44 Posted by C_Rule (9812 posts) -
[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="evildead6789"]

Well,  seems that I'm right again :lol:

<

evildead6789
You're never right. You're a moron.

Havin' a bad day?

I was until I read through your posts, trying to convince us that a C2D is good enough for any game. Entertaining stuff. I used to game on an overclocked C2D, I know what they can and can't do.
#45 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -
[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="C_Rule"] You're never right. You're a moron.

Havin' a bad day?

I was until I read through your posts, trying to convince us that a C2D is good enough for any game. Entertaining stuff. I used to game on an overclocked C2D, I know what they can and can't do.

They can do a lot when you don't max out and lower the res a bit.
#46 Posted by kraken2109 (13211 posts) -
[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] Havin' a bad day?

I was until I read through your posts, trying to convince us that a C2D is good enough for any game. Entertaining stuff. I used to game on an overclocked C2D, I know what they can and can't do.

They can do a lot when you don't max out and lower the res a bit.

Lowering the res won't help the CPU, it will help the GPU
#47 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="C_Rule"] I was until I read through your posts, trying to convince us that a C2D is good enough for any game. Entertaining stuff. I used to game on an overclocked C2D, I know what they can and can't do.kraken2109
They can do a lot when you don't max out and lower the res a bit.

Lowering the res won't help the CPU, it will help the GPU

Sure and if the cpu isn't fast enough to catch up with the gpu...

then It helps if the amount of data send to the cpu, is lower

You're saying you know that much of computer hardware but...

 

raad_muismatten-r08b49333ae414e24929a6a1

#48 Posted by kraken2109 (13211 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] They can do a lot when you don't max out and lower the res a bit.evildead6789

Lowering the res won't help the CPU, it will help the GPU

Sure and if the cpu isn't fast enough to catch up with the gpu...

then It helps if the amount of data send to the cpu, is lower

You're saying you know that much of computer hardware but...

 

1. I never claimed to know a lot about computer hardware. Anyone who claims they know a lot probably know very little, like most things in life, the more you know, the less you know

2. 95% of the improvement from lowering res will be from the GPU

#49 Posted by commander (8624 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="kraken2109"] Lowering the res won't help the CPU, it will help the GPUkraken2109

Sure and if the cpu isn't fast enough to catch up with the gpu...

then It helps if the amount of data send to the cpu, is lower

You're saying you know that much of computer hardware but...

 

1. I never claimed to know a lot about computer hardware. Anyone who claims they know a lot probably know very little, like most things in life, the more you know, the less you know

2. 95% of the improvement from lowering res will be from the GPU

1. You said you we're building computers since 1998 and you we're offended if I called you padawan, I was under the impression you knew what you're talking about.

2. That all depends on the game, the cpu & gpu. what res you lowering from and how much you lower, how much detail you're using, how much aa you're using.

3. Keep trying to prove me wrong ;)

#50 Posted by metacritical (2535 posts) -
1) you're mixing people up 2) a C2D is well past being relevant, indeed GTA IV was the first game that really put an end to dual cores being the recommended CPU. That's not to say the E8400 wasn't a good CPU, but then again it was the best C2D, other than the E8500. it will of course still play most older games fine but anything modern that requires a quad will destroy it. but as has already been established the OPs graphics card is the weakest link.