[thales100]

QUOTE (Warlord. @ Apr 21 2009, 18:47)

I saw maxishine running IV maxed at 2560x1600 and he was getting around 25FPS.

I watched a video at youtube, but he wasnt playing maxed, medium/high settings i think. He was using a GTX 280 btw.

[IJM]

Okay. Now I've installed the up to date nVidia drivers (now at 182.50), I've done a new benchmark with the 9800 GTX card to establish a proper reference.

QUOTE

Statistics Average FPS: 42.25 Duration: 37.16 sec CPU Usage: 93% System memory usage: 66% Video memory usage: 61% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Texture Filter Quality: Highest View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 100 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX+ Video Driver version: 182.50 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1) Intel® Core™2 Quad  CPU  Q9450  @ 2.66GHz File ID: benchmark.cli

Now, despite the fact I should be going to bed (I have work tomorrow morning), I'm going to swap in the new card and see what happens.

[richiespeed13]

Oh i can't wait to see the results

[IJM]

Okay. The cards are now swapped. I've removed the -availablevidmem 2.0 parameter. At the same settings, GTA:IV now uses 562/2021 MB.

Here are the benchmark results at the same settings as I was using for the 9800GTX.

QUOTE

Statistics Average FPS: 54.23 Duration: 37.19 sec CPU Usage: 79% System memory usage: 59% Video memory usage: 29% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Texture Filter Quality: Highest View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 100 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 182.50 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1) Intel® Core™2 Quad  CPU  Q9450  @ 2.66GHz File ID: benchmark.cli

The FPS are up from 42.25 to 54.23. So I guess that confirms that the GTX 285 really is more powerful than the 9800 GTX.
Interestingly the CPU is down. At a guess, it's probably because I'm no longer using the availablevidmem parameter, so it's no longer having to do extra work to swap data in and out of real VRAM from the system RAM.

Now let's max out the graphics settings and see what happens then.

[Vicetopia]

QUOTE (IJM @ Apr 21 2009, 19:39)

So I guess that confirms that the GTX 285 really is more powerful than the 9800 GTX.

Oh my, someone get this guy a job as a hardware reviewer immediately!
Seriously, you bought a 2 GB video card and you're only using ~500MB of it in GTA4?

[john88z]

Your cpu usage was 93% on a quad? That doesnt seem right.

[IJM]

Settings maxed out:

QUOTE

Video Mode: 1920x1200 Aspect Ratio: Auto Texture Quality: High Reflection Resolution: Very High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: Very High Texture Filter Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Vehicle Density: 100 Shadow Density: 16 Definition: On Vsync: Off

Resource usage is now 1611 / 2021 MB.

Here's the benchmark with these:

QUOTE

Statistics Average FPS: 43.19 Duration: 37.32 sec CPU Usage: 88% System memory usage: 69% Video memory usage: 53% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Texture Filter Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 182.50 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1) Intel® Core™2 Quad  CPU  Q9450  @ 2.66GHz File ID: benchmark.cli

That looks like quite a good performance on max settings. 43.19 FPS and 88% CPU usage.

[IJM]

QUOTE (Vicetopia @ Apr 22 2009, 01:43)

QUOTE (IJM @ Apr 21 2009, 19:39) So I guess that confirms that the GTX 285 really is more powerful than the 9800 GTX. Oh my, someone get this guy a job as a hardware reviewer immediately! Seriously, you bought a 2 GB video card and you're only using ~500MB of it in GTA4?

That remark was somewhat tonque in cheek, hence the smiley. As I said, I was comparing like settings for like settings, so you could see the performance improvement. Of course, that means only using 562MB of a 2GB VRAM for that particular part of the test. I was keeping it simple; changing one thing at a time and seeing what effect it had. The next job was to then ramp up the settings to max, using 1.6GB of the VRAM and seeing how it performed. (See my other post.) It makes perfect sense.

This post has been edited by IJM on Wednesday, Apr 22 2009, 01:05

[IJM]

One further thing, folks. These are one shot benchmarks. I think it's more normal to run several benchmarks and average them. But I really don't have time. It's nearly 3 O'clock in the morning here, so I'd better get my head down because I've got work in the morning.

Tomorrow evening I'll take a proper look around Liberty City and see how it looks from a gameplay perspective. See how it performs when there's loads going on, see what pop-in there is, if any, and see if I can find any missing textures.

This post has been edited by IJM on Wednesday, Apr 22 2009, 01:07

[thales100]

QUOTE (IJM @ Apr 22 2009, 00:50)

That looks like quite a good performance on max settings.  43.19 FPS and 88% CPU usage.

43 FPS looks just ok at max, and proves once more that GTA 4 requires much more from the CPU than GPU.

[Vicetopia]

QUOTE (thales100 @ Apr 21 2009, 20:22)

43 FPS looks just ok at max, and proves once more that GTA 4 requires much more from the CPU than GPU.

Especially if he's crippling his system by running that thing at 2.66...

[IJM]

QUOTE (Vicetopia @ Apr 22 2009, 02:34)

QUOTE (thales100 @ Apr 21 2009, 20:22) 43 FPS looks just ok at max, and proves once more that GTA 4 requires much more from the CPU than GPU. Especially if he's crippling his system by running that thing at 2.66...

I think you'll find that in the real world, the vast majority of people don't overclock their systems. I think you'll find most people will be running their Q9450 systems at the "crippled" 2.66Ghz it comes as.

That's not to say I have anything against overclocking, and I can see from the specs in your signature that you enjoy quite a tasty overclocked system yourself. Nice.

But, my objective here is to increase the eye candy and whilst keeping a reasonably playable FPS figure. Please bear with me if my "review", such as it is, is not up to your standards. I'm not a professional at this and I'm only documenting my experience of this unusual card here as an aside so that everyone can get an idea of what it can do. I've decided to clarify that in a separate post, so that everyone can read what my objectives and expectations were.

[Vicetopia]

QUOTE (IJM @ Apr 21 2009, 21:51)

I think you'll find that in the real world, the vast majority of people don't overclock their systems.  I think you'll find most people will be running their Q9450 systems at the "crippled" 2.66Ghz it comes as.

You gained 12fps going from the 9800GTX to the GTX 285.
You could gain another 12fps going from 2.66 to 3.0+.

By "crippled", I meant GTA4 specifically.

[High]

QUOTE (thales100 @ Apr 22 2009, 01:22)

43FPS looks just ok at max, and proves once more that GTA 4 requires much more from the CPU than GPU.

it's really a matter of perspective, we already seen i7 users getting poor performance even when using it on 4Ghz and dual cores getting better frame rate and so it really isn't a matter of how much you pay, on the other hand, you need a around 1700MB of Vram to max this sucker out...
saying the game is more CPU depended is a very vague assumption.

[IJM]

There seems to be a bit of a misconception around about what the expectation is from this card. So let's clear this up right now.

Yes, we all know that GTA:IV doesn't run brilliantly on the PC platform. And we're all looking for that something that will make it run much faster.

This 2GB graphics card isn't it. It wasn't meant to be. We all know that a goodly proportion of the performance of GTA:IV is dependant on the CPU. On the whole, a faster CPU is likely to get you better increase in performance than a GPU.

We've all read enough on here to know roughly how fast a regular GTX 285 will run this game in conjunction with a reasonable quad core like the Q9450. But I'm not an FPS junkie and that's not what I'm after.

I'm running a stock clocked Q9450 with a stock clocked GTX 285. The fact that it's got 2GB VRAM instead of 1GB ain't gonna make it run any faster.

What it DOES enable you to do is to max out the graphics settings for the maximum eye candy factor! That's what I want. That is my objective. High texture quality, max draw distance and all the rest. What this shows is that these 2GB cards enable you to do that without using performance inhibiting command line options.

Granted for many people, this is a somewhat expensive way of doing it. Even those with more money than sense may pause for a moment's consideration before taking the plunge. But this particular card is at the same price point as the regular 1GB GTX 285 cards, so if you were considering an upgrade to a 285 anyway, it's worth a look. I can't tell you whether upgrading your graphics card to one of these is going to be cost effective for you. It's a subjective decision that is very much dependant on the spec of your system and the thickness of your wallet.

But what I hope I've been able to tell you is that going off what it did on my system (i.e. 2GB GTX 285 coupled with a Q9450 gives you roughly 43FPS at max settings), it will give you a rough idea of what it should do for you on your system.

This post has been edited by IJM on Wednesday, Apr 22 2009, 03:22

[IJM]

QUOTE (Vicetopia @ Apr 22 2009, 03:56)

QUOTE (IJM @ Apr 21 2009, 21:51) I think you'll find that in the real world, the vast majority of people don't overclock their systems.  I think you'll find most people will be running their Q9450 systems at the "crippled" 2.66Ghz it comes as.  You gained 12fps going from the 9800GTX to the GTX 285. You could gain another 12fps going from 2.66 to 3.0+. By "crippled", I meant GTA4 specifically.

Apologies, then. I misinterpreted the tone of your post.

I hope everything's cool, then.

[thales100]

QUOTE (High @ Apr 22 2009, 02:58)

saying the game is more CPU depended is a very vague assumption.

Dont think so, this has been proved many times in this forum, and as Vicetopia said, just overlocking the Q9450 to 3 Ghz would probably represent this FPS boost he had by upgrading from a 9800 to a GTX 285. 43 FPS is a poor performance for a top GPU, thats the point - his quad at stock 2.66 Ghz clock is bottlenecking the PC.

[High]

^indeed, but you're talking solely on frame rate.

it's as IJM said, we aren't searching for the speed boost with this card, it's the texture streaming that takes this card for a ride.

[thales100]

QUOTE (High @ Apr 22 2009, 03:31)

it's the texture streaming that takes this card for a ride.

Now youre talking

[IJM]

QUOTE (thales100 @ Apr 22 2009, 04:17)

QUOTE (High @ Apr 22 2009, 02:58) saying the game is more CPU depended is a very vague assumption. Dont think so, this has been proved many times in this forum, and as Vicetopia said, just overlocking the Q9450 to 3 Ghz would probably represent this FPS boost he had by upgrading from a 9800 to a GTX 285. 43 FPS is a poor performance for a top GPU, thats the point - his quad at stock 2.66 Ghz clock is bottlenecking the PC.

I do have further plans to try some mild overclocking. Not just for GTA:IV, but it will benefit. But I need to upgrade my RAM first. The four sticks of no-name 1GB DDR3-1333 won't cut it. I want some nice Corsair DDR3-1600 instead. I built my system with possible overclocking in mind. I've a Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme keeping my CPU cool and I've used Noctua 120mm fans thoughout my Chenbro SR107 case.

But not having done any overclocking before now, I'm going to be doing a lot of reading and taking it slow and careful.

This post has been edited by IJM on Wednesday, Apr 22 2009, 03:43