Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Could this Desktop run GTA IV?

GTA IV

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 orion7198

orion7198

    Shoplifter

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 07:09 PM

Sooooo I'm considering getting this desktop and have it be just my gaming/ downloading computer, it seems pretty damn decent, through Craigslist, just wanna know if the specs are high enough to run GTA IV without any major problems, ya know, dedicated video RAM and processor speeds, RAM itself all that. I'll copy paste the specs for y'all uber geeks here (I'm not hatin, I'm an uber nerd..


HP Desktop PC, AMD Phenom QuadCore Processor
didn't realize I can't paste into forum topic, so I'll put what is really needed to make a guess....
500 gig hard drive, 4 gig ram
Windows Vista 64 bit,
Video card, AMD Radeon, 4200 with DVI, VGA connection
Dual-channel Crucial 4GB DDR3-1333 Memory support: Four DIMM sockets, designed to support up to 16GB of DDR3 SDRAM memory, delivering greater platform performance and flexible memory support.
Sound Card: 8 channel high-definition high quality-audio

Gigabit Ethernet Controller - Network Interface 10/100/1000 Base T network interface LAN Chipset Integrated
Just curious if this would have no issues running GTA IV smoothly.

#2 Chris

Chris

    Limbal Rings

  • Administrators
  • 10,941 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:14 PM

It'll run it but it won't be that smooth. Upgrade it to a 64bit version of Windows 7 and buy a new graphics card and it'll be much better.

That video card is at a low-end model and you're gonna have to use very low settings to be able to play IV smoothly. You need a High End GPU to play smoothly. Preferably one with a score of at least 2000 on that chart if you can afford it. 4GB of RAM will probably be enough.

#3 Huckleberry Pie

Huckleberry Pie

    "There's always something,"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,978 posts
  • Philippines 

Posted 16 July 2012 - 01:06 AM

And go for an Nvidia. A GT240 might do at the very least, but I'd go for a 560Ti or one of them mid-range 600-series cards.

Posted Image

Ubisoft should take a look at this...
"We love Him because He first loved us." - 1 John 4:9-10


#4 BlackListedB

BlackListedB

    Executioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 16 July 2012 - 03:53 AM

Chris, he said Vista 64 bit, if you updated with Service Packs, it will remedy any early Vista issues, Vista is not the blight it once was. As far as AMD versus Intel though, Intel still blows them away, even multiple cores versus lesser Intel product. The Core2 is a winner and has remained a strong basis since it's release. AMD is actually dropping competition against Intel as far as CPUs go, but will continue ATI versus nVidia GPU battles

As far as the 64bit, the biggest gain is more RAM, the sky's the limit, but not all CPU cores are used, as mentioned elsewhere, GPU is pretty important, if it's the mainboard you're worried about, make sure you can get the latest revision in slots, PCI Express 3.0 will eventually become PCIe 4.0, don't doubt THAT for an instant. It will take a year or two, but it's in the skunk works I read

#5 MartiniFK

MartiniFK

    Shoplifter

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Australia 

Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:21 AM

That video card is at a low-end model and you're gonna have to use very low settings to be able to play IV smoothly.Posted Image

Edited by MartiniFK, 17 July 2012 - 05:21 AM.


#6 BlackListedB

BlackListedB

    Executioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 17 July 2012 - 01:00 PM

My first PCIe upgrade, from an X300 with 128MB to start off with, was the 9400GT, something similar, if not that exact card, I still have it, but it's not meant for gaming, I got suckered into thinking HIGHER model number, newer card, it must be better for gaming then anything previous, the REAL manner of thinking suggests as far as nVidia, any 7, 8, 9 series card or similar, if it's lower within that range, if it lacks ULTRA or GTX, it's a budget card in some respect, so always look for the last HIGHEST number for a series to get all the features of that series card, it's a good rule of thumb. If the memory is 1GB or more, it's crippled by a small memory interface, which acts like the gate or BUS in relegating traffic of data at any given time it's needed

#7 Huckleberry Pie

Huckleberry Pie

    "There's always something,"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,978 posts
  • Philippines 

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:03 AM

My first PCIe upgrade, from an X300 with 128MB to start off with, was the 9400GT, something similar, if not that exact card, I still have it, but it's not meant for gaming, I got suckered into thinking HIGHER model number, newer card, it must be better for gaming then anything previous, the REAL manner of thinking suggests as far as nVidia, any 7, 8, 9 series card or similar, if it's lower within that range, if it lacks ULTRA or GTX, it's a budget card in some respect, so always look for the last HIGHEST number for a series to get all the features of that series card, it's a good rule of thumb. If the memory is 1GB or more, it's crippled by a small memory interface, which acts like the gate or BUS in relegating traffic of data at any given time it's needed


On a newer series Nvidia, anything with the second digit that's higher than 4 is a mid-range to high-end card, i.e. GT440 or something like that. And yeah, the GTX designation gives way.

Posted Image

Ubisoft should take a look at this...
"We love Him because He first loved us." - 1 John 4:9-10


#8 BlackListedB

BlackListedB

    Executioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:03 PM

The new numbering system, availability and pricing play a part in what you usually compare and consider, but it's tricky, best bet is always a magazine article where the card is benchmarked on some apps and games, and pitted against other cards.

I bought an 1156 system on a budget, still expected an upgrade path... everyone knows what happened there, it's been crippled and closed off from upgrades as the CPU morphed to 2nd and 3rd generations.

http://www.google.co...iw=1010&bih=563

I bought an ATI Radeon HD5450, from reads I did, an even older HD card was getting good press for it's gaming capacity, makes me wonder if perhaps the HD 5450 leap-frogged over some other actual gaming contenders or if you should look solely at 6 or 7xxx series?

http://www.tomshardw...-5450,2549.html

Edited by BlackListedB, 20 July 2012 - 04:09 PM.


#9 BlackListedB

BlackListedB

    Executioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,442 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:02 PM

I got this link on HP or eMachine Intel boards, where an OEM uses a board specifically made by Intel in this example, Windows 7 and 8 support is just not there, in which case, try and merge XP or Vista drivers, obviously paying attention to bit versions....

http://downloadcente...oadType=Drivers

Speaking about the model numbers, for nVidia, it's a good guide on the last two digits of the card designation, then you have a worthy GAMING in 3D graphics model, even if goes as far back as a 6 or 7 series GeForce. Remember, the first two define more of the series card they call into, and 6 series nVidia are the first to cover Shader Model 3, we've since surpassed. You also want a card supporting 9 series Direct X API, and now, covering PCIexpress models 1, 2, or 3 if possible. In the future, a PCI express version 4 will also be an option for gaming, the advantage with these is more throughput bandwidth at the connection of card to motherboard.

My cards I have for PCIe 1.0 are the Palit 8600GT pair I bought, these are worthy gaming cards for that generation of motherboard, but if on a budget, there is an 8800GT card, the best one of the era would be an Ultra series perhaps, or of course, anything labeled GTX from nVidia!

Edited by BlackListedB, 17 September 2012 - 07:09 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GTA IV

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users