Comments on: GTA IV PC: Exciting Specs Talk

By: quenus

quenus — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:39:42 +0000

hopefully(like all 360 ports) the graphics are a lot prettier.

By: kite

kite — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:12:16 +0000

Mr The Shed:
That 512 meg of RAM on the 360 is used for the GPU too, it has to hold all the textures etc that would be held in the video card RAM on a PC (or PS3), as well as all the other normal RAM stuff like OS and game code. And there are background processes on 360, you can download in the background, get live messages, etc.

Also, PS3 just has a straightforward 256 megs of graphics RAM, so it is stupid to require more.

By: Frymaster

Frymaster — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:27:25 +0000

thank you grumpy… :)

My linux server currently has 1.2 gigs of memory being used by all processes… and approximately no memory free. Why? It just caches more disk accesses, because it might as well.

XP is the same; vista even more so

By: grumpy

grumpy — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:32:21 +0000

Any sane OS will take as much memory as possible. Why not? No one wins by having unused RAM.

The trick is of course whether or not the OS is able to let go of the memory again if another application needs it. But please, looking at task manager when nothing else is running is *not* a good way to determine Windows’ memory usage.

By: NoNamePls

NoNamePls — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:21:08 +0000

Oh and let’s not forget how Microsoft designs their OS to take 1/3rd of the system memory. Every now and then the OS decides to a leak and finally fill up almost half the RAM. Is it any surprise why they coined the term memory leak? Maybe it’s some kind of cruel programmer joke at M$ who had to hold his bladder before he submitted his next build.
Whatever it is, PC gaming needs a far more scalable OS but seriously I’m going on a rant here.

By: The Shed

The Shed — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:46:51 +0000

@Teo:

Wow that’s stupid
512 MB VRAM? Consoles have 256 MB

No. 360 has 10MB eDRAM, which counts for much more than is seems.

2GB RAM? Consoles have 256 MB

No. Main alone is 512MB for 360, and it doesn’t have to deal with any background runnings, so also consider it much more. Mind for PS3 it’s much more (complex), so it’s really not a problem. Not stupid at all.

By: aldo

aldo — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:27:57 +0000

Yes, but sayin a PS2 port needs a 2.0 shader based card to run is insulting

It’s bonkers, too, given that RE4 wasn’t even a PS2 game to start off with (the PS2 architecture – and the PS3 – is a notorious bastard, if memory serves the former has many low-bandwidth pipelines/buses that need balanced).

What I said previously was really just meant to say that you can’t compare the raw numbers – i.e. that so many GHz on a Pc isn’t the same as so many GHz on a console, etc. But you can, of course, judge based on comparing the games on each machine (or machines).

Oh, and Halo PC was an absolute joke of a conversion, too.

By: NoNamePls

NoNamePls — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:14:51 +0000

It could be worse. Remember that Resident Evil 4 port? Remember how the minimum requirement to play it was a shader model 2.0 card when the fact is the game barely uses shaders? I argued with someone over the forums how the requirement for the game was way higher than Doom 3 and it could run on a shaderless GeForce 4MX, RE4 on the other hand required a 6200 minimum. You know what the guy said? You can’t compare a PS2 with PC because it’s impossible.

I agree we can’t compare architectures. Yes, but sayin a PS2 port needs a 2.0 shader based card to run is insulting. That thing doesn’t even come close to a GeForce 3. Seriously, that’s like saying GTA4 needs shader model 4.0 to run, anything lower won’t cut it. Arghhhhh!

By: aldo

aldo — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:11:44 +0000

So the PC install is over twice the size of the 360 version? That’s a bit odd.

The game has larger (resolution/size) textures, I think.

Hopefully it’ll run well on my machine…. I’ve been getting some inexplicable pop-up in several games like Spore (inexplicable as I can’t seem to reduce it, even with reduced graphics settings etc – my computer should be more than able to handle it)

By: AbyssUK

AbyssUK — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 07:58:37 +0000

A bigger install is good, means better quality textures, sounds etc.. perhaps more world details too. I don’t want my 800 quid PC to look like a 200 quid xbox now do I

By: mister slim

mister slim — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:24:39 +0000

So the PC install is over twice the size of the 360 version? That’s a bit odd.

By: alan

alan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:35:38 +0000

Wow that’s stupid
512 MB VRAM? Consoles have 256 MB
2GB RAM? Consoles have 256 MB

Comparing a Pc to a console is like comparing a microwave to a toaster. Both consoles have completely different internal structures (for example, IIRc the memory bus for the 360 goes through to the GPU before the CPU(s), the opposite of a PC arrangement), can rely on hardware dependencies (i.e. streaming). Not to mention the rather important absence of anything other than a minimal footprint Operating System.