Someone smart please

[Jiraiyathesannin]

So, i've build my own computer. Not QUITE from scratch, but replacing all of the necessary components. I picked up an average spec pc tower with a brand that i wanted (asus) so that i'd have an asus mother board, and then I picked up a gtx 650 ti boost 2gb (before you ask, of course its overclocked). And THEN i put in a new power supply. Match that with a 1080p monitor and i'm all set.

However, I was concerned that i won't be able to play grand theft auto 5 for pc very well. This is because the recommended gpu is SLIGHTLY better than mine.

And i don't know what they mean by "recommended". Recommened to max 60fps? or recommended for medium settings at 30 fps? It changes from developer to developer.

Well, out of curiosity, I checked out the recommended requirements for max payne 3, as thats a game i can max at all but a couple settings (i turn down tesselation as its not a good value for the performance hit) at 60 1080 etc.

Guess what: its recommended requirements are HIGHER than gta v. MUCH higher. I never checked max payne 3 because i already assumed i'd run it as well as i do. And it requires an i7 quad core processor (yes i have one) and a gtx 480. Thats significantly higher than gta v which needs a 660 (480>>660) and a i5 processor.

Well you're probably thinking "well, sure, max payne 3 (a game you can max out) has higher recommended specs than gta v, but they may use different guide lines for making those". But its the same developer. Actually, the people making the gta v pc port are the EXACT SAME group within rockstar who did max payne's pc port.

So as a person who'd put my tech knowledge somewhere on the following scale: old person<Computer Novice< Mac User< Casual browser< Pc gamer < Computer enthusiast (Me) < Computer major (I am, but WAY early into my studies) < Entry level computer specialist < Computer master

I think i'm fair at guessing that i should be able to run gta v max with 1080 60 fps given that i can do so on max payne 3 (minus a setting or 2) which has HIGHER specs.

I just want an opinion from a more knowledgeable person. Also, quick question. If its recommended that you have a 480 and an i7 and i DON'T have something as good as a 480, why can i run it so well? I don't even reach recomended settings and i can max it. Weird. Maybe because the rage engine is more processor heavy and i have great processor? Thoughts?

 

[Melanin]

Damn brah, I wish I could help you out but if you down I can slide you my brother's employee discount at Best Buy.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Okay, aside from the condescending thread title,pretentious description, and uncalled-for credentials, the conclusion to this is quite simple, and you've stated it yourself.

Your over priced graphics card is simply incompatible(or is under qualified in some of it's features) for the requirements needed to perform whatever action it is you desired. It doesn't matter how high all your other features are, if the core feature requirements needed to run the game properly aren't met, usually, the game will not work for you(or at least to your liking).

Also, don't be so fixated on "quality", think about performance, as well.

Not sure if this helped, but here you go.

 

[Tera Path]

Minimum is of course the bare minimum needed to run a game and recommended would most likely be the minimum requirements to even make the game playable and enjoyable.

Grand Theft Auto V is going to be way more demanding than Max Payne 3, A 650 Ti is never going to be able to max GTA V at 1080p and get 60 FPS.
Perhaps, and just perhaps you could dial down the settings to medium-low and get 30-60 frames per second.
If you want any chance to play GTA V at 1080p max settings 60 FPS, consider getting an R9 280x or R9 290, or if you have the cash, get a GTX 970. You'll most likely have to get a beefier power supply if you go for a 290 or 290x, I recommend a 650w+ PSU.

Edit: The i7 doesn't really matter in gaming, an i5 like the i5 4690k could do just as well as a 4790k in gaming. but since you already have an i7, good for you.
Max Payne could be processor heavy but I doubt it.
A 650 Ti could maybe be good for older games and mainstream games like League or TF2, but the latest 3x A titles like GTA, I doubt it's going to be performing well.

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

Minimum is of course the bare minimum needed to run a game and recommended would most likely be the minimum requirements to even make the game playable and enjoyable.

Grand Theft Auto V is going to be way more demanding than Max Payne 3, A 650 Ti is never going to be able to max GTA V at 1080p and get 60 FPS.
Perhaps, and just perhaps you could dial down the settings to medium-low and get 30-60 frames per second.
If you want any chance to play GTA V at 1080p max settings 60 FPS, consider getting an R9 280x or R9 290, or if you have the cash, get a GTX 970. You'll most likely have to get a beefier power supply if you go for a 290 or 290x, I recommend a 650w+ PSU.

Edit: The i7 doesn't really matter in gaming, an i5 like the i5 4690k could do just as well as a 4790k in gaming. but since you already have an i7, good for you.
Max Payne could be processor heavy but I doubt it.
A 650 Ti could maybe be good for older games and mainstream games like League or TF2, but the latest 3x A titles like GTA, I doubt it's going to be performing well.

Like i said, the rage engine (max payne, red dead, and gta) is extremely processor heavy. Think lots of npc's and tons of physics. Max payne recommended an i7.

I don't think you were listening though. Max payne (same group) had HIGHER requirements than gta v. And i can max max payne 3 out. So...

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

Okay, aside from the condescending thread title,pretentious description, and uncalled-for credentials, the conclusion to this is quite simple, and you've stated it yourself.

Your over priced graphics card is simply incompatible(or is under qualified in some of it's features) for the requirements needed to perform whatever action it is you desired. It doesn't matter how high all your other features are, if the core feature requirements needed to run the game properly aren't met, usually, the game will not work for you(or at least to your liking).

Also, don't be so fixated on "quality", think about performance, as well.

Not sure if this helped, but here you go.

In order:

1)Thread title is more likely to draw larger amounts of knowledgeable people. I'm appealing to people's ego. "Oh, they want smart people? then i'm there guy!", while maintaining an accurate depiction of my request
2)So in tech threads we don't explain our knowledge level so that anyone giving an answer can scale it up or down depending on my capabilities? When a doctor is trying to describe cancer to a child, they use very simple terms. When they're describing it to another doctor, they use the proper terminology. I'm describing my knowledge level so any viable response can be high enough in detail that it won't tell me something i don't know, but low enough that they aren't going over my head.
3)Stating the exact nature of my specs is commonplace in a tech discussion. It would actually be harmful to the quality of the engagement if I left out details. Any hardware forum will tell you more detail is better than not enough.
4)My gpu was 90 some odd dollars when i got it and runs almost every current game at medium to high 1080p. I wouldn't call it overpriced. At the time of my purchace, it was 3dmark's top spot for price/performance ratio
5)I was asking for the opinion of more knowledgeable people to see if my assertions was correct.
6) Your "its incompatible" speech is cute, but as i said, i can max out max payne 3 and it has HIGHER requirements than gta v and its the same developer. So by saying that my conclusion was correct and following up with that response was outright a contradiction.
7)Yes it does matter how high the rest of my features are when most people are bottlenecked by CPU in gta games not gpu. Gta is notoriously cpu intensive. Do you research before you comment?
8)Clearly if i'm talking about desired frame-rates, no shit i mean quality and performance. what would be the point of this thread if i planned on maxing it out regardless how it performed? No you didn't help at all

thanks for calling ME pretentious while being an insufferable cóck at the same time. You've added nothing to the conversation besides pissing me off.

 

[Tera Path]

Like i said, the rage engine (max payne, red dead, and gta) is extremely processor heavy. Think lots of npc's and tons of physics. Max payne recommended an i7.

I don't think you were listening though. Max payne (same group) had HIGHER requirements than gta v. And i can max max payne 3 out. So...

The fact that it's the same group doesn't really matter that much due to the difference between Max Payne 3's release date and GTA V's release date, they're going to use what's better, I wouldn't see why they would go with Rage engine again.
Hopefully it's Unreal Engine 4.

And TBH, your thread is pretty confusing, hard to figure out what exactly you want.
Still, this doesn't change my opinion whatsoever.

What are your system specs?

Edit: I just checked, GTA's system requirements trumps Max Payne 3's by quite a bit, except for the CPU side of things. Max Payne 3's recommended CPU is an i7 (On Intel's side), the game was released 3 years ago so, what, a 1st-2nd generation i7 maybe?
GTA's recommended requirements says a 3rd generation i5, which should be equal or slightly worse in performance compared to an older generation i7.

When Far Cry 4 was released anything less than a quad core couldn't even play the game and it also needs a good GPU, I believe that it'll be similar with GTA 5.
Not that it won't function with a dual core, but that it'll rely on both the CPU and GPU quite a bit.

 

[Aim64C]

You could always look on the forums and see what other people with the same or similar hardware to you are running.

I would say you are quite possibly fine.

However, it is worth noting that there is a sort of 'performance wall' coming in gaming as the x86/64 instruction set is being used for programming games (as all of the consoles are using the same AMD processor these days) and that has enabled a massive jump in memory allocation sizes and a considerable increase in game poly counts that will start hammering on graphics cards.

We've been lucky the past few years in that gaming hardware was basically outpacing game programming (largely because the majority of games are made for consoles that had just begun taking advantage of Z-buffering that PCs have had for over a decade) - but that will begin to catch back up ... a bit. The fixed nature of gaming hardware means that it won't be much longer before we can run six instances of a game while compressing video and decrypting hard drives without breaking a sweat.

Since we are dealing with a game that was developed within the last three years, I would say you are pretty safe. It will take a good two or three years for them to really start taxing the hardware of the consoles, and by then our average PC hardware will be more than capable of taking on the graphics.

Hell, I built my computer in early 2013 and I still have trouble finding stuff that I can't bump all the way up to "ultra stupid you don't have a screen setup to even benefit from this" settings. About the only thing that does it is ARMA 3 set to render -everything- out to about twenty kilometers - and even then, I can sit at a comfortable 30 frames. Oversampling drops me down to a slide show, but that didn't really seem to improve the quality of the image.

I built an 8-core AMD setup with 32 gigs of ram... and absolutely nothing touches it outside of deliberately stressful simulations (which is what I bought it for - looking at getting a second graphics card to use as a dedicated OpenCL cruncher... that, or buy a new graphics card and use this one as a dedicated OpenCL platform.... hmm...)

As I said, you'll probably be fine.

 

[Tera Path]

Hell, I built my computer in early 2013 and I still have trouble finding stuff that I can't bump all the way up to "ultra stupid you don't have a screen setup to even benefit from this" settings. About the only thing that does it is ARMA 3 set to render -everything- out to about twenty kilometers - and even then, I can sit at a comfortable 30 frames. Oversampling drops me down to a slide show, but that didn't really seem to improve the quality of the image.


As I said, you'll probably be fine.

30 FPS is considered by some to be unacceptable. 30 FPS is for console n00bs.
The PC isn't the master race for nothing.

On a more serious note, how is 30 FPS really comfortable for you? After playing on a gaming PC and then a console I really notice the difference and it just makes the gaming experience slightly un-enjoyable for me until I get used to it again.

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

Damn brah, I wish I could help you out but if you down I can slide you my brother's employee discount at Best Buy.

Okay, aside from the condescending thread title,pretentious description, and uncalled-for credentials, the conclusion to this is quite simple, and you've stated it yourself.

Your over priced graphics card is simply incompatible(or is under qualified in some of it's features) for the requirements needed to perform whatever action it is you desired. It doesn't matter how high all your other features are, if the core feature requirements needed to run the game properly aren't met, usually, the game will not work for you(or at least to your liking).

Also, don't be so fixated on "quality", think about performance, as well.

Not sure if this helped, but here you go.

Minimum is of course the bare minimum needed to run a game and recommended would most likely be the minimum requirements to even make the game playable and enjoyable.

Grand Theft Auto V is going to be way more demanding than Max Payne 3, A 650 Ti is never going to be able to max GTA V at 1080p and get 60 FPS.
Perhaps, and just perhaps you could dial down the settings to medium-low and get 30-60 frames per second.
If you want any chance to play GTA V at 1080p max settings 60 FPS, consider getting an R9 280x or R9 290, or if you have the cash, get a GTX 970. You'll most likely have to get a beefier power supply if you go for a 290 or 290x, I recommend a 650w+ PSU.

Edit: The i7 doesn't really matter in gaming, an i5 like the i5 4690k could do just as well as a 4790k in gaming. but since you already have an i7, good for you.
Max Payne could be processor heavy but I doubt it.
A 650 Ti could maybe be good for older games and mainstream games like League or TF2, but the latest 3x A titles like GTA, I doubt it's going to be performing well.

You could always look on the forums and see what other people with the same or similar hardware to you are running.

I would say you are quite possibly fine.

However, it is worth noting that there is a sort of 'performance wall' coming in gaming as the x86/64 instruction set is being used for programming games (as all of the consoles are using the same AMD processor these days) and that has enabled a massive jump in memory allocation sizes and a considerable increase in game poly counts that will start hammering on graphics cards.

We've been lucky the past few years in that gaming hardware was basically outpacing game programming (largely because the majority of games are made for consoles that had just begun taking advantage of Z-buffering that PCs have had for over a decade) - but that will begin to catch back up ... a bit. The fixed nature of gaming hardware means that it won't be much longer before we can run six instances of a game while compressing video and decrypting hard drives without breaking a sweat.

Since we are dealing with a game that was developed within the last three years, I would say you are pretty safe. It will take a good two or three years for them to really start taxing the hardware of the consoles, and by then our average PC hardware will be more than capable of taking on the graphics.

Hell, I built my computer in early 2013 and I still have trouble finding stuff that I can't bump all the way up to "ultra stupid you don't have a screen setup to even benefit from this" settings. About the only thing that does it is ARMA 3 set to render -everything- out to about twenty kilometers - and even then, I can sit at a comfortable 30 frames. Oversampling drops me down to a slide show, but that didn't really seem to improve the quality of the image.

I built an 8-core AMD setup with 32 gigs of ram... and absolutely nothing touches it outside of deliberately stressful simulations (which is what I bought it for - looking at getting a second graphics card to use as a dedicated OpenCL cruncher... that, or buy a new graphics card and use this one as a dedicated OpenCL platform.... hmm...)

As I said, you'll probably be fine.

Update, systemrequirements lab was wrong. According to steam, max payne 3 actually recommends a 680, which is considerably higher than even the 480, which is higher than the 660

 

[P3ĮÑ]

The far cry 4 example by tera path isn't really a good comparison, it's a bad port, meaning it stresses the CPU (bad ports usually require high end CPU to bypass the unoptimized coding). I Could stabilize it on ultra with an Oc'd q9650 at 4.2 with a gtx 770. With some stuterring, well that's the games fault not mine.

If you can ultra max payne 3 you should be fine with gta 5. Max payne 3 was an incredible port, it's good at utlizing cores, threads correctly as well as GPU scaling, you should be fine with gta 5 if rockstar doesn't make it a shitty port like GTA 4 which struggles even with an i7.

 

[P3ĮÑ]

30 FPS is considered by some to be unacceptable. 30 FPS is for console n00bs.

That's a PC elitist argument, the thing is most people prefer (some I even now) use riva tuner to cap most 3rd person games and cap at 30 fps (FPS games are an exception, they need to be fluid, in 3rd person games it doesn't really matter, since cinematic are usually 24-30 fps anyway) to preserve that cinematic look.

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

The far cry 4 example by tera path isn't really a good comparison, it's a bad port, meaning it stresses the CPU (bad ports usually require high end CPU to bypass the unoptimized coding). I Could stabilize it on ultra with an Oc'd q9650 at 4.2 with a gtx 770. With some stuterring, well that's the games fault not mine.

If you can ultra max payne 3 you should be fine with gta 5. Max payne 3 was an incredible port, it's good at utlizing cores, threads correctly as well as GPU scaling, you should be fine with gta 5 if rockstar doesn't make it a shitty port like GTA 4 which struggles even with an i7.

i know i can, but do you think i can MAX it. (not 4k of course) but if i can max max payne (which has higher requirements and is by the same team as gta v) shouldn't it follow that i can max gta v?

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

That's a PC elitist argument, the thing is most people prefer (some I even now) use riva tuner to cap most 3rd person games and cap at 30 fps (FPS games are an exception, they need to be fluid, in 3rd person games it doesn't really matter, since cinematic are usually 24 fps anyway) to preserve that cinematic look.

the only time i would limit my fps is when i'm dealing with a came that fluctuates WILDLY in its frames like the witcher 2. However that game looks bad at 30 fps because of all the high detail textures.

Honestly i'd say 3rd person games are PASSABLE at 30, but i prefer 60

 

[P3ĮÑ]

i know i can, but do you think i can MAX it. (not 4k of course) but if i can max max payne (which has higher requirements and is by the same team as gta v) shouldn't it follow that i can max gta v?

You have an i7 correct? Mind giving me the details which generation of i7 it is? But logically, yes, you should be able to max it. The games GD has been adjusted should be capable to be maxed with an overclocked Phenom 965BE. GTA 5's requirements are not really that demanding. It's much much lower than watch dogs.

Besides, the GTX 660 Ti is not even that bad as most PC elitist will tell you. It's a formidable GPU. you have a 2gb version meaning you won't have trouble at rendering the game at high res, since it's OC'd, that's also a plus and more of a benefit. I had the GPU before and managed to ultra Metro last night on it, at 2xSSAA, also, MML is much more demanding than GTA 5 and I sustained 50-60 fps throughout the game with the latest update. Besides, I test games on various CPU/GPU/RAM combinations, it's actually hobby of mine, online bencmarks are very inaccurate most the time and the results vary.

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

You have an i7 correct? Mind giving me the details which generation of i7 it is? But logically, yes, you should be able to max it. The games GD has been adjusted should be capable to be maxed with an overclocked Phenom 965BE. GTA 5's requirements are not really that demanding. It's much much lower than watch dogs.

Besides, the GTX 660 Ti is not even that bad as most PC elitist will tell you. It's a formidable GPU. you have a 2gb version meaning you won't have trouble at rendering the game at high res, since it's OC'd, that's also a plus and more of a benefit. I had the GPU before and managed to ultra Metro last night on it, at 2xSSAA, also, MML is much more demanding than GTA 5 and I sustained 50-60 fps throughout the game with the latest update. Besides, I test games on various CPU/GPU/RAM combinations, it's actually hobby of mine, online bencmarks are very inaccurate most the time and the results vary.

Its 2nd i think. 3770 3.4 ghz. My gpu is 650 ti boost 2gb OC. 8.2 gigs of ram

 

[P3ĮÑ]

Its 2nd i think. 3770 3.4 ghz. My gpu is 650 ti boost 2gb OC. 8.2 gigs of ram

It's 3rd gen, way more than enough. You're good.

 

[Multiply]

You'll probably run at lower than 60 FPS on recommended settings.

 

[Jiraiyathesannin]

You'll probably run at lower than 60 FPS on recommended settings.

Don't know if you read everything, but i can max out maxy payne 3 at 60 fps 1080p and that has sigNIFICANTly higher recommended settings than gta v. so it should run BETTER

 

[Multiply]

Don't know if you read everything, but i can max out maxy payne 3 at 60 fps 1080p and that has sigNIFICANTly higher recommended settings than gta v. so it should run BETTER

Just don't be upset if you're not running it 60 FPS on medium is all I'm saying. Your GPU might be able to physically run the game but it might be put under a lot of stress. Make sure you get enough air to it and make sure it doesn't overheat.