Support NeoGAF

[mocoworm]

Full analysis at the link:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-grand-theft-auto-5-pc-face-off

https://youtu.be/h8QrlHSLoDw

https://youtu.be/9OE2iI7OLh8

Grand Theft Auto 5 on PC: The Digital Foundry verdict

Feature-rich and well optimised, Rocktar's PC conversion of Los Santos is impressive on its own terms - but also paints the PS4 and Xbox One releases in a positive light. Compared directly to console, the big plus points are simple to count: it packs better draw distances, texture filtering, and improved shadows, grass and tessellation quality. Bundle in 4K support and 60fps playback, and there's no two ways about it: the definitive article is of course on PC.

In fact, the PC release's only real flaw is its timing. Several months delayed past the superb PS4 and Xbox One editions, it justifies the wait with visual upgrades aplenty. However, consoles already broke the ice on many of its best features months ago. Accepting the downgrade to 30fps, the game's top post effects, textures, and a high level of world density are already a known quantity. As development on Grand Theft Auto 5 draws to a close, in hindsight it's clear bonus extras were reserved for PC - but current-gen was always in mind for its core assets.

Putting aside the stutter issues in its v-synced mode, Grand Theft Auto 5 is a quality release on PC. Despite the game's staggered launch, almost 18 months after last-gen versions, the PC at least gets the attention it deserves. Every version to date has impressed, but in the PC's case we have the true pack leader, and its GPU benchmarks at peak settings are sure to give upcoming GPUs firm workout. More than that, Rockstar's multi-platform wizardry here sets a high bar of expectation for whatever project it pursues next.

Updating to build 331, we spare no expense in pushing the PC release to its best results. Our top-end Core i7 4790K PC (at stock clocks) is paired with 16GB of RAM and a GTX Titan X - a combination that's certainly overkill for maxing out the game while hitting 1080p60. That being the case, we add an extra twist to this comparison by way of a full 3840x2160 native resolution (or 4K), as downscaled via Nvidia's DSR mode. That should do it.

It's an extravagance, no doubt, and it brute-forces the PC to a far higher plane of image quality than the console's 1920x1080 output with FXAA. However, this high level of image quality also plays to the PC's other main advantage: its extended draw distances. Unlike the console editions, an advanced graphics menu offers up a separate distance scale that, at 100 per cent, renders objects across Los Santos at a bewildering range. With resolutions of 1080p and above, it's a crucial addition in a release where details further afield are subject to closer scrutiny.

The results speak for themselves. As you can see in our head-to-head videos below, the impact across plant-life in the outback areas is most noticeable. PS4 and Xbox One already look superb in this regard (with PS4 taking a lead in overall plant density). But in terms of draw distance, the PC fills out all distant hillsides with ferns and grass tufts that otherwise go barren on console - at least from afar. The world is far richer, as you'd expect, and though the gains around the downtown area are small, the views possible with the PC edition on the map's outskirts are impressive.

With most console settings deduced from the PC menus, one question remains: just how does a budget PC cope with the exact same visual setup? Having seen our Core i3 4130 PC with a GTX 750 Ti hold close to 1080p60 using high presets across the board, these console-grade settings pose a huge challenge. Once we engage ultra post effects, that average drops to 50fps, and down again to 45fps after texture quality is placed at very high. With foliage bumped to very high too, and distance scaling and population sliders pushed to 100 per cent, frame-rates are clearly a lesser priority.

The resulting frame-rate range is between 30-50fps on this PC, where the biggest dips occur during our alpha-heavy shoot-out in the car park. The RAM overhead exceeds the card's 2GB limit here, taking it up 2.2GB overall, but overall the performance profile here gives us options. It glances 30fps at the very worst points, meaning a half-refresh cap (via the game's v-sync toggle) is perfectly suited for this setting list. Given the huge performance nose-dive incurred by pushing post effects up to ultra, the 30fps frame-rate cap on PS4 and Xbox One starts to make sense here - we're nowhere near 60fps at any stage.

Meanwhile, even a 1GB card like the R7 260X holds strong, only falling a little shy of 30fps during the same shoot-out sequence. Switching off the ultra presets smooths out performance for a capped experience, despite flying in the face of the game's suggested RAM limits. Unfortunately, Rockstar's 'half' v-sync option is poorly implemented, with the game pushing an average of 29fps - constantly dropping single frames to break any illusion of smooth playback.

It's the same case for the standard v-sync mode, which outputs at 59fps, though far more noticeable at the half refresh. We're able to fix this by via Nvidia's control panel, overriding it using an adaptive v-sync mode. Alternatively, the free Rivatuner application also works by forcing caps to a full 30fps or 60fps, correcting the stutter seen in the game as standard.

Looking at the very best-case performance, Nvidia's Titan X is unique for being able to achieve a downscaled 4K image while maxing-out every setting. A 60fps read-out isn't perfectly assured here though, and ultra quality grass in particular is an Achilles heel to performance during Trevor's first few missions. For a clean 60fps while playing at 4K, the grass and shadow settings need lowering by a notch, while advanced distance scaling is reined in to 50 per cent to smooth its edges. The visual downgrades are thankfully small in practice, and overall are worth the trade-off to hit that top refresh.

 

[IAmRandom31]

biggest difference so far is def the desert vegetation.

otherwise PS4 is quite close, besides the obvious AA / Aliasing difference.

I see some moments where the background is blurred a bit on the PS4, using a depth of field it looks like, while the PC version is clear in the background.

Looks like PS4 is Very High to High settings on most everything.

 

[mocoworm]

I don't have a PC for gaming, but this game looks incredible in the footage I have seen.

 

[GhostTrick]

Wow, they really pushed the LoD in PC version !

 

[Seanspeed]

Good writeup, but they miss a few things like hi-res shadows, long shadows, AA solutions(including MSAA for reflections) and population/vehicle variety settings.

Honestly, the game feels like it's meant to be played at 4k. It has an abundance of aliasing issues at 1080p, it's still a bit of a sore point even at 1440p, and it's not really until you get to 1800-2160p that it really starts to clean up, and boy does it look amazing when it does. It's a drastic difference. I can play it at 4k/30fps, but I've chosen 1440p/60fps for the performance benefits, but it actually is tempting to go to 4k as it truly does make that much of a difference.

 

[Tom Penny]

Other than 60 FPS they look almost the same.

 

[Durante]

This is another case of vegetation LoD being one of the biggest differentiators between console and PC settings in an open world game. I expect this to continue to be the case going forward.

Grassgate?

 

[alexandros]

Other than 60 FPS they look almost the same.

...

 

[Adrian]

It's hard to conceive a proper verdict at the first week when is populated with many updates, the second patch fixes a lot of performance issues, people will be getting a better version day by day till it settle the performance overall.

 

[IAmRandom31]

I'm looking at benchmarks atm for this game

Those using graphics cards with a 2GB memory buffer will be best off using the 'normal textures' with FXAA.

And then there is what I thought

When it comes to CPUs we find ourselves repeating the same old story: Intel's Core i5 is the way to go.

Sadly AMD's current FX series doesn't hold up well and the flagship parts struggle to compete with the likes of Intel's Core i3. It's shocking to find that the i3-4130 is around 20% faster than the FX-8370E in a game that heavily loads eight threads at 60% utilization or greater. The i3-4130 saw around 70-90% utilization across all its four threads.

so yah, the AMD CPU performance was beyond pathetic for this game. Who knows how well optimized the game was on the consoles, but no doubt due to the weak nature of the CPU's in the consoles it probably costs them at the very least 6-8fps or so.

So the PS4 performance is right in line with this benchmark here. 30fps with Very high quality settings on the 7870 ( PS4 a little under the 7870 in some areas )

 

[EatChildren]

This is another case of vegetation LoD being one of the biggest differentiators between console and PC settings in an open world game. I expect this to continue to be the case going forward.

Yeah. Can be said for a lot of LoD stuff. More or less the the thing with PC builds: with no hardware ceiling, might as well allow peeps the option to scale rendering distance further than console builds.

GTAV foliage rendering is outstanding maxed out. As good as it gets, and I can't see any game on the horizon doing it better.

 

[Seanspeed]

It's hard to conceive a proper verdict at the first week when is populated with many updates, the second patch fixes a lot of performance issues, people will be getting a better version day by day till it settle the performance overall.

Performance has the potential to improve some, but it seems very well optimized already. Either way, the graphics themselves are unlikely to change any, so the comparison is pretty valid even now.

 

[HowZatOZ]

Other than 60 FPS they look almost the same.

Oh of course at a common glance and that's perfectly fine for an average gamer. It's when you delve into the nitty gritty that the true power of each platform's version comes to light.

Obviously it's not for everyone but Rockstar has done an amazing job with the PC port. Stunning work.

 

[alexandros]

Another excellent showing for the Corei3/750Ti combo. It effortlessly matched the consoles at the same quality level and there's seemingly enough performance available to push some settings higher without compromising the 30 fps refresh rate.

 

[Seanspeed]

I'm looking at benchmarks atm for this game



And then there is what I thought





so yah, the AMD CPU performance was beyond pathetic for this game. Who knows how well optimized the game was on the consoles, but no doubt due to the weak nature of the CPU's in the consoles it probably costs them at the very least 6-8fps or so.

Given the massive amount of settings available, these charts really don't tell the story very well in terms of what people can expect with a given card. It's more useful as a comparison of capabilities between cards(which is how you're using it, I know, I'm just making a comment).

 

[IAmRandom31]

Another excellent showing for the Corei3/750Ti combo. It effortlessly matched the consoles at the same quality level and there's seemingly enough performance available to push some settings higher without compromising the 30 fps refresh rate.

not from the benchmarks im looking at. At very high quality settings, which is where the PS4 lands in most areas, the 750ti averages down in the mid/low 20's.

Looks like when you hit High settings the needed VRAM kicks into the 3GB range. So cards with less then 3GB have to start forcing the issue which starts to kill the framerate.

Given the massive amount of settings available, these charts really don't tell the story very well in terms of what people can expect with a given card. It's more useful as a comparison of capabilities between cards(which is how you're using it, I know, I'm just making a comment).

Thats why most benchmarks just set everything to the same settings and go from there. Dont think a benchmark will actually tweak individual settings. Wouldn't be much point. From the analysis here it shows that most things were set to Very High, with some stuff being the equivalent of High on the PC's.

 

[BigTnaples]

Nice. Triple dipping at some point. But I do wonder what kind of performanceI can squeeze out of my rig.



3770k i7
16GB Ram
GTX 970 FTW

I wonder if I could manage 4K at better than console settings @30fps....?

 

[Seanspeed]

not from the benchmarks im looking at. At very high quality settings, which is where the PS4 lands in most areas, the 750ti averages down in the mid/low 20's.

The PS4 is mostly high settings.

We also have no idea what sort of other options the benchmark has on. Advanced graphics settings, AA, etc etc.

 

[Diablohead]

This is another case of vegetation LoD being one of the biggest differentiators between console and PC settings in an open world game. I expect this to continue to be the case going forward.

Grassgate?

just increasing the grass distance on pc makes a huge world of difference, much more then adding polygons or adding trees can ever do.

 

[Shuggananas]

This is another case of vegetation LoD being one of the biggest differentiators between console and PC settings in an open world game. I expect this to continue to be the case going forward.

Grassgate?

Ultra grass is unplayable though

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Another excellent showing for the Corei3/750Ti combo. It effortlessly matched the consoles at the same quality level and there's seemingly enough performance available to push some settings higher without compromising the 30 fps refresh rate.

We understand, you already made a thread for that. Let it go.

 

[jmga]

not from the benchmarks im looking at. At very high quality settings, which is where the PS4 lands in most areas, the 750ti averages down in the mid/low 20's.

Looks like when you hit High settings the needed VRAM kicks into the 3GB range. So cards with less then 3GB have to start forcing the issue which starts to kill the framerate.

https://youtu.be/9OE2iI7OLh8

 

[Seanspeed]

Nice. Triple dipping at some point. But I do wonder what kind of performanceI can squeeze out of my rig.



3770k i7
16GB Ram
GTX 970 FTW

I wonder if I could manage 4K at better than console settings @30fps....?

Yes, 4k/30fps is doable on a 970.

 

[Caayn]

not from the benchmarks im looking at. At very high quality settings, which is where the PS4 lands in most areas, the 750ti averages down in the mid/low 20's.

Did you watch the video in the article? The i3 + 750ti combo stays above 30fps without a problem. And the PS4 is still mostly high settings.

There's a ton of graphical options available for this game, one settings can mean a world of difference here.

Ultra grass is unplayable though

Scale down to very high and max out the draw distance

 

[Windom Earle]

While I think the draw distance on PC is not that great either (unless using the murderous advanced distance scaling), the biggest advantage for me is the increased world density. Console versions feel very empty in comparison. Vastly improved vegetation and 60fps are the icing on the cake.

Oh, and the shadow distance on PC is utter garbage. I hope they will fix this.

Another excellent showing for the Corei3/750Ti combo. It effortlessly matched the consoles at the same quality level and there's seemingly enough performance available to push some settings higher without compromising the 30 fps refresh rate.

Taking account your last thread, I lol'd at this comment.

 

[Seanspeed]

There's a ton of graphical options available for this game, one settings can mean a world of difference here.

This really cannot be overstated. Scalability through the sheer amount of options is incredible in this game. Looking at a benchmark with a set configuration does not represent what a given system is capable of necessarily.

 

[Boyzi]

Being a console-centric gamer (PS4 peasant), I'm genuinely happy that the PC faithful have finally been rewarded for their patience with such a great product out of the gate. The more people that can enjoy this gem of a game, the better. #It'sAllGood

 

[Lockjaw333]

Do we have confirmation that PS4/X1 are mostly High settings? I can't access the article here at work. Do the console versions sport Very High textures? Also are they saying consoles are running Ultra PostFx?

Honestly the last tick on a lot of the settings in the PC version makes a huge difference. Things like shadows, PostFx, textures...they all come to life on the highest setting.

Anyway Rockstar did a great job with the current gen versions as well as the PC version.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

Well atleast this article clears the confusion that we had over GTX750ti surpassing consoles in performances. At best, we can expect a locked 30 fps experience, which is still a good result TBH.

Do we have confirmation that PS4/X1 are mostly High settings? I can't access the article here at work. Do the console versions sport Very High textures? Also are they saying consoles are running Ultra PostFx?

Honestly the last tick on a lot of the settings in the PC version makes a huge difference. Things like shadows, PostFx, textures...they all come to life on the highest setting.

Anyway Rockstar did a great job with the current gen versions as well as the PC version.

Here are the PS4/XBO settings as per DF

Textures = Very High
AF = 4x on PS4/XBO
Post-FX = Ultra
Shadow = High - Softer on PS4/XBO
Foliage = Very High (PS4) High (XBO)
Tessellation = High (PS4/XBO) although not much upgrade for V.High
Population Density = Between 75 to 100
Distance Scaling = 100

 

[Kezen]

Impressive effort by Rockstar and there is no doubt that pushed to its limits the PC version of GTA 5 is by far the most technically proficient, leaving all the console skus in their wake.

As expected maximum settings are very taxing :

Nvidia's percentage-closer approach comes at no performance penalty

That's not correct

 

[Seanspeed]

Shadow = Very High - Softer on PS4/XBO

High, not Very High

Well atleast this article clears the confusion that we had over GTX750ti surpassing consoles in performances. At best, we can expect a locked 30 fps experience, which is still a good result TBH.

You mean 'at worst'.

 

[stryke]

This is another case of vegetation LoD being one of the biggest differentiators between console and PC settings in an open world game. I expect this to continue to be the case going forward.

Grassgate?

More poignant

 

[Windom Earle]

More poignant

Xbox One is showing the true desert.

 

[Tenebrous]

I'm glad I waited for the PC version, but Rockstar seemed to have really nailed every release of this game so far (except maybe the Xbox 360's streaming from disc issues), so huge credit to them.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

I feel that Rockstar have really outdone themselves this time around. Apart from a few issues here and there the game runs silky smooth for me. My only complaint is the horrible pop-in that you get especially when flying over the city. But I don't really think that can be helped.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

High, not Very High


You mean 'at worst'.

Oh yeh, misread it as Very High.

Sure, 'at worst' if you prefer it that way. Dark10x already stated PS4 manages locked 30 fps 99% of the time after all the latest patches so no reason to see PS4/XBO running it at 40-50 avg as well.

 

[Lanrutcon]

Other than 60 FPS they look almost the same.

Every thread needs one, and there it is.

Glad to see the PC version performs well. Guess the delays were worth it.

 

[IAmRandom31]

Oh yeh, misread it as Very High.

Sure, 'at worst' if you prefer it that way. Dark10x already stated PS4 manages locked 30 fps 99% of the time after all the latest patches so no reason to see PS4/XBO running it at 40-50 avg as well.

yeah, the 100% locked framerate suggests it is actually way over that framerate, but forced down to 30fps for consistency. Instead of having an " average " framerate of 38, you have a locked / smooth framerate of 30.

From the latest benchmarks I think ill still be safe with a 280x upgrade later this year. If I end up upgrading this year at all. The 970 is quite tempting though. But will prob stay in the $200-250 range for my next GPU

 

[Kezen]

This is another case of vegetation LoD being one of the biggest differentiators between console and PC settings in an open world game. I expect this to continue to be the case going forward.

Grassgate?

Pretty spectacular difference there and no doubt there are other spots where similar disparities can be observed.


Playing this at 60fps is godly by the way. I can't get it locked 100.00% of the time unfortunately but it's absolutely right that high framerates make a world of a difference in this game. I wish everyone to experience it, maybe when the PS5/Xbox 4 remaster hits the shelves.

 

[Seanspeed]

Oh yeh, misread it as Very High.

Sure, 'at worst' if you prefer it that way. Dark10x already stated PS4 manages locked 30 fps 99% of the time after all the latest patches so no reason to see PS4/XBO running it at 40-50 avg as well.

It's not that I prefer it that way. It's a pretty important semantic distinction. When you say 'at best', it makes it sound like that's the best-case scenario and it's possible for it to be worse. But the performance indicates that it can easily do a solid 30fps with console settings and it's possible to do better. So you should say 'at worst'.

 

[bosseye]

What sort of performance do we reckon I'd get running this on my laptop at 1080p?

i7 3630qm
GTX 660m
8Gb RAM.

I had the PS4 version and sold it when I got bored (already played the 360 vesion to death), but I've been getting an urge to jump back in. Will likely re-buy the PS4 version as I'm not sure the laptop is up to snuff, but opinons welcomed....

 

[Javin98]

LOL, looks like NXGamer was right again. And he got his analysis out a few days before DF's. Funny how a few people in the other thread were claiming that he was wrong and biased.

 

[Phinor]

The console versions are very impressive on their own but for me the two things that make the biggest difference are framerate and ways to mitigate aliasing. 18 month delay for the PC version is pretty long but I'll always prefer the delay if we get a definitive version that can really stand the test of time. Consoles come and go, PC is (almost) always backwards compatible and we can enjoy GTA 5 in 10-20 years should we want to (although Rockstar Social Club DRM might be a bit of an issue but if it ever becomes an issue, someone will crack.. errm, I mean fix the issue). On that note, I tried GTA 4 last year and I'm pretty sure GTA 5 runs a lot better on my PC than GTA 4 does. What a horrible port that was - though I'm not sure if it's even a porting issue, the console versions were even worse so maybe it's just an engine/optimization issue. Ran out of time to make the game any justice. It's still the best version of that game but it should have been so much better.

If there's one complaint, it's the FOV that's too narrow at the highest setting. There's a mod for it, but I'm really hoping for an official fix.

 

[T.O.P]

Game is truly gorgeous on pc, 60fps alone makes it a different game

Feels damn good being back on pc

 

[Tenebrous]

What sort of performance do we reckon I'd get running this on my laptop at 1080p?

i7 3630qm
GTX 660m
8Gb RAM.

I had the PS4 version and sold it when I got bored (already played the 360 vesion to death), but I've been getting an urge to jump back in. Will likely re-buy the PS4 version as I'm not sure the laptop is up to snuff, but opinons welcomed....

Get the PS4 version. Cheaper right now, and you'll probably get better performance as that GPU is pretty weak.

 

[UnrealEck]

Do we have confirmation that PS4/X1 are mostly High settings? I can't access the article here at work. Do the console versions sport Very High textures? Also are they saying consoles are running Ultra PostFx?

Comparing them myself, I noticed textures on X1/PS4 weren't as good as PC Very High. Some however seem to be exactly the same. Very High on PC seems to be essentially the X1/PS4 textures with some new, higher quality textures added.
Shadow detail is lower on PS4/X1. (no high res shadows enabled)
Shadows on X1/PS4 seem to be regular softened. From what i could tell, they're using the 'softer' setting which is one notch softer than 'soft'.
Shadow draw distance is lower on PS4/X1. (before going into advanced shadow distance)
LoD is slightly lower on PS4/X1 than PC's highest on the slider. (before going into advanced, which increases it a lot more)
I didn't get to comparing tesselation and I initially thought X1/PS4 wouldn't be using any, but it appears they do use it at least on palm trees.
I'm pretty much positive water quality is on High on PS4, not sure about X1.
Reflections are slightly below PC on PS4 and slightly lower again on X1.
Vehicle count/traffic seems to be the same on all three platforms. Not sure about pedestrian density.

 

[Lockjaw333]

Here are the PS4/XBO settings as per DF

Textures = Very High
AF = 4x on PS4/XBO
Post-FX = Ultra
Shadow = High - Softer on PS4/XBO
Foliage = Very High (PS4) High (XBO)
Tessellation = High (PS4/XBO) although not much upgrade for V.High
Population Density = Between 75 to 100
Distance Scaling = 100

That is pretty damn impressive given the hardware.

 

[Nabbis]

Ultra grass is unplayable though

Sure works for me on my 780GTX.

I have everything maxed out aside from shadows. I use both FXAA and 2xMSAA as well as 8xMSAA for reflections.

Edit: The load times are a piece of shit though. I don't understand why the game needs to search for new sessions in online if a mission you just attempted to join is full.

 

[Dryk]

This really cannot be overstated. Scalability through the sheer amount of options is incredible in this game. Looking at a benchmark with a set configuration does not represent what a given system is capable of necessarily.

Other PC developers could learn from Rockstar. They seem to have handled this port really well.

 

[Purest 78]

Besides The Framerate I see no dramatic differences.