Support NeoGAF

[rakhir]

Sorry I thought you said Recommended, not Minimum.

I dunno the game seems pretty well optimised. They weren't kidding with the recommended levels which is usually optimistic at best.

Yeah, it's minimal specs all around. I have a bit better than them, but barely:
Q8400/8gb ram/Radeon HD 6400

I wonder if i should even bother buying this right now or should i wait and buy a new pc first.
I have to buy one for Witcher anyway, but i don't know when that will happen...

If GTA looks or runs like shit on minimal settings I'll wait.

 

[Lockjaw333]

MSAA probably looks better but not worth the performance hit. DSR + driver FXAA is a nice combo without that big hit.

MSAA only looks better for aliasing on 3D objects, but there is still a lot of stuff that MSAA doesn't touch. To get full screen AA you need to use a post process AA as well, and to me if you have to use both anyway I think its worth ditching MSAA to free up a massive chunk of performance where you can turn other effects up, or do as you did and enable DSR.

TXAA would be great if it wasn't such a performance hog. I usually tend to think it looks rather blurry too, more blurry than FXAA and especially more than SMAA (why doesn't this game have SMAA???). I would understand the selling point of TXAA if it was a significantly smaller performance hit than MSAA, but its not, which is why I've never used it.

 

[Valkrai]

Yeah, it's minimal specs all around. I have a bit better than them, but barely:
Q8400/8gb ram/Radeon HD 6400

I wonder if i should even bother buying this right now or should i wait and buy a new pc first.
I have to buy one for Witcher anyway, but i don't know when that will happen...

If GTA looks or runs like shit on minimal settings I'll wait.

I'd say wait, minimum looks close to the Xbox 360/PS3 version but with better lighting, unless you use the low spec mod which looks like complete shit.

 

[AndyBNV]

MSAA only looks better for aliasing on 3D objects, but there is still a lot of stuff that MSAA doesn't touch. To get full screen AA you need to use a post process AA as well, and to me if you have to use both anyway I think its worth ditching MSAA to free up a massive chunk of performance where you can turn other effects up, or do as you did and enable DSR.

TXAA would be great if it wasn't such a performance hog. I usually tend to think it looks rather blurry too, more blurry than FXAA and especially more than SMAA (why doesn't this game have SMAA???). I would understand the selling point of TXAA if it was a significantly smaller performance hit than MSAA, but its not, which is why I've never used it.

2x TXAA = 4x MSAA quality w/ temporal anti-aliasing. 4x TXAA = 8xMSAA. When you factor that in, it's performing better:

Also, for MSAA + PPAA, have you tried injecting SMAA?

 

[FakeWayne]

Anybody else crash when turning off in game Vsync and then alt tabbing?

I can alt tab perfectly fine with in game Vsync on. Once I turn it off and try to alt tab out, I crash.

I wanna try using driver forced Vysnc and Rivatuner fps cap to 60, but obviously can't with this issue I've got going on.

 

[Derp]

Guys guys guys.

Does overclocking your GPU's memory clock increase your VRAM by some degree...? Or am I an idiot.

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

Guys guys guys.

Does overclocking your GPU's memory clock increase your VRAM by some degree...? Or am I an idiot.

It doesn't increase the amount of VRAM but it does increase the speed at which said VRAM can be accessed.

 

[Lockjaw333]

2x TXAA = 4x MSAA quality w/ temporal anti-aliasing. 4x TXAA = 8xMSAA. When you factor that in, it's performing better:

Also, for MSAA + PPAA, have you tried injecting SMAA?

So it does perform better than an equal quality of MSAA, but its still a large performance hit no?

I would love to inject SMAA, but what is the best way to do that?

 

[laxu]

So it does perform better than an equal quality of MSAA, but its still a large performance hit no?

I would love to inject SMAA, but what is the best way to do that?

Reshade. See OP.

 

[Putosaure]

Is there any way to remove Motion Blur but keep DOF effect ?

 

[Rizzi]

Going from 8 GB of ram to 16 GB stopped the game from stuttering like crazy after ten minutes of playing.

 

[Lockjaw333]

Going from 8 GB of ram to 16 GB stopped the game from stuttering like crazy after ten minutes of playing.

Really? What is the rest of your rig?

 

[Derp]

It doesn't increase the amount of VRAM but it does increase the speed at which said VRAM can be accessed.

Okay that makes more sense... Now I realize how stupid the question was. I've figured it's impossible to magically gain more gigabytes because that's a size not a speed at which something runs, right? It's like overclocking RAM, where obviously you can't increase the size but you can increase the frequency. Jeez what is wrong with me.

One more question. Does going above your VRAM limit in this game definitely introduce noticeable visual problems in some places, or is it just a recommendation? Would I be correct in assuming that, for example, if I'm above the limit in the settings, then in situations where the game uses more than the limit I will see visual issues like textures not loading up fast enough and stuff?

 

[FLAguy954]

So it does perform better than an equal quality of MSAA, but its still a large performance hit no?

I would love to inject SMAA, but what is the best way to do that?

I'm using Ultra SMAA via RadeonPro with my 290 using the RadeonPro settings in this guide. If you have an Nvidia card, perhaps someone else can give some advice (I think there were some users messing with Reshade/SweetFX).

 

[ktroopa]

So it does perform better than an equal quality of MSAA, but its still a large performance hit no?

I would love to inject SMAA, but what is the best way to do that?

Does using SweetFX or Reshade have any potential ban issues from Rockstar?

 

[bomblord1]

My personal experience.
i5-3470 + r9 280 + 8GB DDR3 Ram
Preset settings (seems to default to a mix of high/ultra) @ 1080p + VSYNC

Seems to be a constant 60fps.

 

[AndyBNV]

Is there any way to remove Motion Blur but keep DOF effect ?

Slide the Motion Blur slider all the way down and disable Screen Effects?

 

[FakeWayne]

Does Vinewood Blvd. seem to be a common FPS drop area for everyone?

Without fail, my FPS noticeably drops from 60 to about 52 or so when driving there. I know it's only 8 frames lower, but for some reason it seems to be a a lot more noticeable there, compared to anywhere in the desert / countryside.

 

[LordAmused]

Does Vinewood Blvd. seem to be a common FPS drop area for everyone?

Without fail, my FPS noticeably drops from 60 to about 52 or so when driving there. I know it's only 8 frames lower, but for some reason it seems to be a a lot more noticeable there, compared to anywhere in the desert / countryside.

Yup. It did the same in the console version too.

 

[Putosaure]

Slide the Motion Blur slider all the way down and disable Screen Effects?

Damn, slider is already all the way down...

 

[thechristoph]

I get that too. It's REALLY distracting. I've tried a bunch of things, but nothing has helped. =/

Yeah, I couldn't find anything on it. I turned the textures back down to High from Very High, which gave me the memory budget to turn LOD back on. I lose a level of detail in the textures, but that super obvious line of demarcation is gone. I think that's a decent tradeoff. I wish there was a separate "cutscene texture" setting or something. I ended up getting somewhat spoiled by the really nice textures. Right after changing back to High, I started a mission where in the beginning cutscene Franklin answers a payphone at a gas station. All the signage was super compressed... I'm a texture snob.

 

[Rizzi]

Really? What is the rest of your rig?

i5 4469, 970.

 

[RadioactiveLobster]

Okay that makes more sense... Now I realize how stupid the question was. I've figured it's impossible to magically gain more gigabytes because that's a size not a speed at which something runs, right? It's like overclocking RAM, where obviously you can't increase the size but you can increase the frequency. Jeez what is wrong with me.

One more question. Does going above your VRAM limit in this game definitely introduce noticeable visual problems in some places, or is it just a recommendation? Would I be correct in assuming that, for example, if I'm above the limit in the settings, then in situations where the game uses more than the limit I will see visual issues like textures not loading up fast enough and stuff?

If you go above the amount of VRAM on your GPU then it has to start swapping things to RAM (DDR3/4) or your HDD/SSD which are going to be many, many, many times slower.

 

[LilJoka]

Okay that makes more sense... Now I realize how stupid the question was. I've figured it's impossible to magically gain more gigabytes because that's a size not a speed at which something runs, right? It's like overclocking RAM, where obviously you can't increase the size but you can increase the frequency. Jeez what is wrong with me.

One more question. Does going above your VRAM limit in this game definitely introduce noticeable visual problems in some places, or is it just a recommendation? Would I be correct in assuming that, for example, if I'm above the limit in the settings, then in situations where the game uses more than the limit I will see visual issues like textures not loading up fast enough and stuff?

Only if the game actually uses more VRAM than there is on the system. Would have to monitor the usage to see if it is IR how often it's going over. When it goes over fps will tank.

 

[icecold1983]

There are a considerable amount of advantages with the PC version over the PS4 version. It seems you are frustrated with the performance you are getting which I get, but as Philtastic has said the PC version clearly outclasses the PS4.

The main issue I see is that you are stuck on using 4x MSAA with TXAA. I know a lot of long time gamers can't seem to separate themselves from MSAA, but its really an archaic form of AA nowadays. The way games are built now is just not conducive to using MSAA. The performance impact is huge, and MSAA doesn't even affect most of the image, which is why you would need to enable TXAA to add a post process element to it to affect alpha textures and all of that. 4x TXAA in this game is a massive performance hit and its simply not worth it. If you are chasing 60fps FXAA is the only option...unfortunately that is upsetting to many people who have Titans and are still married to MSAA as their AA of choice. I moved on from MSAA years ago, I don't even think about turning it on in recent games, its simply not worth it.

As Philtastic also said, you are using PCSS with all other shadow settings maxed, which will also crush performance, and adds a CONSIDERABLE improvement over the PS4's shadows. Even using Softest is much, much better than what we see on consoles.

As far as grass, if AO were working properly there would be no need to use Ultra grass. Very high grass with working AO would look almost identical I bet. Also the console versions seems to have "hand crafted" additions of grass in spots...that is to say there are sports where more or less grass is added likely to keep performance stable. On the PC version, I believe Very High grass is better than consoles in a bunch of areas....it may match consoles in some areas but in others theres more I bet.

There is also a difference between Ultra and Very High PostFX. There are changes to lighting effects that are noticeable IMO.

Also, 60fps is a considerable upgrade. Its double the framerate, it makes the game feel totally different to me.

I would suggest you drop MSAA. I really don't think the FXAA implementation is that bad, I've seen WAY worse in other games. Anyway hope you get to a place where you can enjoy the game because I do think its a pretty good port.

txaa is at most a 1 to 2% perf impact over reg msaa in every game ive ever used it in. i dont like how fxaa makes foliage look, and pure msaa is a bit too sharp and speckly in this title. txaa is a decent option to soften the image up a bit. i also dont have every shadow option maxed. i have high res shadows and extended shadow distance both turned off.

consoles use ultra post fx btw.

Titan X is about 2.7/8 times faster than the PS4, not 4. GTX 980 is about 2.25/4.

This guy icecold is using MSAAx4 and TXAA. Huge performance killers not found in GTA PS4.

Like I said before, there's some spots that drop that I'm sure later drivers will fix. 99% of the time you're going to get 2-3x better running with 2-3x better GPU than PS4 as seen with many other games.

an overclocked titan x is roughly 4x faster. go look at some benches compared to an r7 265, almost a perfect match for the ps4 gpu.

 

[Derp]

If you go above the amount of VRAM on your GPU then it has to start swapping things to RAM (DDR3/4) or your HDD/SSD which are going to be many, many, many times slower.

Only if the game actually uses more VRAM than there is on the system. Would have to monitor the usage to see if it is IR how often it's going over. When it goes over fps will tank.

You guys are seriously awesome, thank you. I've learnt so much from people on this thread it's crazy lol.

Okay so now I understand what happens when we go over the VRAM limit. And now I know to monitor VRAM usage (which I should've done from the beginning... Goddammit I might genuinely be stupid).

 

[Mechanical Snowman]

Does Vinewood Blvd. seem to be a common FPS drop area for everyone?

Without fail, my FPS noticeably drops from 60 to about 52 or so when driving there. I know it's only 8 frames lower, but for some reason it seems to be a a lot more noticeable there, compared to anywhere in the desert / countryside.

It's one of the most expensive areas in the game. It's why that particular street is used in the benchmark; if you're hitting 60 at Vinewood Boulevard then you're going to get 60 everywhere else in the city with no problem.

 

[Ethical Hedonism]

I'm lovin' the Online part of the game, been playing just this for a while now since I already finished the campaign on my x360.

But I'm kinda having performance problems, I guess I have a CPU bottleneck:

My rig:

i7-860 (4c/HT @ 2.8GHz stock clock)
8GB DDR3
GTX 780 (Zotac AMP! has a slight factory overclock)
Installed on a 7200rpm HDD

I've put everything on Very High (no MSAA, Long Shadows OFF, 1/3 of Draw Distance slider, Grass on High) and it hit mid 20s FPS, then I dropped everything else down to High and I saw no improvement at all on FPS. Will try to drop down to medium but I guess something's wrong and I shouldn't have to drop all the way down to Medium to achieve 1080/60 on my PC.

I will replace my CPU/Mobo/RAM in a few months, but if anyone has any insight if my current CPU is really bottlenecking me or my rig should've been giving more performance than I have now, I would appreciate that.

 

[Lockjaw333]

i5 4469, 970.

I may have to buy another 8GB of ram then....between this game and Witcher 3 it may help.

 

[didamangi]

I'm lovin' the Online part of the game, been playing just this for a while now since I already finished the campaign on my x360.

But I'm kinda having performance problems, I guess I have a CPU bottleneck:

My rig:

i7-860 (4c/HT @ 2.8GHz stock clock)
8GB DDR3
GTX 780 (Zotac AMP! has a slight factory overclock)
Installed on a 7200rpm HDD

I've put everything on Very High (no MSAA, Long Shadows OFF, 1/3 of Draw Distance slider, Grass on High) and it hit mid 20s FPS, then I dropped everything else down to High and I saw no improvement at all on FPS. Will try to drop down to medium but I guess something's wrong and I shouldn't have to drop all the way down to Medium to achieve 1080/60 on my PC.

I will replace my CPU/Mobo/RAM in a few months, but if anyone has any insight if my current CPU is really bottlenecking me or my rig should've been giving more performance than I have now, I would appreciate that.

Definitely CPU bottleneck.

3570K@4GHz
8GB DDR3
GTX 760
SSD

Getting mostly stable 50-60fps with this settings, drop to ~40 fps on high vegetation area.

 

[laxu]

Upgraded from 8 GB DDR3 1600 MHz RAM to 16 GB 2133 MHz. The game definitely feels overall smoother now even though it was just fine with 8. I don't usually game with any other apps open at the same time but in many games have seen RAM usage at 7 GB and large pagefiles. Haven't looked into memory usage yet so take this with a grain of salt.

Running with GTX 970 SLI and i5-3570K @ 4.5 GHz. Game on SSD. 1440p resolution.

I'm still not sure what AA I want to run with this. MSAA+TXAA gets rid of the most jaggies but at the same time it feels a bit blurry while FXAA + SweetFx sharpen filter still has some small details (the sharpen filter helps combat the blurriness introduced by FXAA) that seem aliased and SweetFX SMAA + sharpen filter is maybe a bit more jaggy. I think I may just have to find the right settings...

In most games I'm not bothered by any aliasing issues but this game has so much small detail it would be nice to have it smoothed a bit. I wish I could try 4K DSR but Nvidia has disabled it if a G-Sync display is connected and SLI enabled.

 

[Solid Samus]

for those of you absolutely unwilling to let go of MSAA, 2x + MFAA works really, really well in this game. It's the best I've gotten the game to look while maintaining 60fps 90% of the time.

For the record I play on a 50 inch TV that's like 2 feet away from my face and I'm totally satisfied with how this looks. It's very close to MSAA 4x.

Here's my settings. Moderately overclocked 970 & 4790k OC'd to 4.6 -

plus MFAA is activated in the Nvidia Control Panel (which, like I said, looks gorgeous on top of even just 2x MSAA), I'm still using a batch file to put program priorities in the right places, and I'm still doing the shadow trick, which is still killing my lag spikes effectively and I don't fucking understand why but whatever. If anyone wants to know exactly what these settings look like I can pull some screengrabs as I've been recording everything I do.

 

[chromatic9]

an overclocked titan x is roughly 4x faster. go look at some benches compared to an r7 265, almost a perfect match for the ps4 gpu.

Benches show around 3x faster stock for stock, often under, around 2.x. GTX 980 and 970 are well known to be around 2.2 2.5x times faster. Your Titan is about 20-30% better than a 980. Come on now.

Benches are showing this game to be just over twice as fast with a 970, bit more for a 980 and Titan x is coming in roughly under 3x, call it 3x if you like. Factor in the hit of MSAAx4 which is around 40-45% and things look very much inline with everything else and even the tflop count. TX 6tflop 30% more than 980, 980 4.6tflop, 970 3.5 tfop. Roughly 2.2, 2.5 and 2.8-3x faster respectively to a 660 or R9 265 PS4 with around 1.8 2tflop.

The benches on the first page also show the titan to be around 3x faster. 970 around 2x and 980 2.5 times.

Having looked at MSAAx4 with TXAA at 1080p and having my eyes cut to ribbons, I'd ask you to try 2160p with fxaa and put grass back on very high. Have you tried MFAA?

Not sure what benches you're looking at. A GTX 460 is half a 580, I could make it seem the 580 is 3-4 times better if I hammer a 460 or find some random game.

 

[icecold1983]

Benches show around 3x faster stock for stock, often under, around 2.x. GTX 980 and 970 are well known to be around 2.2 2.5x times faster. Your Titan is about 20-30% better than a 980. Come on now.

Benches are showing this game to be just over twice as fast with a 970, bit more for a 980 and Titan x is coming in roughly under 3x, call it 3x if you like. Factor in the hit of MSAAx4 which is around 40-45% and things look very much inline with everything else and even the tflop count. TX 6tflop 30% more than 980, 980 4.6tflop, 970 3.5 tfop. Roughly 2.2, 2.5 and 2.8-3x faster respectively to a 660 or R9 265 PS4 with around 1.8 2tflop.

The benches on the first page also show the titan to be around 3x faster. 970 around 2x and 980 2.5 times.

Having looked at MSAAx4 with TXAA at 1080p and having my eyes cut to ribbons, I'd ask you to try 2160p with fxaa and put grass back on very high. Have you tried MFAA?

Not sure what benches you're looking at. A GTX 460 is half a 580, I could make it seem the 580 is 3-4 times better if I hammer a 460 or find some random game.

not sure what benches you are looking at

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/29.html
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-03/...est/4/#diagramm-rating-1920-1080-4xssaa-16xaf

 

[elelunicy]

Benches show around 3x faster stock for stock, often under, around 2.x. GTX 980 and 970 are well known to be around 2.2 2.5x times faster. Your Titan is about 20-30% better than a 980. Come on now.

Well an overclocked Titan is around 60% faster than the stock 980. 2.5*1.6=4 so his 4x claim is quite correct.

 

[HooYaH]

for those of you absolutely unwilling to let go of MSAA, 2x + MLAA works really, really well in this game. It's the best I've gotten the game to look while maintaining 60fps 90% of the time.

For the record I play on a 50 inch TV that's like 2 feet away from my face and I'm totally satisfied with how this looks. It's very close to MSAA 4x.

Here's my settings. Moderately overclocked 970 & 4790k OC'd to 4.6 -



plus MLAA is activated in the Nvidia Control Panel (which, like I said, looks gorgeous on top of even just 2x MSAA), I'm still using a batch file to put program priorities in the right places, and I'm still doing the shadow trick, which is still killing my lag spikes effectively and I don't fucking understand why but whatever. If anyone wants to know exactly what these settings look like I can pull some screengrabs as I've been recording everything I do.

You MFAA right?

 

[Solid Samus]

You MFAA right?

Yeah, lol, thanks

 

[Piggus]

I'm upgrading my 'puter this week to the following specs:

Core i7 5820K
8 GBS DDR4
MSI GTX 970
Dual SSDs (RAID 0)


Anyone with similar specs find a good sweet spot for a consistent 60 fps? I'm playing on a 1080p monitor by the way.

 

[Denzar]

I'm upgrading my 'puter this week to the following specs:

Core i7 5820K
8 GBS DDR4
MSI GTX 970
Dual SSDs (RAID 0)


Anyone with similar specs find a good sweet spot for a consistent 60 fps? I'm playing on a 1080p monitor by the way.

Dude, no worries. Game will run like hot butter in a scorching pan!


During the wait for my GTX 970 to arrive, I'm playing GTA V with these specs:

i7 3770 @3.4 GHz
10 GB RAM
GTX 660

I'm pretty satisfied with my performance, game still looks killer and runs extremely well.

Only big problem is that, the game starts to stutter when I've been playing for a while. Sometimes, the game runs fine for 2 hours on end, and then it happens. Other times, it starts after only half an hour.

Any solutions? Will my GTX 970 alleviate this problem?

 

[Psyrgery ES]

I'm upgrading my 'puter this week to the following specs:

Core i7 5820K
8 GBS DDR4
MSI GTX 970
Dual SSDs (RAID 0)


Anyone with similar specs find a good sweet spot for a consistent 60 fps? I'm playing on a 1080p monitor by the way.

I've got a similar build (i7 3770k instead of your beastly i5820k), and i've maxed everything save from the following settings:

-msaa+txaa: off
- grass: very high instead of ultra
- shadows: softer instead of softest
- reflections quality: the highest prior to msaa x2

Advanced settings: all options off save from high fly distance detail.

If there's any dip I am not able to notice it, given that you are rocking a far better CPU I am sure you will be able to get better settings.

 

[Piggus]

Dude, no worries. Game will run like hot butter in a scorching pan!


During the wait for my GTX 970 to arrive, I'm playing GTA V with these specs:

i7 3770 @3.4 GHz
10 GB RAM
GTX 660

I'm pretty satisfied with my performance, game still looks killer and runs extremely well.

Only big problem is that, the game starts to stutter when I've been playing for a while. Sometimes, the game runs fine for 2 hours on end, and then it happens. Other times, it starts after only half an hour.

Any solutions? Will my GTX 970 alleviate this problem?

I've got a similar build (i7 3770k instead of your beastly i5820k), and i've maxed everything save from the following settings:

-msaa+txaa: off
- grass: very high instead of ultra
- shadows: softer instead of softest
- reflections quality: the highest prior to msaa x2

Advanced settings: all options off save from high fly distance detail.

If there's any dip I am not able to notice it, given that you are rocking a far better CPU I am sure you will be able to get better settings.

Thanks! I wish I could find a benchmark comparing the 5820K with other CPUs in GTAV specifically. Bought it more for future games, but would be awesome if GTA takes advantage of the extra cores. Also going to add a second 970 ASAP.

 

[Solid Samus]

Shadow trick and batch file? Have I missed something?

shadow trick = dialing shadow quality down a notch in-game, and then right back up to where it is. might be placebo at this point but during launch week it noticibly helped.

batch file = i downloaded a batch from who the fuck knows where that waits sixty seconds after I start GTA V and then applies appropriate CPU priority to each individual relevant executable. so GTA V is on high and everything else is idling.

 

[Solid Samus]

I'm upgrading my 'puter this week to the following specs:

Core i7 5820K
8 GBS DDR4
MSI GTX 970
Dual SSDs (RAID 0)


Anyone with similar specs find a good sweet spot for a consistent 60 fps? I'm playing on a 1080p monitor by the way.

You'll probably hit damn near constant 60fps with my settings above if you overclock your 970 a little bit.

 

[ktroopa]

can someone post a comparision shot or two of 2xMSAA vs SweetFX SMAA?

 

[BrettHeazy]

Still dealing with Rockstar to get to the bottom of this whole frame rate issue.

Finally got a reply saying


"Hello ,

Thank you for contacting Rockstar Support.

This is a link to our article on the system specs.
https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/articles/203428177

Over time, downloadable content and programming changes will change the system requirements for this game. Please refer to your hardware manufacturer and www.rockstargames.com/support for current compatibility information. Some system components such as mobile chipsets, integrated, and AGP graphics cards may be incompatible. Unlisted specifications may not be supported by publisher.

Sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused you.

Best regards,

Steffen M.
Rockstar support"


My Spec:
CPU: i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz
GPU: GeForce GTX 760
MEMORY: 8GB RAM


Am I not over the minimum requirements?!

Baring in mind, I can only get around 15/20 frames per second - even with all settings on Normal.

 

[garath]

Still dealing with Rockstar to get to the bottom of this whole frame rate issue.

Finally got a reply saying


"Hello ,

Thank you for contacting Rockstar Support.

This is a link to our article on the system specs.
https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/articles/203428177

Over time, downloadable content and programming changes will change the system requirements for this game. Please refer to your hardware manufacturer and www.rockstargames.com/support for current compatibility information. Some system components such as mobile chipsets, integrated, and AGP graphics cards may be incompatible. Unlisted specifications may not be supported by publisher.

Sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused you.

Best regards,

Steffen M.
Rockstar support"


My Spec:
CPU: i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz
GPU: GeForce GTX 760
MEMORY: 8GB RAM


Am I not over the minimum requirements?!

Baring in mind, I can only get around 15/20 frames per second - even with all settings on Normal.

I haven't seen your earlier posts so I apologize if you have already done these steps, but have you wiped out your drivers with DDU and reinstalled the latest Nvidia drivers made for GTA V?

You wouldn't be the first person to suffer poor performance before a driver wipe and reinstall.

Also have you checked temps while running the game? What temp is your CPU and GPU getting to?

 

[Soodanim]

Still dealing with Rockstar to get to the bottom of this whole frame rate issue.

Finally got a reply saying


"Hello ,

Thank you for contacting Rockstar Support.

This is a link to our article on the system specs.
https://support.rockstargames.com/hc/en-us/articles/203428177

Over time, downloadable content and programming changes will change the system requirements for this game. Please refer to your hardware manufacturer and www.rockstargames.com/support for current compatibility information. Some system components such as mobile chipsets, integrated, and AGP graphics cards may be incompatible. Unlisted specifications may not be supported by publisher.

Sorry for any inconvenience that this may have caused you.

Best regards,

Steffen M.
Rockstar support"


My Spec:
CPU: i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz
GPU: GeForce GTX 760
MEMORY: 8GB RAM


Am I not over the minimum requirements?!

I can translate that for you.

"I either don't know and can't be bothered to ask someone that does or simply don't care enough to give you an answer with any real information. Here's some copy pasted stuff that is barely (if at all_) relevant to what you wrote to us about."

 

[ktroopa]

shadow trick = dialing shadow quality down a notch in-game, and then right back up to where it is. might be placebo at this point but during launch week it noticibly helped.

batch file = i downloaded a batch from who the fuck knows where that waits sixty seconds after I start GTA V and then applies appropriate CPU priority to each individual relevant executable. so GTA V is on high and everything else is idling.

Batch file that sets.exe priority and allocates high preference to GTA 5 can be found here

http://www.reddit.com/r/GrandTheftA...hat_i_did_to_fix_my_stuttering_and_rendering/

 

[Friend of Sonic]

It seems absurd this game would need that much RAM to run. But now I'm considering grabbing a couple of 2GB sticks just to get me to 12GB. Should be cheap enough but strikes me as odd the game is that hungry for RAM... makes me wonder if this is a memory leak issue.

 

[BrettHeazy]

I haven't seen your earlier posts so I apologize if you have already done these steps, but have you wiped out your drivers with DDU and reinstalled the latest Nvidia drivers made for GTA V?

You wouldn't be the first person to suffer poor performance before a driver wipe and reinstall.

Also have you checked temps while running the game? What temp is your CPU and GPU getting to?

I've literally just rebuilt my computer over this weekend, installed everything fresh.

But only upgrades I made was to SSD and Win 8

But even on my old build (which was win7 / on a HDD) it was performing like this.

All up to date.

Haven't checked temps, not sure how!

However am I wrong in saying that reply from them was just lazy?

I've asked them what it is 'under minimum spec' and now just waiting on a reply.