[SOLVED] Can my system run gta online on medium or high?

[Gresho]

Hi, I just bought gta v and I only got it to play gta online. I have a gtx 1050 2gb, 16gb ram, intel i5 84000 and air cooling just incase that’s important. What settings can it run on and at what FPS? I’m planning to play at 1080p

 

[Darkbreeze]

Medium? Maybe. High, no chance. Not with that graphics card.

Much might also depend on your internet connection speed. I'd expect you to see low-medium settings as optimal if you plan to get 60fps at that resolution and online, which might incur a lag penalty as well if you don't have a good, fast internet connection.

You'd need a much better card if you wanted to target high or ultra settings on that system and I wouldn't expect to see much more than around 60fps with that i5-8400 even then.

 

[Gresho]

Medium? Maybe. High, no chance. Not with that graphics card.

Much might also depend on your internet connection speed. I'd expect you to see low-medium settings as optimal if you plan to get 60fps at that resolution and online, which might incur a lag penalty as well if you don't have a good, fast internet connection.

You'd need a much better card if you wanted to target high or ultra settings on that system and I wouldn't expect to see much more than around 60fps with that i5-8400 even then.

Hmm. Alright, what about 720p? Will that be enough to push it to high? Or Is medium ok looking? I just really want my game to look good

 

[sizzling]

Why don’t you just try it and play with different settings. What looks good to one person may not look good to another.

 

[Gresho]

I would but I’m getting new WiFi and my current one isn’t gonna cut a 60gb download. For now it’s sitting in my steam library.

 

[Darkbreeze]

To me, nothing, regardless of how high the settings are, looks good at less than 1080p. I'd rather have medium settings at 1080p than high settings at 720p. The exception to that would be if you care more about the FPS for competitive reasons than you do about the eye candy and visual aspect. As mentioned, you'll simply have to do some trial and error tinkering to see what works best for you. What I think looks terrible might not look so bad to you.

 

[UltronXavier]

Medium? Maybe. High, no chance. Not with that graphics card.

Much might also depend on your internet connection speed. I'd expect you to see low-medium settings as optimal if you plan to get 60fps at that resolution and online, which might incur a lag penalty as well if you don't have a good, fast internet connection.

You'd need a much better card if you wanted to target high or ultra settings on that system and I wouldn't expect to see much more than around 60fps with that i5-8400 even then.

Just out of curiosity, how much does the CPU hold back FPS? I thought that it was only in games that utilise multi-threading (e.g. Battlefield 5) that you would see a benefit with a better CPU? I have an it 9600k because I thought it was one of the best for gaming. Would I have been much better off if I went with an i7 or one of the new Ryzen CPUs? Intel i9 is a bit out of budget and unnecessary considering I only use the system for gaming!
Does it also depend on what GPU you're using?

 

[Darkbreeze]

In a game that is well optimized for multithreaded performance, then yes, a CPU with more cores will offer substantially better FPS than one with fewer cores.

However, that's the majority of games these days. The number of games or applications that ONLY perform better with a CPU that has stronger single core performance is shrinkly week by week. Plus, if you have any CPU from the last two Intel generations or the current Ryzen generation, then you're probably already maxed out as far as single core performance is concerned EXCEPT if you want to include the additional performance gained by overclocking the CPU which will obviously have an impact on the single core performance.

And it definitely matter what graphics card you're using because if the CPU is powerful it won't matter much, you'll still get slow performance because most of that power will go to waste as the CPU will be waiting around for the graphics card to feed it rendered frames. Balance is the key, and an understanding of what expectations you should have based on the level of performance your hardware is capable of delivering even when it is balanced. For example, just because you have a balanced system consisting of an i3-8100 paired with a GTX 1050 TI doesn't mean you can expect the same level of performance as a balanced system consisting of an i7-8700K with a GTX 1080.

Both are well balanced, without really having an obvious bottleneck, but one is going to obviously offer much better performance than the other because it is simply more capable. Now, that being said, you might be able to match the FPS of the higher spec system by lower the quality settings with the lower end hardware, but clearly that is also going to seriously reduce the visual satisfaction you get from the game and if you're ok with that, then the lower spec system is an option, especially if you're at a lower resolution as well because as we know resolution is going to have an affect on performance too. It's like Mr. Miyagi said in The karate kid. No have balance, no have nutting.

Even so, when given the option, I usually opt for getting either a better graphics card or better CPU, IF I know I am going to be able to upgrade the other component sometime in the near future to balance things out or for example if I simply want good graphics because the kinds of games I play are maybe not as reliant on high FPS because of the type of game they are. In that case, I'd lend more weight to the graphical ability of a good card than I would to the faster performance of a higher tiered CPU.

And I'll stop there because it's going to look like the proverbial snake eating it's tail if I keep going.

 

[UltronXavier]

In a game that is well optimized for multithreaded performance, then yes, a CPU with more cores will offer substantially better FPS than one with fewer cores.

However, that's the majority of games these days. The number of games or applications that ONLY perform better with a CPU that has stronger single core performance is shrinkly week by week. Plus, if you have any CPU from the last two Intel generations or the current Ryzen generation, then you're probably already maxed out as far as single core performance is concerned EXCEPT if you want to include the additional performance gained by overclocking the CPU which will obviously have an impact on the single core performance.

And it definitely matter what graphics card you're using because if the CPU is powerful it won't matter much, you'll still get slow performance because most of that power will go to waste as the CPU will be waiting around for the graphics card to feed it rendered frames. Balance is the key, and an understanding of what expectations you should have based on the level of performance your hardware is capable of delivering even when it is balanced. For example, just because you have a balanced system consisting of an i3-8100 paired with a GTX 1050 TI doesn't mean you can expect the same level of performance as a balanced system consisting of an i7-8700K with a GTX 1080.

Both are well balanced, without really having an obvious bottleneck, but one is going to obviously offer much better performance than the other because it is simply more capable. Now, that being said, you might be able to match the FPS of the higher spec system by lower the quality settings with the lower end hardware, but clearly that is also going to seriously reduce the visual satisfaction you get from the game and if you're ok with that, then the lower spec system is an option, especially if you're at a lower resolution as well because as we know resolution is going to have an affect on performance too. It's like Mr. Miyagi said in The karate kid. No have balance, no have nutting.

Even so, when given the option, I usually opt for getting either a better graphics card or better CPU, IF I know I am going to be able to upgrade the other component sometime in the near future to balance things out or for example if I simply want good graphics because the kinds of games I play are maybe not as reliant on high FPS because of the type of game they are. In that case, I'd lend more weight to the graphical ability of a good card than I would to the faster performance of a higher tiered CPU.

And I'll stop there because it's going to look like the proverbial snake eating it's tail if I keep going.

Damn, I didn't think CPU power had that much power on frame rate. I knew that each frame has to be fed into the CPU etc. but I figured I'd be good for a long time and good for some graphics upgrades with my i5 9600k... I'm currently only using a 1660ti, but am looking to upgrade soon. Would there be any serious bottlenecks if I went with a 2080 super, for example? Or if I wanted to go that high with a new GPU, would I also need to upgrade my CPU?

 

[Darkbreeze]

Your 9600k has six cores and very good single core performance, so, while YOUR system is not the focus of this thread and we need to get back on topic, I will say that it is probably fine for most current graphics cards depending on what the game is. If it is a game that is highly optimized for multithreading then a CPU with more physical cores is likely going to perform better in that game so long as it is being paired with a graphics card that is capable enough to not limit the CPU by making it wait needlessly. That being said, let's get back on topic for this OP. If you have further questions, please feel free to start your own thread.