Only played the first 30 minutes or so but so far it runs really well.

Running on:

• Win 7 64 Bits
• Core i5 760 2.8GHz
• GTX 460 1GB
• 4GB RAM

Using those settings:

It's essentially everything maxed out save for the MSAA off. It runs really well. Maybe not a consistent 60FPS but never drops below 30.

Also if someone can explain the difference between SSAO and HDAO, it'd be appreciated.

@Pr1mus: MSAA is useless, FXAA is producing great results here for me, no jaggies to be seen at 1920x1200.

HDAO is more computational intense, so it may hit your framerate. Usually you won't see much of a difference unless you compare screenshots.

@mosdl: Agreed about the MSAA. At high enough resolution with FXAA there's no bothersome aliasing to be noticed while in action. Sure is shows on screenshots but it's not worth the huge performance hit.

So far i'm happily surprised. I wasn't exactly waiting with torches and pitchfork ready to take a dump on Rockstar but they don't exactly have the best track record either but this is a pretty solid port both for graphical options and control options too.

Still going to take me another four hours to download. Glad to know its running smooth

pretty much same specs as OP, but i got SLI 460's instead of just one. running completely MAXed out (see what i did there) and it runs a smooth 60, 50 in the more action packed parts. it looks and feels fucking incredible on pc, i'm so glad it's not a piece of shit port like GTA 4 and LA noire.

@mosdl: @Pr1mus: I would much prefer people say aliasing over 'jaggies'. Yes, I am your mother.

@AlisterCat: There i fixed my post :D now go to sleep mom.

Waiting for my retail copy to come in the mail later today! I'll be running on a laptop that has medium desktop specs by today's standards.

Game has a shitload of graphic options. Getting a constant 60 FPS in 1920x1080 with my GTX 560 Ti, MSAA off, FXAA medium, everything else is maxed out. They did an amazing job in optimizing the engine. Kb/M works nicely, some people say mouse acceleration is too much, but I sure as shit didn't notice anything. There's also some complaints about FoV, which I always fail to notice.

My only gripe with the PC version so far is that you still can't skip most of the cutscenes before their preset points, no matter how fast your PC loads the actual game ( around 4-5 secs for MP on mine). Damn.

@rolanthas: I never really notice FoV in third person view either. I get the problem with first person shooters because a view that looks zoomed in constantly gets nauseating for me when looking at it while sitting 2-3 feet away from my monitor vs sitting 10 feet away from the TV. But in third person shooters i see no problem.

I get a constant 30 FPS on a mid-range laptop with all high (textures very high and shaders on normal), v-synch on, FXAA normal and 1920x1080.

Specs:

• Windows 7 64 Bit
• Nvidia GTX285m 1GB
• i7 1.6Ghz
• 4GB RAM

AMD Phenom 2 X4@3.6

4 gig ddr2

overclocked 580gtx

win7 64

I am having no problems running this game maxed out. No slow down at all. Game is running perfect. Way to go Rockstar!

I didn't order this out of fear that it probably wouldn't run on my machine, but now I'm really regretting it. Looks like they actually did really well.

@Pr1mus: Exactly, TPS' by their definition should be unable to cause motion sickness via FOV, since the camera doesn't emulate human sight anyway. And if anything, I thought MP3 gave a much wider view than bulk of the TPS's this generation.

Or maybe we're too lucky to not notice these.

@rolanthas said:

@Pr1mus: Exactly, TPS' by their definition should be unable to cause motion sickness via FOV, since the camera doesn't emulate human sight anyway. And if anything, I thought MP3 gave a much wider view than bulk of the TPS's this generation.

Or maybe we're too lucky to not notice these.

No, on higher resolutions the extra FOV is noticeable. Running at 1920x1080 feels plenty fine while 720 felt a little too close for me although it caused no issues.

Then again, the only game that caused motion sickness for me was Dead Island so I'm not quite qualified to pass judgement.

happy the 560ti performs well maxed out, not that i would know still waiting for all those gigs too download all 29 of them, for fooks sake. only half way through and i have 7 hours to go, i was so looking forward to playing when i got home aswell .it better look the dogs balls after having to wait this long.
remember the days when you could just buy games on disc those were the days.

This thread makes me a happy panda.

@feelTHEpain said:

remember the days when you could just bye games on disc those were the days.

You can still buy games on discs. In fact, with some games getting so large like this one, I am reconsidering buying games from brick and mortar stores because I have a marginal cable speed and data cap. Sad face

I am overjoyed to see the reports of the game running well. My last Rockstar PC experience was GTA4 which left a terrible taste in my mouth. I was actually dreading the performance reports but now I see that dread is not needed. Hallelujah.

Glad to heard to runs fine! I'm picking it up next week!

FXAA is cheap AA that blurs your textures, whether you notice it or not. It basically scans the entire image, looking for jagged edges, and smoothes them out. The problem is that it doesn't know whether that jagged edge is the edge of a polygon, or details on a texture.

MSAA is actually only targeting the edges of polgyons, so there's no blurring or loss of detail anywhere else. FXAA is fine if your PC can't handle MSAA, but MSAA is better quality overall.

@squirrelnacho: High res textures make this much less of an issue

@mosdl said:

@squirrelnacho: High res textures make this much less of an issue

No FXAA Always ends up blurrier then MSAA and is always noticeable if you have a good PC. The only time I use FXAA is if it is the only option (aka developer didn't make their game compatible with MSAA like Witcher 2).

I have yet to load the game up but if so many people with low to mid end PCs are claiming to get such good performance my pc should spank this game.

I'll post my performance impressions later, my specs are as follows.

• Core i5 2500k@4Ghz
• 8GB Ram
• Geforce 680GTX
• 2048x1152 Monitor

Well haven't got the game yet but wondering how's the PC version, so no GTA 4 shenanigans?

Sorry if I'm a bit off topic here, planning on getting the game soon, know I can run it, just more curious about buggers ...

Runs great with everything maxed on my rig at 1080p.

GTX 680, 24gb ram, SR2 with 2 hexacore xeons, but that would be pretty disappointing if it didn't.

I Win!

My 560 ti buckled under the pressure of running at around 900mb. A few crashes and some artifacting. How ever it's running fine now that I have scaled it back a bit.

Haven't finished the download yet, it will run something like this...

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTMzODU4MDUxM2Zrejh3QkNiTVBfMl8xX2wuZ2lm

Except at 5760x1200.

This makes me feel good about the future of Rockstar games on PC.

However the game itself is boring me big time and I'm only on chapter 3.

@Sooty said:

This makes me feel good about the future of Rockstar games on PC.

However the game itself is boring me big time and I'm only on chapter 3.

why is it boring you.

I have an i5 2500K @ 4.5Ghz and a GTX 480 at 825/2100 and I got well over 120FPS at 1920x1080 for the majority of the game, with some minor drops here and there. I have everything at the highest with the exception of no MSAA and tessellation only at high.

@doobie said:

@Sooty said:

This makes me feel good about the future of Rockstar games on PC.

However the game itself is boring me big time and I'm only on chapter 3.

why is it boring you.

I blame playing on pad, I'm gonna try M+KB later and see how it goes. It feels like the inaccuracy of a controller is all wrong for this game.

i7-920 @ 3.9GHz

18GB of RAM

EVGA GTX470

Everything maxed at 1920x1080 except for MSAA, which is running at 4x. Game is nice and smooth, looks great. I'm up to Chapter 3. I'm not sure if I like it yet or not.

Not sure if anything is wrong with my laptop, but this game completely and utterly destroys it. According to Can You Run It, I should be able to play the game on lower settings, but even at the lowest possible resolution and settings the game lags so much I can't even navigate the menus, so much delay that it takes the mouse 10 seconds or so to react, and I find this somewhat strange since Witcher 2 and Metro 2033 ran just fine at med/high at a slightly lower resolution. It really sucks, because I was quite looking forward to the game after playing through 1 and 2, and I honestly thought my laptop would be able to just scrape by. I realize it isn't the optimal way for playing games, but still.

Intel® Core™ i5 2410M Processor @2.30GHz

8GB of Ram

@JacDG said:

Not sure if anything is wrong with my laptop, but this game completely and utterly destroys it. According to Can You Run It, I should be able to play the game on lower settings, but even at the lowest possible resolution and settings the game lags so much I can't even navigate the menus, so much delay that it takes the mouse 10 seconds or so to react, and I find this somewhat strange since Witcher 2 and Metro 2033 ran just fine at med/high at a slightly lower resolution. It really sucks, because I was quite looking forward to the game after playing through 1 and 2, and I honestly thought my laptop would be able to just scrape by. I realize it isn't the optimal way for playing games, but still.

Intel® Core™ i5 2410M Processor @2.30GHz

8GB of Ram

NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 555M 2GB DDR3 VRAM

What settings are you using? I assume you have the latest drivers?

@mosdl said:

@JacDG said:

Not sure if anything is wrong with my laptop, but this game completely and utterly destroys it. According to Can You Run It, I should be able to play the game on lower settings, but even at the lowest possible resolution and settings the game lags so much I can't even navigate the menus, so much delay that it takes the mouse 10 seconds or so to react, and I find this somewhat strange since Witcher 2 and Metro 2033 ran just fine at med/high at a slightly lower resolution. It really sucks, because I was quite looking forward to the game after playing through 1 and 2, and I honestly thought my laptop would be able to just scrape by. I realize it isn't the optimal way for playing games, but still.

Intel® Core™ i5 2410M Processor @2.30GHz

8GB of Ram

NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 555M 2GB DDR3 VRAM

What settings are you using? I assume you have the latest drivers?

Settings in the game or? I think I updated my video and sound drivers about a month or so ago (the sound in the game/menus was all effed up too) so I'll try to update everything and re-download the game.

I5-2500k @ 4.5GHz

8GB

6770+5770 CrossfireX

getting around 100-400 FPS. so I guess, stable 60fps? :P First time in a long time I've bought a game that worked great with crossfire right out of the box.

@Sooty said:

@doobie said:

@Sooty said:

This makes me feel good about the future of Rockstar games on PC.

However the game itself is boring me big time and I'm only on chapter 3.

why is it boring you.

I blame playing on pad, I'm gonna try M+KB later and see how it goes. It feels like the inaccuracy of a controller is all wrong for this game.

Yeah, I've heard most people's issues with this game on consoles was with the aiming.

It feels great on KB/M and while still challenging, you won't be dying anywhere near as much. Really easy to pull off headshots so you end up saving ammo too.

I Win!

I just started messing with the settings. Run pretty solid and I turned off MSAA to get a super smooth framerate.

Has anyone noticed a lot of texture pop in though? I just got to chapter 5 i think (the one where you arrive by boat at night and have a silenced pistol). There is really bad pop in in this area and I don't know if its my settings or just the game.

Unless you have a 120hz monitor you aren't seeing anything over 60 fps, period.

@squirrelnacho said:

Unless you have a 120hz monitor you aren't seeing anything over 60 fps, period.

Or, you don't use vsync. You know, the basic stuff.

Good thing I have one then. I think it's pretty cool.

@destruktive said:

@squirrelnacho said:

Unless you have a 120hz monitor you aren't seeing anything over 60 fps, period.

Or, you don't use vsync. You know, the basic stuff.

60 hz monitors only refresh 60 times per second. Anything over 60 leads to screen tearing and is wasted.

@squirrelnacho said:

@destruktive said:

@squirrelnacho said:

Unless you have a 120hz monitor you aren't seeing anything over 60 fps, period.

Or, you don't use vsync. You know, the basic stuff.

60 hz monitors only refresh 60 times per second. Anything over 60 leads to screen tearing and is wasted.

But ends up with the game running at a higher framerate then 60. Which is what people usually do to test how much their computer can do. Which is what people want with this thread.

Even on a 60hz monitor, I swear can perceive a difference between 60 fps and anything over 80 (60-79 is completely unnoticeable)

I know the monitor isn't showing anymore frames, but I can only theorize it has to do with the way the environment is moving around. (Like, features like motion blur and just the way the player character turns)

EDIT: Not to say it looks "better" just an observation.

@destruktive said:

@squirrelnacho said:

60 hz monitors only refresh 60 times per second. Anything over 60 leads to screen tearing and is wasted.

But ends up with the game running at a higher framerate then 60. Which is what people usually do to test how much their computer can do. Which is what people want with this thread.

It means your graphics card is computing more than 60 fps. It doesn't mean your monitor is showing more than true 60 fps, even with vsync off.

@squirrelnacho said:

@destruktive said:

@squirrelnacho said:

60 hz monitors only refresh 60 times per second. Anything over 60 leads to screen tearing and is wasted.

But ends up with the game running at a higher framerate then 60. Which is what people usually do to test how much their computer can do. Which is what people want with this thread.

It means your graphics card is computing more than 60 fps. It doesn't mean your monitor is showing more than true 60 fps, even with vsync off.

Which is my point...

Running everything maxed out (except MSAA since it's garbage) at 1080p. Also using NVIDIA Inspector and have some settings bumped up there as well. During gameplay I get 60fps 98% of the time and it dips to 55 during transitions to new areas for a quick second. Later in the game when there's a lot of smoke effects on screen i've seen it go to 45 but it doesnt stay there for long.

my system:

Intel i5 2500k 3.3ghz sandy bridge

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 2GB

8GB DDR3 RAM

Here are my laptop's specs but I have no idea how Max Payne 3 would run on it. Most ports of Xbox 360 games run around 30-40 fps at high resolution and with settings on medium-high to high.

Windows 7 64-bit

AMD A8-3500M, 4 Cores at 1.5 Ghz each

AMD Radeon HD 6620G with 512 MBs of ram

8 GBs of ram

FXAA is lame and blurry SMAA is much better for post-process AA. I'm curious how this runs on a core2quad Q9550 if anybody has that cpu.