Discussion Avatar Game

[SyCoREAPER]

I went on a quest of things that could have waited until the weekend and which included me deciding to start Avatar.

The game looks incredible and while I'm not far in at all, it's pretty much if you see it, you can reach it. Obviously there are limits but none of the "oh there's a small hill? You have to walk around it". Here you can climb, explore, etc.. it feels fun. It does have as some reviewers discussed Far Cry esque element but feels unique in its own right.

As far as requirements, I'm @4K mostly maxed out, still have to play with the settings a bit but it's one of the first fairly demanding games I've played.
Native it bounces everywhere as low as 50s in some places to around 60 or 70ish. FSR3 FG I get around 90 (low) to around 115 avg with peaks into 130s. It's definitely giving my 4090, 13700 (OC) a workout.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

Hey there,

Does the game not support DLSS? I wonder how it would differ from native with the 4090 and from FSR 3. Sounds interesting.

BTW, what OC have on the CPU? Have you found any games that don't respond to it, or crash?

 

[SCP2000]

The draw distance looks incredible from the videos I've seen on the tubes.

 

[SyCoREAPER]

Not sure why the forum isn't notifying me of posts.

Also worth noting about the game, playing with a PS5 controller adds a whole other layer of immersion to the game that doesn't feel gimmicky.

Hey there,

Does the game not support DLSS? I wonder how it would differ from native with the 4090 and from FSR 3. Sounds interesting.

BTW, what OC have on the CPU? Have you found any games that don't respond to it, or crash?

It has DLSS 2 at the moment, DLSS3 will probably come out once everyone's played it.
As for the 4090 vs native, you mean visually or performance? Visually I didn't bother checking because native spanks even the 4090 at 4K. It runs good enough but I prefer a 100fps+ experience in games. FSR3 looks good enough and has made huge strides from FSR2.

My OC is only at 5.6ghz because I was tired of fiddling. Only recently have I been able to get into the BIOS (I know, weird), so I was limited to XTU and not able adjust everything. Before that I got half the P-Cores to 5.8ghz and I'd say 7 out 10 games were stable. Dropping to 2 P-Cores at 5.8 hurt my score so I changed it to all 5.6.

Right now with the modest 5.6 on a 360 AIO it's 100% stable and never breaks 70C, even after 6 hours sessions (though that's a rarity). I also decided to OC the E-Cores after turning down the P-Cores though I don't know off hand what they are set to.

Edit 5 Minutes Later:
GD IT @Roland Of Gilead, I was going to have a quite day tomorrow, now I'm tempted to go to 5.8ghz just for the sake of it.

Edit 20 minutes later:
Though based on this thread maybe I should be happy with 5.6, many are struggling with even that and just conclude the i5 and i9 are better OC'ers.
Reading a little here

The draw distance looks incredible from the videos I've seen on the tubes.

It is and I haven't noticed any pop-in. There's also no loading screens. Also unlike Far Cry when you saw a small hill you couldn't climb it, here you just jump. The verticality of the game is incredible, you can climb super high.