How Well Will Mass Effect 3 Run On Your PC?

[Guest]

Im still pissed with how they have treated the pc version of mass effect 2. Overpriced DLC, and not a single PC DLC sale ever. Just the 5 mission related DLCs cost twice as much as the full game, if you find the full game on sale its 3 times as much. You can buy mass effect 1 and 2 full games for less then the me2 dlc costs, for a tiny fraction of game play time compared to the full game.

As much as i want to play me3, i wont be supporting a company who does that. I absolutely will not be giving them 50-60 dollars until they fix their me2 dlc mistake.

 

[iceveiled]

The mass effect game engine is super efficient, I'm always surprised with how great the games look and how smooth they run even on middling hardware.

 

[trapper]

[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Any time you make a generalized "gamer" statement, especially about CPUs, you are wrong. Different games can have different hardware requirements.It is best to look at the application or applications you are building for, not go by some generalized idea posted at the end of an article or thrown about in forum posts.[/citation]

True, it is a generalization. But for a majority of games it holds true. As far as it being from an article and forum posts I'd have to argue that. I have two identical PCs minus the mobo and CPU. Both run games on par with eachother. For $100 the i7 just isn't worth it for the average user for gaming. If you're running other programs, encoding and the like, then the i7 is the right choice for sure.

 

[buzznut]

Actually I'm not disappointed in my hardware choices, my 6950 will be able to max the game out just like Skyrim. Yeah, console ports suck but I don't have to worry about losing frames with all details cranked up-which is why I bought a 300 dollar video card.

 

[confish21]

would have really liked to see a single 6870 tested here.

 

[upgrade_1977]

Console port!?!?! Well, guess i'll have to download it first to try it. Hate playing without AA, hopefully they get that fixed. I was so waiting to get this game, really really dissapointed that it's a port. Not sure if I'll buy it now. Probably just wait a year or two until it's dirt cheap on steam. I own 1 & 2, so was gonna buy it.


Review was ok. I would have enjoyed a full review much more. Testing on a high end system. Pointless for me to read the whole thing when it doesn't cover high end cards. I run 3 3D monitors in 3D vision surround, and it would have been nice to see how this game benchmarks in higher resolutions. I'm pretty sure that 3 way multi-monitor setups and high resolution monitors are becoming fairly common among pc gamers, so it would be nice if toms would test at least the common larger resolutions. I would love to see 3840 x 720 & 5760 x 1080 being tested in all future benchmarks. 3D?

I also understand the reasoning behind not needing to run the game more then 60fps, but for many reasons, it makes sense to do the benchmarks anyways, as sometimes games get funny at certain resolutions or settings, so you can't just say divide by 3 or 6 to get an estimated performance. Does that make sense? Kinda ignoring the whole enthusiast crowd.

Another thing, why cut the graphs off at 60fps? Just because you get a lot of fps, doesn't mean that there isn't going to be stuttering, so showing the full graph not only gives the readers more insight into the performance, but it also looks better and is easier to understand to the readers.

I understand this is a port, but it's also a major release, and I think it deserves a more thorough review. I mean, if your gonna review it and benchmark it, might as well go all the way. Not saying it's a bad article, just saying it feels like someone lost half there homework and didn't want to redo it.

 

[a4mula]

I think this reflects a trend that has been going on since game programming began. Initial launch games on any new format tend to require more of a system than games that are built well into a development cycle. From the days of Atari 2600 to developer tools like DX11. While Metro2033 and BF3 might be surpassed as the high water marks for benchmarking just as Crysis was before them, I think they also represent two titles that have some of the least optimization available. This is just the nature of new platforms, as more programmers work with DX11 and more games find optimization shortcuts, games tend to become less demanding.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I was so waiting to get this game, really really dissapointed that it's a port.

Umm, what did you expect? The series was originally Xbox-oriented. It's one of the very few games where that doesn't matter SO much, though BioWare abused that and brushed off their PC fans saying that graphics "don't matter" and that they focus on story and gameplay first... AS IF high-res textures are SO HARD to make!

I mean, if your gonna review it and benchmark it, might as well go all the way.

That would be a waste of time. The article made a solid point - Mass Effect 3 will run on pretty much any low to medium gaming PC - and no more benchmarks are needed to enhance that point.

I think that most people on Tom's are unfamiliar with the series, thus all the surprises ("oh, I didn't expect it to be a console port!", "oh, it requires Origin!").

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom] Another thing, why cut the graphs off at 60fps? Just because you get a lot of fps, doesn't mean that there isn't going to be stuttering...[/citation]

That's *exactly* what it means, actually. Stuttering is what happens below 30 FPS, so if the minimum FPS never goes below 60 FPS, stuttering is kind of impossible.

 

[Th-z]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]1) Whoever complains about the Reapers attacking Earth like they do instead of orbital bombardment - don't forget they want to HARVEST the humans, not just kill them. That much was made clear in ME2.[/citation]
Spoiler alert. The following contains plot points from ME2.

Spoiler

The way we are showed in the beginning does seem like they just want to kill humans, if not, the message is not clear. In ME2 they abducted human colonies and took bodies. That's clear to the audience, they used non-lethal method.

It's possible they want to kill some first. If that's the case, then there are more "ME-like" way as you pointed out. Alien ships land and fire is just too customary for a scene. It's kinda awkward for a hyper advanced race. But again it's only the beginning. We'll have to judge how story unfolds in the full version.

About the multiplayer, anyone who hasn't played any third person coop shooter such as Gears of War series' horde, it can be fun. The feel is similar to GoW 2's horde with ME powers, with some CoD-like equipment add-ons. BioWare copies many elements from other successful mutliplayer games, and there seem to be balance issues with different classes. Personally I only care about singleplayer.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]Th-z[/nom]Spoiler alert. The following contains plot points from ME2.Spoiler :The way we are showed in the beginning does seem like they just want to kill humans, if not, the message is not clear. In ME2 they abducted human colonies and took bodies. That's clear to the audience, they used non-lethal method.It's possible they want to kill some first. If that's the case, then there are more "ME-like" way as you pointed out. Alien ships land and fire is just too customary for a scene. It's kinda awkward for a hyper advanced race. But again it's only the beginning. We'll have to judge how story unfolds in the full version.About the multiplayer, anyone who hasn't played any third person coop shooter such as Gears of War series' horde, it can be fun. The feel is similar to GoW 2's horde with ME powers, with some CoD-like equipment add-ons. BioWare copies many elements from other successful mutliplayer games, and there seem to be balance issues with different classes. Personally I only care about singleplayer.[/citation]

The Reapers landed and are smoking humans out of their buildings while Husks and the like take care of killing them and claiming the bodies. Orbital bombardment wouldn't leave much of the bodies...

Multiplayer SEEMS to have class balance issues, but me and a couple of friends have been playing it for a couple of weeks now and tried every class - EVERY class can be great if played right! Of course, ME is about single player, but multiplayer is a very nice addition and I'm happy that BioWare didn't screw it up.

 

[LordConrad]

It won't run at all on my PC... because I'm getting it for my PS3! My PC is for transcoding and office work, my console is for gaming.

Rate me down if you wish, but it's nice not having to worry about hardware specs or driver issues when you just want to play a game.

 

[stonedatheist]

[citation][nom]Lefturn[/nom]I'd love to play this game, but requiring Origin is a dealbreaker for me. It's a no-purchase unless it comes out on Steam.[/citation]

This. I'm sick of all of the Origin exclusives. I'm on the brink of giving in and getting Origin. I want to support EA as little as possible so I want to avoid that at all costs. I need to email them and tell them that there are at least 3, maybe 4, titles that I haven't bought only because they aren't available on Steam (BF3, ME3, Crysis 2, maybe SW: TOR), not that they'd care but that's all I can really do. I think the worst part about Origin is that EA's David DeMartini said they would still make games available at other retail outlets and they would be happy as long as you are buying an EA game but they were clearly blowing smoke out their ass. What greedy bastards.

I'll buy this as soon as it gets released on Steam, if it ever does. Until then, all I can do as a consumer is simply not buy the game.

 

[The Halo Don]

Wow, 6850 performs extremely well in XFIRE. Impressive.

 

[maxinexus]

Would love to see how AMD FX CPUs perform in MS3. Any way you can update the CPU line up?

Thanks

 

[clonazepam]

I dont usually care too much about a 'port' when its such a great IP like Mass Effect. What scares me is the fact that its a port plus adding multiplayer. From the 'port' side of things, the game is not only developed for the console hardware, but also designed to fit on a single DL DVD disc. Immediately, that puts a limit on the game. Now, to add multiplayer, you have to take a decent chunk of that storage capacity and commit it to multiplayer, shrinking the single player experience. That's what scares me.

Take a good look at the Splinter Cell series. Before introducing the multiplayer component, the single player campaign was long and rewarding. Afterward, it was pretty short by comparison, and I was left wanting as I had no interest in multiplayer.

 

[jkflipflop98]

[citation][nom]Th-z[/nom]Spoiler alert. The following contains plot points from ME2.Spoiler :The way we are showed in the beginning does seem like they just want to kill humans, if not, the message is not clear. In ME2 they abducted human colonies and took bodies. That's clear to the audience, they used non-lethal method.It's possible they want to kill some first. If that's the case, then there are more "ME-like" way as you pointed out. Alien ships land and fire is just too customary for a scene. It's kinda awkward for a hyper advanced race. But again it's only the beginning. We'll have to judge how story unfolds in the full version.About the multiplayer, anyone who hasn't played any third person coop shooter such as Gears of War series' horde, it can be fun. The feel is similar to GoW 2's horde with ME powers, with some CoD-like equipment add-ons. BioWare copies many elements from other successful mutliplayer games, and there seem to be balance issues with different classes. Personally I only care about singleplayer.[/citation]

There are plenty of sections in ME1 where it's made clear that whole planets have been orbitally bombarded into oblivion in the distant past. You can find these in the planet descriptions when you're in a few systems.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

[citation][nom]Clonazepam[/nom]I dont usually care too much about a 'port' when its such a great IP like Mass Effect. What scares me is the fact that its a port plus adding multiplayer. From the 'port' side of things, the game is not only developed for the console hardware, but also designed to fit on a single DL DVD disc. Immediately, that puts a limit on the game. Now, to add multiplayer, you have to take a decent chunk of that storage capacity and commit it to multiplayer, shrinking the single player experience. That's what scares me.Take a good look at the Splinter Cell series. Before introducing the multiplayer component, the single player campaign was long and rewarding. Afterward, it was pretty short by comparison, and I was left wanting as I had no interest in multiplayer.[/citation]

Worry not! BioWare had a separate studio working on the MP and it's GREAT. Watch the trailers, I guarantee that SP rocks the show, too.

 

[upgrade_1977]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]That's *exactly* what it means, actually. Stuttering is what happens below 30 FPS, so if the minimum FPS never goes below 60 FPS, stuttering is kind of impossible.[/citation]

Actually thats not true, you can have stuttering above 60fps, it's called microstutter, and it happens with some games in sli or crossfire. I get well over 60fps in Dirt 3, and it runs perfectly smooth at 1080p, but when I enable it across 3 monitors at 5760 x 1080 even at 60fps and up it has a bad microstutter. Hence my post. I don't have this problem with any of my other games (that i've tried at that resolution), but dirt 3 runs like crap at higher resolution, even with high fps.

Also, Just cause 2, for some reason, I get 50fps average at both 1920 x 1080 and 5760 x 1080, which I know doesn't make sense, unless it's bottlenecked by the cpu, so that is another reason i'd like to see some more benchmarks on this game.

So, in my defense on my last post, since I got 4 thumbs down, I would like to say that none of the information in this article, except for AA not working on nvidia cards, really benefits gamers with a similar setup as me. So, i'd like to see benchmarks done at higher resolutions. But, it's not a huge deal I guess, i'm sure I could always find the information on other PC tech sites.

 

[rohitbaran]

At first, I read: How the hell will mass effect 3 run on your pc!

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]This is Tom's Hardware, after all[/citation]

Pride noted and well deserved

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]It's interesting, though, that the difference in minimum frame rate going from the bottom to the top of our performance charts is almost 2x. There does appear to be some scaling that takes place in jumping from two to three to four cores, but absolutely no gain attributable to the six-core Phenom II X6.[/citation]

Then the minimum FPS is affected by the changes in CPU architecture more than clock speed or core count

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]Actually thats not true, you can have stuttering above 60fps, it's called microstutter, and it happens with some games in sli or crossfire. "[/citation]

Perhaps, but in your original post you complained about cutting the frames-over-time chart off at 60 FPS. There's no reason to have a chart that shows a combo achieving 200 FPS, and it certainly wouldn't show any info about micro-stuttering.

 

[Th-z]

[citation][nom]jkflipflop98[/nom]There are plenty of sections in ME1 where it's made clear that whole planets have been orbitally bombarded into oblivion in the distant past. You can find these in the planet descriptions when you're in a few systems.[/citation]

Yeah I know, thus my origional comment. Granted, those are not necessarily the work of the reaper. Nevertheless, it's either that or something even more advanced.

 

[AsTheDeath]

If we're talking about how efficiently this game is running, I found it funny it would dip from 60fps at times (HD5850), considering my framerate stays at 40-50 even with 4x SSAA forced through AMD CCC.