Most Demanding Game

[casualcolors]

The first set of benchmarks was done by a different person bystander. Not pcgamer.

 

[PCgamer81]

No, you prooved that Metro 2033 was more demanding on your system, unless you turn off DoF.

On my system, I can max Metro 2033 in full 1080p in DX11 with DoF and Tessellation, Advanced PhysX, AA and AF maxed - the whole shebang, and it still less demanding than Crysis.

I would be glad to benchmark them both with a frame counter if you want. In fact, I insist.

Tomorrow evening I will post the links to the youtube video showing Crysis owning Metro 2033 for the title of more demanding.

Until then, I'm going to bed. Goodnight.

 

[casualcolors]

On my system, I can max Metro 2033 in full 1080p in DX11 with DoF and Tessellation, Advanced PhysX, AA and AF maxed - the whole shebang, and it still less demanding than Crysis.

I would be glad to benchmark them both with a frame counter.

He thinks that the set of earlier benchmarks that were posted belonged to you, I think.

 

[PCgamer81]

He thinks that the set of earlier benchmarks that were posted belonged to you, I think.

Yeah, but he and I have gone at it before. He maintains that Metro 2033 is harder to run than Crysis. He maintains that it is harder to run on MY system, as well, seeing as how he "had a similar system in the past, and Metro 2033 was more demanding."

Tomorrow I plan to do a Metro 2033 vs Crysis benchmark video with a frame counter and put it to bed. Last time I did that, he complained that I chose a weak part of Metro 2033. So tomorrow I will go a little more in depth.

 

[casualcolors]

Well obviously Metro was harder to run on the single 7970 as that was posted earlier. But like I said before, Metro is a newer game and scales a little better on crossfire setups than Crysis, which does explain results either way. Neither game can be maxed at 60 fps by any single gpu card on the market anyway so I say hell with it. =)

 

[jjack339]

I can max out BF3 on Solo with my 6950, but I drop some of the settings on Multi for the sake of maximum crispness.

Note- I am crossfired, but I have never seen my 2nd card go over 20% in usage... is that normal?

 

[Guest]

pcgamer i apologize for my rudeness i may have gone alittle overboard.I did have a graph that showed a 3gb 58o being faster then a 1.5 gb in bf 3 by like 3-8 fps.might not seem like much but the performance increase is deffinetly there.I will look it up and post it when i can.Mostley what i was getting at was future proofing i agreed most games do not take advantage of the extra vram at this time,however more then likely it will be an issue in the near future.Also letting you all know that the crysis benchmark was with crysis in the unpatched state more then likely i would have done better with crysis fully patched

 

[bystander]

Yeah, but he and I have gone at it before. He maintains that Metro 2033 is harder to run than Crysis. He maintains that it is harder to run on MY system, as well, seeing as how he "had a similar system in the past, and Metro 2033 was more demanding."

Tomorrow I plan to do a Metro 2033 vs Crysis benchmark video with a frame counter and put it to bed. Last time I did that, he complained that I chose a weak part of Metro 2033. So tomorrow I will go a little more in depth.

Last time you compared them with DoF off (PhysX too), as you said Crysis was overall harder. Last time you decided to say what was overall harder, then proceeded to play Crysis with everything maxed and x8 AA. I'm not sure how that meant Crysis was more demanding. That was Crysis was more demanding with a big asterisk.

Either you compare both maxed, which you conceded was more demanding on Metro 2033, or if you wanted to compare the mysterious "overall" setting, then at least compare Crysis with reasonable AA levels that people would actually use (x2 or x4).

Edit: I also might add, where and what you use for the test run makes a big difference too. I always used their built in benchmark utilities. DoF or not, Metro 2033 is more demanding, but I can see how that might be unfair now, as it clearly is more demanding than most if not all places in normal play, while Crysis' benchmarks are closer to average. (this was with two unlocked 6950's).

The reason I don't believe an "overall" type comparison should be with x8 AA or perhaps x4 AA, is because this overall comparison should be done with settings where you compromise on the settings that make little difference at high performance cost, like you did by turning off DoF.

Anyways, if you redo your comparisons, please do with everything maxed on both before you try a more reasonable "overall" comparison with x2 and/or x4 AA and DoF off. I don't really wish to continue our argument, it is all in the earlier part of this post.

 

[casualcolors]

pcgamer i apologize for my rudeness i may have gone alittle overboard.I did have a graph that showed a 3gb 58o being faster then a 1.5 gb in bf 3 by like 3-8 fps.might not seem like much but the performance increase is deffinetly there.I will look it up and post it when i can.Mostley what i was getting at was future proofing i agreed most games do not take advantage of the extra vram at this time,however more then likely it will be an issue in the near future.Also letting you all know that the crysis benchmark was with crysis in the unpatched state more then likely i would have done better with crysis fully patched

Yeah I was curious about BF3 in particular vs. the 1.5gb and 3gb 580's. I know BF3 can potentially saturate 1.5gb+ if you set it up to do so. Could you link the graph for my sake? Interested in seeing it.

 

[Guest]

I have been looking and cant seem to find it i just seen it yesterday and should have posted it then. heres a good thread about a few people going from gtx 570 1280 to the 2560 version saying they could max settings where with the 1280 they had to dump a few settings.It makes a difference might not be alot but to me when this starts making even a small difference then its time to look to the future and more vram. http://www.overclock.net/t/1181119/so-whats-up-with-bf3-needing-1-5gbs-of-vram-does-it-not-use-physical-memory

bystander i know when i ran my metro test i enabled dof so ill rerun metro bench without dof enabled and see how much more performance i get.To be honest with as much difference as i got between crysis maxed and metro maxed i cant see crysis being harder on any configuration.Witcher 2 however was close enough to arma 2 where i could see withcer 2 having worse performance then arma 2 on different configs

 

[Guest]

ok this is what i got in metro with dof enabled and disabled

dof enabled 2012-03-20 02:03:49 - metro2033
Frames: 2248 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 37.467 - Min: 14 - Max: 62

dof disabled 2012-03-22 02:02:51 - metro2033
Frames: 3128 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 52.133 - Min: 16 - Max: 104

ya thats quite a difference disabling dof is deffinetly not maxing.I get better performance in metro with dof disabled then i do in crysis but then disabling that in metro is not true max settings

 

[Guest]

One last thing i feel that to find the most demanding game it has to be done with 1 card.crossfire and SLI scale different in different games.Just because you can get 50 fps in crysis in xfire and 60 in metro in xfire only means that metro scales better like casualcolors mentions

 

[Guest]

the one game i totally forgot mafia 2 this game sucks me dry lol.this is easily the most demanding for me but i did turn on the nvidia feature so that probably messed me up

 

[swindlehurst]

World In Conflict always had my comp on its knees
just using the built in benchmark as soon as that nuke went off I was lucky if i was getting 7fps
that was on a 3.3ghz Q6600
but the thread is most demanding game
I have to mention Arkham City that game maxed is a pile of ill coded nonsence
I can play BF3 all day maxed Batman forget about it


2600k 8gb ram 2gb 6950

 

[Guest]

ya batman is pretty trying but for the most part i stay above 45 fps maxed from what i remember.I should bench that game to.I know in eyeinfinity i have to drop some settings to get it to play well.I forgot how demanding mafia 2 was maxed but if you turn off physx it becomes a cakewalk.

 

[Guest]

Yes, but ARMA 2 is ugly as sin and doesn't have crossfire support.

arma 2 is not ugly and yes it does have xfire support its just not easily found.got a friend with 2x6970 and he gets about 50% increase which dont seem like much but in arma 2 its huge

 

[Guest]

one thing i would like to note.My friend has 2 gtx 570's he can play the game on ultra and gets great performance until he turns on AA he gets freezes from time to time sometimes up to 1/2 second to close to a second.You will notice that most people with gtx 570's can play bf 3 on ultra with no AA it seems to be the common theme with the 1280mb or less cards.The gtx 580 1.5 gb seem to do well but im thinking the 1.5 gig is really the cutoff point to being able to play bf 3 maxed out smooth.He has come by a few times and watched me play bf 3 on ultra with AA and he flatout offered me his 2 gtx 570's for my 7970.He was pretty jelous to say the least.I dip to 45 fps with big explosions but bottom line is there is absolutley no chop at all.Maybe its not fair to judge the importance of vram off 1 game but i have to figure other games will dollow suit.games will keep being pushed so the gpu market doesnt go under.One thing i have to dissagree with though is that eyeinfinity is just a gimmick thing is it works for just about every game ive tried it with its a real draw imo to come to th amd side.I would still be with the nvidia camp if it wasnt for the fact that you need 120 hz monitors and 2 gpu's.As far as the monitors being expensive i got 3 23 inch monitors for less then what i paid for my 7970.Yes the immersive factor is there but i think i needed something with more of a wow factor my interest in games have declined somewhat but with eye its like im starting all over again.PhysX while cool is a gimmick because there are hardley any games that actually support it.I will go out on a limb and say more games support eyeinfinity then both sli and crossfire.

 

[con310]

He did a good job proving that ARMA 2 is the most demanding game he owns for his particular system.

Out of the games I have played on my system, Crysis/Crysis 2 DX11 are the most legitimately demanding.

And from what I hear, Witcher 2 would be even more so.

As for Metro 2033 being more demanding than Crysis...

I am afraid that is not the case, at least not for my system.

I max Metro 2033 at about 60-80fps. In Crysis, I get 50-60fps.

Exactly your system....its already been proven crysis is not the most demanding game anymore, move along.

 

[sgtpepper500]

bf3 was pretty demanding for me

 

[casualcolors]

one thing i would like to note.My friend has 2 gtx 570's he can play the game on ultra and gets great performance until he turns on AA he gets freezes from time to time sometimes up to 1/2 second to close to a second.You will notice that most people with gtx 570's can play bf 3 on ultra with no AA it seems to be the common theme with the 1280mb or less cards.The gtx 580 1.5 gb seem to do well but im thinking the 1.5 gig is really the cutoff point to being able to play bf 3 maxed out smooth.He has come by a few times and watched me play bf 3 on ultra with AA and he flatout offered me his 2 gtx 570's for my 7970.He was pretty jelous to say the least.I dip to 45 fps with big explosions but bottom line is there is absolutley no chop at all.Maybe its not fair to judge the importance of vram off 1 game but i have to figure other games will dollow suit.games will keep being pushed so the gpu market doesnt go under.One thing i have to dissagree with though is that eyeinfinity is just a gimmick thing is it works for just about every game ive tried it with its a real draw imo to come to th amd side.I would still be with the nvidia camp if it wasnt for the fact that you need 120 hz monitors and 2 gpu's.As far as the monitors being expensive i got 3 23 inch monitors for less then what i paid for my 7970.Yes the immersive factor is there but i think i needed something with more of a wow factor my interest in games have declined somewhat but with eye its like im starting all over again.PhysX while cool is a gimmick because there are hardley any games that actually support it.I will go out on a limb and say more games support eyeinfinity then both sli and crossfire.

Yeah that's exactly my fear with SLI'ing 570's. AA choppiness.

As far as eyefinity and physx, the fact that neither one gives any competitive advantage is the first thing that makes either seem frivolous to me. PhysX adds so little and like you said, you got 3 23 inch monitors for less than the cost of a single 550-600 dollar 7970. Even if you paid 100 bucks per monitor, that plus the video card is still a huge entry fee into a feature that ultimately a lot of people are just moving away from.

To me it just seems like the only legitimate battle between nvidia and amd is price vs. performance. Nothing else really matters.

 

[bystander]

I'm liking the look of the new Gtx 680. Besides it being a really fast card, the main things that I want out of it is Nvidia 3D vision and it's quiet, something my 470's cannot boast. Now I just have to resist the urge to buy it, as I'm not having many performance issues. Although there are many games I don't max due to 3D vision or my need for 75-90 FPS.

 

[PCgamer81]

pcgamer i apologize for my rudeness i may have gone alittle overboard.I did have a graph that showed a 3gb 58o being faster then a 1.5 gb in bf 3 by like 3-8 fps.might not seem like much but the performance increase is deffinetly there.I will look it up and post it when i can.Mostley what i was getting at was future proofing i agreed most games do not take advantage of the extra vram at this time,however more then likely it will be an issue in the near future.Also letting you all know that the crysis benchmark was with crysis in the unpatched state more then likely i would have done better with crysis fully patched

I apologize for my rudeness, too. I was getting frustrated, and shouldn't have took it out on you.

I think what frustrated me was that I felt I was being misunderstood, but looking back I can see why that was.

I know that in the future more and more V-Ram is going to be the standard. I was just arguing whether that should be the primary focus when upgrading, and gave reasons as to why I don't think it should.

But still, just my opinions and no reason for me to get so stubborn and rude.

 

[PCgamer81]

Exactly your system....its already been proven crysis is not the most demanding game anymore, move along.

Talk is cheap.

And Crysis is the most demanding game that I have experienced on my system.

ARMA 2 was more demanding with one card.

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm liking the look of the new Gtx 680. Besides it being a really fast card, the main things that I want out of it is Nvidia 3D vision and it's quiet, something my 470's cannot boast. Now I just have to resist the urge to buy it, as I'm not having many performance issues. Although there are many games I don't max due to 3D vision or my need for 75-90 FPS.

The 680 is going to be a monster, that's for sure.

Hey, I have an idea.

Give me a level in Metro 2033 that you want me to use in my benchmark. Tell me the settings you want me to use. Do you want me to have xfire enabled?

What about Crysis? Level? Settings?

Give me the specifics of exactly what you think would be a fair test for a video, and I will do it.

Also, I plan to have a frame counter showing clockrates, use percentage, framerate, and anything else you think is relevant.

 

[bystander]

The 680 is going to be a monster, that's for sure.

Hey, I have an idea.

Give me a level in Metro 2033 that you want me to use in my benchmark. Tell me the settings you want me to use. Do you want me to have xfire enabled?

What about Crysis? Level? Settings?

Give me the specifics of exactly what you think would be a fair test for a video, and I will do it.

Also, I plan to have a frame counter showing clockrates, use percentage, framerate, and anything else you think is relevant.

mikem711 already ran some benchmarks and found what I found when DoF was enabled. Anyways, I'm over it. I was just saying that you previously conceded it was, now you are saying it's not.