Most Demanding Game

[PCgamer81]

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.

Since adding a second 6970, my system b*tch slaps Metro 2033.

Not so much with Crysis.

 

[bystander]

Since adding a second 6970, my system b*tch slaps Metro 2033.

Not so much with Crysis.

I ran unlocked 6950's in CF when I played both. I played Crysis maxed but with x2 AA, and Metro I played in high with DoF. With DoF, you either play high, or very high without DoF. At least for me.

 

[PCgamer81]

I ran unlocked 6950's in CF when I played both. I played Crysis maxed but with x2 AA, and Metro I played in high with DoF. With DoF, you either play high, or very high without DoF. At least for me.

I play totally maxed.

DoF, Tess, PhysX, AA, AF - all settings maxed in DX11 @ 1080p and my system laughs at Metro 2033. Crysis is far, far, far more demanding.

 

[PCgamer81]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f59/BaneNWN/mafia22012-03-2202-23-41-81.jpg

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

Turn off PhysX.

 

[Stringjam]

This is kind of an odd thread, in that it would seem that being hard to run would imply the game being graphically superior in some way, when it obviously isn't the case.

I think the real issue here would be what game actually looks the best that is hardest to run(?)

Any modern game engine is capable of bringing the system down....you just start increasing graphic variables until the box can't go on.

I like to mess around in the CryEngine2 editor, and it is pretty easy to drag things down in a hurry....just start giving everything shadows (even the grass), increase view distances, etc.....just look at the shot below of a big map I've been messing with:

If you look in the display info you'll see I'm only getting 15 fps with my 570 GTX, and that is without being in-game with any AA, or even a high resolution. Start adding AI into the mix and things really drop.

So I think the bigger issue here may be which game, or engine rather, can be pushed the farthest while still delivering playable frames.

 

[PCgamer81]

This is kind of an odd thread, in that it would seem that being hard to run would imply the game being graphically superior in some way, when it obviously isn't the case.

I think the real issue here would be what game actually looks the best that is hardest to run(?)

Any modern game engine is capable of bringing the system down....you just start increasing graphic variables until the box can't go on.

I like to mess around in the CryEngine2 editor, and it is pretty easy to drag things down in a hurry....just start giving everything shadows (even the grass), increase view distances, etc.....just look at the shot below of a big map I've been messing with:

If you look in the display info you'll see I'm only getting 15 fps with my 570 GTX, and that is without being in-game with any AA, or even a high resolution. Start adding AI into the mix and things really drop.

http://earthmachine.home.mchsi.com/crysisfps.jpg


So I think the bigger issue here may be which game, or engine rather, can be pushed the farthest while still delivering playable frames.

You made a very good point.

That is precisely why I laugh at ARMA 2 when it is mentioned in the same conversation as Crysis.

Whereas Crysis was a world shaker in the graphics department, still being perhaps the best looking game today and definitely the best looking game of it's time, ARMA 2 is not even in Crysis' league.

I don't think anyone can say that ARMA 2 looks better than Crysis.

 

[Guest]

For starters arma 2 is a sandbox game so comparing that to crysis graphically is stretching it.The reason for arma 2 being so hard to run has nothing to do with the graphics anyways.I forgot exactley what it was called but let me give you an example.The AI in crysis are not living,breathing until you get within a certain distance from them meaning they would not be visible at all times until you hit a certain distance from them they simply do not exist.In arma you could be 7 miles from an enemy camp but the AI are in game the whole time doing whatever it is they do.they just dont popup when you get close they are always there and this is the reason for arma 2 being such a hog to run.For the size and scope of arma 2 there is no way you could have crysis type graphics there would not be a PC that could run it.The graphics in arma 2 are about as good as you can get for the type of game it is.Like i said its way easier to make graphics look better in a linear shooter like crysis.Personaly my favorite game engine of all time is justcause 2.To me that game should be more demanding then crysis but its so well optimized i can max that game with a 7970 average over 100 fps and i believe its the biggest non area loaded game ever made if im not mistaken and i put the graphics right up there with crysis.

 

[Stringjam]

For starters arma 2 is a sandbox game so comparing that to crysis graphically is stretching it.The reason for arma 2 being so hard to run has nothing to do with the graphics anyways.

Here's where I have to take issue, because ArmA II is a hog to run even in boot camp, where there is no scripted AI interaction taking place......just you and a big map and a couple of other NPC's.

I forgot exactley what it was called but let me give you an example.The AI in crysis are not living,breathing until you get within a certain distance from them meaning they would not be visible at all times until you hit a certain distance from them they simply do not exist.

CryEngine2 and 3 are both capable of spawning enemies at any distance on any map size, including mega-maps. It's a great open-world game engine - - it's just that nobody has really developed that style of game on it.....yet. I once put a bunch of those big flying aliens on my map and gave them a huge radius of awareness......it was really creepy hearing their "pissed off' noise in the distance and seeing them all coming from so far away.

On of the best things about CryEngine.....it doesn't matter how massive your map is, it never stutters. One of the things I hate most about STALKER's XRay engine (they should have gotten rid of that a long time ago).

For the size and scope of arma 2 there is no way you could have crysis type graphics there would not be a PC that could run it.

Just wait for ArmA III later on this year - - I think it's going to give us the graphic quality that's been missing from the series. 😉 I'm pretty stoked about it (check out some of the videos if you haven't already). I hope they keep some of the control mechanics the same because I've been playing ArmA II in order to try and get the mechanics down by the time III comes out.

The ArmA concept is great.....I think it's a pretty amazing game, despite having a lot of shortcomings.

Personaly my favorite game engine of all time is justcause 2.To me that game should be more demanding then crysis but its so well optimized i can max that game with a 7970 average over 100 fps and i believe its the biggest non area loaded game ever made if im not mistaken and i put the graphics right up there with crysis.

JustCause2 is a pretty game, but purely from an artistic standpoint. The graphic quality is pretty low, and they can get away with it in 3rd person (which essentially works to keep you from getting close to anything). The terrain textures are particularly bad, but you just don't notice because, unlike in 1st person, you're never crouching or looking directly at the ground.

 

[jfizzle4321]

While I have been posting charts and actual data, you have been proving me wrong with...well...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECIC3R2sxKo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzPP3bCNJCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7q7LyIJYpw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Y3PwbmMcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GXUoYdBx-c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlbJNVMyOBw

All with the 1.5GB 580. All maxed in at least 1080p. All users reporting 50-100fps. All users extremely happy with the performance.

The amount of V-Ram pertains to size of the framebuffer. The pixel/texel rate, which is what determines the quality of AA/AF, actually pertains more so to the speed of the memory, rather than it's size. Hence, the difference between the 1.5GB 580 and 3.0GB 580 is almost non-existent, except in extremely rare occasions.

Well that's good. I just bought a 580 classy at 3Gb and RMA'd it because, come to find out, it's not eligible for evga's step-up. compusa.com let me return it so I have 2 evga gtx 580s coming in @ $409 each opposed to $560 for the Classy. I'll then step up to two 680s in SLI when they come out .

 

[jfizzle4321]

Check the post at the top of the page. The top competing games were benchmarked. From most to least demanding it went Arma 2, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Crysis.

I'm copying that loud and clear Casual, hope you're doing solid by the way mate.

What I'm saying is that if you absolutely MAXXXXX Arma II (OA or the original), and that includes 10,000 meters view distance, there is no way any current CPU/GPU combo ix running that at 60 frames per second, especially if AA is set to maximum as well. I'm saying 1920 X 1080, everything set to very high in advanced settings, anti-aliasing turned up, 3960x CPU in 3 way SLI or 3 way xFire... I just don't see it happening. My point is that it will absolutely destroy both metro and crysis 1, warhead, and crysis 2 when it comes to melting a computer. I'm not talking about going to the in game firing range and turning on FRAPS, I'm talking about a chopper mission in Op Arrowhead that requires 4000 meter view distance, I'm talking about 50 versus 50 in online multiplayer... the game is a beast created by folks who make military door gunner simulations.

 

[jfizzle4321]

AAAAAAnd of course the 680 came out today.

 

[casualcolors]

Yeah mike's rig was really solid and maxed he averaged 25 frames in Arma 2. Definitely goes without saying there isn't a single gpu or even a dual gpu rig out there to max it right now.

 

[jfizzle4321]

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.

I hate to throw the "O" word out there again but I feel like Batman Arkham City is a great game but very poorly optimized. There's no reason why it should be more demanding than games like BF3.

 

[casualcolors]

I hate to throw the "O" word out there again but I feel like Batman Arkham City is a great game but very poorly optimized. There's no reason why it should be more demanding than games like BF3.

Batman IS poorly optimized. Horribly so. Unfortunately it was also a pretty good game so everyone was forced to trudge through the fact that it stutters in dx11 regardless of hardware.

 

[jfizzle4321]

Yeah mike's rig was really solid and maxed he averaged 25 frames in Arma 2. Definitely goes without saying there isn't a single gpu or even a dual gpu rig out there to max it right now.

I think it would take a server set-up to run it at playable frame-rates. Personally, anything below 45 FPS is unplayable but I like my settings to hover no less than 60 FPS so for me I have to drop view distance and such to make the game (playable).

I DID hear that Arma II had console commands to make it utilize multi-core, so I want to look into that. I'm super confident that Bohemia Interactive is going to make Arma 3 more multi-core friendly so we'll see how that translates. They may be a prime example of what happens when a company programs specifically with the PC gamer in mind.

 

[jfizzle4321]

Batman IS poorly optimized. Horribly so. Unfortunately it was also a pretty good game so everyone was forced to trudge through the fact that it stutters in dx11 regardless of hardware.

I never beat the 1st one and steam didn't cloud sync it so I didn't want to get into the second. I ran the benchmark on my old rig with a qx9650 and gtx 295 just to see where it was at and I didn't like it. Now at 1920 X 1080 I have FXAA set to low, both dx11 features on, tessellation at normal, and detail level set to very high. I just ran two benchmarks with this window open. The first one was:

Min: 2
Max: 100
AVG: 60

I know I haven't witnessed the minimums dipping into single digits so I ran a second:

Min: 30
Max: 100
Avg: 64

And I definitely have to agree with you, the game is like an interactive movie really, so hopefully when I get my two 680s in I'll be able to max everything and get playable frames.

sidenote: compusa let me cancel my order of two 580s... also:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=gtx+680&x=0&y=0

 

[PCgamer81]

I get about 25-35fps totally maxed with BAA, haven't played BAC...

That is of course with PhysX...

 

[PCgamer81]

Batman IS poorly optimized. Horribly so. Unfortunately it was also a pretty good game so everyone was forced to trudge through the fact that it stutters in dx11 regardless of hardware.

Yeah, I have to turn everything off just to get it smooth with my dual 6970 rig.

 

[jfizzle4321]

Yeah, I have to turn everything off just to get it smooth with my dual 6970 rig.

I'm going to have to re-download AA and beat it first before beating Arkham City. Plus I'm curious about my benchies.

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm going to have to re-download AA and beat it first before beating Arkham City. Plus I'm curious about my benchies.

Yeah, I am bad about forcing myself to play games in chronological order and it drives me crazy when there is a superior sequel waiting collecting dust.

AA is not too hard to run unless you insist on having all the eye-candy enabled. But then again, you are on Nvidia hardware so you will probably breeze through it like it's nothing.

 

[jfizzle4321]

Yeah, I am bad about forcing myself to play games in chronological order and it drives me crazy when there is a superior sequel waiting collecting dust.

AA is not too hard to run unless you insist on having all the eye-candy enabled. But then again, you are on Nvidia hardware so you will probably breeze through it like it's nothing.

I'm that way with Mass Effect. I beat half of the 1st one and my HDD crashed so I never played it again. I rece3ived ME2 for free from bioware because I preordered DAII and it received negative reviews.

I was also in the middle of dragon age awakenings when my hard drive crashed so I'm trying to finish origins to beat dragon age awakenings and then move to Dragon Age 2 lol.

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm that way with Mass Effect. I beat half of the 1st one and my HDD crashed so I never played it again. I rece3ived ME2 for free from bioware because I preordered DAII and it received negative reviews.

I was also in the middle of dragon age awakenings when my hard drive crashed so I'm trying to finish origins to beat dragon age awakenings and then move to Dragon Age 2 lol.

Never did get into DA...

Maybe I should.

 

[casualcolors]

On a side note since it was mentioned, how is Just Cause 2? I've never played the series but steam has a sale on them right now. Worth it?

 

[PCgamer81]

On a side note since it was mentioned, how is Just Cause 2? I've never played the series but steam has a sale on them right now. Worth it?

I own it and I played it maybe 2 hours. I plan on going back to it.

It is like GTA 4 meets...Crysis...meets...something arcade like.

It is very fast paced. The grapple hook is awesome and the controls seem tight.

Oh, and you have an infinite supply of parachutes that you can deploy at will. Just run and jump off a cliff and let er rip. And shoot people on the way down. And when you get close to the ground, grapple onto a car and hijack it. And then floor it in the direction of an explosive tank, jumping onto the roof of the car and grappling onto a nearby helicopter escaping just as the car slams into the tank taking out the entire compound...

Now that I think of it, I kinda want to play it right now...

It is like a playground of awesomeness.

 

[PCgamer81]

On a side note since it was mentioned, how is Just Cause 2? I've never played the series but steam has a sale on them right now. Worth it?

Hey man, Tomb Raider: Anniversary is €2.00/$2.50, Tomb Raider: Legend is €3.00/$3.50, and Tomb Raider: Underworld is €4.00/$5.00.

If you haven't played any of the new Tomb Raiders and you want awesome games, look no further.