Most Demanding Game

[bystander]

I max Crysis 2 in DX11 and also with the high res pack, and I get about 40fps on average. It never drops below 30 and often goes about 50. I heard that the human eye can't read more than 30 or so frames per second, anyway. I think the thing that make it look laggy isn't necessarily the 35fps, but the fast drops repeatedly. I have ran detailed benchmarks and have found that a game can drop 20fps and back up again in a fraction of a second. That instability causes lag. I have also ran games in fraps, where I would lock the fps at a low value (30 or so), and it was smooth and lag free. PC games often have the tendency to bounce all over the place with the frame rate, and that instability - especially when it bounces back and forth in a fraction of a second - gives the appearance of heavy lag.

For me, anything under 30 is unplayable. Anything over 40 is desirable. And anything in between is ''meh''.

You have about the equivalent of two 6870s in xfire, so I would think you would be getting 60 fps. Is 3D a hit on performance?

What you "can" see is FAR FAR FAR more than 30 FPS, but our minds do not work that way, the detect change, not FPS. Read this: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

30 FPS is generally what it takes to appear smooth, but there is noticeable difference in 30 and 60 FPS when you turn rapidly.

The problem for me has more to do with motion sickness or what is called simulator sickness. What causes it is unknown, but the Air Force found that over half the population will experience at least some form of simulator sickness when running flight simulators.

Some people get motion sickness, others get eye strain, and others get headaches. I get motion sickness (nausea).

Back before I experience higher FPS, I used to power through it and have to get used to games and take frequent breaks. With FPS over 40 it is better. With FPS over 60 it's better yet. 3D vision may be worse at lower FPS than normal because it is alternating images between your eyes, which means lower FPS means each eye has to wait longer in blackness (this might be wrong. It might just alternate with your refresh rate, but I still experience motion sickness at lower FPS in 3D vision).

 

[PCgamer81]

What you "can" see is FAR FAR FAR more than 30 FPS, but our minds do not work that way, the detect change, not FPS. Read this: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

30 FPS is generally what it takes to appear smooth, but there is noticeable difference in 30 and 60 FPS when you turn rapidly.

The problem for me has more to do with motion sickness or what is called simulator sickness. What causes it is unknown, but the Air Force found that over half the population will experience at least some form of simulator sickness when running flight simulators.

Some people get motion sickness, others get eye strain, and others get headaches. I get motion sickness (nausea).

Back before I experience higher FPS, I used to power through it and have to get used to games and take frequent breaks. With FPS over 40 it is better. With FPS over 60 it's better yet. 3D vision may be worse at lower FPS than normal because it is alternating images between your eyes, which means lower FPS means each eye has to wait longer in blackness (this might be wrong. It might just alternate with your refresh rate, but I still experience motion sickness at lower FPS in 3D vision).

Yikes. I would hate to get motion sickness from games. That would suck.

I have generally found that I had rather have a game locked at 30 than average 60 with frequent sub 40 drops.

 

[bystander]

Yikes. I would hate to get motion sickness from games. That would suck.

I have generally found that I had rather have a game locked at 30 than average 60 with frequent sub 40 drops.

I lot of people get it, like I mentioned, about 50% of the population seems to have some effects after simulators play or 1st person shooters. And ya, it sucks.

I do believe it is possibly related to latency, which high FPS does reduce. That said, after you start using a 120hz monitor and play at 80+ FPS, going down to even 60 FPS looks choppy, yet I never noticed the choppiness before I had a 120hz monitor at 60 FPS.

 

[Guest]

hey i created another forums for best graphics.
talk this there.

 

[claydavis]

I will go for crysis the first one and not the second one

 

[PCgamer81]

It's possibly the best 3D game I own. It has no 3D bugs. It looks great, and it even works with Dx11, unfortunately, I use Dx9 due to performance issues. I think two 580's could play it with good performance, but not two 470's at 1080p. I get FPS between 30-40 and that is not good enough IMO.

Your system is about 40-60% more powerful than mine, if I had to guess. So I wonder why we are doing about the same in Crysis 2...I would think you would be getting way better. Perhaps power doesn't always = fps.

 

[tsd16]

I haven't played Shogun 2, but I have played Empire: Total War. It is very demanding. It is in the same league as Crysis - at least on my PC - although overall it isn't as demanding.

I can't max it, I know that. Or at least not lag free.

Shogun ran fine on my 5850 1080p max settings (no AA). some slight slow down in very large battles. Havent played it since I got my 580GTX.

 

[tsd16]

Funny you say that I don't program.

I am working on my bachelor's of science in software engineering as I write this. I program everyday.

And yes, Crysis was badly coded.

I dont mean to be an ass, but So what? I have a computer science degree and have been a developer since I graduated in 2006. I have no friggin clue if Crysis is badly coded.

 

[bystander]

Your system is about 40-60% more powerful than mine, if I had to guess. So I wonder why we are doing about the same in Crysis 2...I would think you would be getting way better. Perhaps power doesn't always = fps.

I'm talking about 3D vision numbers with Dx 11. 3D vision takes a lot more power than normal gaming.

 

[PCgamer81]

I dont mean to be an ass, but So what? I have a computer science degree and have been a developer since I graduated in 2006. I have no friggin clue if Crysis is badly coded.

I never bring up my personal achievements, for better or worse. I smell bulls**t when other people do it, and I keep my personal business to myself.

This was in response to him making the declaration that I don't program. That is a falsehood. I am not a programmer yet, but I do program.

If I came out and volunteered that, I would understand your point. But he brought it up. So I really don't know why you have a problem with me.

Also, I did not mean to imply that because I am studying software development, that I am somehow more qualified to argue what constitutes poor coding. I have no earthly idea what went into the Crysis code base, and doubt that at this point I would understand much of it, anyway.

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm talking about 3D vision numbers with Dx 11. 3D vision takes a lot more power than normal gaming.

I thought that might be the case. I have never used 3D, so I wouldn't know.

 

[p000n-tang_be4r]

I don't see how bf3 can be the most demanding game, i easily play it maxed out with a pretty good fps rate with an asus 6950 oc to 880/1300 and can even run it quite well when not overclocking. In my opinion i will say gta iv will be the most demanding game because of how poorly coded it is. I can only run it just above med settings while overclocking and i will only get an fps of 25-30.

And i don't see this pole providing proper evidence to what the most demanding game really is... in my personal opinion... people would have just voted for their favourite game... so i see no point in having a pole what so ever.

 

[nocturnal7x]

Man, how awesome would it have been if we got a real sequel to crysis. The possibilities are endless. (not to mention they would have sold more than like 200k rotfl)

Metro for me ran just fine at 20-25fps on my old comp lol

 

[jjb8675309]

metro 2033 hands down BF3 is nowhere near close

 

[tjosborne]

definitely BF3 currently, we can only imagine what the future has in store for us
-AceD

i think bf3 may be one of the best looking, but not most demanding. i can get over 90fps with my rig, in crysis its barely ever over 50.

 

[PCgamer81]

i think bf3 may be one of the best looking, but not most demanding. i can get over 90fps with my rig, in crysis its barely ever over 50.

Here is how I do with my dual 6970's in crossfire...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xa5y6KUZO0&list=UUZXSZdGb3Su8RvR5QuRyeqw&index=1&feature=plcp

60fps minimum, 100fps maximum, and 80fps average...with fraps even.

In Metro 2033, I get about the same as I do in BF3, maybe a little less in some of the more demanding (outdoor) sections.

In Crysis, I struggle to stay above my refresh rate (75). Suffice to say, my PC doesn't handle Crysis near as well as it handles BF3.

I have to turn AA off just to stay above 75fps. Totally maxed out, I get about 50-60fps.

Crysis is still King.

 

[casualcolors]

Crysis remains the most demanding FPS due largely to it not scaling well at all with hardware beyond a certain point. Crysis 2 with DX11 and hi-res textures pushes my fps lower than any scene in Crysis but only occasionally, and on the whole Crysis's frozen scenes with heavy alien activity are a stones throw away from C2's most demanding scenes, leaving Crysis overall the more demanding.

After some recent benchmarking fun though I will say that Witcher 2 with ubersampling is the most demanding game on my computer and there isn't even anything close to competition on the market that I can think of. Crysis with 8x MSAA is still a good 10 fps on average faster than Witcher 2 during nasty scene draws with ubersampling and everything else maxed.

 

[Guest]

Not even a question arma 2 and im not talking operation arrowhead.there is still not a PC on the planet that can max it and get 60 fps

 

[Guest]

Did you just totally ignore my above post?

No, you don't need two 580's in SLi to max Metro 2033. In fact, I max 2033 in DX11 with DoF and Tess, with PhysX enabled on an ATI card, AA and AF maxed, and I get 35+ fps with fraps - with 1 6970. I even have a video I made in the above post to prove it.

You really need to work on you observation skills.

And in the same post is a video I made of my rig maxing Crysis, and it is no where near as smooth.

I proved it.

Crysis is still King.

You can end the thread now.

Oh ya i got an i5-2500k overclocked to to 4.8 ghz with a 7970 and i even drop into low 20's in certain situations.You havent played arma 2 i take it crysis is not in the same league as being hard on your PC as arma 2 is.

 

[PCgamer81]

Oh ya i got an i5-2500k overclocked to to 4.8 ghz with a 7970 and i even drop into low 20's in certain situations.You havent played arma 2 i take it crysis is not in the same league as being hard on your PC as arma 2 is.

Yeah, but ARMA 2 looks ugly.

I downloaded it and played it on max settings, and it wasn't even in the same league as Crysis visually.

 

[casualcolors]

Most demanding is most demanding =)

I don't have any experience with Arma 2 but since you concede that it's incredibly tough on the hardware, I'll take it for granted that it is.

 

[PCgamer81]

Crysis remains the most demanding FPS due largely to it not scaling well at all with hardware beyond a certain point. Crysis 2 with DX11 and hi-res textures pushes my fps lower than any scene in Crysis but only occasionally, and on the whole Crysis's frozen scenes with heavy alien activity are a stones throw away from C2's most demanding scenes, leaving Crysis overall the more demanding.

After some recent benchmarking fun though I will say that Witcher 2 with ubersampling is the most demanding game on my computer and there isn't even anything close to competition on the market that I can think of. Crysis with 8x MSAA is still a good 10 fps on average faster than Witcher 2 during nasty scene draws with ubersampling and everything else maxed.

You are right, Crysis 2 is very demanding.

I play it with DX11/High-res/Blackfire mod and it is very demanding.

I don't own Witcher 2 🙁 .

 

[PCgamer81]

Most demanding is most demanding =)

I don't have any experience with Arma 2 but since you concede that it's incredibly tough on the hardware, I'll take it for granted that it is.

ARMA 2 was pretty demanding, but it didn't allow for crossfire support. I could only use one of my 6970s. The game was ugly, and ran terribly. Yeah, it is hard to run. But due to how ugly it is, and the fact that crossfire is a no go, I don't consider it in the same league as Crysis - but that's just my opinion. Not everyone uses dual GPUs, so it is not my place to judge.

 

[casualcolors]

You are right, Crysis 2 is very demanding.

I play it with DX11/High-res/Blackfire mod and it is very demanding.

I don't own Witcher 2 🙁 .

You should get it the next time it goes on sale. It's one of the best RPG stories that I've played, and with the settings literally maxed out it pretty much bent my computer over and spanked it. Also it has the benefit of being a good looking game.

 

[Guest]

ARMA 2 was pretty demanding, but it didn't allow for crossfire support. I could only use one of my 6970s. The game was ugly, and ran terribly. Yeah, it is hard to run. But due to how ugly it is, and the fact that crossfire is a no go, I don't consider it in the same league as Crysis - but that's just my opinion. Not everyone uses dual GPUs, so it is not my place to judge.

Arma 2 is far from ugly especially for the size of the maps.Arma 2 looked ugly with post proccessing enabled and AA but otherwize its a great looking game.Its alot easier to make a linear shooter like crysis look good then a military sim like arma 2.Ive gotten SLI to work on it but didnt scale well.even if sli and xfire scaled 100% in that game you will not hit 60 fps maxed out maybe 40.the view distance hurts performance more then anything and detailed shadows.