Most Demanding Game

[jdw_swb]

Absolutely.

For instance, I play Crysis maxed out with x4 AA and in 1080p.

This guy is off his rocker.

I already commented on the petty insults.

This is a hardware review from HardOCP.

"We were also able to turn up the AA setting to the highest level of 8X MSAA with no regret. Beyond that, all in-game settings were at "Ultra" settings. In essence, this game was running with the highest possible settings it supports, it was maxed out. Even at this "maxed out" graphics setting, no CPU gave us any advantage to gameplay performance. We experienced the same performance on all three CPUs at the highest graphics settings."

Notice how they state they maxed out the game, and look at the ingame settings they define as being maxed. They consider the setting of AA to be part of maxing out a game.

 

[bystander]

I don't have F1 to know if it goes beyond 8x MSAA, but the way they wrote that, I'm going to guess it goes higher than 8x MSAA.

That said, I don't doubt there are some that would view it more like you, but the majority of those who post, don't.

 

[PCgamer81]

Dude, give it up. I wonder how long you had to scour the www to find that. Well, I could find a million benchmarks where it says "Max Detail" and then says 4xAA or 8xAA, as it compares "max" detail with different levels of filtering.

Filtering is just that - filtering. It has nothing to do with making the game prettier - and in the cases of higher resolutions, it is a colossal waste of resources.

Should a person running a game in full HD or higher enable something that makes no difference at all, at the cost of 10-15fps, in order for it to be considered "maxed out"? I could understand doing it if it made the game look better - and I would concur with you.

However, it does not make the game look better - provided you are playing it max detail in full HD or better. All it does is waste resources. So for someone to enable it anyway, just so they can think or say that the game is "maxed out", is incredibly superstitious, counterproductive, and dumb.

And for you to continue to fight us with your foolishness is indicative of a sore loser who won't give it up and hates to be wrong.

Also, I play Crysis and the only in game option I have is 8xAA. But from what I understand, some people can enable 16xAA in game - probably people with dual GPUs or over 4gb of video memory or something.

Am I maxing Crysis? I play it at 1080p, very high, natural mod for improved lighting, 8xAA.

Would you consider that maxing it out, seeing as how my card does not offer 16xAA?

 

[jdw_swb]

Dude, give it up. I wonder how long you had to scour the www to find that.

1 minute, I visit that website everyday, and enjoy their hardware and performance reviews.

Ok, I can accept you feel strongly about your point of view, and understand you feel adamant that it is correct.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with you, but it is clear different people, and different hardware sites, have different definitions on what it means to max out a game.

I have presented my case, which you didn't accept, and you presented yours, which I don't accept. No matter how much we try to persuade each other, an agreement looks very unlikely.

Let us just move on, thanks for the debate.

 

[Hikaru_60]

1 minute, I visit that website everyday, and enjoy their hardware and performance reviews.

Ok, I can accept you feel strongly about your point of view, and understand you feel adamant that it is correct.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with you, but it is clear different people, and different hardware sites, have different definitions on what it means to max out a game.

I have presented my case, which you didn't accept, and you presented yours, which I don't accept. No matter how much we try to persuade each other, an agreement looks very unlikely.

Let us just move on, thanks for the debate.

No more amusing fight? AWWWWWW!!!!

 

[Hikaru_60]

I'm building a system that can play crysis on aa4x and af16x on 1280x1024. Its gonna be hard even with my low resolution due to my budget. 🙁

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm building a system that can play crysis on aa4x and af16x on 1280x1024. Its gonna be hard even with my low resolution due to my budget. 🙁

Athlon 2 x2 250
Foxconn 880G mobo
SATA3 1 TB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM HDD
Sapphire Radeon HD 6670 1 GB GDDR5
4 GB DDR3 1333 MHz RAM
Any cheap 500W PSU
Cooler Master Elite 430 Case

Have fun playing Crysis on high, and for 400-500$ tops. (although you might have to scale down the AA and AF)

 

[PCgamer81]

1 minute, I visit that website everyday, and enjoy their hardware and performance reviews.

Ok, I can accept you feel strongly about your point of view, and understand you feel adamant that it is correct.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with you, but it is clear different people, and different hardware sites, have different definitions on what it means to max out a game.

I have presented my case, which you didn't accept, and you presented yours, which I don't accept. No matter how much we try to persuade each other, an agreement looks very unlikely.

Let us just move on, thanks for the debate.

Fair enough.

Have a happy thanksgiving.

Adios.

 

[Hikaru_60]

FM1 would probably be better because A8-3850 + 6670=6770

 

[Guest]

anyone heard about serious sam 3 ?
i don't know if it is really so much demanding but here are the recommended specifications:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core from Intel (i5/i7-series) or AMD (Phenom II) at 3.0 GHz Memory: 4GB
Graphics: nVidia GeForce 480/580 GTX, ATI/AMD Radeon HD 5870/6970
DirectX®: 9.0c
Hard Drive: 4GB free hard drive space
Sound: DirectX9.0c Compatible Sound Card

 

[PCgamer81]

anyone heard about serious sam 3 ?
i don't know if it is really so much demanding but here are the recommended specifications:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core from Intel (i5/i7-series) or AMD (Phenom II) at 3.0 GHz Memory: 4GB
Graphics: nVidia GeForce 480/580 GTX, ATI/AMD Radeon HD 5870/6970
DirectX®: 9.0c
Hard Drive: 4GB free hard drive space
Sound: DirectX9.0c Compatible Sound Card

Wow, those are Battlefield 3ish...

 

[Hikaru_60]

anyone heard about serious sam 3 ?
i don't know if it is really so much demanding but here are the recommended specifications:

OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core from Intel (i5/i7-series) or AMD (Phenom II) at 3.0 GHz Memory: 4GB
Graphics: nVidia GeForce 480/580 GTX, ATI/AMD Radeon HD 5870/6970
DirectX®: 9.0c
Hard Drive: 4GB free hard drive space
Sound: DirectX9.0c Compatible Sound Card

I've heard of it and have seen gameplay. It looks like a awesome game. Kind of looks Doom-like. (Not graphics. More like how monsters appear out of no where and most things that heal you only give you 1+ in health.)

 

[casualcolors]

Strange that Serious Sam 3's recommended hardware is listed as a gtx 480 or 580 when the 570 falls in between those 2 cards. Just strange to see the 580 listed for any reason if the 480 is sufficient. Also interesting that the AMD recommended card is the 6970 which is a direct counterpart to the 570 and falls below the 580. I dunno this is probably a pointless post but it just seems like they randomly named high end cards from the current and previous generation of GPU's for nvidia and amd.

Also, way too much fanboying of crysis in the thread. PC Gamer related strong anecdotal evidence with an accompanying appropriate background to speak authoritatively, and was responded to with posts basically boiling down to "but look at this video" and semantics bickering. Cryengine2 is older tech than Cryengine3. It's funny that the ire that Crysis 2 gets is primarily tongue-in-cheek griping that it isn't a justification for a 3000 dollar computer.

 

[Guest]

serious sam 3 may not have good graphics but those requirements are the highest i have ever seen.
and the cards tell that u need a dx11 card so they tell the minimum power from both categories. also the recommended cards have at least 1.5 gb memory except 5870 which comes in 2 gb version too.
probably it would be poorly optimized.
after seeing those specs i unlocked my 6950 xD

 

[PCgamer81]

Strange that Serious Sam 3's recommended hardware is listed as a gtx 480 or 580 when the 570 falls in between those 2 cards. Just strange to see the 580 listed for any reason if the 480 is sufficient. Also interesting that the AMD recommended card is the 6970 which is a direct counterpart to the 570 and falls below the 580. I dunno this is probably a pointless post but it just seems like they randomly named high end cards from the current and previous generation of GPU's for nvidia and amd.

Also, way too much fanboying of crysis in the thread. PC Gamer related strong anecdotal evidence with an accompanying appropriate background to speak authoritatively, and was responded to with posts basically boiling down to "but look at this video" and semantics bickering. Cryengine2 is older tech than Cryengine3. It's funny that the ire that Crysis 2 gets is primarily tongue-in-cheek griping that it isn't a justification for a 3000 dollar computer.

Very good points. It does seem rather strange that the recommended requirements of Serious Sam 3 are that way - why not have the 480 and 5870 as the recommended requirements and the 580 as the optimal requirements?

And you are right that there's a lot of fanaticism concerning Crysis.

 

[Guest]

Crysis 2 isn't very demanding because they dumbed down the engine for consoles. BF3 is also well optimized, so it's not very demanding.

I would say that the most demanding are ARMA 2, Supreme Commander 1, Metro 2033 (because it is poorly optimized), and TA: Spring (You can never max it out).

i didnt understand ta:spring

 

[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.

u r talking about 35 fps and me about 60 so there is a difference

 

[PCgamer81]

u r talking about 35 fps and me about 60 so there is a difference

Perhaps.

But please remember that the topic of the conversation is "which game is more demanding", not "which game is more demanding at 60 frames per second.

It may very well be true that it takes a dual gpu setup to get 60fps in Metro 2033 with advanced physx, DoF, tess, and AA and AF - totally maxed in full HD or better. But that is not what makes a game demanding. The question is, is it playable at high visual settings with a mid to high range PC - and the answer is yes.

Crysis is not smooth on my machine when maxed, it runs at around 30fps - 40fps, and doesn't seem anywhere near that smooth. I don't need 60fps in Crysis - or Metro 2033, for that matter, but I do want it to run smoothly. And please remember that Metro 2033 is run in DX11 (with the DX9/10 option), whereas Crysis is run only in DX9/10. You don't have all of those options for Crysis, yet it still runs badly.

Please try and understand this...

When you run Metro 2033 side by side with Crysis, both games in DX10, Metro 2033 performs better.

That tells me that Crysis is more demanding.

 

[bystander]

Perhaps.

But please remember that the topic of the conversation is "which game is more demanding", not "which game is more demanding at 60 frames per second.

It may very well be true that it takes a dual gpu setup to get 60fps in Metro 2033 with advanced physx, DoF, tess, and AA and AF - totally maxed in full HD or better. But that is not what makes a game demanding. The question is, is it playable at high visual settings with a mid to high range PC - and the answer is yes.

Crysis is not smooth on my machine when maxed, it runs at around 30fps - 40fps, and doesn't seem anywhere near that smooth. I don't need 60fps in Crysis - or Metro 2033, for that matter, but I do want it to run smoothly. And please remember that Metro 2033 is run in DX11 (with the DX9/10 option), whereas Crysis is run only in DX9/10. You don't have all of those options for Crysis, yet it still runs badly.

Please try and understand this...

When you run Metro 2033 side by side with Crysis, both games in DX10, Metro 2033 performs better.

That tells me that Crysis is more demanding.

That is the part were we disagreed and why you felt Crysis was more demanding, and I think Metro 2033 is. Forgetting PhysX, as that is only available on one comp, but using DX11, and DoF (DX11 automatically includes Tessellation), Metro 2033 is more demanding. Using Dx10 then you may be right.

I disagree you with you about comparing DX10 vs DX10 as Metro was made to play at Dx11, the DX10 version is for people with older hardware. I believe their best released versions should be used to compare, and that's DX11 vs DX10 in this case.

 

[PCgamer81]

That is the part were we disagreed and why you felt Crysis was more demanding, and I think Metro 2033 is. Forgetting PhysX, as that is only available on one comp, but using DX11, and DoF (DX11 automatically includes Tessellation), Metro 2033 is more demanding. Using Dx10 then you may be right.

I disagree you with you about comparing DX10 vs DX10 as Metro was made to play at Dx11, the DX10 version is for people with older hardware. I believe their best released versions should be used to compare, and that's DX11 vs DX10 in this case.

If you are suggesting that a fair comparison would be Crysis in DX10 against Metro 2033 with DX11, I am afraid I have to strongly disagree. Unless of course you want to turn advanced physx off, DoF off, and tess off - in which case the game will run very well in DX11, unlike Crysis on the same hardware.

I am playing Crysis and getting 35 frames per second maxed out in 1080p and with 8xAA. In Metro 2033 I get about 30, but in DX11 (with all features enabled) and advanced physx on.

Crysis kick's my PC's ass and without all that.

Also, you can turn tessellation off in Metro 2033.

 

[bystander]

If you are suggesting that a fair comparison would be Crysis in DX10 against Metro 2033 with DX11, I am afraid I have to strongly disagree. Unless of course you want to turn advanced physx off, DoF off, and tess off - in which case the game will run very well in DX11, unlike Crysis on the same hardware.

I am playing Crysis and getting 35 frames per second maxed out in 1080p and with 8xAA. In Metro 2033 I get about 30, but in DX11 (with all features enabled) and advanced physx on.

Crysis kick's my PC's ass and without all that.

Also, you can turn tessellation off in Metro 2033.

If the game was designed to run in DX11, why would you use DX10 as the comparison?

If DX11 was designed to be their top in engine, and DX10 for those with older hardware. Crysis was designed to use DX10 as its top engine and DX9 for older hardware. Why would you compare their gimped engine vs Crysis' high quality engine?

It's like drag racing, but you are only allowed to use up to 4th gear, even though one of the cars has 5 gears.

The best you can do, with your restrictive comparison, is say that Crysis is more demanding when only using DX10 features.

 

[PCgamer81]

If the game was designed to run in DX11, why would you use DX10 as the comparison?

If DX11 was designed to be their top in engine, and DX10 for those with older hardware. Crysis was designed to use DX10 as its top engine and DX9 for older hardware. Why would you compare their gimped engine vs Crysis' high quality engine?

It's like drag racing, but you are only allowed to use up to 4th gear, even though one of the cars has 5 gears.

The best you can do, with your restrictive comparison, is say that Crysis is more demanding when only using DX10 features.

No. Run Metro 2033 in DX11. Just turn off DoF and Tess and physx. That is fair.

 

[bystander]

No. Run Metro 2033 in DX11. Just turn off DoF and Tess and physx. That is fair.

I agree with PhysX, especially since I cannot even tell a difference (if you read on it, the difference is pre-rended vs calculated on the spot physics), DoF is not part of the standard DX11 default value, so you have a possible point there, but tessellation is a big part of the DX11 features added to that game, and I can't see how you can turn that off and say you are comparing a them at their best.

 

[PCgamer81]

You can turn tessellation off in the options menu in Metro 2033.

My point is, Crysis don't have all of that - and still brings a system to it's knees.

You are wanting to load Metro 2033 up and compare it straight away and that isn't a fair comparison - I already said that Metro 2033 is possibly harder to max overall.

It is like saying, "My guy runs a lot slower than your guy." But wanting your guy to tack on more weight for the race.

Pound for pound, Crysis is much more demanding. And that is just the way it is.

With all of that said, let me reiterate that if the title of this poll was, "Hardest game to max", then you would be right in what you are suggesting - max both games out and set everything as far as it can go on both titles and compare.

But... the title is, "Most demanding game".

Therefore, you have to consider which one is overall more playable and accessible to the mid-range PC - and the answer is unequivocally Metro 2033.

 

[bystander]

You can turn tessellation off in the options menu in Metro 2033.

My point is, Crysis don't have all of that - and still brings a system to it's knees.

You are wanting to load Metro 2033 up and compare it straight away and that isn't a fair comparison - I already said that Metro 2033 is possibly harder to max overall.

It is like saying, "My guy runs a lot slower than your guy." But wanting your guy to tack on more weight for the race.

Pound for pound, Crysis is much more demanding. And that is just the way it is.

With all of that said, let me reiterate that if the title of this poll was, "Hardest game to max", then you would be right in what you are suggesting - max both games out and set everything as far as it can go on both titles and compare.

But... the title is, "Most demanding game".

Therefore, you have to consider which one is overall more playable and accessible to the mid-range PC - and the answer is unequivocally Metro 2033.

Why is it not fair? Metro 2033 is more demanding because it put in newer features. That's why the norm, is that newer games usually are more demanding. Crysis did have a long run, much longer than most.

If Metro 2033 didn't use those features, it's likely they would have made the game more demanding with DX10 features the way Crysis did. Or at least they'd have the performance room to do so.