Most Demanding Game

[PCgamer81]

Meant as a segue to the topic of the post, not as a dig @ Crysis fans despite how it read =).

I took no offense, and in any case, you are right.

It is without a doubt one of my favorite shooters of all time. I call Half Life 2 my favorite, but if truth be known, I liked Crysis a little more.

If I am not mistaken, you are a fan of the second one (if I remember correctly). The second one was awesome as well, and while it had better textures than Crysis/Warhead, I feel that Crysis is more impressive in it's scope. Now, I will admit that I am now running Crysis 2 with the DX11 patch and High-Res pack, as well as the Blackfire mod - I cannot deny that it's impressive. I just don't like the "look" of Crysis 2, although I can't put my finger on it. In any case, it's just an opinion. What's not an opinion is that Crysis 2 can bring a PC to it's knees when played the way it's intended to be played.

...More impressive really is that a single 7970 played Crysis literally maxed with a min fps of 43. That's pretty damn good in my opinion, hardware wise. If I wasn't waiting to see Kepler numbers and compare afterward, that kind of talk would have me sold on a 7970 like today lol..

I am not the most qualified person in the world to be giving advice, especially considering you probably know more than I do when it comes to hardware, but if I was you I would keep the 570. Yeah, the 7970 is impressive. But I had much rather have a 570SLi. Not only is it more powerful, but you get PhysX. A system with dual 570's sounds very sweet. In fact, if you were going to upgrade, adding a second 570 seems like the obvious choice. Just my humble opinion.

 

[casualcolors]

I took no offense, and in any case, you are right.

It is without a doubt one of my favorite shooters of all time. I call Half Life 2 my favorite, but if truth be known, I liked Crysis a little more.

If I am not mistaken, you are a fan of the second one (if I remember correctly). The second one was awesome as well, and while it had better textures than Crysis/Warhead, I feel that Crysis is more impressive in it's scope. Now, I will admit that I am now running Crysis 2 with the DX11 patch and High-Res pack, as well as the Blackfire mod - I cannot deny that it's impressive. I just don't like the "look" of Crysis 2, although I can't put my finger on it. In any case, it's just an opinion. What's not an opinion is that Crysis 2 can bring a PC to it's knees when played the way it's intended to be played.



I am not the most qualified person in the world to be giving advice, especially considering you probably know more than I do when it comes to hardware, but if I was you I would keep the 570. Yeah, the 7970 is impressive. But I had much rather have a 570SLi. Not only is it more powerful, but you get PhysX. A system with dual 570's sounds very sweet. In fact, if you were going to upgrade, adding a second 570 seems like the obvious choice. Just my humble opinion.

More than likely I'm going to wait until gk110 unless the yields from gk104 are impressive enough. Probably gonna stick with nvidia through this next generation though unless the release benchmarks aren't impressive, or if there isn't much OC headroom on the 680 (which is possible for a couple of reasons primarily that there is the possibility that the 680 is really a very heavily juiced version of what was intended to be the 660ti).

Yeah I like Crysis 2 and also like the first 2 games quite a lot as well. Crysis 2 had really fun multiplayer in my opinion, and I didn't feel like it thrashed the single player story as badly as some other people felt. All good games. Crysis Warhead was probably the prettiest of them, but there was something cool about the way Crysis 2 pitted you as a random grunt jammed into the nanosuit as opposed to some special nanosuit taskforce guy like Nomad or Psycho. I also thought the controls were pretty suitably streamlined in Crysis 2 which was better for the gameplay since Crysis 2's combat was much more fluid and for me, involved a little less strategic skulking into a good position to attack from. I dunno. I've just enjoyed all 3 games from the series. I guess that's the best way to put it. Not disillusioned by any, and don't hate any of them by any stretch. Hoping to see the series extended.

 

[bystander]

I love Crysis 1's landscape. It was a lot of fun, more so than Crysis 2, but truth be told, Farcry was my favorite. It was Crysis without the overpowered suit.

 

[pamapu]

Eden Eternal
Thirst of Night
Godfather five families
Soul of Guardian
DDTank
Vindictus
Forsakenworld

 

[Stringjam]

There's something about the wide-open feel of the original Crysis scale and FoV that I really love. Crysis 2, even near fish-eye levels of FoV just doesn't look the same.

I've been playing a Crysis Wars MP mod that's been in the works since 2009....just a small group of French guys from CryDev who have been developing it. Only about 30 of us involved, but I really love where they're going with it. No nano-suit or special abilities.....it's meant to basically be a "Battlefield 2" style mod for CryEngine. I love their maps designs, though.

They left in the lean mechanic as well....so doing well requires a lot of good squad work and careful use of cover.

A few screenshots:

 

[casualcolors]

Those screens look really good imo. Personally would prefer the map in the lower left for an FPS but it's an interesting project. Like the team score tracker at the top, looks very polished.

 

[PCgamer81]

More than likely I'm going to wait until gk110 unless the yields from gk104 are impressive enough. Probably gonna stick with nvidia through this next generation though unless the release benchmarks aren't impressive, or if there isn't much OC headroom on the 680 (which is possible for a couple of reasons primarily that there is the possibility that the 680 is really a very heavily juiced version of what was intended to be the 660ti).

Yeah I like Crysis 2 and also like the first 2 games quite a lot as well. Crysis 2 had really fun multiplayer in my opinion, and I didn't feel like it thrashed the single player story as badly as some other people felt. All good games. Crysis Warhead was probably the prettiest of them, but there was something cool about the way Crysis 2 pitted you as a random grunt jammed into the nanosuit as opposed to some special nanosuit taskforce guy like Nomad or Psycho. I also thought the controls were pretty suitably streamlined in Crysis 2 which was better for the gameplay since Crysis 2's combat was much more fluid and for me, involved a little less strategic skulking into a good position to attack from. I dunno. I've just enjoyed all 3 games from the series. I guess that's the best way to put it. Not disillusioned by any, and don't hate any of them by any stretch. Hoping to see the series extended.

Well, there has certainly been a lot of speculation and build up concerning the 680, and it now looks like it's not going to live up to all the hype. But the 680 is going to be an absolute beast for a single card. From what little I have gathered, it looks like it will fall somewhere between a 7970 and a GTX 590.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/23088/nvidia_gtx_680_review_beats_7970_gtx_590_in_most_benchmarks/index.html

But you never know.

 

[Stringjam]

Those screens look really good imo. Personally would prefer the map in the lower left for an FPS but it's an interesting project. Like the team score tracker at the top, looks very polished.

It's getting there. There's definitely some things that are rough around the edges, but they've really put a ton of effort into it (especially for a project with no financial reward). There's still a lot of details that can be improved.....the sound design is much better than it used to be, but I would like to see it go to the next level.

I don't think it will ever become very populated.....despite the fact that it is free (the mod works with the free Crysis Wars trial....so you don't even have to buy Wars). The fact that it is basically a homebrew development will probably keep it from ever really taking off. I love getting in there when enough people get together and playing some games, though. A refreshing change of pace.

There is one "Pripyat" style map that is really cool......it is what "Seine Crossing" should have been, IMO. Huge, with no choke points, and a really great atmosphere. Think STALKER, but a larger scale.

 

[casualcolors]

It's getting there. There's definitely some things that are rough around the edges, but they've really put a ton of effort into it (especially for a project with no financial reward). There's still a lot of details that can be improved.....the sound design is much better than it used to be, but I would like to see it go to the next level.

I don't think it will ever become very populated.....despite the fact that it is free (the mod works with the free Crysis Wars trial....so you don't even have to buy Wars). The fact that it is basically a homebrew development will probably keep it from ever really taking off. I love getting in there when enough people get together and playing some games, though. A refreshing change of pace.

There is one "Pripyat" style map that is really cool......it is what "Seine Crossing" should have been, IMO. Huge, with no choke points, and a really great atmosphere. Think STALKER, but a larger scale.

http://earthmachine.home.mchsi.com/casus6.jpg

Unfortunately you live in a world with people so stupid that they file an FTC complaint against EA and Bioware because of the Mass Effect 3 ending, so you know damned well there won't be enough people able to breathe with their mouths closed to fully populate this game.

Don't knock Seine Crossing though! I really like that map. lol

 

[Guest]

I took no offense, and in any case, you are right.

It is without a doubt one of my favorite shooters of all time. I call Half Life 2 my favorite, but if truth be known, I liked Crysis a little more.

If I am not mistaken, you are a fan of the second one (if I remember correctly). The second one was awesome as well, and while it had better textures than Crysis/Warhead, I feel that Crysis is more impressive in it's scope. Now, I will admit that I am now running Crysis 2 with the DX11 patch and High-Res pack, as well as the Blackfire mod - I cannot deny that it's impressive. I just don't like the "look" of Crysis 2, although I can't put my finger on it. In any case, it's just an opinion. What's not an opinion is that Crysis 2 can bring a PC to it's knees when played the way it's intended to be played.



I am not the most qualified person in the world to be giving advice, especially considering you probably know more than I do when it comes to hardware, but if I was you I would keep the 570. Yeah, the 7970 is impressive. But I had much rather have a 570SLi. Not only is it more powerful, but you get PhysX. A system with dual 570's sounds very sweet. In fact, if you were going to upgrade, adding a second 570 seems like the obvious choice. Just my humble opinion.

PhysX isnt really used in to many games to me its more gimmick then anything.The only games ive played that had physX were mafia 2 and sacred 2.I think bataman arkham city has it to.The only reason i went with ATI at the moment was because i was interested in eyeinfinity.Ya i could have gotten nvidia surround but they make it to where you need to have a sli setup and 120hz monitors or it will not work.Alittle to expensive for me.Normally id agree with another 570 but games nowadays rely more and more on vram.Id sell off the 570 while they still command a premium and get a gtx 680 or a 7950/70.My 7970 overclocked will pull close to 2 570's in SLI

 

[Guest]

Well, there has certainly been a lot of speculation and build up concerning the 680, and it now looks like it's not going to live up to all the hype. But the 680 is going to be an absolute beast for a single card. From what little I have gathered, it looks like it will fall somewhere between a 7970 and a GTX 590.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/23088/nvidia_gtx_680_review_beats_7970_gtx_590_in_most_benchmarks/index.html

But you never know.

Ya im hearing gtx 680 will be between 5-10% faster then a 7970 but the 7970 overclocks like crazy so if the gtx 680 cant overclock well the 7970 will still be the faster card.A far cry from the 45% faster then the 7970 what was initially rumored.im glad i got the 7970 now.If it would have been 20% faster i might have sold the 7970 for a gtx 680 but looks like there going to be neck and neck

 

[PCgamer81]

PhysX isnt really used in to many games to me its more gimmick then anything.The only games ive played that had physX were mafia 2 and sacred 2.I think bataman arkham city has it to.

There are a few PhysX games, and there will probably be a few more. It isn't really a deciding factor, but it is a nice little bonus. Metro 2033, Mafia 2, and both Batman games are titles I really love, and would appreciate PhysX for them.

The only reason i went with ATI at the moment was because i was interested in eyeinfinity.Ya i could have gotten nvidia surround but they make it to where you need to have a sli setup and 120hz monitors or it will not work.Alittle to expensive for me.

I also believe that Nvidia is the better option for other reasons. The main one being that most games are optimized for Nvidia and I'm sick of having to roll back/update drivers/wait for patches/rely on mods every time a new game comes out. There are a lot of other little reasons, but that is the main one. My current setup will probably be my last AMD build.

Normally id agree with another 570 but games nowadays rely more and more on vram.

Believe me, the 1.5GB of V-Ram is MORE than adequate. There are people running 5760x1080 displays with the 570 SLi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHI0dI9qqNw - Crysis 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijW3PYELafU - Heaven benchmark

While 1.5GB of V-Ram may not be ideal across 3 monitors, the 570 SLi is powerful enough to make up for that. The 570 SLi yields great results in that regard.

Now, as for 1080p gaming, 1.5GB of V-Ram is sufficient, and will be for a while yet. I won't even debate that.

Id sell off the 570 while they still command a premium and get a gtx 680 or a 7950/70.My 7970 overclocked will pull close to 2 570's in SLI

Sorry, but two GTX 570s in SLi are significantly more powerful than the 7970.

570 SLI vs HD7970

Modern Warfare 2

230fps 166fps

Battlefield BC2

103fps 75fps

Dirt 2

138fps 105fps

Far Cry 2

153fps 102fps

Metro 2033

54fps 44fps

Anon 1404

109fps 122fps

Source -
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-570-sli-review/5
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/13

Compare the benchmarks yourself (the games both reviews had in common).

The 570 SLi (stock) is theoretically at least 35% more powerful than the 7970 (stock).

The 7970 is one hell of a GPU, though. 😀

 

[Guest]

well an overclocked 7970 will make up most of that 35% advantage that 2 stock gtx 570's have over it.No doubt stock for stock there stronger.Stock for stock a 7970 is 20-30% faster then a gtx 580 but you add an overclock of 1200 mhz to a 7970 it becomes 50-70% faster and i would guess dual 570's stock would not be more then 10% faster.by the way the 570's only have 1280 mb vram and trust me when i say even at 1080p you will see a huge difference when maxing out aa and af.

 

[Guest]

I never had any problems with ati drivers by the way anymore then problems ive had with nvidia

 

[PCgamer81]

by the way the 570's only have 1280 mb vram

I had 580 on the brain. Even so, 1.2GB is plenty V-Ram for 1080p.

and trust me when i say even at 1080p you will see a huge difference when maxing out aa and af.

Last I checked, the 570 at 1.2GB handles most games in 1080p better than it's equal on the other side (6970), despite having .8GB less V-Ram. The 6970 2GB doesn't really surpass it until you get into the super high definition range.

 

[Guest]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/118182-13-most-demanding-game-round#t716495

 

[Guest]

I dunno personally if it was me i wouldnt buy a card with less then 2 gb of vram anymore.There are already issues with gtx 580's not being able to run bf 3 on ultra settings at 1080p because of Vram issues.I agree at this point 1280 is plenty for most games but for how much longer?the whole point of adding a 2nd card would be to future proof and in a years time 1280 mb simply wont be enough to max games even at 1080p.there are already several games out which would use up all of 1280 then some

 

[PCgamer81]

...There are already issues with gtx 580's not being able to run bf 3 on ultra settings at 1080p because of Vram issues.

You mean to tell me that 1.5GB 580s are struggling with BF3? And it's because they lack of V-Ram?

NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS GOING TO BE AT A MERE 1920x1080 RESOLUTION???

 

[Guest]

dude you can get all the charts you want ive seen it first hand.I got a friend who has 2 gtx 570 in sli and he gets higher framerates but his game is not as smooth in bf 3.seriously go look on youtube and read around about all the people going from gtx 580 1.5 to 3 gb to get smoother gameplay out of bf 3.How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you giveup.You look at charts i have first hand experience and know dozens of people from other forums experiencing vram issues in bf 3.Think what you want i dont care bottom line the more vram the better.4x AA is the best this bench can do?thats not max not near max.give me a break and giveup

 

[Guest]

oh and just for future reference read my posts fully.none of the games you have listed did i say have issues with vram.If you want to know exact numbers bf 3 uses between 1.95 and 2gb of vram at 1080p on ultra settings.I agreed most games it doesnt matter but there are games that are becoming dependant on vram so quit sitting up allnight for hours trying to prove im wrong.

 

[PCgamer81]

...How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you giveup.

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

...seriously go look on youtube...

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.

 

[Guest]

Wow, you got me there! While I have been posting, you know, charts and actual data, you have been proving me wrong with...well...a lot of incoherent, poorly punctuated blather.



Well...

You talked me into it.

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.

There are many, many more where these came from.

But...

you will never find them...

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n511/Samuel_Rosenbalm/head-up-ass.jpg

you still dont get it.I guess in your mind vram isnt important.I was agreeing with most of what you were saying but you again act like a 9 year old and attack people who dont agree with you.Ive told you i think 3 times now most games it doesnt matter at this point.You were giving him advice and i had my own opinion.having 2 gtx 570's in sli are beastly but obviously you do not see the trend that games are coming out now being affected by a lack of vram.just a few years back 512 mb vram could max everything at 1080p now it cant max anything atleast any new games.Ive had a gtx 460 1 gb and 2 gb version and my 2gb version ran bf 3 much smoother at the same settings then my 1 gb,that also goes for gta 4.fps doesnt always equate to smooth gameplay.I would get stutters with my gtx 460 1 gb where my 2 gb version would run smooth as butter.If you dont believe that getting one 7970 over a second gtx 570 is more future proof then i have nothing more to say.You dont listen anyways after you attack a few posters telling them nothing is as demanding as crysis and your theory got debunked.I give you credit though after embaressing yourself you still post in this thread.If you think there coming out with 3 gb cards just fot high res monitors or 3 monitors your wrong.Not in the to distant future 3 gb will be very relevant for 1080p.We can agree to disagree and i apologize to the official poster for taking things way off topic

 

[casualcolors]

.Alittle to expensive for me.Normally id agree with another 570 but games nowadays rely more and more on vram.Id sell off the 570 while they still command a premium and get a gtx 680 or a 7950/70.My 7970 overclocked will pull close to 2 570's in SLI

This was exactly my thoughts on it. I'm not really hoping to match SLI 570 performance (there is no single card that would) but what I do want to do is alleviate the VRAM strain while I have the opportunity to do so, and as you said while the card is still sought after.

Ya im hearing gtx 680 will be between 5-10% faster then a 7970 but the 7970 overclocks like crazy so if the gtx 680 cant overclock well the 7970 will still be the faster card.A far cry from the 45% faster then the 7970 what was initially rumored.im glad i got the 7970 now.If it would have been 20% faster i might have sold the 7970 for a gtx 680 but looks like there going to be neck and neck

The 45% faster was when compared to the 7970 numbers as GK110's paper specs (the die is twice the size on GK110 as on GK104 or Tahiti). That is what leads me to concern in the 680 overclocking headroom, since I know the GK104 was originally supposed to top out at the 660ti. The card is due to release tomorrow though supposedly, so I guess we'll all get plenty of opportunity to do more than hypothetically compare them then =). I think at the end of the day, as long as you have a 28nm GPU and you're still comfortable with what was paid for it, then it was a good investment. People who paid a little premium got the 7970 earlier, and I can certainly understand why they would have done so. It's very well built hardware. Hopefully the same can be said for the 680 on its debut.

On the issue of VRAM that seemed to get so controversial in the last few posts, I think that it is beginning to matter more. 1.28gb and 1.5gb are plenty 99% of the time but there are ways to fully saturate either (hell there are ways to saturate 2gb even) on a single screen. Now, these are features that no one gaming competitively is going to enable in the first place, but rather for the sake of epeening in single player mode. If there was ever any way to put the argument to rest though, the fact that Nvidia has also stepped up to 2gb shows that they agree.

On the topic of PhysX and Eyefinity, they're both gimmicks. No one uses Eyefinity for competitive gaming, and PhysX doesn't give you any tangible edge. They're both equally frivolous. PhysX can add some cool effects, Eyefinity can add some immersion. Those are both true statements. The other thing that is true to me is that PhysX doesn't make me feel like I'm playing a different game, and Eyefinity's 2 peripheral monitors don't show me anything that I couldn't assume was already there (hell I barely even look at them). When you consider the entry fee for Eyefinity it's pretty pricey as well. 3 quality monitors of the same type? It's great if you have them but consider tacking that onto the cost of the GPU. At the end of the day I don't see PhysX nor Eyefinity as a major selling point in any way for either brand. Just buy based on price vs. performance vs. driver success in the titles that you play the most, and accept Physx or Eyefinity as a cherry on top.

 

[PCgamer81]

you still dont get it.I guess in your mind vram isnt important.I was agreeing with most of what you were saying but you again act like a 9 year old and attack people who dont agree with you.Ive told you i think 3 times now most games it doesnt matter at this point.You were giving him advice and i had my own opinion.having 2 gtx 570's in sli are beastly but obviously you do not see the trend that games are coming out now being affected by a lack of vram.just a few years back 512 mb vram could max everything at 1080p now it cant max anything atleast any new games.Ive had a gtx 460 1 gb and 2 gb version and my 2gb version ran bf 3 much smoother at the same settings then my 1 gb,that also goes for gta 4.fps doesnt always equate to smooth gameplay.I would get stutters with my gtx 460 1 gb where my 2 gb version would run smooth as butter.If you dont believe that getting one 7970 over a second gtx 570 is more future proof then i have nothing more to say.You dont listen anyways after you attack a few posters telling them nothing is as demanding as crysis and your theory got debunked.I give you credit though after embaressing yourself you still post in this thread.If you think there coming out with 3 gb cards just fot high res monitors or 3 monitors your wrong.Not in the to distant future 3 gb will be very relevant for 1080p.We can agree to disagree and i apologize to the official poster for taking things way off topic

I don't think I embarrassed myself. I posted irrefutable, actual data that proves my point.

Hey...I can understand that memory demands are getting bigger! Because they are.

I'm not saying that newer games don't require more and more, because they do. They always do. But when making hardware decisions, you have to weigh it out.

If you go back to the beginning, I was telling casualcolors that the 570SLi is the better option. It is. Yes, the 7970 has a bigger framebuffer, but at 1080p, he is better off with the dual 570s.

Two 570's will BEAST a single 7970 today, tomorrow, and 5 years from now, regardless of V-Ram.

V-Ram can be important, but there are far more important things than size, such as speed.

The 7970 will always be bigger, and the 570SLi will always be faster.

 

[casualcolors]

I don't think I embarrassed myself. I posted irrefutable, actual data that proves my point.

Hey...I can understand that memory demands are getting bigger! Because they are.

I'm not saying that newer games don't require more and more, because they do. They always do. But when making hardware decisions, you have to weigh it out.

If you go back to the beginning, I was telling casualcolors that the 570SLi is the better option. It is. Yes, the 7970 has a bigger framebuffer, but at 1080p, he is better off with the dual 570s.

Two 570's will BEAST a single 7970 today, tomorrow, and 5 years from now, regardless of V-Ram.

V-Ram can be important, but there are far more important things than size, such as speed.

The 7970 will always be bigger, and the 570SLi will always be faster.

Well the more important question is, "am I interested in SLI?" Personally it's something I like to avoid. The question beyond that is when to pull the trigger and do it. People do always say, "I'll buy one of these now and crossfire it later!" But when later comes it's not always a good choice to go for the crossfire setup. In this case. games are encroaching on 1.28gb vram and that is one thing that SLI can't fix. If the 570 had say, 2gb or 3gb of VRam, I think SLI'ing it would be obvious and cleanly head and shoulders. With it having 1.28gb, at least my model anyway, I think there is a much larger grey area between buying for speed now or choosing a new platform that will potentially have enough VRam that even a year down the road, there will be enough headroom in the frame buffer department to justify SLI'ing/crossfiring for speed.

Personally I wouldn't pull the trigger and SLI the 570's now that hardware is moving in the direction of larger amounts of VRam, which likely means games are going to go the route of consuming it since it's there. Personal call though. The 570 has a ton of positives going for it and it's not a bad platform to SLI on. It just won't be the one I choose to SLI on.