most demanding game to date

Or Quake 4 on ultra settings (512mb memory )
Click to expand...
All the 512MB versions do is make it so you dont have to use compressed textures .. course this really doesnt apply to ATi cards which use 3Dc (although i dont know if its an engine-supported thing or a driversupported thing, i imagine driver supported so i think 3Dc would kick in here)

In any case, having a 512MB videocard doesnt mean you can play on Ultra to any degree of satisfaction. I present a counterexample or two
- XFX 6200
- X1300

The video capture is also very CPU intensive, i couldnt record games at all with my sempron, but with my A64 i can record games and play around 20fps.
Click to expand...
Uh ... Id agure against that, since you're capturing from framebuffer you cant do encoding on the fly (see FRAPS readme) which means you're gonna have massive files (i.e. 2GB for a few minutes) so the bottleneck IS gonna be the HDD
 
Praetor said:
- XFX 6200
- X1300
Click to expand...

Yeah also those cards have a 128-bit memory interface so it wont really make much of a difference.

Uh ... Id agure against that, since you're capturing from framebuffer you cant do encoding on the fly (see FRAPS readme) which means you're gonna have massive files (i.e. 2GB for a few minutes) so the bottleneck IS gonna be the HDD
Click to expand...


When I record like a 45 second movie it is over 1GB, but you can adjust the quality of the video too so it takes up less space.
 
Yeah also those cards have a 128-bit memory interface so it wont really make much of a difference.
Click to expand...
Thats not what makes them non-competitors ... its the core :P

When I record like a 45 second movie it is over 1GB, but you can adjust the quality of the video too so it takes up less space.
Click to expand...
FRAPS, 640x480 capture dude. I a bit off on the math here cuz i been up for a few days now but let's see: 640x480x32÷8÷1048576x29.97 = 35MB/s of raw video footage per second, now the documentation says there is a slight amount of compression done but doesnt specify how much it is, in any case, the end result is, in 5minutes, 2GB of data is generated :P
 
Praetor said:
Thats not what makes them non-competitors ... its the core :P


FRAPS, 640x480 capture dude. I a bit off on the math here cuz i been up for a few days now but let's see: 640x480x32÷8÷1048576x29.97 = 35MB/s of raw video footage per second, now the documentation says there is a slight amount of compression done but doesnt specify how much it is, in any case, the end result is, in 5minutes, 2GB of data is generated :P
Click to expand...

I stand corrected :P :)
 
Blue said:
FEAR should be the most demanding I would think. It has been the most demanding game I've played so far.
Click to expand...

I would agree....although I have not played Quake 4. In fear, I have everything at the highest and run at 1280x1024 with, generally speaking, no slowdown. The only time I notice a performance hit is when i'm in slo-mo and a huge firefight.

On a side note, another game to consider is Battlefield 2. I'm not sure how it compares to fear of Q4 in terms of benchmarks, but, that game will tax a system as well.

As for the guy who created this thread, I have two pieces of advise. First, when possible, throw in another gig of RAM...1GB with a system like that will be a bottleneck. Secondly, with your current setup, be sure your RAM is running in dual channel. Everyone have a great new years and we'll have to start a thread afterwards for stories.
 
for me, i think bf2 is just ram intensive.. i can play the game great on maxed settings at about 80-100fps, but i know for a fact that i only have about 600-700mb of free ram to play with, and it can be quite laggy at the beginning of a map load. also, my wireless comes into play to a degree, as well. but, it doesnt seem to be that demanding of a game graphically..
 
Since I got Quake 4 I have to say that it is more demanding than any other game, including FEAR. I've played the demo of FEAR on my system maxed out, but if I play Quake 4 maxed I get like 5-10FPS, whereas with FEAR I was getting like 20 or 25 FPS, and Quake 4 has much more going on in each and every room that needs to be processed and everything.
 
You know, I think NFS Most Wanted is quite demanding. I dont know if it's the same engine from the previous Most Wanted series, but this lags slightly on my computer. From what I read, though, it's CPU intensive... Or, maybe it's just a bad engine as it does seem to lag more than similar games with graphics that appear(well, to me) to be better...
 
Modoman said:
try fear and then try q4... q4 looks at least twice as good, too. seriously..
Click to expand...

You really think so? I think Fear looks better, and Quake certainlly seems less demanding. I'm trying it 1024x768, 16xAA, everything full, no Vsync, and it runs great... Fear, I can tell there's some lag, but I also don't think I had AA on, or up high...
 
The_Other_One said:
You know, I think NFS Most Wanted is quite demanding. I dont know if it's the same engine from the previous Most Wanted series, but this lags slightly on my computer. From what I read, though, it's CPU intensive... Or, maybe it's just a bad engine as it does seem to lag more than similar games with graphics that appear(well, to me) to be better...
Click to expand...

NFS: MW is definately not demanding, I play it in the best settings.
 
"7800 GT 470/1100MHz
X2 3800+ @ stock
2GB memory

1280x1024 2xAA Max AF Maximum Details - I guess I'm getting around 40fps average from what I'm seeing in FRAPS"

And I've found other posts similar to this so you're either full of shit or done something really amazing to your machine.
 
my comp runs quake 4 like crap. it's playable at 1280x1024 high settings, everything max no vsync with only 4x aa. fear i can run max all day long
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top