What are the new rig stresser games out right now?

J

jordan12

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Messages
10,229
Guys,

What are the newer PC games out right now that I can use to stress out my rig to see how well it performs?
 
cryostasis


Do NOT buy it though, it's not worth any amount of moeny
 
dr.stevil said:
cryostasis


Do NOT buy it though, it's not worth any amount of moeny
Click to expand...

1. It's a pretty damn good game
2. You need a physics card. It ran at about 10 FPS on my 4870 without one, so unless he has one, this isn't a fair stress test
 
ughh... I ended up giving it away on here actually lol. Try out the demo, you might like it. I just didn't care for it too much. It was fairly slow paced and the visuals weren't very impressive for the amount of horsepower to took to max it out. With the machine in my sig, at 1920x1200 I was probably getting around 5-15fps with everything set to high (no AA)
 
dr.stevil said:
ughh... I ended up giving it away on here actually lol. Try out the demo, you might like it. I just didn't care for it too much. It was fairly slow paced and the visuals weren't very impressive for the amount of horsepower to took to max it out. With the machine in my sig, at 1920x1200 I was probably getting around 5-15fps with everything set to high (no AA)
Click to expand...

Well for one thing your CPU is bottlenecking your card quite a shitload.

At 3.3GHz 9800GT would be suitable (nah well probably something like a 4870, but definitely not more)
 
Tylerdurdened said:
Well for one thing your CPU is bottlenecking your card quite a shitload.

At 3.3GHz 9800GT would be suitable
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's bottlenecking it a little bit, but I doubt its that bad. I noticed a decent improvement going from 3.0 to 3.3 but can't get it stable above that yet. :eek:

I've read that over 3.6, there was little to no improvement on a 295 with a q6600
 
Intel_Hydralisk said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-platform,2469.html

Kind of... but getting a better processor won't magically make the game go from 5-15 fps to playable fps when his processor is already a 3.3 ghz core2quad
Click to expand...

damn, thanks for that link. That's a fine tool for researching system builds

edit: shit, it looks like it really needs an i7 to breath. I'm shocked that the 920 @ 2.6ghz outperformed the faster q9550. I didn't think it was that significant
 
Crysis and Grand Theft Auto aren't new but they both run like ass on high end systems at high settings/resolutions.

There isn't much that's new and high profile that is stressing anything out. You have to start going into triple wide display setups to see any kind of struggling going on at the top end.
 
Crysis is still the game most often mentioned as a real system tester. The problem is so many games are developed now with consoles in mind,so few of them really try to push the limits.
 
Nothing. Resident Evil 5 is a hell of a stress tester, but gpu wise. Thats about it. Quake 3 was the last great stress tester imho. Tested the whole shebang.
 
Try Fallout 3 with some of the graphics mods, specifically the ultra high resolution texture mods. My system was stuttering noticeably using the 4k by 4k textures.
 
Not sure if Fallout 3 has their version, but Oblivion has the MTAEVWD (More than almost everything visible when distant) mod which still should be able to make every system cry. Basically it gets rid of LOD models and loads models for very far away distances. Get that with Qarl's texture pack 3. You'll be able to see things at great detail for miles.
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
It runs like dog crap because it's coded as such. A textbook example of a poor porting job.
Click to expand...

No way. I had GTA 4 up and running just last night - man, there's so much happening onscreen at once that it's insane. There are cars moving about everywhere. There are citizens walking about on the streets. There are boats in the water and planes and helicopters in the sky. This isn't even to mention the insane draw-distances.

How can anybody drive across the Broker Bridge at 1920X1080 at 50 FPS, with all this stuff happening for miles around, and say that this is 'a poor port'.

The problem here is that people have taken this game for granted - people are so used to seeing their own city that when they see one this realistic in a computer game they assume that it was easy to do. This is the most detailed game I've ever played. Screw Crysis. It's just a bunch of palm trees with some nice water effects. GTA 4 is the single greatest technical accomplishment in gaming, ever. Which is the reason Rockstar spent 100 million dollars on it.

It's not a poor port. You just need a Core i7, for the obvious reason.
 
WabeWalker said:
No way. I had GTA 4 up and running just last night - man, there's so much happening onscreen at once that it's insane. There are cars moving about everywhere. There are citizens walking about on the streets. There are boats in the water and planes and helicopters in the sky. This isn't even to mention the insane draw-distances.

How can anybody drive across the Broker Bridge at 1920X1080 at 50 FPS, with all this stuff happening for miles around, and say that this is 'a poor port'.

The problem here is that people have taken this game for granted - people are so used to seeing their own city that when they see one this realistic in a computer game they assume that it was easy to do. This is the most detailed game I've ever played. Screw Crysis. It's just a bunch of palm trees with some nice water effects. GTA 4 is the single greatest technical accomplishment in gaming, ever. Which is the reason Rockstar spent 100 million dollars on it.

It's not a poor port. You just need a Core i7, for the obvious reason.
Click to expand...

+1.

You need a quad core intel CPU for sure. There is just so much going on. The 360 had such bad FPS drops and it was only rendering at 720p, lower texture quality and had such bad popping textures. And some people want to compare the 360 to the PC :rolleyes:

A high end PC runs this game with much better visuals at much higher framerate.
 
I have everything in GTA IV turned to max and I think it looks like crap. Hooray for a city, but no AA, piss poor shadows, terrible geometry, and low res texturing FTL. It's not like this is the first time you could drive around a city *cough cough*.
 
dnottis said:
+1.

You need a quad core intel CPU for sure. There is just so much going on. The 360 had such bad FPS drops and it was only rendering at 720p, lower texture quality and had such bad popping textures. And some people want to compare the 360 to the PC :rolleyes:

A high end PC runs this game with much better visuals at much higher framerate.
Click to expand...

In GTA 4 I can sometimes manage 50 FPS on my core i7 at 19200x1080 - the game, maxed out on the PC, completely puts the 360 version to shame. It's not a bad port, it's a good port - you just need a fast CPU to run it properly.
 
The idea of "things going on for miles" kinda tosses that issue into the mix of whether its properly coded or not. Think about it, do you want a physics and 3d render calculated on an object which will come out as a few pixels on screen as opposed to in your face.

Done properly, outside a certain draw distance, objects should not be calculated by the physics portion of the engine. That's the basic idea, its not like the AI is doing anything overtly complicated.
 
michael.pa2 said:
Crysis is still the game most often mentioned as a real system tester. The problem is so many games are developed now with consoles in mind,so few of them really try to push the limits.
Click to expand...

Yup - that's the problem. Crysis is still the top dog for system checking for me. The included benchmarking utilities are handy also.
Damn I hope they don't turn Crysis2 into a p.o.s. port.
 
Isn't Batman: Arkham Asylum a good stress tester? I saw some of the comparisons between PhysX and without and the effects were really quite amazing. I've never played it, but the demo on PS3 so idk about PC performance.
 
WabeWalker said:
No way. I had GTA 4 up and running just last night - man, there's so much happening onscreen at once that it's insane. There are cars moving about everywhere. There are citizens walking about on the streets. There are boats in the water and planes and helicopters in the sky. This isn't even to mention the insane draw-distances.

How can anybody drive across the Broker Bridge at 1920X1080 at 50 FPS, with all this stuff happening for miles around, and say that this is 'a poor port'.

The problem here is that people have taken this game for granted - people are so used to seeing their own city that when they see one this realistic in a computer game they assume that it was easy to do. This is the most detailed game I've ever played. Screw Crysis. It's just a bunch of palm trees with some nice water effects. GTA 4 is the single greatest technical accomplishment in gaming, ever. Which is the reason Rockstar spent 100 million dollars on it.

It's not a poor port. You just need a Core i7, for the obvious reason.
Click to expand...

I agree,I played it to 100% and now I am half way through for a 2nd time. Still seeing things that amaze me in the game. Stuff like reflection of a random plane over head in the water.
 
There aren't any. Besides Crysis. Which came out years ago...

Most games these days are console ports, which means you can play them on just about anything, and they don't really "stress" high end hardware.
 
I think you can generally expect that Supreme Commander 2 will set the bar for a couple years. It will definitely not be a console port.
 
piscian18 said:
I think you can generally expect that Supreme Commander 2 will set the bar for a couple years. It will definitely not be a console port.
Click to expand...

No, Supreme Commander 2 is going to be easier on hardware than the first Supreme Commander. GPG is not going down the same road this time - they want the game to be accessible and fast, both in terms of performance requirements and gameplay style. Units will be paid for instantly, engineers can't assist construction, you can't stall your economy, "experimental" units won't be terribly expensive, and so far it seems most matches finish in under 30 minutes. :( if I wanted that kind of gameplay I'd buy Starcraft 2. I suppose it's too early to pass judgment but I'm not too optimistic. It won't be a performance hog, though.
 
I find that GTA IV runs really well, and I can only use one of my GTX 260s since SLI support was never patched in unlike CrossFire support.

I think Cryostasis runs worse than Crysis for me, and I have PhysX. Crysis is a much more visually impressive game, too. Some of the cold effects in Cryostasis are pretty good, but the heat effects are laughable. All you need to do is download the demo and look at the fire in the first room to see what I am talking about. The game looks like it should run a lot better than it does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top