Cryostasis, Splinter Cell: Conviction, GTA IV. Crysis was a pain to run when it was first released, as there was virtually no common machine that could max it and remain playable throughout. If I remember correctly S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Clear Sky & Star Wars: The Force Unleashed also had some framerate issues. Metro 2033 is also known as a challenge for PCs worldwide. About the last, I managed to run it in DX9, high settings @ 1600x900 with a 8800GT and it was playable (25-30FPS), though there were lots of stutters. So I decided to wait with this one until I get my new video card.
The Witcher 2 - even if you meet the minimum requirements or just over be prepared to put everything on low and you'll still get 30 FPS. Black Ops was equally terrible in that department. Unplayable at launch. Not sure how the MP fares now.
I think GTAIV is the worse optimised game for me. There is a difference between demanding and poor optimisation. For example I wouldnt say Metro 2033 was badly optimised, just demanding on todays hardware.
NWN2 was unplayable before 1st patch. Here is an excerpt from my 2006 review of it, 7900GT SLI! lol......
"The performance is TERRIBLE. My PC, which to be brief has 2 7900GT's in it, chokes on this game's coding. The game recommended setup even maxed everything out for me, no way. The game is chopping as hell on max settings, whereas I can run games such as Oblivion and Dark Messiah maxed out and beautiful flawlessly. I have had to take the resolution down as well as about every other setting to it's respective medium range. Terrible performance for graphics that are ok, but not good enough to warrant this! Fortunately you can turn many settings off or down and the game still looks decent. Luckily the story makes you forget about it."
Call of Pripyat, always stutters on my PC, could never get it smooth. Red Faction Guerilla, great game but as soon as you start smashing buildings it all goes to **** and you get sometimes sub 20fps. GTA4 doesnt really need any explanation, its a CPU whore.
Crysis why does it use 99% of my GPU looking at the ground at 60 FPS but never more then 60% when i am looking around playing at 30 FPS.
Person0
Its because of bad CPU-optimization, when you look at the ground your cpu doesn't have to calculate a lot of sh*t, when you look at a big view your cpu has to calculate a lot of things.
And since crysis only supports duo cores, you get the low GPU-utilization :)
Its because of bad CPU-optimization, when you look at the ground your cpu doesn't have to calculate a lot of sh*t, when you look at a big view your cpu has to calculate a lot of things.
And since crysis only supports duo cores, you get the low GPU-utilization :)
Bros89
Simular thing with me. It only fully uses one of the core on my quad core CPU, the other cores are barely showing any activity. I did a little test on the Recovery level. Where you stand near a building that overlooks the village. At very high settings, the fps was
[QUOTE="Person0"]
Crysis why does it use 99% of my GPU looking at the ground at 60 FPS but never more then 60% when i am looking around playing at 30 FPS.
Bros89
Its because of bad CPU-optimization, when you look at the ground your cpu doesn't have to calculate a lot of sh*t, when you look at a big view your cpu has to calculate a lot of things.
And since crysis only supports duo cores, you get the low GPU-utilization :)
Agreed. I did a test on the recovery level where you stand near the building on the hill and you overlook the village. At very high settings, the fps was 32. At medium, it was 35fps. This indicates a CPU bottleneck in that particular area.
WoW? I hadn't played it in 4-5 years but I remember it ran well with an HP laptop on max settings at 1440x900 but I didn't measure the framerate with fraps.
Gothic 3 was a disaster! in my entire gaming lifespan i cant and wont find any game that would be as unoptimized as gothic 3. its an awesome game now by the way.
Crysis why does it use 99% of my GPU looking at the ground at 60 FPS but never more then 60% when i am looking around playing at 30 FPS.
millerlight89
Lol, exactly. Does that crap not piss you off? This may be a result of what kind of shader load you are processing. Certain instructions cannot execute simultaneously and must wait for previous instruction to finish before being processed. These instructions may not load 100% of your hardware taking up multiple cycles thus leading to a sub 100% hardware load. Looking at the ground probably utilizes much simpler shader techniques that can all be executed simultaneously in one cycle, thus loading your chip 100%.
This does not mean that it's poorly optimized, it just means it's a limitation of the graphics processor itself. It's not as simple as what you seem to be thinking.
EDIT: Also, CPU bottlenecking could also be an issue as others have stated.
how is it possible no one has mentioned FFXIV? remember that people with an i7 and a 560gtx had to run the game at minimum and at like 14 fpslightleggy
huh, i was maxing the benchmark out fine with a gtx 280 and athlon x4
[QUOTE="lightleggy"]how is it possible no one has mentioned FFXIV? remember that people with an i7 and a 560gtx had to run the game at minimum and at like 14 fpsferret-gamer
huh, i was maxing the benchmark out fine with a gtx 280 and athlon x4 you probably played the game recently, at launch, it was unplayable
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="lightleggy"]how is it possible no one has mentioned FFXIV? remember that people with an i7 and a 560gtx had to run the game at minimum and at like 14 fpslightleggy
huh, i was maxing the benchmark out fine with a gtx 280 and athlon x4 you probably played the game recently, at launch, it was unplayable
I ran the benchmark without issues too and it was released 2 months before the game launched. I averaged 43 FPS and it looked amazing.
[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] huh, i was maxing the benchmark out fine with a gtx 280 and athlon x4KillerJuan77
you probably played the game recently, at launch, it was unplayable
I ran the benchmark without issues too and it was released 2 months before the game launched. I averaged 43 FPS and it looked amazing.
you just said it yourself "before the game launched" google it, a lot of people with monster rigs had crappy framerates at launch, and the framerate would remain exactly the same even if they put everything on minimum
you just said it yourself "before the game launched" google it, a lot of people with monster rigs had crappy framerates at launch, and the framerate would remain exactly the same even if they put everything on minimumlightleggy
You are right, it's a different build. How could they release a benchmark than ran well while the full game is a slideshow?
[QUOTE="lightleggy"] you just said it yourself "before the game launched" google it, a lot of people with monster rigs had crappy framerates at launch, and the framerate would remain exactly the same even if they put everything on minimumKillerJuan77
You are right, it's a different build. How could they release a benchmark than ran well while the full game is a slideshow?
they could have changed things before the game launched you know...why does it sound so illogical to you?
Log in to comment