This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

what is the most optimized game on pc?

#81JKatarnPosted 5/29/2012 5:03:04 PM
nIMr0D888 posted...
Doom 3

Resident Evil 5

Gears of War (except for the drm)


Lol, Doom 3 was anything but optimized when it was released in 2004, even performance cards had to run it at 800x600 at medium details to get acceptable performance out of it (granted, it still looked pretty damn good at medium), it runs well now because CPUs and graphics cards have of course advanced since 2004 and you have the brute power to throw at it.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 460 Superclocked
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#82Snuckie7Posted 5/29/2012 5:05:44 PM
JKatarn posted...
MasterOmegaX12 posted...
Resident Evil 5; i got like 60 fps on the demo, maxed out, 1920x1080 on a 4850


How's that impressive? The game originated on the consoles which use Radeon X1800/Geforce 7800GT equivalents respectively, it would be ludicrous if that game did NOT run at at least 60 FPS on a card that is several times faster than that ancient tech.


The problem is though, most of the time console ports will take more power to run on PCs because of bad optimization. I seriously doubt anyone could run Skyrim smoothly on a PC with similar specs to an Xbox 360.
---
Dell XPS L501x | Intel Core i5 460M @ 2.53GHz | NVIDIA GT 420M OC @ 700/900 | 4GB 1333 RAM | 500GB 7200 RPM HDD
#83JKatarnPosted 5/29/2012 5:08:42 PM
Snuckie7 posted...
JKatarn posted...
MasterOmegaX12 posted...
Resident Evil 5; i got like 60 fps on the demo, maxed out, 1920x1080 on a 4850


How's that impressive? The game originated on the consoles which use Radeon X1800/Geforce 7800GT equivalents respectively, it would be ludicrous if that game did NOT run at at least 60 FPS on a card that is several times faster than that ancient tech.


The problem is though, most of the time console ports will take more power to run on PCs because of bad optimization. I seriously doubt anyone could run Skyrim smoothly on a PC with similar specs to an Xbox 360.


Yeah, unfortunately, when they do a direct port that depends on the GPU/memory timings etc. of a console things turn ugly, though in this case his GPU has likely 3x the memory and at least 3x the performance of the original platforms, even with sub-optimal coding I would think he'd at least hit 60fps.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 460 Superclocked
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#84x_stevey_xPosted 5/29/2012 5:10:44 PM
call of duty modern warfare. i remember when it first came out i was able to run it on my integrated graphics at medium settings (6150 ) by comparison i couldnt even run team fortress 2 at low
#85SoldierXCellPosted 5/29/2012 5:12:52 PM
If anyone ever even builds a computer equivelant or even slightly better than a Console theyre wasting money pure and simple, if your gonna get a PC get a friggin PC thats at least and i mean least twice as good as a console,
---
AMD PhenomIIx6 1045t @ 3.0GHZ, 8GB Mushkin Enhanced Blackline, XFX Radeon 5770
#86CptAwsumPosted 5/29/2012 5:15:33 PM
I ran HL2 on a Pentium 4 2.4GHz processor and an nVidia RIVA TNT2, with 512MB of RAM.

Where is your god now?
---
i5 750 | 8GB DDR3 | GTX570 | WD 1TB | OCZ StealthXStream 600W | CM HAF 922 | Acer 22" 1680x1050 | 7 Ultimate x64
#87CptAwsumPosted 5/29/2012 5:17:37 PM(edited)
From: Shebeskii | #051
HL2 is massively CPU bound. How is it optimized well when it doesn't deal with large chunks of data or use the majority of your GPU?

The game was well programmed for its time, but compared to today's games, it neither looks that good, nor uses the available hardware. Vanilla HL2 looks much, much worse than Doom 3.

If anything, Doom 3 runs on a toaster and still stands up to some recent titles this generation. HL2 stopped standing up to anything quite a few years back due to its more primitive shaders and CPU bound nature.

Or maybe the general population is easily tricked. HL2 has extremely primitive geometry. Sections of levels are literally some boxes with other boxes. Sure, you have a shiny surface here or there, or some random HDR lighting, but it doesn't have dynamic shadows outside of characters (the flashlight doesn't cast dynamic shadows until Episode 1) nor does have it have anything impressive outside art direction.

The game looked so good because it was designed efficiently, but from a technical standpoint it isn't impressive and hasn't been for awhile.

My point is it isn't doing much, hence why it runs so well. It's a bare bones title. It has some nice physics and some decent shiny surfaces and HDR. It ends there. No dynamic shadows or light sources is 2002 style stuff. Maybe people just don't notice this.Not surprising it ran on crap hardware.


Doom 3 didn't even look all that great two years later. HL2 still holds up. Artistic graphics >>>>>>>>> technical. The only current games Doom 3 stand with are other games with crappy textures and crappier art design.
---
i5 750 | 8GB DDR3 | GTX570 | WD 1TB | OCZ StealthXStream 600W | CM HAF 922 | Acer 22" 1680x1050 | 7 Ultimate x64
#88Snuckie7Posted 5/29/2012 5:17:43 PM
I agree. IMO Doom looks a pile of dung nowadays while HL2 looks acceptable still.
---
Dell XPS L501x | Intel Core i5 460M @ 2.53GHz | NVIDIA GT 420M OC @ 700/900 | 4GB 1333 RAM | 500GB 7200 RPM HDD
#89IEatCookiesPosted 5/29/2012 5:19:33 PM
Source games, by far.

WoW is NOT optimised. My FPS are so random in that game. Especially If I put Vsync on, the FPS drop to 20s in some areas or if the camera is in a certain position. Since all the graphical "upgrades" the game has got, it doesnt run anywhere near good as it used to. None of Blizzard's games (besides D2, WC3, SC1) run good anyway. People saying D3 and SC2 are "optimised" give me a real good laugh.
#90AngurvadalPosted 5/30/2012 9:07:29 AM
Snuckie7 posted...
JKatarn posted...
MasterOmegaX12 posted...
Resident Evil 5; i got like 60 fps on the demo, maxed out, 1920x1080 on a 4850


How's that impressive? The game originated on the consoles which use Radeon X1800/Geforce 7800GT equivalents respectively, it would be ludicrous if that game did NOT run at at least 60 FPS on a card that is several times faster than that ancient tech.


The problem is though, most of the time console ports will take more power to run on PCs because of bad optimization. I seriously doubt anyone could run Skyrim smoothly on a PC with similar specs to an Xbox 360.


RE5 isn't a port... Capcom games are developed for PC and then ported to consoles.
---
This message from an unbiased boardgamer.
Real men use Alta Vista.