Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

The Most Demanding Game For PC

Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 10, 2011 1:33:05 PM

Is that Metro 2033 the most demanding game for PC?... Or maybe some other game? :sarcastic: 

More about : demanding game

September 10, 2011 3:41:32 PM

Crysis in Ultra mode is normally considered to be game that can bring a cpu and gpu to its knees.
September 10, 2011 5:13:24 PM

Metro 2033 is said to be a system killer, as well as Crysis. Even if Crysis was released back in 2007, it still has some nice graphics. Mods for Crysis makes the game even more demanding.
Crysis 2 with the DX11 + High res texture pack makes it a system killer.
Related resources
September 10, 2011 6:17:49 PM

I heard that GTA IV also drows System especially with new mod ( iChaner, i dont remember name). But that mod is reborn GTA IV again. With regard to Crysis 2, I was playing in DX9 at MAX settings on 1280x1024 (thats my resolution) without a problem on ATI Radeon 4850 PowerColor 1GB.
September 10, 2011 7:05:25 PM

Well if you use graphics mods with crysis it is the most taxing.

But also as a standard non modded game Metro 2033 is also very taxing.


Funny thing is Crysis is understandably taxing because it looks very nice but Metro 2033 doesn't look good enough for how hard it is to run. Well Cryengine is superior so thats probably why.
September 10, 2011 8:40:11 PM

Crysis and Metro 2033 most definitely.
September 11, 2011 7:53:32 PM

Metro. GTAIV imo isnt demanding, but poorly ported. Crysis 2 still isnt the system killer that its predecessor still is, as well as metro
September 12, 2011 1:47:37 AM

Rise of Flight at full settings will run CPU and GPU harder than anything I'm aware of.
September 12, 2011 1:56:44 AM

jockey said:
Rise of Flight at full settings will run CPU and GPU harder than anything I'm aware of.

are you speaking of utilized graphical power to achieve a desired result that requires beefy hardware to play, or it uses your cpu and gpu to the point that your temps run high because it is poorly optimized? Dead island brings the temps on my PC higher than I've ever seen.... It was just poorly made for PC. That doesn't mean its strenuous on my system for any valid reason imo
September 12, 2011 3:25:30 AM

I would say Crysis or Metro.

Crysis has all that dynamic vegetation (that no other game has really had as much of).

If you mess around with the CryEngine2 editor, you can really get a feel for how much it (vegetation) kills FPS. You can build an environment typical of something like COD or BF (mostly static buildings, low vegetation density, etc) and get really high FPS - - but you start throwing in a lot of beautiful waving plant-life - give it dynamic shadows, high-res textures, long draw distances, etc, and you'll bring everything to a screeching halt.

Everybody thinks CryEngine2 is so terribly "unoptimized," but it certainly doesn't seem like that to me - - you have to consider the kind of environment that's being rendered. The Metro engine doesn't have any of this large-scale dynamic stuff to deal with and it still seems to really pull things down.
September 12, 2011 7:08:05 AM

I don't know if it's as demanding as Metro 2033, but Microsoft Flight Simulator X is very demanding on the CPU. A 4.2GHz i5-2500K can only give you just over 20FPS sometimes (ie. over busy airports with settings maxed).
September 12, 2011 7:40:46 AM

Metro for sure.
September 12, 2011 5:14:23 PM

skymen said:
Is that Metro 2033 the most demanding game for PC?... Or maybe some other game? :sarcastic: 

Hi skymen :hello:  . Yeah! Gman450 is spot on & you know it too well. :lol: 
September 12, 2011 5:16:52 PM

Ananan said:
Metro for sure.

Hi ananan :hello:  . Are you Sure! :lol: 
September 12, 2011 5:22:20 PM

Ananan said:
Metro for sure.

Yeah! Sure your sure! :lol: 
September 12, 2011 5:34:49 PM

Stringjam said:
I would say Crysis or Metro.

Crysis has all that dynamic vegetation (that no other game has really had as much of).

If you mess around with the CryEngine2 editor, you can really get a feel for how much it (vegetation) kills FPS. You can build an environment typical of something like COD or BF (mostly static buildings, low vegetation density, etc) and get really high FPS - - but you start throwing in a lot of beautiful waving plant-life - give it dynamic shadows, high-res textures, long draw distances, etc, and you'll bring everything to a screeching halt.

Everybody thinks CryEngine2 is so terribly "unoptimized," but it certainly doesn't seem like that to me - - you have to consider the kind of environment that's being rendered. The Metro engine doesn't have any of this large-scale dynamic stuff to deal with and it still seems to really pull things down.

Yeah! Vetetation alright,you'll vetetate all day long when you play that game. :lol: 
September 12, 2011 5:52:32 PM

METRO 2033 Is the King of the PC System killers... METRO: LAST LIGHT comes out 2012... That is very nice. Also a new STALKER. Fallout 4 maybe, who know. They are the best Apocaliptic games :-)
September 12, 2011 7:41:20 PM

Wish I Was Wealthy said:
Hi ananan :hello:  . Are you Sure! :lol: 


It's the hardest on my ststem. and that includes Crysis.
September 12, 2011 10:24:00 PM

skymen said:
METRO 2033 Is the King of the PC System killers... METRO: LAST LIGHT comes out 2012... That is very nice. Also a new STALKER. Fallout 4 maybe, who know. They are the best Apocaliptic games :-)


My stokage level is unbelievably high for the next STALKER.
September 13, 2011 7:49:35 AM

i guess no1 plays arma 2. maxed out it will crumple any system worse than crysis 2 or metro 2033. maxed out and i mean everything turned up and on. arma 2 gives between 4 and 7 fps on my system while both crysis 2 and metro are still in the high teens early twenties.

September 13, 2011 8:16:52 AM

Arma 2 is a real bad port right ?
September 13, 2011 8:30:15 AM

Or just plain bad coding, to begin with. Having a top-of-the-line system, and looking at some of the better looking games benchmarks on Tom's, and getting some poor frames even on those, it kind of defeats the idea of creating a game that can never be run at full potential. I mean why even bother in the first place? And that "bad port" issue really starts to sound old, and I am not really sure it's an excuse any more.
September 13, 2011 11:13:17 AM

Gman450 said:
Arma 2 is a real bad port right ?

nope arma isnt a port. pc was its primary dev platform.
September 13, 2011 11:47:52 AM

HEXiT said:
nope arma isnt a port. pc was its primary dev platform.


They would have had an excuse, at least...
September 13, 2011 12:59:07 PM

not really. they have a lot of nice features for lighting. but they are really only usefull in the immediate draw distance... with arma you can extend that distance so far it causes extreme load on the gpu. in metro for instance ambient oclusion is used fro a maximum of about 50 yards. while in arma 2 the draw distance can be in the kilometers range. applying the same shading across the whole map as if it was in the immediate area... thus the card crumpling performance.... its not that the game is poorly coded. its just that it can be made to apply ridiculous settings well above the performance envelop of any current card.
February 21, 2012 8:12:23 AM

:hello:  OK Metro is system killer, Crysis too and his second part, but people forget what pc you should have for the new Battlefield 3 ,and its requiers more then Crysis 1 or 2 probably, when you run it on max graphic and full hd resolution it crashs 6950 and i5 2500k! And its most beautiful game my eyes ever seen! But peoples says that Serious Sam 3 will be the abnormally demanding game that you will need Intel i5/i7 quad core 3.0 GHz and 6970/GTX 580! That will be probably most demanding game ever made :ouch:  !!!
February 21, 2012 8:55:24 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!