Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Most Intense Graphically game ever made(as of now)

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 26, 2012 6:23:58 PM

It intrigues me for days now...
I am talking about games that need high system requirements or games with outstanding graphics that is (what do they call it? pc killer :o  ?) and games that has graphics modification that is so intense it heats up your pc :pfff:  (is there even a game?)

battlefield 3 counts right? :sarcastic: 

sorry if this is the wrong section for asking this :??: 


thank you in advance!
March 26, 2012 6:59:02 PM

BF3 I think not so much that it kills or overheats the GPU as it eats up the memory on the card. However i stand to be corrected......
March 26, 2012 7:18:15 PM

Hi :) 

Metro 2033...

All the best Brett :) 
Related resources
March 26, 2012 7:19:36 PM

Currently it would probably in fact be Battlefield 3, granted, it's not as tough to run as back when Crysis came out. When Crysis came out even the the best cards of the time (8800 GTX/Ultra) were insufficent to play at high settings, we had to wait for a new line of cards to run it the way most people wanted it to run . BF3 is not demanding to that degree, you can still run it on with tweaked settings on mid to even a few lower range cards.

Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason was more demanding then Crysis imo though, this was back when i was running an 8600 GTS, and i was able to run Crysis with very tweaked settings(if i remember i managed to have a few things on medium) and it was at least ''playable" in the lowest sense of the word. With Cryostasis i had to pretty much turn all the speacial effects off physx etc off and still produced lag even at low. I have not tried Cryostasis since then though, but i assume it's gotten easier to run with todays hardware.

There really isn't a ''most demanding game of all time" because as time moves on and hardware get faster what is considered to be a demanding game will no longer be demanding. Crysis is a good example of this, as even todays mid range GPU's can run Crysis at above 30 frames at 1920x1080. And this was something not even close to acheveable with the midrange GPU of 2007. So there really is no such thing.

Out of all those games i talked about i would say Cryostasis heated up my system more, but again, that was with an 8600 GTS back in '07 and that card has a crappy little cooler on it.
March 26, 2012 7:54:16 PM

There is an entire thread with very in-depth benchmarking done. Most demanding to least:
-----unplayable maxed on any single gpu setup
1. Arma 2 25 fps
2. Witcher 2 28fps


-----playable on maxed settings on single gpu (7970 or better)
3.Metro 2033-45 fps
4.Crysis 51 fps
March 27, 2012 12:30:15 AM

@wr6133
I guess your right, it runs well on my boyfriend's 6670 1gig ddr5 (with a little bit of quality reduction), while on my cousin's 9800gt 512mb (both cards are differet, I know , sorry for that) it runs pretty much the same with the same settings and same resolution and processor(q6600 2.4ghz) & amount of ram(4gig) though it has sudden drop of framerate due to graphically environment, specially when a building collapse in multiplayer :??:  ..

@Brett928S2
ah... yes... metro 2033 .. I almost forgot about that game :D 

@CDdude55
true about BF3 , my cousin runs it fine on an old rig with a 9800gt 512mb,
yea crysis... I remember back in the day when I still use the mighty 8500gt XD LMAO!!! it lags terribly (for obvious reasons my gpu isn't powerful :lol: )
Cryostasis? oh :ouch:  it looks scary :sweat:  I might as well try it , since I haven't heard of it (I hope there's a cheap one for sale)
thanks for the information :) 

@casualcolors
arma 2? so its much more demanding than BF3? I would really want to try arma 2, but I think my gts 250 wont run it @ 1080p resolution :??:  600series here I come lol... (not now though)


thank you everyone for the quick replies :love: 
March 27, 2012 2:50:35 AM

Graphic quality and "hard to run" aren't mutually exclusive.......to a point.

ArmA II isn't even close to games like Crysis, Metro, or even BF3 graphically, so perhaps your post should be about which game LOOKS the best graphically, despite how well it runs. ;) 




March 27, 2012 4:38:55 PM

Stringjam said:
Graphic quality and "hard to run" aren't mutually exclusive.......to a point.

ArmA II isn't even close to games like Crysis, Metro, or even BF3 graphically, so perhaps your post should be about which game LOOKS the best graphically, despite how well it runs. ;) 


yes yes, you have a point there, sorry :na:  I was thinking ever since back in the days when crysis was the so called pc killer, and the graphics is amazingly brilliant :love: 
March 27, 2012 5:32:50 PM

Well with certain games they are just programmed poorly, (GTA 4) and wont run smoothly on certain hardware.

I remember answering a question on Toms from a guy with a 2600k and a gtx 590 asking if he should overclock his cpu to get playable framerates on gta 4.... what a nightmare... :-0
!