Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

What's the next PC game that's going to be the benchmark for graphics?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 15, 2012 7:39:02 PM

So currently at the most common game mentioned that people want to know if they can run on Ultra settings is Battlefield 3. That seems to be the most demanding game on the market right now. Anyone got any idea if we'll be seeing any games coming out next year that will kick BF3 out of the water? Crysis 3? Is there going to be a game where you'll need a very high end GPU to run it on Ultra?
November 15, 2012 7:53:04 PM

Battlefield 3 isn't the most demanding game :p . It's just very popular. Witcher 2 or Metro 2033 are far more hardware intensive :) .
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 8:01:28 PM

Sunius said:
Battlefield 3 isn't the most demanding game :p . It's just very popular. Witcher 2 or Metro 2033 are far more hardware intensive :) .

OK fair point. Yeah I played Witcher 2. Gorgeous. I've yet to play Metro 2033 but i have it ready to play.
m
0
l
Related resources
November 15, 2012 8:16:36 PM

Planetside 2 takes a fair bit of computing power, but that may just be because of poor coding.
m
0
l
November 15, 2012 9:22:53 PM

Crytek is marketing Crysis 3 as the next graphics benchmark, but it probably won't be. The first Crysis was way ahead of it's time because it wasn't made for consoles originally. Unless Crytek did the same with C3 (Which they didn't.), I doubt it'll be that demanding.
m
0
l
November 16, 2012 12:11:41 AM

Some guy who was high up in crytek said that "crysis 3 will melt your PC" so it might be the next gaming benchmark, however that may have just been to hype up the PC crowd whilst they work on dumbing the game down for the severely ageing consoles.
BF4 should be another big one (anyone else feel like it's come a little too soon - maybe it's because I've only had BF3 for a few months - whereas some game series do get updated annually) and will be here in a year or so.
GTA V also has a lot of potential for being a demanding one. Whether that is because it's a crappy port or because the game is amazingly detailed is yet to be seen.

I disagree with the OP about BF3 being the current benchmark. I can max it out and get a consistent 55+fps with a GPU i spent £166 on. GTA IV on the other hand... 25fps -> 40% GPU usage
m
0
l

Best solution

November 16, 2012 12:56:13 AM

its not so much the games as the game engines. you want to know whats gonna push a pc then look at the latest engines. unreal have a new release that will require 2 gtx 680's to max out 30-60fps. it has high end features like broken depth of field which basically applys more blur the more distant the object is from the focus. most engines have dof but only in 1 plain because it take so much horsepower to do it multiple times at differing angles.
another is the frostbite 2 engine although it looks good on max in games like bf3 your really only ever gonna see half of what it can do.
cryengine 3 is constantly being improved and your rite crysis 3 will likely not be a pc breaker unless you have an older quad with an early dx11 card, crytec just couldnt afford another crysis. a game that was a full generation ahead of what was generally available at the time. it was 2 years b4 people could play it to its full potential without issues. which may well have been great for benching but was a poor profit maker. they wont make that mistake again...

mentioning metro and witcher 2 some of you are confused... they are not high demanding games metro especially. yes it had a couple of high demand features like aaa antialiasing and hbao but both of these were very badly implimented and tagged on at the last minute so they could be released as dx11 compatible games... look at metro and compare it in quality to crysis 2 dx11. you will see theres a marked difference in overall dx11 features. and crysis 2 has a lot more going on, on screen but runs smoother. reason being dx11 was always an integral part of the game but wasnt ready for release because crytec thought it would put off sales if people thought it was dx11 only. i mean come on it took them 2 years to produce a game like crysis 2 and then 6 weeks to rewrite 3/4 of the gfx ?? thats madness. especially now they have released the sdk and you see dx11 was always part of it.
witcher 2s most demanding feature is the broken depth of field i mentioned earlier. other than that the game will max out on a single 560ti and give 30-60fps. todays cards can just handle it but at a very high price in gpu cycles. thats why you wont see it used generally in anything for at least another 2 years. in reality it is a next gen feature that is beyond todays cards.
the sad reality is that there are a lot of features that can be done and lots of gfx enhancments that should be in games that arnt because the hardware is just to expensive to make... we are only just getting games that look like the cgi movies of 10 years ago. (remember FF spirits within)... in 7-10 years we will have games with comparable gfx to avatar the gfx can be produced on current hardware but because they dont have enough grunt it takes 24+hours to render just 1 frame... so its not gfx thats holding the games back its price of hardware.
the next gen which we are seeing the start of with kepler will double current gfx power in less than 18 months so ther4e is little chance we will ever see a game like crysis again and certainly never from a monetary stand point.

(sorry i hope this makes sense, im dyslexic and find it hard to express myself clearly)
Share
November 16, 2012 1:05:50 AM

HEXiT said:
its not so much the games as the game engines. you want to know whats gonna push a pc then look at the latest engines. unreal have a new release that will require 2 gtx 680's to max out 30-60fps. it has high end features like broken depth of field which basically applys more blur the more distant the object is from the focus.



CryEngine2 was capable of Bokeh DoF running real-time in 2007. Of course, running it in-game would probably be a slideshow. ;) 


(Bokeh DoF starts at :32)




As exciting as graphic quality is, I would REALLY like to see a bigger push towards the advancement of AI. It seems like things have been the same since F.E.A.R., and sometimes going backwards.

To me, AI is almost the last frontier of great advancement potential in gaming.
m
0
l
November 16, 2012 1:26:31 AM

no m8 thats standard depth of field... there is only 1 layer being used. its either in the background or in the foreground not in both...
true broken dof is when you see the foreground blur the middle ground sharp and the background blur at the same time but different amounts.



i screen from the samaritan on UE3... ue4 takes it even further...

Quote:

Depth of field with multiple solutions including an accurate one that works even with glass

the above is from cryengines own explanation of the video... its depth of field not broken depth of field..
they use it on multiple layers to get a BDOF like effect. but its not actually part of that video. the uploader is mistaken.

http://cryenginefilmtools.blogspot.co.uk/ the full post if your interested... they would have worded it different if it really was BDOF. as its such a high end feature they would crow about it...(much like they did when they used specular map in crysis).
i know im coming off as a little pedantic but thats what programmers expect... its what programs expect. if it aint rite it aint gonna work...


m
0
l
November 16, 2012 10:57:10 AM

HEXiT said:
no m8 thats standard depth of field... there is only 1 layer being used. its either in the background or in the foreground not in both...
true broken dof is when you see the foreground blur the middle ground sharp and the background blur at the same time but different amounts.





My bad! I was reading through your post and saw "broken depth-of-field" and my brain translated it to "bokeh depth of field" (which is what is represented in that video).





I see what you're saying now. ;) 
m
0
l
November 16, 2012 11:29:10 AM

HEXiT said:
its not so much the games as the game engines. you want to know whats gonna push a pc then look at the latest engines. unreal have a new release that will require 2 gtx 680's to max out 30-60fps. it has high end features like broken depth of field which basically applys more blur the more distant the object is from the focus. most engines have dof but only in 1 plain because it take so much horsepower to do it multiple times at differing angles.
another is the frostbite 2 engine although it looks good on max in games like bf3 your really only ever gonna see half of what it can do.
cryengine 3 is constantly being improved and your rite crysis 3 will likely not be a pc breaker unless you have an older quad with an early dx11 card, crytec just couldnt afford another crysis. a game that was a full generation ahead of what was generally available at the time. it was 2 years b4 people could play it to its full potential without issues. which may well have been great for benching but was a poor profit maker. they wont make that mistake again...

mentioning metro and witcher 2 some of you are confused... they are not high demanding games metro especially. yes it had a couple of high demand features like aaa antialiasing and hbao but both of these were very badly implimented and tagged on at the last minute so they could be released as dx11 compatible games... look at metro and compare it in quality to crysis 2 dx11. you will see theres a marked difference in overall dx11 features. and crysis 2 has a lot more going on, on screen but runs smoother. reason being dx11 was always an integral part of the game but wasnt ready for release because crytec thought it would put off sales if people thought it was dx11 only. i mean come on it took them 2 years to produce a game like crysis 2 and then 6 weeks to rewrite 3/4 of the gfx ?? thats madness. especially now they have released the sdk and you see dx11 was always part of it.
witcher 2s most demanding feature is the broken depth of field i mentioned earlier. other than that the game will max out on a single 560ti and give 30-60fps. todays cards can just handle it but at a very high price in gpu cycles. thats why you wont see it used generally in anything for at least another 2 years. in reality it is a next gen feature that is beyond todays cards.
the sad reality is that there are a lot of features that can be done and lots of gfx enhancments that should be in games that arnt because the hardware is just to expensive to make... we are only just getting games that look like the cgi movies of 10 years ago. (remember FF spirits within)... in 7-10 years we will have games with comparable gfx to avatar the gfx can be produced on current hardware but because they dont have enough grunt it takes 24+hours to render just 1 frame... so its not gfx thats holding the games back its price of hardware.
the next gen which we are seeing the start of with kepler will double current gfx power in less than 18 months so ther4e is little chance we will ever see a game like crysis again and certainly never from a monetary stand point.

(sorry i hope this makes sense, im dyslexic and find it hard to express myself clearly)


Nice one. You made some great points there. Yeah it guess it makes no financial sense to produce games that only a few people can afford to play because the hardware is so expensive...That new Unreal engine you mention that has broken depth of field..Are there any games coming out that will be utilizing that feature?
m
0
l
November 16, 2012 11:36:37 AM

Stringjam said:
CryEngine2 was capable of Bokeh DoF running real-time in 2007. Of course, running it in-game would probably be a slideshow. ;) 


(Bokeh DoF starts at :32)




As exciting as graphic quality is, I would REALLY like to see a bigger push towards the advancement of AI. It seems like things have been the same since F.E.A.R., and sometimes going backwards.

To me, AI is almost the last frontier of great advancement potential in gaming.


Good point on AI. I wonder if it's progression has stalled somewhat because developers know that multiplayer games especially FPS's is where the bucks are and so their focus is on developing that (and making it look great graphically of course)...Why strive to make great AI when you don't need it in a multiplayer game? I'm a huge single player fan so I'd like to see improvements in this field.

m
0
l
November 22, 2012 11:19:38 PM

Best answer selected by octoberhungry.
m
0
l
!