Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Most Graphic Intensive Games of 2009

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 4, 2009 11:53:37 AM

oh, i don't at all agree with MW2. MW was released at the same time as games like crysis. crysis is one of a kind, but either way, COD4 did not require a very serious card. crysis requires a GTX295 to be playable smoothly at 1920 x 1200 very high 4xAA 8xAF. Cod4 could do with a 3850. So do you really think that MW2 will require so much as to call it one of the most graphics intensive games of 2009? I suspect it will use the same engine as CoD4.
February 4, 2009 11:57:50 AM

Ok, I get your point, but let me make the thread 2 part then, not just the most intensive, but also the nicest looking (even tho the 2 almost always go together)! Cause I really thought COD4 looked awesome.
Related resources
February 4, 2009 12:05:46 PM

Sure, CoD4 does look very realistic. It looked life-like even on my 8600GT when the game released.
February 4, 2009 12:20:50 PM

I don't think there really will be toomany graphic intense games. I mean fear 2 is just using the old engine, with enhancements, though they did make it very manageable. I didn't think it was the old engine.

Doom 4 if its coming 2009 should bring graphics to the table, but I beleive the way they program their games (ID soft) is very intense on your system when compared to other engines. It left my mind what the type is called.

Rage if it comes out should be the same case since its the same game.

But we could be surprised. I mean Stalker clear sky doesn't look as intense as it cripples the graphic cards. Then again I don't need much to impress me. I would rather have the details that are in half life 2, then having good graphics and no artistic touch like Crysis.

We'll have to see:)  remember some games don't need to look amazing to push your graphics :p 
February 4, 2009 12:30:24 PM

No I totally agree on the artistic touch. And personally there weren't too many times when I was completely blown away by crysis, since it was REALISTIC, but not always attractive, or appealing. Personally, i know this is more of a console game, but I found that art direction in the first Gears of War was much better than the sequel, even tho it was meant to have 'superior graphics'. Still, MORE games please! Don't know how intensive it is, but Mass Effect 2 is not coming out till 2010, so that wont cut it... Also are there any real graphical improvements between the half life episodes?
February 4, 2009 12:31:02 PM

By the way Liquid, are you running a tri-sli? 260/280/285, from the pic? How is that? Scaling etc?
February 4, 2009 12:36:17 PM

Nope, but the implementations such as HDR can look sometimes like the engine is reconstructed.

Its like the unreal engines. Splinter cell 3 used Unreal 2.5 which was a massive tweak of Unreal 2.

Source engine might look plain but if you compare it to how it looked when it originally came out, no HDR and low AA. You can def see some massive improvements.

Look for example at the alien dudes (vortignauts or w.e) they look MUCH cleaner in the latest episodes than they did in the original. They are now smoother and have a very nice color combination. Compared to the old really wrinkly ones:p . Though I did want to see some wrinkles haha.

Also the facials are much better designed. So whether thats just more time put into the models or a graphic upgrade it still looks much better than the first. I also beleive the water effects were changed.

February 4, 2009 1:02:53 PM

I remember FREAKING out when Half Life 2 first came out, it was such a good looking game - Doom 3 out the same time, but HL2 was also such a shock in terms of gameplay. Like the level where you set up all the turrets, I just couldn't get over it initially. What you think about RTS games coming out like Starcraft 2, (RPG) Diablo III and there was another big games... forgot now??
February 4, 2009 1:10:06 PM

Doom 3 used its shadows to cover up any flaws most of their stuff looked like plastic figures :p 

SC 2 might be more demanding thant D3 because it will have more intense battles than just the point and click approach. Theres 1 big game coming from the guy that made supreme commander, and he always loves making games that need alot more power than offered by current gen computers.

Supreme commander can still cripple some systems when maxed out, and if you remember Total Annihilation...that crippled computers for its gen. It featured 3D models on a 2D background....looks pretty good for such an old game.
February 4, 2009 1:13:14 PM

Oh yeah, the other AWESOME game coming 2009 is Empire: Total War... if there was ever a game that could always bring me back to PC gaming its the Total War series!
February 4, 2009 1:23:40 PM

Hey seriously, how's the tri-sli set up, I'm thinking either 4870x2 CF, GTX295 quad sli, or tri gtx280/285. What you reckon? Any regrets, problems, advantages?
February 4, 2009 1:30:38 PM

tri sli like quad sli, is hard to make drivers for. Though tri sli is more succesful than quad, it isn't for any1 because sometimes it might need manual tweaking and patience. I don't have tri sli 280s anymore I have 2 way sli 285s.

Unless the game is generous or you have a big screen I would stick to 2 or 1 card. I only have tri because I like seeing high frames, I mostly play with only 1 enabled. Its mroe than enough power under 1 of the gpus.

I would suggest sticking with 1 gpu, 4870, 260 GTX or 280 GTX if you want top contenders, or wait for new revisions by ATI.

I would steer clear of dual GPU cards all together since they have min frame rate problems. If I would go ATi, I would rather have 2 4870s than 1 4870 X2. I've seen alot of benchies (google it:p ) that show for some reason 1 4870s do come out ontop though they were the 1 gig version.

What boad do you have? sli crossfire? tri sli?

both tri and quad are over rated. Though tri scales, you just don't need that power unless your maxing AA at high resolutions. Though i do hear that there is a bug for Nvidia cards at 2560x1600 for tri sli, but I don't know if it was fixed or not.

From most of th results I've seen

280(285) GTX tri > 295 GTX sli > 4870 X2 quad > 280(285) GTX sli > 295 GTX > 4870 X2~260 GTX sli > etc..

http://www.behardware.com/articles/736-15/report-4-rade...

Just a general idea, but both nvidia and ATi have gotten some really good upgrades in drivers lately so this might be changed...this chart is from Dec 2.:) 
February 4, 2009 1:36:08 PM

Yeah I know but I'll put it this way, I am only going to get a shot at making a computer by March and I need to have it done then, I MIGHT have the cash in the future to add another card, but it just seems that if I get a 4870x2, I get a card that can handle games for a bit, then buy another HOPEFULLY the drivers will be a little better so the combo will last a while. If I get a 285, I can't afford to get another one for a while, and after that to get a third? I don't know! If I had a choice I'd wait for the March revision from ATI, but it'll be too pricey then, know what I mean? OH, and the other thing is I really like that ATI cards have HDCP onboard, so you can get great sound through the DVI-HDMI link, which is kinda important as the PC will be partly HTPC...
February 4, 2009 1:36:48 PM

How bout the new Bionic Commando remake? also Terminator salvation n Wanted, looks like 3 of them using same engine which was firstly used in Bionic Commando since their developer is Grin.

From the preview trailer that I saw, I can say that the graphics are nice n awesome :o 
February 4, 2009 1:39:48 PM

You can never stay ontop for ever:)  I mean look at the 8800 GTXs, they can still max out alot of the games out at 1920x1200...even better than alot of new cards with 512 megs of ram:) 

we'll see what happens in march.

For me it doesn't matter if a new card comes out. Usually I don't change unless there is a new dx 10 and damn good performance gains. I got the 285s cuz they paid for everything, including shipping. so I thought why not? I don't need anything more than 2 cards anyways and they are beast overclockers.

You can never be ontop for too long when it comes to computer. take a look, the 285s and 295s just came out and ATI is already pretty much done with their new gpus.

So buy something manageable if your just into gaming and not enthusiasm. :) 
February 4, 2009 1:39:49 PM

Haven't heard of it. Have seen stuff for wanted but never looked into the articles. Do you guys reckon the shortage of mindblowing graphics is partly console limitations?
February 4, 2009 1:43:09 PM

no, I doubt its just because why make a new 1 if you can charage more for a slightly improved version and save money?

Look at cars going from year to year. A 2006 car might look exactly like a 2007 car and have basically the same features. Same thing with cards. Though sometimes every couple of years they finally do a redesign. Its like the saying..."if it aint broken, don't fix it or replace it" Ok that might nto be the saying exactly but you get the idea.
February 4, 2009 1:49:51 PM

Thanks Liquid, I wish there was an Uber single GPU card out in the market, but at the moment I feel the need to stick to ATI for their HDCP on board and the 4870 wont really do it personally... the 285 is tempting, but then its so overpriced in the UK, whereas the 280 is cheap, however I am worried they are pulling them off the market now replacing with 285, which will limit any upgrading... Lets see, I start hearing of a godly card coming out in March I might just but CHEAP card just for windows and then buy the best later...
February 4, 2009 2:20:06 PM

Mirror's Edge is 1 of the game that has unique artistic style of graphics, so vivid n colorful. It has great graphics (wouldnt compare it to crysis though), but very playable on a normal decent PC. rarely see this style of graphics, so simple but captivating. :bounce: 
February 4, 2009 2:24:45 PM

I really like the idea of Mirror's Edge actually, thats a great example of Art Direction giving a game visual character. I think a game that could have done with better or at least different art direction was GTAIV. It had great graphics, but was too hazy to be comical and yet not moody enough. When I think of that game, I dont have any particular image that captures it, unlike previous iterations with crap graphics but a lot of character.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 16, 2009 7:28:26 AM

I went over kill on a PC, and as yet I have had nothing that can remotly slow it Down. Can't wait for Diablo 3 and starcraft 2.. Didn't know they were doing a doom 4 :)  ID always seem to push graphic's that bit further than every one else :) 

Setup -

Core i7 3.2,
12 gig mem,
2 raptors raid 0,
2 GTX 295 SLI'd.

Need a game to push my rig, not sure I will find one for a while.. lol
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 16, 2009 8:14:13 AM

i dont know why you people buy such expensive hardware like SLId gtx295 when dx 11 is knocking at the door. the same thing that people do with 9800gx2. youll be safe with one gtx 285 and also play games with all eye candy.
a c 273 U Graphics card
July 16, 2009 4:50:50 PM

Quote:
i dont know why you people buy such expensive hardware like SLId gtx295 when dx 11 is knocking at the door. the same thing that people do with 9800gx2. youll be safe with one gtx 285 and also play games with all eye candy.

:pfff:  I don't know why you people think DX11 exclusive titles and the hardware to run them on are going to turn up in the next couple of weeks.
May 13, 2010 12:10:37 AM

Metro 2033 is the most ive found so far... though this is basically a year later than the original thread
a b U Graphics card
May 13, 2010 1:31:09 AM

I'd say Bad Company 2 is pretty intensive, mostly on the cpu though.
a b U Graphics card
May 13, 2010 1:48:32 AM

Psh, I still can't get good frames from Gothic 3, 4 years later.
a c 273 U Graphics card
May 13, 2010 1:49:19 AM

The fact that it's no longer 2009 renders this thread pointless.
!