Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

MOST DEMANDING pc game

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 4, 2011 9:11:20 PM

Should I upgrade my video card? XFX GTX 260 Black Edition Core 216 and its overclocked?

More about : demanding game

a c 214 U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 9:14:16 PM

For the most demanding game?Their are several that come to mind.Metro 2033,Crysis 2 and BF3.

Either way, yes you will need a new GPU.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 9:30:08 PM

Gothic 3 and 4 imo lol.
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 9:31:09 PM

Purple is correct with the list of games that are quite demanding.

I would also list Starcraft 2 as very demanding. It can bring powerful PC's to their knees (with 6v6 games) on ULTRA settings.

Also it depends on what your whole system is, to really tell whether or not a new graphics card would help you out.
Score
0
October 4, 2011 9:31:12 PM

purple stank said:
For the most demanding game?Their are several that come to mind.Metro 2033,Crysis 2 and BF3.

Either way, yes you will need a new GPU.



Crysis 2 is less demanding than Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead. Metro 2033 heavily demanding when maxed but a lot of that has to do with the absurd amount of texturing, and unfortunately less to do with beautiful long draw distances like Crysis. BF3 no one is really sure what the demands of the final product will be. There is no doubt it will be a demanding game by comparison to some, but it may end up being more gracious to systems than Crysis even, since the main goal of the game is to sell as many copies as possible in q4 2011.

The most demanding games still are definitely Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and Metro 2033 with battlefield 3 being a possibility once we see the released product with its final optimizations and total graphics inclusion. If the OP is asking will a GTX 260 max these games out at resolutions above 1680x1050 and stay rock solid above 60 fps, the answer is that it is very unlikely/not possible. If the OP is asking can a GTX 260 run these games in some capacity at playable frames, there is no question it absolutely can.
Score
0
a c 141 U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 9:53:52 PM

casualcolors said:
Crysis 2 is less demanding than Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead. Metro 2033 heavily demanding when maxed but a lot of that has to do with the absurd amount of texturing, and unfortunately less to do with beautiful long draw distances like Crysis. BF3 no one is really sure what the demands of the final product will be. There is no doubt it will be a demanding game by comparison to some, but it may end up being more gracious to systems than Crysis even, since the main goal of the game is to sell as many copies as possible in q4 2011.

The most demanding games still are definitely Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and Metro 2033 with battlefield 3 being a possibility once we see the released product with its final optimizations and total graphics inclusion. If the OP is asking will a GTX 260 max these games out at resolutions above 1680x1050 and stay rock solid above 60 fps, the answer is that it is very unlikely/not possible. If the OP is asking can a GTX 260 run these games in some capacity at playable frames, there is no question it absolutely can.


Crysis 2 is actually more demanding than Crysis 1 when you factor in the DX11 patch, ultra settings and the high res texture pack. Crysis 2 as originally shipped, was at most only about as demanding as Crysis 1. Add in the DX11 patch, and Crysis 2 will bring all but the most powerful GPUs to its knees. Dual GPU setups are required if you want to get anything close to 60FPS on maximum with DX11 in Crysis 2.
Score
0
October 4, 2011 10:17:05 PM

Supernova1138 said:
Crysis 2 is actually more demanding than Crysis 1 when you factor in the DX11 patch, ultra settings and the high res texture pack. Crysis 2 as originally shipped, was at most only about as demanding as Crysis 1. Add in the DX11 patch, and Crysis 2 will bring all but the most powerful GPUs to its knees. Dual GPU setups are required if you want to get anything close to 60FPS on maximum with DX11 in Crysis 2.



Crysis 2 originally shipped wasn't nearly as demanding and even with the dx11 and hi-res pack it still has a hard time matching Crysis on the whole primarily b/c it lacks the draw distances to really cripple powerful rigs that Crysis had/still has.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 10:28:43 PM

Supernova1138 said:
Crysis 2 is actually more demanding than Crysis 1 when you factor in the DX11 patch, ultra settings and the high res texture pack. Crysis 2 as originally shipped, was at most only about as demanding as Crysis 1. Add in the DX11 patch, and Crysis 2 will bring all but the most powerful GPUs to its knees. Dual GPU setups are required if you want to get anything close to 60FPS on maximum with DX11 in Crysis 2.



C2<Warhead unless drivers have gotten way better but I don't feel that is the case For my machine I would say that warhead is more instensive but not by much.
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 10:45:41 PM

Isn't Warhead supposed to be more CPU demanding that GPU?
Score
0
a c 125 U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 10:54:53 PM

Don't forget Cryostasis! And the Witcher 2 is fairly demanding, tho less than the others listed.

Regardless I don't exactly see the point of the OP's question. Instead let me answer the question with a question:

1) Do you play a lot of games where you are dissapointed with the settings you're able to play at with a lag-free experience? If yes, then upgrade. If no, then don't worry about it.
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 4, 2011 11:31:12 PM

I forgot about Witcher 2.But all I was doing was saying the few that came to mind at first.I wasn't exactly making a list of all the most demanding games to date.Their would be quite a few I would imagine.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 12:36:28 AM

yeah warhead is hard on both where as I mentioned in another thread Crysis 2 gave me nothing after 3GHZ but warhead did but it seemed that my GPU never really topped out in warhead as long as I could keep OVerclocking the CPU then brick wall
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 11:46:28 AM

Minesweeper
Score
0
October 5, 2011 12:01:25 PM

bf3,mw3, civilization v,skyrim,fallout3,thewitcher2,crysis,crysis2
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 12:01:42 PM

I will try to post a list of games and possible fps at 1680X1050
Crysis 1/warhead-dx9-very high 30+ fps
Crysis 2-all settings ultra but object detail very high 30+ fps
Metro 2033-High settings 30+ fps
Witcher 2-High settings-25+ fps
BFBC2-All maxed 50+ fps (depends on CPU)
BF3-High settings 30+ fps
NFS Shift 2 Unleashed (yeah its demanding :lol:  )-Track detail medium everything maxed 40+ fps
Just Cause 2-Texture-high Shadows-medium Anti aliasing-2X AF-16X Water/object detail high Bokeh filter On GPU Water Simulation OFF Constant 40+ fps
Batman Arkham Asylum-Everything max physx high 30+ fps
Mafia 2-everything max physx medium 30+ fps
If you consider 30+ fps playable you should have no problems running these games at near max ;) 
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 12:06:07 PM

I don't think the OP is looking for what the most demanding games are but just to know if he needs an upgrade or not.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 12:20:55 PM

assassin123 said:
...mw3.....



LOL

Since when have games based on 6 year old hardware been demanding? Maybe 6 years ago..
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 12:24:34 PM

It wasn't even demanding when it came out.It was still what it is today.

MW makes all of their money off of the consoles so I doesn't surprise why they never made a new engine.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 12:36:55 PM

Even if MW is a console port I loved each and every campaign.The original Modern Warfare ending was very touching.Sure it lacks visuals but compensates in gameplay
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 5, 2011 2:03:40 PM

celpas said:
Even if MW is a console port I loved each and every campaign.The original Modern Warfare ending was very touching.Sure it lacks visuals but compensates in gameplay


Agreed. COD4:Modern Warfare is one of the best games ever made, "All ghillied up" is one of the best levels of all time imo.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 4:59:39 AM

What about an upgrade from a XFX GTX 260 core 216 black edition to a ASUS GTX 465 with the 448 Cuda cores unlocked? would that be a good upgrade?
Score
0
October 12, 2011 5:00:28 AM

What about an upgrade from a XFX GTX 260 core 216 black edition to a ASUS GTX 465 with the 448 Cuda cores unlocked? would that be a good upgrade?
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 5:06:24 AM

I would suggest going for something a little higher.Also the GTX465 was a horrible card.It drew to much power and created a lot of heat.

Maybe the GTX560ti is a better option for you.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 5:21:17 AM

The ASUS Revision isnt that bad. the card does use alot of power tho. but with 448 cuda cores it is really something not to mention it OCs pretty well sometime too 800Mhz but Usually around 750Mhz. I can get an ASUS card for 150 bucks with free shipping. GTX 560 (non ti series) are not as powerful. and they cost like 200$ and higher. I dont know but I also heard that the ASUS versions of the GTX 465 ALL CAME WITH 10 Memory chips... So I am pretty sure I could flash it and get a GTX 470! with 8 more ROP units, almost 100 cuda cores! and BIG bonus! the 320 bit memory bus VS GTX 465's and GTX 560's 256 bit memory bus. Do you see my logic here? i know the card uses alot of power and i know that is older. but its still a great performer if you can unlock it to a FULL featured GTX 470. Even a GTX 465 with 448 cuda cores is a beast when it comes to performance. so... $150 for that ASUS is looking tempting. :D 
Score
0
October 12, 2011 5:26:28 AM

The ASUS Revision isnt that bad. the card does use alot of power tho. but with 448 cuda cores it is really something not to mention it OCs pretty well sometime too 800Mhz but Usually around 750Mhz. I can get an ASUS card for 150 bucks with free shipping. GTX 560 (non ti series) are not as powerful. and they cost like 200$ and higher. I dont know but I also heard that the ASUS versions of the GTX 465 ALL CAME WITH 10 Memory chips... So I am pretty sure I could flash it and get a GTX 470! with 8 more ROP units, almost 100 cuda cores! and BIG bonus! the 320 bit memory bus VS GTX 465's and GTX 560's 256 bit memory bus. Do you see my logic here? i know the card uses alot of power and i know that is older. but its still a great performer if you can unlock it to a FULL featured GTX 470. Even a GTX 465 with 448 cuda cores is a beast when it comes to performance. so... $150 for that ASUS is looking tempting. :D 
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 7:16:42 AM

Actually the GTX560 is much faster than the GTX465.It also has second gen DX11 and improved SLI performance.If money is more of an issue than maybe the 6870 would be a better choice.It's performance is equal to a GTX560 but it's usually $30 cheaper.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 8:09:04 AM

GTX 470 has 448 Cuda cores. GTX 560 cant perform on that level . even if the card wont FLASH to a GTX 470. The ASUS unlock tool will give 448 cuda cores. that would make the card pretty good and they have OCs up to 750-800mhz
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 5:01:19 PM

GTX 560ti is faster than one gtx 470 by over 4fps.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 5:36:50 PM

Metro 2033 in my opinion, is the hardest game for computers to run. Crysis 2 being right next to that.
Cod is made for 6 year old consoles. But that doesn't mean i'm not going to max it on my computer 1080p and cry over how easy it is to max. In fact that is an upside to the game. I think it looks good; it's not battlefield. But those are both different beasts.
Score
0
a c 125 U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 6:28:35 PM

mightymaxio said:
GTX 560ti is faster than one gtx 470 by over 4fps.


Keep in mind the 560 and the 560Ti are different cards.

OP: A 465 is an ok card but even at it's time it was considered an oddball. As I understand it, it's a gimped 470 but I heard some people were able to flash it into a full 470. I'd seriously consider the 6850, 6870, or 560 if I were you.
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 6:57:49 PM

6870 seems the best bang for buck at the moment.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 7:34:17 PM

Honestly i wouldnt get a 400 series from nvidia, Trust me i have 2 470 gtx's in sli and even at 90%-100% fan speeds with 6 case fans including 3 240mm fans they still generate about 87-94 degrees celcius when playing games. They are the hottest graphics cards ive ever owned and if i could go back on my stepup i would. I wouldve kept my two 460 gtx's which ran so much cooler than the 470 gtxs.
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 7:59:16 PM

Yah anything above the GTX460 in the GTX4xx series runs really really hot.
Score
0
October 12, 2011 8:06:36 PM

ive been playing crysis warhead lately with a GTX 560 1280x1024 and it dips down to 18 fps probably cos the drivers are crap
Score
0
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 8:19:01 PM

What CPU are you using?
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:27:25 PM

I honestly Dont think I am going to upgrade. I play most games on xbox 360 now anyways. seems like games are coding for xbox 360 nowadays and I am sick of playing MUSICAL Graphics cards every year or two. Direct X bullcrap gets old. I also came to realize something... My XFX GeForce GTX 260 (Core 216) Pre-Overclocked Special Black Edition... Is actually a great card. I dont care about DirectX 11 and tessellation stuff... I care about gameplay and resolution (1080p)

After learning that GTX 400/500 series cards arent that much of an upgrade unless you WANT DirectX 11/tessellation support/SM 5.0 support too... I think i will just keep my (700Mhz CORE/1500Mhz SHADER/1200MHZ Memory) Overclocked GTX 260 XFX black edition CORE 216. I overclocked that baby even further than XFX pre-overclocked settings. Most games NEW/Current and older Look good and perform well on that card... It has a 448 bit memory bus. and its really close to 1024 MB. of Video memory too. It has 28 ROP(s) too thats only 4 less then GTX 560/460 series. Even though the CUDA shaders are a lower count by TODAYS standards... 216 CUDA cores Isnt that bad. I dont use alot of AA anyways. I have run any game I WANT at 1920x1080 at High/Highest settings no problem. some games even allow LOTS of AA with no performance drops! The Unreal 3 engine is amazing :D  anyways I digress.

I dont think I am going to upgrade for awhile... In combination with my : i7 2600K 3.4 Ghz/ 8 GB 1600 Mhz DDR3 Memory/Win 7 64 bit architecture... The XFX GTX 260 Core 216 OC will have ALOT of help with Frames per second and speed bottle-necking. Also the card uses roughly 180-200 Watts of power. thats kinda high compared to a GTX 460/560 but... it isnt the Power monster of the GTX 280 card. and this card performs about ON PAR with it when Overclocked...

I spent 3 days looking at the PROS and CONS.
- Bottle line this card is not slow at all... Just limited to DX 10 features and old tech standards for AA and such...

I saw a guy on youtube playing METRO 2033 with 40-30 frames a sec.

he had a 4 Core AMD CPU (Stock speeds)
EVGA GTX 260 core 216 Overclocked edtion
4 GB of DDR2 memory
Win 7 64 bit.

He had Metro 2033 running GOOD... It was on HIGH settings/Ambient Occlusion/Post processing/etc... 1920x1080 (1080p resolution) 4X AF and had AA enable thru NVIDA control panel at like 4X or 2X. Vsync - On and Tripple buffer On to improve performance too... His video is recorded with FRAPS so it runs about 20-30 frames. but w/o FRAPS he gets 40-mid 30's per sec!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16xuyJEcTEE

If this guy can run metro 2033 at those settings... I think my i7 2600K and XFX GTX 260 OC core 216 black edition will be more than enough to play with similar results.

Shattered Horizion is a monster of a demanding game too! I probably have to run that game on Medium/High settings in either 1080p/720p with minimal AA filtering and AF filtering.


Let me know if you guys agree! :D  I dont feel like spending 170-200 bucks for DX 11 and tessellation support and a 8-10 frames per second performance increase! I would say that PAIRED with an i7 2600K and 8GB. of DDR3 memory a GTX 260 core 216 OC'ed would be just fine UNLESS YOU HAD TO HAVE EYECANDY and Ubber Details! right? ;) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 10:33:35 PM

465 GTX overclocked to 800 mhz is an awesome machine. The extra cores really show when the card is OC'd and it handily outperforms a 460 1GB at the same clock
Sure it puts out heat but so what the performance is there and when the 470 and 480 came out the 465 was expected to go easy on the power but that didn't happen so it took a beating in reviews but OC it and its a crusher
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:41:27 PM

really? I can get an ASUS ENGGTX465 1 GB. for 150. I really wish i knew if ALL ASUS models an UNLOCK via Bios Flashing to A GTX 470... ASUS realeased an UNLOCK patch to 448 cuda cores. So I Assume MOST of ALL the ASUS models can be unlocked... ie. they have 10 memory chips on them. spentshells DO you know if ALL ASUS can unlock Fully to GTX 470?
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:46:00 PM

by the way what brand is your GTX 465? did you flash it? or just unlock the 448 cuda cores via flash or ASUS unlock tool? the only upgrade i was even considering was The ASUS GTX 465... Unlock those 448 cuda cores... or Just flash the card to a FULL GTX 470 if it had ALL 10 Memory chips on it. but... Thats a gamble... I wonder is the ASUS tool works on 8 chip memory model cards?
Score
0
October 12, 2011 10:51:41 PM

I honestly Dont think I am going to upgrade. I play most games on xbox 360 now anyways. seems like games are coding for xbox 360 nowadays and I am sick of playing MUSICAL Graphics cards every year or two. Direct X bullcrap gets old. I also came to realize something... My XFX GeForce GTX 260 (Core 216) Pre-Overclocked Special Black Edition... Is actually a great card. I dont care about DirectX 11 and tessellation stuff... I care about gameplay and resolution (1080p)

After learning that GTX 400/500 series cards arent that much of an upgrade unless you WANT DirectX 11/tessellation support/SM 5.0 support too... I think i will just keep my (700Mhz CORE/1500Mhz SHADER/1200MHZ Memory) Overclocked GTX 260 XFX black edition CORE 216. I overclocked that baby even further than XFX pre-overclocked settings. Most games NEW/Current and older Look good and perform well on that card... It has a 448 bit memory bus. and its really close to 1024 MB. of Video memory too. It has 28 ROP(s) too thats only 4 less then GTX 560/460 series. Even though the CUDA shaders are a lower count by TODAYS standards... 216 CUDA cores Isnt that bad. I dont use alot of AA anyways. I have run any game I WANT at 1920x1080 at High/Highest settings no problem. some games even allow LOTS of AA with no performance drops! The Unreal 3 engine is amazing :D  anyways I digress.

I dont think I am going to upgrade for awhile... In combination with my : i7 2600K 3.4 Ghz/ 8 GB 1600 Mhz DDR3 Memory/Win 7 64 bit architecture... The XFX GTX 260 Core 216 OC will have ALOT of help with Frames per second and speed bottle-necking. Also the card uses roughly 180-200 Watts of power. thats kinda high compared to a GTX 460/560 but... it isnt the Power monster of the GTX 280 card. and this card performs about ON PAR with it when Overclocked...

I spent 3 days looking at the PROS and CONS.
- Bottle line this card is not slow at all... Just limited to DX 10 features and old tech standards for AA and such...

I saw a guy on youtube playing METRO 2033 with 40-30 frames a sec.

he had a 4 Core AMD CPU (Stock speeds)
EVGA GTX 260 core 216 Overclocked edtion
4 GB of DDR2 memory
Win 7 64 bit.

He had Metro 2033 running GOOD... It was on HIGH settings/Ambient Occlusion/Post processing/etc... 1920x1080 (1080p resolution) 4X AF and had AA enable thru NVIDA control panel at like 4X or 2X. Vsync - On and Tripple buffer On to improve performance too... His video is recorded with FRAPS so it runs about 20-30 frames. but w/o FRAPS he gets 40-mid 30's per sec!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16xuyJEcTEE

If this guy can run metro 2033 at those settings... I think my i7 2600K and XFX GTX 260 OC core 216 black edition will be more than enough to play with similar results.

Shattered Horizion is a monster of a demanding game too! I probably have to run that game on Medium/High settings in either 1080p/720p with minimal AA filtering and AF filtering.


Let me know if you guys agree! :D  I dont feel like spending 170-200 bucks for DX 11 and tessellation support and a 8-10 frames per second performance increase! I would say that PAIRED with an i7 2600K and 8GB. of DDR3 memory a GTX 260 core 216 OC'ed would be just fine UNLESS YOU HAD TO HAVE EYECANDY and Ubber Details! right? ;) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2011 11:02:32 PM

I can not say too much about that flash option
You would need to look at a 470 PCB then compare it to the asus model
or find out the specific asus model then do a search for xxxxx unlocking
Not something I would do
just overclock it
But please at 150 you could likely find a 6850 or 460 which are both comparable, And these would be new cards. For 150 I might look elsewhere for unless its 120
Score
0
October 12, 2011 11:14:00 PM

what model video card would you recommend in the 150 range? Nvidia
Score
0
October 12, 2011 11:17:30 PM

gtx 465 cards are rare now. the one i want is 150 with free shipping. i heard they overclock well to 750-800. I also know for a fact that i could unlock the FULL 448 cuda cores on it bc its an ASUS model and ASUS released that CUDA core upgrade patch. its touch call. for 200-230 i could get a 950Mhz GTX 560ti that has double my current GPU performance
Score
0
October 12, 2011 11:18:22 PM

*tuff call
Score
0
a c 125 U Graphics card
October 13, 2011 12:56:18 AM

If you're happy with your performance then don't waste the money on an "upgrade" :) 
Score
0
February 21, 2012 8:15:54 PM

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 !!! But Battlefield 3 is more demanding than Crysis (any part) Battlefield is hard to run on 6950 for max settings full hd graphic maybe with i5 2500k or stronger CPU!!! I think is more demanding then Metro 2033 and far more beautiful then him or any other game EVER made!
Score
0
a c 272 U Graphics card
February 21, 2012 8:54:45 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!