Most demanding gaming program?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My guess is a v1.0 of a recent Game that is not doing well on market.

Less optimal programming techniques lead to taxing the hardware heavily. Typically engineering balances getting software done vs done optimally and out there.
 
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Note even close. FPS games are generally the most demanding because users demand high levels of ground level detail with realistic levels of special effects. Ex, PUBG, COD, Battlefield series, etc.

Flight Sims just don't require the same level of detail.

PUBG isn't very demanding, I run it at 90-120fps. Ghost Recon is very demanding, with everything maxxed on the new one, I am running an average of 70fps or so on the benchmarker. (1440P is what I game at). COD MW and BF aren't very demanding, similar to to PUBG.

Crysis is demanding because it's designed horribly, not because it actually has to be/should be.
 
Do you cap your frame rate or go with display based? It's more complicated than I thought. I have a Pixio 275h 95hz 27" monitor. I play Overwatch a lot which isn't that demanding. On low settings I can get 230-260 FPS. I run it on Ultra bc I like the better graphics. Being my monitor though is only 95hz I now run display based bc anything beyond that doesn't do much for you. It was thought capping frame rate reduced input lag but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
Originally Posted by buster
Do you cap your frame rate or go with display based? It's more complicated than I thought. I have a Pixio 275h 95hz 27" monitor. I play Overwatch a lot which isn't that demanding. On low settings I can get 230-260 FPS. I run it on Ultra bc I like the better graphics. Being my monitor though is only 95hz I now run display based bc anything beyond that doesn't do much for you. It was thought capping frame rate reduced input lag but that doesn't seem to be the case.




I GSYNC it.
 
Originally Posted by buster
Should I always have G Sync enabled?

I do. I am sure there are occasions you may not want it, but I can't think of any, aside from doing a systems test because it will cap your graphic performance and make you wonder what's wrong with your system.
 
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by buster
Should I always have G Sync enabled?

I do. I am sure there are occasions you may not want it, but I can't think of any, aside from doing a systems test because it will cap your graphic performance and make you wonder what's wrong with your system.


Thanks. Did some reading on the topic. I enabled G Sync and I set the frame rate 3fps less than my monitor's refresh rate (95hz). Works great.
 
Originally Posted by buster
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by buster
Should I always have G Sync enabled?

I do. I am sure there are occasions you may not want it, but I can't think of any, aside from doing a systems test because it will cap your graphic performance and make you wonder what's wrong with your system.


Thanks. Did some reading on the topic. I enabled G Sync and I set the frame rate 3fps less than my monitor's refresh rate (95hz). Works great.

GSYNC takes care of all of it. Dont set framerates. Gsync will handle it.
 
Battlefield V w/ RTX on and FFXV are the few games I'm playing that puts a graphical demand on my system. 4K@60Hz for the eye candy or 2560x1440p@120Hz for competitive FPS on an LG OLED TV with G-Sync
 
Originally Posted by Kibitoshin
Battlefield V w/ RTX on and FFXV are the few games I'm playing that puts a graphical demand on my system. 4K@60Hz for the eye candy or 2560x1440p@120Hz for competitive FPS on an LG OLED TV with G-Sync

I found the new Ghost Recon to be the most demanding so far.
 
My wife found that Metro 2033 Redux would shut down her 750W power supply at a certain point in the game. While other graphics intensive games did not. I ended up needing a 1000W power supply, mostly just for that game.

i9 9900KF/RTX2080/32gb/dual m.2/Gigabyte Z390/ setup.
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
My wife found that Metro 2033 Redux would shut down her 750W power supply at a certain point in the game. While other graphics intensive games did not. I ended up needing a 1000W power supply, mostly just for that game.

i9 9900KF/RTX2080/32gb/dual m.2/Gigabyte Z390/ setup.


Sounds more like a bad PSU instead of an under-powered system. I've got an i5-8600k/2080Ti/32GB RAM/960 Evo/2 Crucial MX500s on a 750W TT ToughPower. I ran SLi'd 1080Tis before this too on the same PSU.
 
Originally Posted by Pew
Cujet said:
Sounds more like a bad PSU instead of an under-powered system. I've got an i5-8600k/2080Ti/32GB RAM/960 Evo/2 Crucial MX500s on a 750W TT ToughPower. I ran SLi'd 1080Tis before this too on the same PSU.


The larger PS did fix the problem. But there is no way I had 3 bad power supplies, considering that I'm using one of them right now. They were simply being overloaded.

My point was the game was demanding of power. Possibly the graphics card was using most of it?
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Pew
Cujet said:
Sounds more like a bad PSU instead of an under-powered system. I've got an i5-8600k/2080Ti/32GB RAM/960 Evo/2 Crucial MX500s on a 750W TT ToughPower. I ran SLi'd 1080Tis before this too on the same PSU.


The larger PS did fix the problem. But there is no way I had 3 bad power supplies, considering that I'm using one of them right now. They were simply being overloaded.

My point was the game was demanding of power. Possibly the graphics card was using most of it?


Most of the power, definitely. A 2080 TDP is 215w but despite all the power we get now, the power draw isn't bad at all. Anandtech reported under 400w loaded draw for their system (i7-7820x, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2080FE). You'll need some sort of power meter to see the most accurate draw from the wall but you definitely should have been fine with a well-built 550w.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top