If your GPU is recommended, its old

[Techhog]

Yep. Exactly.



"Minimum requirement" means if you double click the game icon on the desktop, the game will start, but good luck trying to actually play.

That depends. Your attitude makes it pretty obvious that you consider a game unplayble if the minimum frame rate is below 60, You can't really expect everyone to be as picky as you, especially when you're a person who can afford $500-600 CPU and dual GPUs.

 

[Midwayman]

Max settings on a PC are leaps and bounds above the xbox and ps3. Just think of it like this; the xbox and ps3 version of the game are playing at low to medium settings at a very low resolution, while PC gamers play at higher resolutions and settings, but even the most basic gaming PC's can play at xbox and ps3 settings.

IIRC ps4 and XB1 are 'low' in the PC version of BF4.

 

[moonbogg]

Remember the 3 GB "recommended" graphics card for BF4?

Turns out if you played at 1080p - like the vast majority of people do - you were more than fine with a GTX 770 or some other decent 2 GB card, you never hit the VRAM ceiling.

I still laugh when I see people take these hyped up specs seriously. Often its as much marketing as anything else. People very often overestimate how much GPU power they typically need, a foolishness that game companies are more than willing to exploit.

BF4 smashed through the 670's Vram ceiling and caused hitching and stuttering @ 1080p. Kind of minor, but enough to make me lower texture settings to high.

That depends. Your attitude makes it pretty obvious that you consider a game unplayble if the minimum frame rate is below 60, You can't really expect everyone to be as picky as you, especially when you're a person who can afford $500-600 CPU and dual GPUs.

I expect most people who reply to threads like this to be about as picky as me.
I am a victim of this myself. I live my life under the boot of those with dual 780ti's or 290X's. I feel the heavy weight of their presence by the tread of their signatures.

 

[SPBHM]

Yep. Exactly.



"Minimum requirement" means if you double click the game icon on the desktop, the game will start, but good luck trying to actually play.

that's absurd,

if you really think the game is not playable with a:

Processor: Intel Core i5-750, 2.67 GHz | AMD Phenom II X4 965, 3.4 GHz
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 | AMD Radeon HD 6950

then this game is like 3x heavier than Crysis 3 or worse,

Max settings on a PC are leaps and bounds above the xbox and ps3. Just think of it like this; the xbox and ps3 version of the game are playing at low to medium settings at a very low resolution, while PC gamers play at higher resolutions and settings, but even the most basic gaming PC's can play at xbox and ps3 settings.

yes but it still is the same game

look at the 360 (2005!!) running Titanfall for example,
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-xbox-360-performance-analysis

 

[bystander36]

yes but it still is the same game

look at the 360 (2005!!) running Titanfall for example,
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-xbox-360-performance-analysis

I don't get what you are saying. We've been playing the same games for 30 years, but with improvements in visuals, AI and physics.

It is not special for any platform to be able to play the game at severely lowered settings/AI/physics.

The only reason these threads get made is there is a large group of people on these forums that feel a game is unplayable if you aren't playing near maxed out settings. If that was true, then the PS3 and Xbox 360 were unplayable, as they use low settings. The dev's just didn't give you the option to turn it up higher.

 

[SPBHM]

I don't get what you are saying. We've been playing the same games for 30 years, but with improvements in visuals, AI and physics.

It is not special for any platform to be able to play the game at severely lowered settings/AI/physics.

The only reason these threads get made is there is a large group of people on these forums that feel a game is unplayable if you aren't playing near maxed out settings. If that was true, then the PS3 and Xbox 360 were unplayable, as they use low settings. The dev's just didn't give you the option to turn it up higher.

Titanfall fall have improved AI and physics on the PC? I think it's mostly resolution (and texture resolution) difference and framerate.

look at the screenshot comparisons, it definitely feels like the exact same game and experience and not "8+ years older platform vs high end PC".

not "near maxed out" to unplayable is a huge difference,

 

[bystander36]

Titanfall fall have improved AI and physics on the PC? I think it's mostly resolution (and texture resolution) difference and framerate.

look at the screenshot comparisons, it definitely feels like the exact same game and experience and not "8+ years older platform vs high end PC".

not "near maxed out" to unplayable is a huge difference,

I can't say, as I don't own the game on both, or even 1, but we all know that consoles have reduced resolutions, AA and typically many other reduced settings. All the things that make them "unplayable" by many people on the forums. Not to mention that not all console ports even give the PC a lot of advantages, as the dev's just didn't do it. I guess that too would make the PC version unplayable.

 

[Techhog]

BF4 smashed through the 670's Vram ceiling and caused hitching and stuttering @ 1080p. Kind of minor, but enough to make me lower texture settings to high.



I expect most people who reply to threads like this to be about as picky as me.
I am a victim of this myself. I live my life under the boot of those with dual 780ti's or 290X's. I feel the heavy weight of their presence by the tread of their signatures.

I definitely admit that there are games which really need 60FPS, but it's not all of them. Probably around 50/50. People who call sub-60FPS unplayable for most single-player games are generally exaggerating though. I understand it not being an enjoyable experience, but unplayble is pushing it.

To say that SLI 670s can "barely" max a game at 1080p shows a pretty ridiculous standard.

 

[moonbogg]

I definitely admit that there are games which really need 60FPS, but it's not all of them. Probably around 50/50. People who call sub-60FPS unplayable for most single-player games are generally exaggerating though. I understand it not being an enjoyable experience, but unplayble is pushing it.

To say that SLI 670s can "barely" max a game at 1080p shows a pretty ridiculous standard.

I certainly agree for most games that SLI 670's are more than plenty. They are fast enough to let the CPU fly at full speed for most games. But newer games are different, and this new game in particular is recommending a 670. This suggests that the 670 is actually barely adequate. So it follows that for this game, two 670's = barely adequate plus a few extra FPS.

 

[SPBHM]

I can't say, as I don't own the game on both, or even 1, but we all know that consoles have reduced resolutions, AA and typically many other reduced settings. All the things that make them "unplayable" by many people on the forums. Not to mention that not all console ports even give the PC a lot of advantages, as the dev's just didn't do it. I guess that too would make the PC version unplayable.

if you read the article this game in particular (titanfall) looks to be really close, it's funny because it was supposed to be an important game for the next gen (specifically the XO)

it's definitely not unplayable, or a significant number of people wouldn't be playing it, it's not like trying to run a current game on a Pentium 4 at 10FPS.

if a game can run well enough on the old consoles, it probably is very playable with the GTX 560 from the minimum specs (which is WAY faster, even with the inefficient DX11), GTX 560 can handle BF4 and Crysis 3 pretty well, it's probably going to be the case with this game...

and to think it's reason enough (the recommended specs, not even the game) to upgrade a 670 sli, or that a PII 965 and GTX 560 are only enough to launch the game but not play it is just... sad.

 

[Techhog]

I certainly agree for most games that SLI 670's are more than plenty. They are fast enough to let the CPU fly at full speed for most games. But newer games are different, and this new game in particular is recommending a 670. This suggests that the 670 is actually barely adequate. So it follows that for this game, two 670's = barely adequate plus a few extra FPS.

That still depends on what you consider adequate.

 

[Morbus]

I tend not to give a damn about what is recommended or not. It either plays well, and it's all right, or it doesn't and I either don't buy the game or buy a new graphics card.

Crazy simple.

 

[bystander36]

if you read the article this game in particular (titanfall) looks to be really close, it's funny because it was supposed to be an important game for the next gen (specifically the XO)

it's definitely not unplayable, or a significant number of people wouldn't be playing it, it's not like trying to run a current game on a Pentium 4 at 10FPS.

if a game can run well enough on the old consoles, it probably is very playable with the GTX 560 from the minimum specs (which is WAY faster, even with the inefficient DX11), GTX 560 can handle BF4 and Crysis 3 pretty well, it's probably going to be the case with this game...

and to think it's reason enough (the recommended specs, not even the game) to upgrade a 670 sli, or that a PII 965 and GTX 560 are only enough to launch the game but not play it is just... sad.

You are clearly missing my point about it being "unplayable".

The only reason some people deem many games to be unplayable, is they cannot get 60 FPS at near maxed settings. A PC has many settings at their disposal to allow them to play the game.

It's as if they think the dev's should only gives us console level graphics, so that they can play at at maxed settings. Only then they'd be happy. Giving us the option to increase IQ is bad, because they might not be able to play it at those settings well.

And then you always get the console player who comes here to say, but a console can play it at maxed, why can't my PC play at maxed settings? Surely you recognize that they are NOT in fact playing at the same settings.

 

[moonbogg]

That still depends on what you consider adequate.

I think they suggest the 670 to get medium settings @ 30fps average. That's adequate to play the game. Two 670's might get you high settings at 45fps average. That's my guess based on their requirements. If that's the case, then the 670's & 7970's are trash for this game.

 

[Techhog]

I think they suggest the 670 to get medium settings @ 30fps average. That's adequate to play the game. Two 670's might get you high settings at 45fps average. That's my guess based on their requirements. If that's the case, then the 670's & 7970's are trash for this game.

If that's the case, then you have a point. We'll have to see though. That certainly wasn't the case with BF4 unless you feel that 2X MSAA automatically makes it medium.

 

[sze5003]

I got lost about what game you guys are discussing? Witcher 3? By the time that is out I hope to sell my card and get something newer. I doubt I won't be able to play it. I was able to set witcher 2 to ultra and turn off ubersampling and never really had any issues.

 

[SPBHM]

You are clearly missing my point about it being "unplayable".

The only reason some people deem many games to be unplayable, is they cannot get 60 FPS at near maxed settings. A PC has many settings at their disposal to allow them to play the game.

It's as if they think the dev's should only gives us console level graphics, so that they can play at at maxed settings. Only then they'd be happy. Giving us the option to increase IQ is bad, because they might not be able to play it at those settings well.

And then you always get the console player who comes here to say, but a console can play it at maxed, why can't my PC play at maxed settings? Surely you recognize that they are NOT in fact playing at the same settings.

Like the first Crysis right?

most gaming PCs at the time could play the game on medium-high just fine and it looked great, but if you wanted to play it maxed out you were out of luck and raging on Internet forums.

I think they suggest the 670 to get medium settings @ 30fps average. That's adequate to play the game. Two 670's might get you high settings at 45fps average. That's my guess based on their requirements. If that's the case, then the 670's & 7970's are trash for this game.

recommended normally means (when it means anything, most of the time it's a waste of time and you have to test the game) something much higher than medium 30fps

 

[Majcric]

The 680 was recommended for Max Payne 3 over a year ago. I remember looking at the back of the box thinking and I just got this card.

 

[ithehappy]

"Minimum requirement" means if you double click the game icon on the desktop, the game will start, but good luck trying to actually play.

 

[Zanovar]

I got lost about what game you guys are discussing? Witcher 3? By the time that is out I hope to sell my card and get something newer. I doubt I won't be able to play it. I was able to set witcher 2 to ultra and turn off ubersampling and never really had any issues.

Erm what?,your love of the witcher games is almost as bad as mine hahah..was kidding, shadow of modor or something.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Release Date: Oct 7, 2014

The 7970 was announced in December 2011 and released in January of 2012. When this game arrives that'll almost be three years already. They're not exactly new cards.

I am sure happy AMD put 3GB on these cards.

 

[sze5003]

Erm what?,your love of the witcher games is almost as bad as mine hahah..was kidding, shadow of modor or something.

Ohh alright. Yea I finished witcher 2 last week and I'm already on the 2nd playthrough. When I found out the third was delayed I was upset. I really had no interest in the game until I actually tried it and it got me hooked although I'm usually not the type of person to like those games.

Even so with that new game you may not be able to max it but it doesn't make 2 year old cards outdated. I would rather wait until the new chips are out anyway.

 

[Zanovar]

Ohh alright. Yea I finished witcher 2 last week and I'm already on the 2nd playthrough. When I found out the third was delayed I was upset. I really had no interest in the game until I actually tried it and it got me hooked although I'm usually not the type of person to like those games.

Even so with that new game you may not be able to max it but it doesn't make 2 year old cards outdated. I would rather wait until the new chips are out anyway.

:thumbsup:

 

[MongGrel]

http://store.steampowered.com/app/241930/

This game recommends a GTX 670/AMD 7970. My usual rule of thumb is that whatever a game recommends, then you need double that for a decent gameplay experience at near max settings. I have two 670's and i'm willing to bet that they barely manage to max this game at 1080p.
So, if you find that your GPU is starting to be on the "recommended" list of cards for new games, you will probably soon be underpowered.

Nothing new there, it's usually the recommended lowest to play it.

 

[sze5003]

The 680 was recommended for Max Payne 3 over a year ago. I remember looking at the back of the box thinking and I just got this card.

Yea its odd seeing your card in the recommended section. Before I used to be like yess that's what I have, now it's like craps need to spend $500 bucks again lol.