• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Most CPU Intensive Game

This is a hard question. Things like SC2, Skyrim, Crysis1 all need huge single-threaded performance because they're not very well optimized for multicore, particularly beyond 2 cores showing much less gain than better optimized titles. So one could say you need the absolute best CPU you can find for high IPC + high clock speed to get a good experience. At the same time, one could also argue that something like BF3 64P MP uses more CPU resources in a more efficient manner (lots more going on to be honest), and that requires the best of all worlds, high IPC + high clock + lots of cores.
 
Flight Simulator X with a MD 11 PMDG add-on plane and add-on scenery.

Shouldn't BF3 be optimized for multi core support? After all it's a new game.
 
John Conner said:
Flight Simulator X with a MD 11 PMDG add-on plane and add-on scenery.

Shouldn't BF3 be optimized for multi core support? After all it's a new game.
Click to expand...

It is. Doesn't mean it doesn't use them all.

Of what I'm playing now, my current nod would go to Planetside 2.
 
In warcraft 3, I could fill the screen with footmen until the fps dropped to <1. If you didnt kill all the footmen at that point, the game would become totally unresponsive.
 
sm625 said:
In warcraft 3, I could fill the screen with footmen until the fps dropped to <1. If you didnt kill all the footmen at that point, the game would become totally unresponsive.
Click to expand...

lol.

perhap MMORPG is the winner.

both: the unit count of RTS and the graphical viewpoint of FPS.
 
I think the common consensus would be where there are many characters animated at the same time. RTS, MMOs, racing games, fps in that order I would think..
 
Battlefield 3
GTA IV
Assassins Creed 3
Shogun 2
LA Noire
Lost Planet 2
Batman Arkham City
Skyrim

Its hard to top Battlefield 3 64man though. Even Bad Company 2 32man used more than any other game.

Lots of games max out 2 cores, but only Battlefield seems to max out 4 cores.
 
GTA IV and other really badly ported console games are certainly on the list.

Any decent & well written PC game is really not all that CPU intensive unless you go WAY outside it's "normal" boundaries (like the Warcraft III footman example).

You really don't need an insanely powerful CPU for BF3 multiplayer to have a very low percentage of frames lagging in response. You just need 4 cores. Other games like War 3 or Shogun 2 can be "overloaded" with units, but this is generally venturing outside of the intentions of the developer.

For keeping FPS high enough that there isn't a perception of individual frames it really doesn't take a killer CPU and there really hasn't in my recollection since the invention of the seperate 3D GPU. GPU has always been a much larger factor.
 
Shogun 2 if you play against several armies. Slow motion...reeeeally slow motion 😀
It's so slow that entire animations are skipped.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
Mostly due to the fact that their multi-threading is rubbish, but if you want playable frame rates in large battles you better be prepared to get an i7 to 5Ghz.
Click to expand...
Yeah Planetside 2 is very badly optimized and it looks pretty "meh" for that kind of hardware requirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top