The phrase 'But can it play Crysis' needs updatng.

[devotedsniper]

People need to learn that resolution plays a huge part of how your computer will be performing. Im sick of people saying they can run every game on Highest settings when they are infact using something like 800x600 resolution. And 1920x1080 isnt max resolution. Any game with over 1920x1080 resolution will be hard on your computer considering if you are using (Example): 5760x1080 (3screens 1920x1080) then you can expect a huge performance loss

Im pretty sure metro 2033 is the new Crysis

http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/2103?k=95e7d6a5de2ba027ec12c6ef633c6d02
(test on Metro 2033)


Even with 6990 in CF the lowest fps was 10 and average was 64fps

I think you'll find most if not all know on this forum at least know resolution plays a factor but when most say there computer is running the game on maximum (like me) we include the resolution (for me it's 1680*1050 @ 120hertz) and usually for gamers it's either 1680*1050 or 1920*1080 (at the moment) depending on there monitor. And while yes running multiple screens increases strain most that run more than one screen for gaming (not talking 1 screen gaming, 1 desktop like me) usually run either one very strong GPU or are SLI'd/crossfired because you need the power to be doing that.

 

[MrTub]

People need to learn that resolution plays a huge part of how your computer will be performing. Im sick of people saying they can run every game on Highest settings when they are infact using something like 800x600 resolution. And 1920x1080 isnt max resolution. Any game with over 1920x1080 resolution will be hard on your computer considering if you are using (Example): 5760x1080 (3screens 1920x1080) then you can expect a huge performance loss

Im pretty sure metro 2033 is the new Crysis

http://www.sweclockers.com/image/diagram/2103?k=95e7d6a5de2ba027ec12c6ef633c6d02
(test on Metro 2033)


Even with 6990 in CF the lowest fps was 10 and average was 64fps

I think you'll find most if not all know on this forum at least know resolution plays a factor but when most say there computer is running the game on maximum (like me) we include the resolution (for me it's 1680*1050 @ 120hertz) and usually for gamers it's either 1680*1050 or 1920*1080 (at the moment) depending on there monitor. And while yes running multiple screens increases strain most that run more than one screen for gaming (not talking 1 screen gaming, 1 desktop like me) usually run either one very strong GPU or are SLI'd/crossfired because you need the power to be doing that.

I never see anyone include their resolution

 

[bam13302]

metro is quite taxing, but only if you turn the dx11 settings on (at least from my experience)
other than that, i would have to say Supreme Commander (1) with some of the mods that reduce construction times, but that is a processor intensive game
though, i also realized that stalker: Call of Pripyat really ate resources, when i was running it (with the complete mod) i noticed at 3 seperate times, it maxed out my processor, hard drive, and used 1.3GB of video memory (from what i remember, metro only used 800-1000MB when i was playing it)
now if that isnt enough you could use actually benchmarking software (like unigine heaven benchmark is what i use)

 

[Acaroid]

IL2: Cliffs of dover with everythinng max is a hefty piece of gaming. It is the only game I have bought recently that has made me think "crap... I think i need a PC upgrade"

 

[Kingsnake661]

Since this thread seems to be about stress testing graphics cards, i'd like to ask a quick question. i just bough a pair of GTX 460's to run in SLI on my I7-965 rig. Got a ram upgrade too (12 gig) And will upgrade to win 7.

I'm wondering how it's graphics power will stack up... I had considered a bigger single card, but these cards were on sale for like 150 each, and i'd read that in SLI, they can be pretty formaible. The games i'm looking to play the most will end up being the Mass Effects, 3 being one of the reasons i upgraded, TOR, and the new Batman game... I already know i couldn't full max out the current Batman game with my old GTX 280. Wondering if i will with these 2 in SLI?..

Anyway.. just hoping it'll be a good enough upgrade to max out them games at the very least. heh.

 

[Super Toast]

I hear that ArmA 2 is a demanding little game.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Personally I think we need to stop using games as anything else but games. There are programs made specifically to test how strong a rig is.

Yeah, but you will never have a system that can fully run a benchmark as the benchmark would not be doing it's job in that case. So I don't see the phrase ' Ah, but can it run PCMark / 3d Mark..' ever working. And 'Ah, but what's your PCmark score' does not help much as the response may not help much.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Personally I think we need to stop using games as anything else but games. There are programs made specifically to test how strong a rig is.

Yeah, but you will never have a system that can fully run a benchmark as the benchmark would not be doing it's job in that case. So I don't see the phrase ' Ah, but can it run PCMark / 3d Mark..' ever working. And 'Ah, but what's your PCmark score' does not help much as the response may not help much.

Benchmarking in general is all but useless. The only use for it is to make sure your rig is still running decently, or to test it if you suspect something's not behaving itself. I honestly believe benchmarking as PC gamers use it is a massive waste of time.

OK, then what do people use on their new rigs for bragging rights, of how fast their new rig is?