Most performance taxing game you've played

[WhiteFang]

What is the most performance taxing game you've ever played?Mine is 7 days to die .Bloody 18-25fps

 

[edo494]

Wc3 with quite a few things on screen.

Cities: Skylines with 80k population

 

[WhiteFang]

Wc3 with quite a few things on screen

Dat moment,when you spam things in WE and press test map xD

 

[Wietlol]

Most performance taxing?
My stresstest of my project 2 days ago.
(200k destructables on map... quite high resolution as well.)

 

[chobibo]

Vagrant Story on PS1, it slows down whenever I perform the Papillion Reel break art.
On my ancient computer it was stronghold crusader.

 

[Wietlol]

Crusader?
Then your ancient computer had bad specs for that age...
I assume 100 bytes of ram and 20hertz?

 

[chobibo]

nope, more like 20 beads of Ram and a bad case of hepatitis

 

[Zaramorus]

Gta 4. It requires quad core, but i have duo core. Oh and Dayz is like 5-10 fps.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Almost all F2P MMOs:
RIFT (it is literally impossible to get more than 30 FPS in the capitals), Tera Online (worst performance UI ever ...), Archeage... (DirectX 11 support completely broken).

All of these games are terribly optimized and suck FPS left and right for no apparent reason. I couldn't decide which one of these would go as my number one, as all of them are equally terrible in their "specialities".

 

[sonofjay]

Almost all F2P MMOs:
RIFT (it is literally impossible to get more than 30 FPS in the capitals), Tera Online (worst performance UI ever ...), Archeage... (DirectX 11 support completely broken).

All of these games are terribly optimized and suck FPS left and right for no apparent reason. I couldn't decide which one of these would go as my number one, as all of them are equally terrible in their "specialities".

So true, I play Aura Kingdom and its barely walkable on the Capital City when there are so many players. The game have a noob countermeasure of giving the players the functionality of making the other players invisible on their view just for the sake of being able to walk in the major areas.

 

[Deleted member 242951]

All r shit, since mine is call of duty advance warfare. And that requires 8 GB of RAM !! Lags like HELL!!

 

[Wasabee]

Mine was called Ground Wars: Tanks.

 

[Wietlol]

Mine was called tetris

 

[Deleted member 242951]

I've never heared about tetris...

 

[Wasabee]

There is a lot of games like Tetris.

 

[Deleted member 242951]

But what is tetris?

 

[Zaramorus]

But what is tetris?

The best selling game of all time.

 

[WhiteFang]

@Demon Slayer20.How much RAM do you have?

 

[Deleted member 242951]

@Zaramorous, How come a gamer like me doesnt know it? Which year was that released?

@White Fang, currently I have 2GB of RAM and A 2.67 Ghz processor and u ?

 

[Zaramorus]

@Zaramorous, How come a gamer like me doesnt know it? Which year was that released?

@White Fang, currently I have 2GB of RAM and A 2.67 Ghz processor and u ?

Wait what? I thought you were joking on not knowing Tetris. Seriously no offense, but have youve been living under a rock? The game boy version of Tetris was realeased back in 1989. The mobile version of Tetris is the most sold game of all time with 100 million copies sold, but the gameboy version has sold 35 million copies. Literally Tetris is the most known game in history. Btw how the hell are you able to play CoD Advanced Warfare with only 2 GB of ram?! It requires 6 GB of ram on minimum so im wondering how the bloody hell are you even able to run it?

 

[edo494]

most known != most bought

 

[Dr Super Good]

I am ignoring hobby or user made PC content as that often was often never designed to "perform" in the first place.

First up was Empires Dawn of the Modern World. It had pretty good graphics for a time that pre dates Warcraft III. Although it did have sensible unit caps, it also allowed you to play with practically unlimited population. Such games often resulted in bursts of poor frame rate when 1,000 units mashed into another 1,000 units with planes flying everywhere. The game itself is not that demanding and modern computers run it like it was nothing however due to it being early days of hardware accelerated graphics there were serious lag problems on some of the systems of the day, even those which had much higher than recommended specs. When I say "lag" I really mean it, the game started to fall behind other clients to the point that when you issue an order and what you see on screen was several minutes behind other players in your session. This had nothing to do with network latency and appeared related to AGP cards more recent than GeForce 4.

Next up is Sonic the Hedgehog for the SEGA Genesis/Megadrive. The game is iconic and at the time few people even realized it but it was really performing quite badly. Firstly the EU version physically ran at 5/6 the speed of the US version, being apparent in both gameplay and even the music. Secondly if there were a lot of things on screen it could start to noticeably drop frames. However by far the biggest sign of poor performance was when you had over 20 rings and got hit, sending them flying with breath taking physics for the time. Most people thought that the game slowed after being hit to give the player a chance to recover and admire all his rings bouncing away however the reality was the console was really struggling due to the number of rings involved and this is made clear when you take damage when using a shield and no slowdown occurs at all. Only much later did people find out that the reason it performed so badly and that the music slowed as well was because it did not use the sound chip at all due to the hardware team not having specified a sound chip during the development of Sonic the Hedgehog. Instead it used software emulation for sound and music which is why it slowed down with the game action under heavy loads. Both Sonic 2 and Sonic 3+K used the sound chip which is why they sound different but also performed a lot better (fewer slowdowns). I am unsure but I think the 50/60 Hz gameplay problem still persisted but I believe the music speed was fixed due to it being no longer related to the processor speed.

From a game that went down in history as one of the best to one that went down as one of the worst. I give you Sonic the Hedgehog 2006 for Xbox 360 (later PS3). As a console launch title it was expected to blow peoples minds with "next generation" graphics and gameplay that was not possible on weak consoles like the Gamecube/Wii or Playstation 2. Instead what was delivered was a game that had a poorly written story, buggy game play and unbelievably bad performance. About 50% of the game time was load screens. For graphics that looked worse than the Wii it suffered from constant frame rate dips as well as slowdowns. Even using the homing attack could stall the game for a few frames. Some stages just were 10 FPS slide shows. For something that looked so bad it is amazing how it could even perform so poorly on a console that was so powerful (at the time). The PS3 port performed as bad if not worse which showed that even extra development time fixed nothing.

Next up is a more recent large world gem that is often overlooked for its technical achievements. Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts was a game developed by Rare that took traditional adventure/action heroes to a more sandbox racing game. Cars could be made that resemble something from a scrapyard yet perform like a formula one car. Races could take place on land, sea or even the Air. There was a ton of clutter to crash into and break to pieces as you drove. Vehicles could bonce, objects could be moved, stuff could be blown up, you name it. In addition to all this it also featured more modern lighting techniques such as specular and normal maps as well as real time shadows adding an impressive level of realism to a game purposely looking unrealistic. Now of course with all this going on and being a more sandbox sort of game one can only expect there to be performance hickups. When you have an enemy car falling to pieces and you bouncing all over the place I am pretty sure frame rates hit single digits. Some of the stages had bad views which would also send frame rate through the floor due to there being very little limit to draw distance. However I am pretty sure the average performance was still better than Sonic 2006, and unlike that game you were quite literally getting eye candy.

These are some off the top of my head. I might add more later.

 

[Deleted member 242951]

@ Zaramoros, I dont always have a low 2 GB RAM. Read my post again. I said "currently".

 

[Deleted member 212788]

Hmmmm, most taxing game you say. Well, the one that lagged the most for me was Star Wars KOTOR which I played on a machine sporting 256 Mbs of RAM and a single core CPU which was probably about 400-600 MHz.

As for most demanding game I've been able to play. That one is probably going to go to Witcher 2 at the moment (since 3 isn't out yet). That thing takes a dump even on some modern GPUs.

 

[Korialstrasz]

Definitely GTA 4 for me. GTA 5 runs better for me than GTA 4, even now.
Always had huge problems with that game on Computer.
Same goes for APB Reloaded if anyone knows it, pretty bad coded.

 

[Zaramorus]

Definitely GTA 4 for me. GTA 5 runs better for me than GTA 4, even now.
Always had huge problems with that game on Computer.
Same goes for APB Reloaded if anyone knows it, pretty bad coded.

Saints Row is terribly coded for pc too.

 

[Korialstrasz]

Saints Row is terribly coded for pc too.

True. This just shows how hard the port from console to pc can be.

 

[Dr Super Good]

This just shows how hard the port from console to pc can be.

*used to be.

Consoles are practically identical to PCs now.

 

[Wietlol]

Consoles < PC atm.

PC can install a full simulator to run both XBox ánd PS games.
Wii and kinetic are two of the few that are not possible though.

But a PC can run it way faster (assuming you have a gaming PC) and you can have the exact same controller attached to your PC and have your PC attached to an enormous TV.

What is the difference?

 

[edo494]

also, you can actually upgrade guts of your PC(even laptop should be doable), which can be very hardly said about console, excluding disk space

 

[Dr Super Good]

PC can install a full simulator to run both XBox ánd PS games.
Wii and kinetic are two of the few that are not possible though.

Xbox 360 and PS3 have no freely available emulator. Emulators of them might be available from their manufacture but they are intended for testing and not real time (would run at about 1/1,000 real speed). This applies to Wii U as well which is also the IBM architecture (all are "Cell" technology systems).

Xbox (original), PS2, Gamecube/Wii are emulate-able on the PC. This is because they were created before computer speed growth started to fail. They are sufficiently simple that full speed real time emulation is possible.

Xbox One and PS4 are both x86-64 systems using standard PC components. As such they require no emulation since most games for them can be built for PC and ported to them as required. Currently the graphic API is problematic to port however Windows 10 DX12 will solve that. The only thing stopping you running PlayStation exclusives on your PC is Sony purposely forcing them to remain exclusive to PlayStation 4. Most Xbox One "exclusives" should also appear for Windiows 10 since Microsoft owns both and is actively trying to unify the two platforms.

But a PC can run it way faster (assuming you have a gaming PC) and you can have the exact same controller attached to your PC and have your PC attached to an enormous TV.

Currently it cannot. Consoles can do stuff PCs just cannot do efficiently due to the way they are designed. Specifically most cutting edge Xbox One and PlayStation 4 games (Final Fantasy 15) perform very badly on PCs because the PC graphic API is inefficient. This is changing with Windows 10 where Direct 3D 12 standardizes the API with that of Xbox One so that PC and Xbox One can perform the same sorts of graphic operations efficiently as well. Currently Xbox One uses a special purpose API which is why it can do this. Additionally PCs can also do this if they use a modern AMD graphic card and the game is written to use AMD Mantel GPU framework however this defeats portability since NVidia dominates PC market GPUs (and are capable of equal if not better performance than AMD GPUs).

There is no doubt PCs will run all current games faster soon, but not at the moment.

What is the difference?

With exception of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4, all consoles use a different processor architecture from PC. This means that they inherently work completely differently and so cannot natively run the games. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are especially bad as they are powerful consoles (running at ~3 GHz clock speed) but have unusual core configuration and IBM designed instruction set (IBM does stuff very differently). Emulating a single cycle can take more than 100 cycles and due to the clock speed roof we have hit that is not possible. As such games running on the Xbox 360 or PS3 emulated on a PC would take several seconds per frame, not realtime play and slow enough that all multiplayer services will spot it as not genuine. It is possible for PS2/Wii/Xbox purely due to them being so slow in comparison. Only reason Xbox does not have an emulator is because it had so few game releases for it (lasted a very short time) and attempts to make an emulator were shut down by Microsoft for various reasons.

also, you can actually upgrade guts of your PC(even laptop should be doable),

Not anymore., look at Apple laptops. They come as a single board (the motherboard) with GPU, CPU and RAM all soldiered onto it. This is identical to how Xbox One and PS4 are constructed. Changing hardware is not possible because the soldiering cannot be done manually (only in specialist factories).

 

[Korialstrasz]

Xbox 360 and PS3 have no freely available emulator. Emulators of them might be available from their manufacture but they are intended for testing and not real time (would run at about 1/1,000 real speed). This applies to Wii U as well which is also the IBM architecture (all are "Cell" technology systems).

Xbox (original), PS2, Gamecube/Wii are emulate-able on the PC. This is because they were created before computer speed growth started to fail. They are sufficiently simple that full speed real time emulation is possible.

Xbox One and PS4 are both x86-64 systems using standard PC components. As such they require no emulation since most games for them can be built for PC and ported to them as required. Currently the graphic API is problematic to port however Windows 10 DX12 will solve that. The only thing stopping you running PlayStation exclusives on your PC is Sony purposely forcing them to remain exclusive to PlayStation 4. Most Xbox One "exclusives" should also appear for Windiows 10 since Microsoft owns both and is actively trying to unify the two platforms.

I have to ask this: Is there something you do not know? Your knowledge seems to be infinite! And that is not intended bad or anything, i actually mean it.

However, aren't we changing the topic? We should get back to Performance taxing game's, tho playing game's on emulator is quite performance taxing as well!

 

[Wietlol]

Well... I think I can add Life is Feudal to this list.

In Life is Feudal, you can play single player as well as multiplayer.
In single player, you create a server locally which can take a nice 4 GB from your RAM.
But that is not even the game itself, you then have to load that server and play on it which also takes a rough 1 GB of RAM.
Try to run that.

(Multiplayer loading time is horrible as well.)

 

[edo494]

Not anymore., look at Apple laptops. They come as a single board (the motherboard) with GPU, CPU and RAM all soldiered onto it. This is identical to how Xbox One and PS4 are constructed. Changing hardware is not possible because the soldiering cannot be done manually (only in specialist factories).

ok, this is my fault, by PC I dont mean pre-build macshit applefuck trash, I mean custom-made pc, that everyone with 2 digit IQ will build(if having the funding to do so).

Also, Apple was always notorously known for selling apple crap with incompatible pieces, so that you cant actually upgrade/replace them.

Ah ok, you were talking about Laptops, well, I would imagine you can switch both graphics card and monitors at will(graphics card may be hard to replace tho).

XBox and Ps4 are no computers nor laptops, they are consoles, and it is understandable, and that is one of the reaosons PC is better than console for modern gaming, because PCs keep getting upgraded graphics cards, while consoles are stuck on shit put into them at the date they were released(e.g. Xbox 360 from 2010 still has the initial release hardware, to my knowledge anyways, thats why devs have to down-scale graphics on consoles, cause they suck).

 

[Dr Super Good]

ok, this is my fault, by PC I dont mean pre-build macshit applefuck trash, I mean custom-made pc, that everyone with 2 digit IQ will build(if having the funding to do so).

Most people do not use such systems. The people who do are in the minority.

ok, you were talking about Laptops, well, I would imagine you can switch both graphics card and monitors at will(graphics card may be hard to replace tho).

Not anymore, a lot of laptops have everything soldered on a single board. Why else do you think the Xbox One and PS4 do so? AMD provides everything on a single board giving performance to cost ratios not possible with socketed components. A lot of modern systems do not even have discrete GPUs, like the Xbox One and PS4 the GPU is on the same die as the CPU, which are both developed by AMD.

Most tablets and smart phones use a similar approach, with a NVidia GPU integrated with an ARM processor. Cheaper and more efficient.

Xbox 360 from 2010 still has the initial release hardware, to my knowledge anyways

The hardware performance is the same but physically is very different. Specifically they reduced power consumption massively and reduced its size to a fraction of what it was originally.

Because the Xbox One and PS4 run on a PC like architecture there is nothing stopping an "improved" version being released a few years down the line which is fully backwards compatible and can even run existing titles at higher resolutions and frame rates. Since it basically uses an AMD GPU/CPU single chip, they can just get newer, faster ones for later models which still run the same stuff, but better. Xbox 360 and PS3 could not do that because the CPU they used was not very main-stream and had unusual performance characteristics (IBM Cell tech) and the GPU line (Direct3D 9 tech) was discontinued around the time of release (Direct3D 10 and later cards function very differently).

 

[edo494]

I think that almost everyone in this country has custom build pc, it is more powerful, cheaper than macraptosh, and easier to maintain(you dont have to send it for 30 days for varranty, you just pull nonworking parts, replace them and you are good to go again, while waiting for the varranty).

Ok, I was saying shit by saying latest xbox 360 is the same as oldest, its not true, but powerwise(how much stuff it can render in a second) it is roughly, if not completly equal.

You cant really compare phones, where you want to pack a lot of stuff into smallest and/or slimmest possible configuration with desktop pc that has actual place to breathe. Also this isnt about phones to begin with(you could argue with the gaming tablet by razer or whoever made that, but you cant take gaming on tablet seriously).

Also, we are arguing about complete nonsense, that is unrelated to the original topic in any way, shape or form