Using badly made games as benchmarks?

[kuddlesworth9419]

I remember something like that happened to CPUs once, where the top of the line from Intel actually performed not so great compared to its half-price brothers. It might still be happening, and as for GPUs, it may explain a lot of things I've encountered during my gaming time.

It's only because some games are really badly optimized. The 780 Ti doesn't perform as well as a 4GB 680 in Watch DOgs just because Watch Dogs uses a crazy amount of GPU memory. If all games were well optimized we would be in a much better situation at the moment in the gaming performance area. I think Planetside 2 is the best example of this as it heavily relies on the CPU more so then the GPU but it's CPU optimization is utter sh*t. That game won't even use a whole CPU core but instead uses about 10% of each core you have depending on different situation it will max out a single core and do nothing with the other cores with a GPU load of 12% something like that while getting well below 60fps around 30fps. And then when you go into an unpopulated area your fps goes up to 60 no problem and your CPU performance is much better as it uses more of each core. They really need to do something about that game if they want it to last in the long terms in performance concerns. 

[YoloSwag]

It's only because some games are really badly optimized. The 780 Ti doesn't perform as well as a 4GB 680 in Watch DOgs just because Watch Dogs uses a crazy amount of GPU memory. If all games were well optimized we would be in a much better situation at the moment in the gaming performance area. I think Planetside 2 is the best example of this as it heavily relies on the CPU more so then the GPU but it's CPU optimization is utter sh*t. That game won't even use a whole CPU core but instead uses about 10% of each core you have depending on different situation it will max out a single core and do nothing with the other cores with a GPU load of 12% something like that while getting well below 60fps around 30fps. And then when you go into an unpopulated area your fps goes up to 60 no problem and your CPU performance is much better as it uses more of each core. They really need to do something about that game if they want it to last in the long terms in performance concerns. 

 

Thanks for clearing that up. No wonder I had problems with that game I thought my PC couldn't have handled it at that time.

[i_build_nanosuits]

watchdogs makes for the perfect benchmark just like crysis 3 does cause they are very demanding games to run.

[Trik'Stari]

I think minecraft is one of the better tests of a computer. Specifically because almost every block in the game has more than just graphics to render, I know for my part, I've crashed more than 1 server (not my own either, and not on purpose) from building with lava, not just griefing with lava either. I have somewhat of an obsession with lava, and I can say that it causes some hellatious problems.

 

On a side note, DO NOT EVER ACCIDENTALLY WORLD EDIT IN A "BLOCK" OF ABOUT 5000 ANVILS.......you will have to roll that server back as a result.........it does terrible terrible things.....

[Guest]

I suspect you overestimate how much power the PC enthusiast press has over game developers...

 

We can't even get BASIC crap like FPS locks removed so we can benchmark the games AT ALL sometimes...

Well you can but you do risk getting this:

http://youtu.be/qpC43CdvjyA

[kuddlesworth9419]

Thanks for clearing that up. No wonder I had problems with that game I thought my PC couldn't have handled it at that time.

No you can the highest end PC you want but that game will still run sup 60 fps. 

[YoloSwag]

No you can the highest end PC you want but that game will still run sup 60 fps. 

I was having trouble running that game with a decent FPS count. I had to lower the settings down to medium just to make it playable, it might be because I only have a dual core and 4GB of ram, but I think it should've ran fine. I play some games at the minimum sys req. and have the settings bumped up because of my old GTX 660, the only problem I experience with that is some stuttering, but not a low FPS count.

[kuddlesworth9419]

I was having trouble running that game with a decent FPS count. I had to lower the settings down to medium just to make it playable, it might be because I only have a dual core and 4GB of ram, but I think it should've ran fine. I play some games at the minimum sys req. and have the settings bumped up because of my old GTX 660, the only problem I experience with that is some stuttering, but not a low FPS count.

Well in some cases the game runs better with higher graphics settings. For me low settings give me lower fps but higher settings increases that framerate. The game just has some really serious performance problems. 

[Angelscar]

Well you can but you do risk getting this:

While i agree that stuff like that cause issues, i dont see why developers would program a game to run at X FPS instead of lets say process information at 60 pulses /sec which is 60 times per sec. If the game is running at under 60 fps then there will be some sort of stutter and the game will run visibly slower. But if it goes above 60 fps then the game will look extremely smooth.

Even gamemaker which is the entry level game engine can do it...