Games getting too demanding to run!

[eelnico09]

Exactly, and ppl with a tight budgets wont be able to get some good fps until intels' budget cpus get 4 cores. And thats sad I guess

I think it depends on the company, wether launch a game that FORBIDS you from playing it with 2 cores, and the company that'd say quad core is the minimum, but if u wanna play the game at 20fps with a dual core, do it.

[SadTech]

I play BF3 on my i5 intel 4000 graphics and I get 50 FPS, settings are on LOW but it really doesn't matter still runs and looks great. Plus it is fun as all hell!

[IMPERIUS]

I play BF3 on my i5 intel 4000 graphics and I get 50 FPS, settings are on LOW but it really doesn't matter still runs and looks great. Plus it is fun as all hell!

I salute your dedication on playing bf3 with such specs. I used to play bf3 with 12 fps on the lowest possible res and grafics settings tho I loved the game and put 50h in it then decided to get a new system

[warmmilk]

U see a performance improvement in bf4 with 4 cores and the game isn't exactly new so what will hardline or bf5 require?

 

well if price is the issue, you can get an amd 4+ core cpu.  I think AMD systems are a better option for low to mid budget setups.  you can get an amd cpu with more cores and that will overclock for a similar price to an i3.  I also don't really see an i3 as a gaming cpu, its more of a very casual user cpu imho

 

but overall I think games that leverage more cores over single high power cores are better.  most gamers have 4+ core cpus and properly utilized we'll be seeing better performing and better looking games.  gamers demand that graphics improve, so it was either better per core performance, which we haven't seen a big improvement on in a long time.  or better leverage multiple cores... 4, 6, and 8 core consumer cpu's have been available for a long time now.  and this might help even out amd vs intel game performance... and could be the competitive push needed to drive better per core performance

 

so in short, yes, games are getting more demanding, but AC:U aside, I don't think its too much

[SadTech]

I salute your dedication on playing bf3 with such specs. I used to play bf3 with 12 fps on the lowest possible res and grafics settings tho I loved the game and put 50h in it then decided to get a new system

 

Yeah it really does play/look just fine.. my 3570K runs it great! It doesn't look bad at all either even on LOW, sure it could look much better but I am getting a new GPU in a couple months so no big deal, I can wait until then. Still totally playable.

[razor767]

I think its down to poor optimisation more than anything, thankfully I always seem to find games that run well.

[Klerk]

Terrible ports and optimization is mostly the main reason. This past couple of years has been the era of unfinished games. The graphics on most of today's games doesn't really justify the performance requirements.

[NumeroSieben]

I'm quite sure that intel will make the i3 series a quad core line eventually as technology moves forward. I5 used to be dual core and now there are plenty of i5 quad cores. There's always going to be budget solutions that will do things at least equal to consoles for a very good price because as technology gets better things get cheaper. A guy on pc master race posted that compared to PS4 etc the Titan from Nvidia was 3x as powerful, but Titans costed a lot of money on release. These days a GTX 970 outpreforms a titan in benchmarking and in the US costs like 300-350 dollars iirc. 

 

if you chase the bleeding edge of performance you pay a very high premium, but no matter what there are budget options that will preform very well without costing you a lot of money, that's one of the best things about PC building, you have a budget that ranges from a few hundred to virtually unlimited and it'll get put together and work pretty well for what you're paying.

 

Don't feel overly worried about things like "my CPU wont be good enough anymore", there will be a modern budget option that WILL be good enough when you need to upgrade. you will never be forced to buy a $1000 5960x i guarantee it.

[killcomic]

I have a 3570k and a 7950 vapor-x, basically the same, and i bought a 970 because for me, the 7950 is not enough anymore for 1080p.

Really? I got mine overclocked to 1100MHZ and games still run OK. Not at 60 FPS all the time but playable.

[Humbug]

It's mostly ubisoft causing problems, this is not a wider industry trend. So don't panic.

 

The other AAA titles from other devs tend to scale across a range of hardware...

[MEC-777]

Really? I got mine overclocked to 1100MHZ and games still run OK. Not at 60 FPS all the time but playable.

 

Was thinking the same thing about the 7950. I had mine blazing along nicely at 1150 core and 1350+ memory. Could take pretty much any game at 1080p ultra and spit it out at well over 60fps. There were only a few games that really made it dip below 60 (Crysis 3). Surprised me how strong of a card they are. At the time they were AMD's 2nd fastest single GPU next to the 7970's. 

[s4spencer]

Keep in mind gaming in general is getting more expensive. We've gone from $200 consoles, with subscription services being some do/some dont. Now its lowest possible @ $400 for a PS4/One with required subscription

[Humbug]

Keep in mind gaming in general is getting more expensive. We've gone from $200 consoles, with subscription services being some do/some dont. Now its lowest possible @ $400 for a PS4/One with required subscription

Part of the problem is that AAA games have become much more expensive to make for devs. The amount of detail required means that large teams are needed.

 

Maybe on the long term procedural generated content is the solution to the cost problem.

[LogicalDrm]

To start of: People who are questioning OP using BC2 as comparison to FC4 and ACU. Its actually interesting one since BC2 is well known of being console optimized game. So basicly what OP is saying is that in 2010 console optimized games were done to much older hardware that what they are now. Remember that X360 was already 5 years old when BC2 was made for it. Compare that to how much PC hardware has improved in that time and you can clearly see why it ran so well on PCs.

 

To continue on that point (nice of you to pick BF game), BF3 was the game that people got upgrades going on. I went from dual core to quad for it. And got new GPU. That GPU has been in my rig since then and is only now starting to look like I could use something better. If we think why that would be the case, consoles are there again. PS4 and X1 are just launched (okei, almost). Games that are optimized for them demand more on PC hardware that they aren't optimized to.

 

Ofc there are other thing to consider there like release schedule and indie devs. But the thing has always been this. Games use new technologies. If you want to run them, you have to upgrade your system. We would be playing with P2's if this wasn't the case. I could find examples from history to back this up. One of them being CD drives arrival to replace floppies.

[typographie]

I think that todays games are getting werry demanding to run. Example of this are AS Unity and Far Cry 4.

 

I think we're overreacting to Ubisoft a bit. They're only one company, and they've released some unusually poorly optimized games recently. EA, to use on an equally limited example, is using their pretty well-optimized Frostbite 3 engine for just about everything they're releasing in the next few years. There's always been a game or two now and then that is an outlier, that doesn't respond to hardware the way it should. That doesn't mean "games [in general] are getting very demanding."

 

Even between the two Ubisoft games you point to, Far Cry 4 seems to scale okay to lower-end hardware if you drop some details; Unity is such a mess that more hardware isn't even the answer to its problems.