Top 5 most demanding games (other than Crysis)

  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Xalenite
#1 Posted by Xalenite (304 posts) -

As said in the topic, what do you think are the most demanding games for the PC?

OTHER than Crysis of course.

Avatar image for Ps2stony
#2 Posted by Ps2stony (1888 posts) -
GoW and UT3. Damn UE3 and it's post-proccessing...
Avatar image for NamelessPlayer
#3 Posted by NamelessPlayer (7729 posts) -
Today? I can't list FIVE titles, but Supreme Commander is known to bring the highest-end of systems down to their knees when the game is running at its most massive scale. All the other games besides SC and Crysis seem to run fine on your typical Core 2 Duo/Quad system with 2 GB of RAM and a 8800 GT 512 MB maxed out, though some unoptimized console ports demand much more in terms of hardware power than they should. However, if you were to rewind to 1998, no game was as downright punishing on system hardware as Trespasser, particularly since it had things like a physics engine that's not too far behind games like Half-Life 2 in an age of 300 MHz CPUs. It was to 1998 as Crysis is to 2007 in terms of technological advancement and the hardware needed to run it smoothly, only moreso. Oh, and there's another title from around the same period known as Outcast that used voxels instead of polygons to compose its terrain. The unfortunate part is that since 3D accelerators were geared towards pushing polygons and NOT voxels, the game had to be entirely software-rendered, placing a lot of stress on the CPU. (You can run it pretty well with a 500 MHz CPU or so, but maxing it out will probably require around 1 GHz or more of typical Intel/AMD CPU power.) If you want something more modern but still a few years old, though, Battlefield 2 ate up quite a bit of RAM for the time(it was one of the first reasons to get 2 GB of RAM when most people had 1 GB, or even worse, just 512 MB), and running TESIV: Oblivion maxed-out outside with hardware available at the time of its launch would net you a very slideshow-ish experience.
Avatar image for DiabeticDood
#4 Posted by DiabeticDood (4331 posts) -
GoW
Avatar image for LordEC911
#5 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -
UE3
Stalker
FEAR
Oblivion
and Current RTS COH/SupremeCommander/WiC/etc
Avatar image for Trilvester
#6 Posted by Trilvester (1857 posts) -
I could probably just say oblivion. I still only get 30FPS with HDR and full AA when a lot of enemies are around casting spells.
Avatar image for AKS_74U
#7 Posted by AKS_74U (1841 posts) -

Well I know for sure one of mine is Battlefield 2

I remember back in 2005..when I saw one of the guys talking about it..."You will need about 2 gigs of ram and a video card with 256 mb of ram...back then I had 512 mb of ram and a ti 4200

Avatar image for broseybrose
#8 Posted by broseybrose (248 posts) -
Microsoft Flight Sim X is more demanding than crysis... company of heroes and world in conflict are up there too...
Avatar image for Ps2stony
#9 Posted by Ps2stony (1888 posts) -
Crysis and Oblivion as well, since for both games there's some reason I can't patch them to make 'em run better.
Avatar image for crozon
#10 Posted by crozon (1169 posts) -

easily flight simulator x and armed assualt.

also lock on and battle of britain 2 can bring my PC to its knees yet i can play crysis on high with one or 2 settings on med

Avatar image for gotcha455
#11 Posted by gotcha455 (2611 posts) -

Aside form Crysis?

COD4, Oblivion, STALKER, Gears of War..... Add an RTS in there, I just don't play them.

Avatar image for MTBare
#12 Posted by MTBare (5176 posts) -
Am I the only one who thinks the Supreme Commander expansion is more demanding than crysis?
Avatar image for artur79
#13 Posted by artur79 (4679 posts) -
I don't really have performance issues with any other games than Crysis and Gothic 3. I have not played any modern RTSs though...
Avatar image for mo0ksi
#14 Posted by mo0ksi (12337 posts) -
World in Conflict. It's probably the second most demanding game out ATM.
Avatar image for krazyorange
#15 Posted by krazyorange (2669 posts) -
Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.
Avatar image for gotcha455
#16 Posted by gotcha455 (2611 posts) -

Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.krazyorange

So you're STALKER copy is messed up or your rig is? The patches fixed issues with Vista..... as long as your 1.004 or better, the OS isn't holding you back.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#17 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -
Neverwinter Nights 2 is the most demanding engine period.. Its a huge system hog while at the same time producing visuals that are rivaled by games like Guild Wars.
Avatar image for threepac81
#18 Posted by threepac81 (3459 posts) -
Halo (1) that buggy beast still brings modern computers to there knees.
Avatar image for nVidiaGaMer
#19 Posted by nVidiaGaMer (7793 posts) -

GoW and UT3. Damn UE3 and it's post-proccessing...Ps2stony

How is UT3 demanding?! I run it maxed out (100% of settings enabled except vSync of course) with an 8600GT XXX @ 1280x1024 with 35-40 fps average and never dips below 30.

Avatar image for threepac81
#20 Posted by threepac81 (3459 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"]GoW and UT3. Damn UE3 and it's post-proccessing...nVidiaGaMer

How is UT3 demanding?! I run it maxed out (100% of settings enabled except vSync of course) with an 8600GT XXX @ 1280x1024 with 35-40 fps average and never dips below 30.

Back when it first came out it sure was demandiing.

Anyways if you start from today pretty much any game besides Crysis and Gears of War can be run fairly well on recent hardware even midrange.

Avatar image for xmen1414
#21 Posted by xmen1414 (1948 posts) -

UE3
Stalker
FEAR
Oblivion
and Current RTS COH/SupremeCommander/WiC/etc
LordEC911

FEAR dude? my PC is horrible i cant even play C&C 3 with more than 30 units in one shot! on low graphics!

i can play portal on more than low and i can barley run TF2

i have 2ghz and 512 ram and i ran the FEAR demo on high no lags or anything with great graphics!

their is no way fear is demanding!

mircosoft FSX is the most demanding it needs like 3gp ram and like 5ghz cpu and a 512 graphics card to run on high!

Avatar image for bignice12
#22 Posted by bignice12 (2124 posts) -

easily flight simulator x and armed assualt.

crozon

I wouldn't say ArmA is that much demanding but rather it runs poorly on high end systems with vista and 8800's. Shame the developer cant fix some of the issues I have.

Avatar image for kemar7856
#23 Posted by kemar7856 (11743 posts) -
crysis
lost planet
AC
COD4 -well optimized though
UT3
Avatar image for NamelessPlayer
#24 Posted by NamelessPlayer (7729 posts) -
Halo (1) that buggy beast still brings modern computers to there knees.threepac81
What? My old PC with nothing more than an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, 512 MB of DDR-266, and an ATI Radeon 9600 XT could run that game just fine! (I don't know why I'm the only one who thinks that it runs perfectly fine on such a modest computer.) The likes of Battlefield 2, Armed Assault, TESIV: Oblivion, and Crysis, though? Those titles are just too much for that system, even on MINIMUM settings! Oh, and I can't believe I forgot MSFSX. One person tried to run it with a Core 2 Extreme and dual 8800 Ultras in SLI IIRC, and STILL had poor framerates...on the other hand, he was playing at 2560x1600, and chances are high that the same system running a game like Crysis at that high of a resolution would also have slideshow framerates.
Avatar image for BlueBirdTS
#25 Posted by BlueBirdTS (6403 posts) -

[QUOTE="threepac81"]Halo (1) that buggy beast still brings modern computers to there knees.NamelessPlayer
What? My old PC with nothing more than an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, 512 MB of DDR-266, and an ATI Radeon 9600 XT could run that game just fine! (I don't know why I'm the only one who thinks that it runs perfectly fine on such a modest computer.) The likes of Battlefield 2, Armed Assault, TESIV: Oblivion, and Crysis, though? Those titles are just too much for that system, even on MINIMUM settings! Oh, and I can't believe I forgot MSFSX. One person tried to run it with a Core 2 Extreme and dual 8800 Ultras in SLI IIRC, and STILL had poor framerates...on the other hand, he was playing at 2560x1600, and chances are high that the same system running a game like Crysis at that high of a resolution would also have slideshow framerates.

You aren't talking about maxishine by any chance, are you? I think recent patches have made performance considerably better, although you still need a really good CPU/GPU to run the game decently.

Avatar image for johnny27
#26 Posted by johnny27 (4400 posts) -
Gears of war,UT3,Oblivion,Bioshock,and flight simulator X
Avatar image for OneShot112
#27 Posted by OneShot112 (14104 posts) -
I hear Gothic 3 runs like ass
Avatar image for krazyorange
#28 Posted by krazyorange (2669 posts) -
Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.krazyorange

[QUOTE="krazyorange"]Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.gotcha455

So you're STALKER copy is messed up or your rig is? The patches fixed issues with Vista..... as long as your 1.004 or better, the OS isn't holding you back.

hmmm....I'll have to check that patch out. I've just been so occuied with other games. good news!

Also, Riddick is definiteyl one of the greatest games of all time

Avatar image for huge_nebula
#29 Posted by huge_nebula (60 posts) -

World in Conflict

and CPU killer

Supreme Commander

like TA

if there is 5000 aircraft in the air in TA

i think even QX9770 can be killed

Avatar image for prasath_amd
#30 Posted by prasath_amd (278 posts) -

1. Gears Of War

2. Bioshock

3. Call Of Duty 4 Modern Warfare

4. Unreal Tournament 3

5. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow Of Chernobyl

Avatar image for huge_nebula
#31 Posted by huge_nebula (60 posts) -

....................

in fact COD4 is not demanding but good effect

Avatar image for NamelessPlayer
#32 Posted by NamelessPlayer (7729 posts) -

You aren't talking about maxishine by any chance, are you? I think recent patches have made performance considerably better, although you still need a really good CPU/GPU to run the game decently.

BlueBirdTS
What do you mean by "maxishine"?
Avatar image for Tuzolord
#33 Posted by Tuzolord (1405 posts) -

Aside form Crysis?

COD4, Oblivion, STALKER, Gears of War..... Add an RTS in there, I just don't play them.

gotcha455

COD4 You kidding? It runs on a 2.6ghz singlecore flawless.....

Avatar image for LordEC911
#34 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -
[QUOTE="LordEC911"]UE3

Stalker
FEAR
Oblivion
and Current RTS COH/SupremeCommander/WiC/etc
xmen1414

FEAR dude? my PC is horrible i cant even play C&C 3 with more than 30 units in one shot! on low graphics!

i can play portal on more than low and i can barley run TF2

i have 2ghz and 512 ram and i ran the FEAR demo on high no lags or anything with great graphics!

their is no way fear is demanding!

mircosoft FSX is the most demanding it needs like 3gp ram and like 5ghz cpu and a 512 graphics card to run on high!

Try playing it at 1680x1050 w/ max settings(exception of softshadows) , HQ 6x AA, HQ 16x AF.

Avatar image for miladesn2
#35 Posted by miladesn2 (933 posts) -
Lost Planet , I don't know why this game is so slow on highest settings.
Avatar image for dos4gw82
#36 Posted by dos4gw82 (1896 posts) -

Rainbow Six Vegas *shudder*

A completely bloated shame of a once well respected franchise.

Avatar image for broseybrose
#37 Posted by broseybrose (248 posts) -
[QUOTE="krazyorange"]Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.krazyorange

[QUOTE="krazyorange"]Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.gotcha455

So you're STALKER copy is messed up or your rig is? The patches fixed issues with Vista..... as long as your 1.004 or better, the OS isn't holding you back.

hmmm....I'll have to check that patch out. I've just been so occuied with other games. good news!

Also, Riddick is definiteyl one of the greatest games of all time

try the float32 mod for stalker. it improves the graphics and the performance

Avatar image for GodLovesDead
#38 Posted by GodLovesDead (9755 posts) -
[QUOTE="threepac81"]Halo (1) that buggy beast still brings modern computers to there knees.NamelessPlayer
What? My old PC with nothing more than an AMD Athlon XP 1800+, 512 MB of DDR-266, and an ATI Radeon 9600 XT could run that game just fine! (I don't know why I'm the only one who thinks that it runs perfectly fine on such a modest computer.) The likes of Battlefield 2, Armed Assault, TESIV: Oblivion, and Crysis, though? Those titles are just too much for that system, even on MINIMUM settings! Oh, and I can't believe I forgot MSFSX. One person tried to run it with a Core 2 Extreme and dual 8800 Ultras in SLI IIRC, and STILL had poor framerates...on the other hand, he was playing at 2560x1600, and chances are high that the same system running a game like Crysis at that high of a resolution would also have slideshow framerates.

[QUOTE="krazyorange"][QUOTE="krazyorange"]Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.broseybrose

[QUOTE="krazyorange"]Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.gotcha455

So you're STALKER copy is messed up or your rig is? The patches fixed issues with Vista..... as long as your 1.004 or better, the OS isn't holding you back.

hmmm....I'll have to check that patch out. I've just been so occuied with other games. good news!

Also, Riddick is definiteyl one of the greatest games of all time

try the float32 mod for stalker. it improves the graphics and the performance

Yea, I had this installed and ran Stalker at 1680x1080 with maxed AA + AF (AA Didn't Fully Work Though) and it never dipped under 60 FPS.

Avatar image for rmlr435
#39 Posted by rmlr435 (113 posts) -
Gears of War and Bioshock definitely. World in Conflict is a powerhouse as well. Cod4 not so much unless you really crank up the Res.
Avatar image for Greg_888_v8
#40 Posted by Greg_888_v8 (3881 posts) -
Gears of War and Bioshock definitely. World in Conflict is a powerhouse as well. Cod4 not so much unless you really crank up the Res.rmlr435
are you kidding? Gears of war i can max on a 22" LCD 1680 x 1050....XP....E6600 2 gig ram and a 8800gts 320mb (old kind). And my system is no way near top range the most demanding that i know of ,are Crysis and Flight Simulator X not many people know what kind of rig it takes for Flight sim X to run flawlessly...... those people mentioning COD4 and FEAR are kidding themselves
Avatar image for invinciblesuman
#41 Posted by invinciblesuman (156 posts) -
Nothing beats Supreme Commander... Im playing it now... and ive to reduce to medium graphics wen the map expands to the full planet and it is really system hogging !!!
Avatar image for Gooeykat
#42 Posted by Gooeykat (3411 posts) -

[QUOTE="krazyorange"]Stalker is unplayable on my Vista system. Ridiculous, because I could run it fine before I upgraded. And I got it the day it came out, then Vista-ed in April.gotcha455

So you're STALKER copy is messed up or your rig is? The patches fixed issues with Vista..... as long as your 1.004 or better, the OS isn't holding you back.

Yeah, no problems here with STALKER on my Vista 64 rig. World in Conflict is my second most demanding game after Crysis.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#43 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -
Guys should check out Neverwinter Nights 2.. My computer sweats when running it, and I have a 8800 GTS, 2gb ddr2 pc800, and E4300 core 2 duo (overclocked to 2.0ghz atm usually at 2.4).. And the graphics are subpar when comparing the performance most are getting.
Avatar image for artur79
#44 Posted by artur79 (4679 posts) -

Guys should check out Neverwinter Nights 2.. My computer sweats when running it, and I have a 8800 GTS, 2gb ddr2 pc800, and E4300 core 2 duo (overclocked to 2.0ghz atm usually at 2.4).. And the graphics are subpar when comparing the performance most are getting.sSubZerOo

Gothic 3 is ten times worse imho... I run NWN 2 with all the bells and whistles on my 8800 GTX without a problem @ 1920x1200. Gothic 3 on the other hand.... Plays almost as choppy as on my old 7800. Higher res this time, but still.

Avatar image for Takarne
#45 Posted by Takarne (25 posts) -
Honestly, none of those games can touch my computer. I have yet to find a game that makes my computer really work. Here's my specs: Processor: Intel Core i7 Extreme Quad-core 3.2ghZ OC -> 4.6ghZ (stable) RAM: 12GB DDR3 Triple Channel HDD: 1 TB Seagate (two of them) Optical Drive: LG HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Burner (two of them) Video Card: nVidia GTX 280 SLI linked to another of the same card Yeah, my computer's just mad powerful. It'll handle anything that you through at it.
Avatar image for jeremy78940
#46 Posted by jeremy78940 (60 posts) -

well even a core 2 quad like i have can run oblivion at 60fps i sometimes hit 20.

its all in the programing and **** they **** up that in fallout 3 and oblivion because that engine is a recorce hog.they put invisible polygons in the **** sky i swear

Avatar image for AAllxxjjnn
#47 Posted by AAllxxjjnn (19992 posts) -
Stalker Clear Sky is pretty demanding.
Avatar image for Mtnes
#48 Posted by Mtnes (180 posts) -

Takarne , either ur lying about that rig or u really know how to waste ur cash ! Obviously, if u blow up 5000$ on a rig u can max out all games, who doesnt know that ! What people are talking abt is running these games smoothly on realistic setups.

I dont know why COD4 is gets mentioned so often , one of the best optimized games ive seen , devs should really learn from that. Also dont know why no ones talking abt GTA 4. Until patch 3, Crysis would run better on my comp. Most other recent games can be maxed on fairly recent mid range to high end pcs.

Avatar image for adamosmaki
#49 Posted by adamosmaki (10547 posts) -

The only demanding games that the avarage core2duo 8800gt has troubles playing them are Crysis,Stalker,Cryostasis,gta4 and flight sim x ( and by trouble i mean they cant max them but they run decently at me-high settings up to 1680x1050). Othere than those demanding games are modern rts games like Sins of solar empirses,empires total war and world in conflict. Those rts games run very well on a wide variety of hardware but when there is a huge battle going on and there are many units on screen even the most powerfull system can get on its knees ( it isnt that bad though getting low fps in rts games unlike fps games)

Games like Cod4,Ut3 and almost all games using UE3 are very well ooptimised and even an 8600gt can max them at reasonable resolutions

Avatar image for Macutchi
#50 Posted by Macutchi (5637 posts) -

Also dont know why no ones talking abt GTA 4. Until patch 3, Crysis would run better on my comp. Most other recent games can be maxed on fairly recent mid range to high end pcs.

Mtnes

because this thread has been bumped from early 2008