Is this the most GPU-demanding PC game, or what?

[HalezInFlames]

I don't think ANY other game I've played has made my 1050 Ti 4GB graphics card chug quite like this one has. Even Ubisoft's fare somehow runs better with similar visual quality. That's not a complaint - I can still manage decent FPS at around low-med settings (I'd use the res scale option if it didn't turn the game into a blurry mess), but I'm curious as to other games that'd tax my graphics card to the degree this one has.

[Yoshida]

Originally posted by Mason:

I don't think ANY other game I've played has made my 1050 Ti 4GB graphics card chug quite like this one has. Even Ubisoft's fare somehow runs better with similar visual quality. That's not a complaint - I can still manage decent FPS at around low-med settings (I'd use the res scale option if it didn't turn the game into a blurry mess), but I'm curious as to other games that'd tax my graphics card to the degree this one has.

As the launch day of this game last year (at the time of PC launch) XV windows edition is the most graphics intensive game on PC to date. (At the time of PC launch).

And ya. Just to show you what it takes to pull the most out of the games settings heres my configuration:
Intel i9-9900k @5.0Ghz All Cores
Aorus 32GB RAM 3200Mhz
Aorus RTX 2080Ti 11GB GDDR6 Extreme (Nvlink)
Aorus RTX 2080Ti 11GB GDDR6 Extreme (Nvlink)
Aorus Extreme Z390 Motherboard

@4k Res, HDR On, 4k Textures, Max settings including all NVIDIA option Turned ON...

(Sli/Nlink)

Nvlink/DLSS On - 60-75 FPS
Nvlink/DLSS Off - 49-56 FPS
---
(Non-Sli/Nvlink) Single Card

DLSS On - 79-87 FPS
DLSS Off - 60-64 FPS


My Cards are Gigabyte Overclocked, i have not OCed them myself. I have seen videos on youtube with RTX cards easily hitting 75-86FPS in Nvlink/DLSS mode overclocked.

im assuming sense i have not played around with my cards overclocking is proly why I lose frames in Nvlink vs single card.

-------

As for GTX Cards, My old card was Gigabytes GTX 1080 Extreme Gamimg Edition (single card)

4k HDR was barly playable at 25-30FPS.
4k HDR + 4k Textures... helll no lol 5.6-8 FPS

I had to drop to 1440p on the GTX 1080 Extreme, once i did that FPS shot to a whopping 90-118 FPS and it was smooth as butter.

[HalezInFlames]

Originally posted by Yoshida:

Originally posted by Mason:

I don't think ANY other game I've played has made my 1050 Ti 4GB graphics card chug quite like this one has. Even Ubisoft's fare somehow runs better with similar visual quality. That's not a complaint - I can still manage decent FPS at around low-med settings (I'd use the res scale option if it didn't turn the game into a blurry mess), but I'm curious as to other games that'd tax my graphics card to the degree this one has.

As the launch date of this game last year (at the time of PC launch) XV windows edition is the most graphics intensive game on PC to date. (At the time of PC launch)

Ahh. So what overtook it?

[Yoshida]

Originally posted by Mason:

Originally posted by Yoshida:

As the launch date of this game last year (at the time of PC launch) XV windows edition is the most graphics intensive game on PC to date. (At the time of PC launch)

Ahh. So what overtook it?

honestly i dont know. All i know that at the time XV launched on PC this game was crowned as the most graphicly intesive pc game to date. I have no idea if it has been replaced by another.

[ehs03y3ol]

Originally posted by Mason:

I don't think ANY other game I've played has made my 1050 Ti 4GB graphics card

Your GPU, even quoted as 'gaming product', is underpower than a 680 that launch on march of 2012. It's just no capable to do any hard work, or today AAA gaming,

It does just don't justify the bad job Square ENIX done here, but your computer can be comparable with PS4 performance level at gaming. You will have also problems with other games, like AC Origins, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, even B games like Blue Reflection and Death and reQuest will just go sub-30 FPS performance.

I won't even recommend a 1060 at 1080p 60 FPS on this game, it survives about min load 80% at medium. This game at medium, standard resolution 1080p looks bad. but it's the same other recent titles. I am just aiming 30 FPS, this game does not work bad at 30 FPS, but the GPU load is transitioning to even bigger loads.

What I can recommend you is ASAP buy 1660 Ti or 2060 RTX ASAP, or wait for RX 5000, if you like to have decent performance.

[HalezInFlames]

Originally posted by ehs03y3ol:

Originally posted by Mason:

I don't think ANY other game I've played has made my 1050 Ti 4GB graphics card

Your GPU, even quoted as 'gaming product', is underpower than a 680 that launch on march of 2012. It's just no capable to do any hard work, or today AAA gaming,

It does just don't justify the bad job Square ENIX done here, but your computer can be comparable with PS4 performance level at gaming. You will have also problems with other games, like AC Origins, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, even B games like Blue Reflection and Death and reQuest will just go sub-30 FPS performance.

I won't even recommend a 1060 at 1080p 60 FPS on this game, it survives about min load 80% at medium. This game at medium, standard resolution 1080p looks bad. but it's the same other recent titles. I am just aiming 30 FPS, this game does not work bad at 30 FPS, but the GPU load is transitioning to even bigger loads.

What I can recommend you is ASAP buy 1660 Ti or 2060 RTX ASAP, or wait for RX 5000, if you like to have decent performance.

Please don't misinform people about my GPU. I've ran this thing for about two years, and have zero intentions on upgrading until I do a full system rebuild, hopefully sometime next year. The 1050 Ti is roughly 40% faster than what's in the PS4, if we're going on raw specs.

As for your game examples - AC Origins ran fine before, but it started stuttering out of nowhere months after I completed the campaign so I had no reason to keep it installed. AC Odyssey runs about the same, but with less stutter than I was getting months after I completed the campaign of Origins. Shadow of the Tomb Raider doesn't strike me as much more demanding than its predecessor, so I'd imagine I could get away with keeping this card and playing that.

And yeah, of course, just recommend a $250-300+ GPU for "decent" performance. I'd argue I have more knowledge about the ins and outs of how this thing handles game performance now just from owning this card. Have you tested the 1050 Ti in more than just ultra setting benches?

[ehs03y3ol]

Originally posted by Mason:

Have you tested the 1050 Ti in more than just ultra setting benches?

I'm not anymore interested on this as a gaming perspective, as $300 videogames consoles already does it better, and no one really wants to go with a 2400G or 1050 for more money than it! Another history is if you need a computer and can add a GPU, but, I will never recommend go for an 1050 as doing from it launch ($189 for GTX 1050 Ti when you can pick 1060 for $220?), instead for RX 570 this is now $129.99 and is 100% faster on texture stream for and 70% render speed for the close half price of this overpriced unit. Hope you respect my point of view criticism and give you why I think 1050 Ti it's so wrong from it launch and even worse today.

Edit: Pretty surele you have the experience that PS4 FF XV is more playable than in your PC.

[HalezInFlames]

Originally posted by ehs03y3ol:

Originally posted by Mason:

Have you tested the 1050 Ti in more than just ultra setting benches?

I'm not anymore interested on this as a gaming perspective, as $300 videogames consoles already does it better, and no one really wants to go with a 2400G or 1050 for more money than it! Another history is if you need a computer and can add a GPU, but, I will never recommend go for an 1050 as doing from it launch ($189 for GTX 1050 Ti when you can pick 1060 for $220?), instead for RX 570 this is now $129.99 and is 100% faster on texture stream for and 70% render speed for the close half price of this overpriced unit. Hope you respect my point of view criticism and give you why I think 1050 Ti it's so wrong from it launch and even worse today.

Edit: Pretty surele you have the experience that PS4 FF XV is more playable than in your PC.

The 470 was $190 when I bought this card in early 2017, the 570 wasn't even out yet, I was dealing with an underpowered PSU that couldn't handle more until I replaced it earlier THIS YEAR, and I was already on a VERY tight budget - I could have bought the 2GB 1050, but I would have been far more screwed now.

The PS4 can run it at 45 FPS at a mixture of low, medium, and high settings? News to me.

[ehs03y3ol]

Originally posted by Mason:

The PS4 can run it at 45 FPS at a mixture of low, medium, and high settings? News to me.

it handles decent amount of texture load with filtering, 30 FPS, sometimes native 1080p, ambient oclussion, TAA/SMAA, medium distance draw, pretty high shadows resolution but it has big performance issues by CPU on FPS. The balance of graphics quality and FPS is good enought for $300, better than any computer made by parts, UNLESS, the only way to made it better price-quality is if you get a pretty good deal on a i7 2/3 gen+mobo and pick a mining GTX 960 for $50.

[HalezInFlames]

Originally posted by ehs03y3ol:

Originally posted by Mason:

The PS4 can run it at 45 FPS at a mixture of low, medium, and high settings? News to me.

it handles decent amount of texture load with filtering, 30 FPS ambient oclussion, TAA/SMAA, medium distance draw, pretty high shadows resolution but it has big performance issues by CPU on FPS. The balance of graphics quality and FPS is good enought for $300, better than any computer made by parts, UNLESS, the only way to made it better price-quality is if you get a pretty good deal on a i7 2/3 gen+mobo and pick a mining GTX 960 for $50.

I've had it in my system for two and a half years now. I think I know what the hell I'm doing. Just as an FYI, the idea that my PC is as good of a value as you claim the PS4 is (which you do make a pretty good point on, actually) was basically thrown out the window the very moment I decided to start making more changes to my build in mid-2017. REGARDLESS, I don't like people trying to misinform about the card I run and attempt to make my purchasing decisions for me. "You NEED to get an RTX 2060!" as if I'm secretly unsatisfied with a 45 FPS experience in arguably the most demanding game out there for the graphics card,