Most demanding game overall ?

[Peterg]

What pc game do you think is most demanding in hardware ?

[vadim]

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

On ultra it will easily make use of a 12c-24t build, will make good use of 32GB of ram, will peg out most 8GB graphics cards and makes good use of 11-16GB cards

This game runs perfectly fine on quadcore CPUs and gains a little from octacore: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/microsoft_flight_simulator_(2020)_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,4.html
It gets nothing st all from > 16 GB RAM and clearly do not need more than 6 GB VRAM.

[xSOSxHawkens]

vadim님이 먼저 게시:

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

On ultra it will easily make use of a 12c-24t build, will make good use of 32GB of ram, will peg out most 8GB graphics cards and makes good use of 11-16GB cards

This game runs perfectly fine on quadcore CPUs and gains a little from octacore: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/microsoft_flight_simulator_(2020)_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,4.html
It gets nothing st all from > 16 GB RAM and clearly do not need more than 6 GB VRAM.

Ah, vadim the troll...

One who cant even be bothered to read or check their own sources and then links sources that are *so* wrong that they call the 3800XT an R9 part and compare it vs an i9...

lmao...

1) Your reply sounds like someone who has not actually tested the game.
2) You say it "runs fine" on quad cores, but *fail* to stipulate that they are 4c/8t *not* 4c/4/t...
3) You link s source with no info on frame times, and ignore the blatantly complained about massive lkag spikes on any 4c system (4 or 8 t regardless).
4) You ignore the fact that at all rez listed it shows in excess of 7GB VRAM used, and then claim it runs fine on 6.
5) You say 16GB ram is enough, when I personally have seen the EXE use in excess of this more than once.


Your source is factually wrong in many ways and does not align with what other sources (GamersNexus, PCGamer, HWUnboxed, etc) are showing... And your opinion is clearly *not* one from first hand use of the software.

Go download it for a buck and test if yourself. It makes good use of up to 12+ threads, makes active use of 13-16GB ram consistnetly while loaded in, and makes use of 7-9GB vram depencing on location...

Go watch GN, they just did a 28GPU roundup. Not even the 2080TI could produce 60fps at 4K, not in a single major US city. NY-NY brings a 2080TI down to the teens in frame rates.

If you honestly think I am wrong and you are right, head over to the MSFS2020 forrums, there are a *ton* of people over there with quad core rigs, 8 or 16GB ram, or 6GB graphics cards, and they will all call you Saint Vadim if you can magically make the game run well on that level of hardware that you seem to think is all it needs...

[Bad 💀 Motha]

RDR2 doesn't have unrealistic PC demands. It's not super demanding until you start upping the visual settings beyond what they'd be on a PS4 PRO

[泷泽萝拉稀了]

Magma Dragoon님이 먼저 게시:

Definitely Microsoft Flight Simulator, it's not even possible to completely install the game on consumer hardware because of the sheer quantity of terrain data. And on top of the hardware requirements, it is impossible to convince friends or family to sit behind me for 8 hours while I fly them from EWR to LHR.

[Electric Cupcake]

Minecraft with draw distance and chunks loading set to full and full ultra shader and texture packs. And in online mode so mobs spawn and move and plants grow even if the player isn't nearby.

[vadim]

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

vadim님이 먼저 게시:

<A wall of meaningless text>

I posted a link to reputable resourse, you answered with an empty words. That's the difference between us.

[UserNotFound]

Heard the Marvel Game (Beta) brought an RTX2080 Ti on its kness, can't even manage constant 60fps at 4K at lowest setting.

[Napoleonic S]

Flight Simulator 2020 no contest... it's even predicted to raise hardware sales

https://wccftech.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-to-stimulate-2-6-billion-in-pc-gaming-hardware-sales-according-to-jpr/

[xSOSxHawkens]

vadim님이 먼저 게시:

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

<A wall of meaningless text>

I posted a link to reputable resourse, you answered with an empty words. That's the difference between us.

I answer with facts that you choose to ignore.

Including one about how *YOUR* reputable "resource" calls the 3800XT an R9...

Let me state that again, Vadims "reputable resource" lists, in multiple places the Ryzen R7-3800XT as the R9-3800XT

Yes, vadim, that is the difference between us...

But here, let me link you to a *more* reputable, and actually *correct* resource...

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/microsoft-flight-simulator-benchmarks-performance-system-requirements

And now let me let *them* speak for me:

...we'd steer clear of 4-core CPUs...In a similar vein, you're not going to be running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K and maxed out settings with anything close to 60 fps — not on today's hardware. CPU bottlenecks are likely to keep you below 60 fps even at 1080p ultra, but at 4K ultra? The RTX 2080 Ti managed 33 fps...Again, we don't recommend trying to play at ultra quality if you want 60 fps … because none of our CPUs or GPUs could manage that. The high present is a better option for today's high-end GPUs, and not surprisingly, JPR estimates Microsoft Flight Simulator will result in $2.6 billion worth of PC upgrades over the next three years...the low preset doesn't look bad. If you're looking for 60 fps or higher average performance, a GTX 1060 6GB or RX 590 will get there. VRAM is also important, even with low settings, and the RX 5600 XT suffers along with the 4GB AMD cards when it comes to minimum fps due to insufficient memory....Medium quality is normally a reasonable compromise between image quality and performance, but we're already at the point where an RX 5600 XT or RTX 2060 is required for 60 fps...Check out the RX 5500 XT 8GB and RX 5500 XT 4GB as well. Even at low and medium settings, VRAM matters quite a bit — on most other games, those two GPUs are running neck and neck until we hit ultra quality...The higher graphics settings continue to be CPU limited, so having a potent processor remains important — the RTX 2070 Super and GTX 1080 Ti are tied with GPUs that are supposed to be faster at around 65 fps. Only a few other GPUs we tested even manage to come close to 60 fps, and you'll basically need at least a $400 graphics card like the RTX 2060 Super or RX 5700 XT to get there. You'd probably have better luck with a Core i9-10900K as well...More than just about any other recent game, ultra quality in Microsoft Flight Simulator is something designed for future hardware...GTX 980 is also held back by its limited VRAM, delivering 27% more performance than the 780 but still only reaching 21 fps. The jump to the 1080 with 8GB is much larger now: nearly double the performance (89% faster) at 39 fps. The RTX 2080 still runs into the CPU bottleneck, unfortunately, basically tying the other top GPUs at 51 fps....

I could let them go on and on, but hey, the wrote an whole (in depth) write up on it, one that is 10x better in both detail and accuracy than the one you linked to, and one *without* glaring technical errors that are *so bad* that if you had bothered to read your own source material you would have been ashamed to post it.

The fact that you *even linked* to a site calling a 3800XT an R9 part, multiple times, tells me that,

A) you didnt read your own friecken source
B) you know so little about PC's that you didnt know any better
C) yoou flat out *are* a troll, and dont care about valid sources at all.


The fact that you ignore replies like a jerk (and yes, it is a jerk move) and then spew bull-crapolla all over the forums leads me into leaning HARD that you are simply, factually, a troll.

Want me to think otherwise? Start reading others replies (I am far from the only one you high-and-mightilly choose to ignore when we are right and you are wrong), learn to use google yourself instead of insisingt we do all your legwork, and bring reputable sources that are nto so full of BS that they call a 3800XT an R9.

[vadim]

I can provide one more link to reputable source, but I doubt you will be able to read the text...
https://gamegpu.com/racing-simulators-/-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B8/microsoft-flight-simulator-test-gpu-cpu
And I can quote your own source: "Somewhat surprisingly, higher clockspeeds and more cores and threads don't really do much on the Intel chips — beyond a certain point. The Core i5-9600K and Core i9-9900K basically deliver the same type of performance"
Do you understand what does this mean?
And look at RTX 2060 performance. It has 6 GB VRAM, but this doesn't stop it from running better than 8 GB GTX 1070.
So, congrats. Your own link effectively proved tbat your initial claims were wrong.

One more time:

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

On ultra it will easily make use of a 12c-24t build, will make good use of 32GB of ram, will peg out most 8GB graphics cards and makes good use of 11-16GB cards...

1. "On ultra it will easily make use of a 12c-24t build" - proved to be wrong
2. "will make good use of 32GB of ram" - proved to be wrong
3. "will peg out most 8GB graphics cards and makes good use of 11-16GB cards" - proved to be wrong

All your claims were false. As always.

[vadim]

So, you have nothing to answer, besides childish insults and you cannot prove your initial claims. You started to say totally different things than before. It's called demagogue. I'm not surprised.

[xSOSxHawkens]

vadim님이 먼저 게시:

So, you have nothing to answer, besides childish insults and you cannot prove your initial claims. You started to say totally different things than before. It's called demagogue. I'm not surprised.

I started saying it was the most demanding game.

It is. Fact.

I said it uses 12-24 threads actively. It does.

Fact.

I said it uses large amounts of Ram, up to 10-16GB, and it does.

Fact.

I said it regularly caps out 8GB cards. It does.

Fact.

I said it can make use of SSD's up to 1GB/s+ reads, and it does.

Fact.

I posted links to thing that explained all of this, and *only* supported *your* views when the game was running on low settings.

Fact.

You posted a *factually incorrect* source as number 1 and have consistently ignored that.

Fact (and supporting trollish behaviour).

You posted a link that you know few, if any, in the dicussion, the thread or even the forum can read.

Fact and another supporting bahviour that you are indeed a troll.

You dimiss myself and others consistently in this thread and others when we are right and you are wrong.

Fact - and another supporting trollish behaviour.

Your behviours imply uou are, in fact, a troll.

Go home troll.



@OP, as already said by me and *many* others, FS2020 is the correct answer.

Ignore trolls like vadim and others who would make you think it can run *well* on lower end hardware. As someone who actually *plays* the title, I can tell you, it is very demanding.

[professor dodge]

Cryostasis sleep of reason?? thats pretty taxing, I think its more the physx though.

[vadim]

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

I started saying it was the most demanding game.

Everyone said the same, so don't take credit for it.

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

I said it uses 12-24 threads actively. It does.
Fact.

It's a lie. As your own source said, 6c/6t i5-9600k has nearly the same performance as a 8c/16t i9-9900k.

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

I said it uses large amounts of Ram, up to 10-16GB, and it does.
Fact.

No. That's even more than a lie. You said completely opposite: "will make good use of 32GB of ram". Everyone can check that. You were unable to provide any proof and I proved that this game does NOT get any single additional FPS if RAM is more than 16 GB. So, again you're a liar.

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

I said it regularly caps out 8GB cards. It does.
Fact.

You said: "will peg out most 8GB graphics cards and makes good use of 11-16GB cards". I proved it works fine on RTX 2060.

Have you ever heard about system requirements? Look at them in the shop. You will be surprised.

And last, but not least. YOU are the only troll here.

xSOSxHawkens님이 먼저 게시:

...and supporting trollish behaviour...
Fact and another supporting bahviour that you are indeed a troll.
...
Fact - and another supporting trollish behaviour.

Your behviours imply uou are, in fact, a troll.

Go home troll.
...
Ignore trolls like vadim

You have not been able to provide a single proof of your original words. When you were poked into your lies, you continued to lie and dodge. You're just an uneducated AMD fan who has no balls to admit that the ancient i7-7700k performs better than the Ryzen 2700 with twice as many cores and threads.
You are do ignorant than you believe that only English resources can be reputable. You cannot understand other languages and proud of that.
You can not even understand that this is international forum, not English-only.
You gave me the link for testing 4 CPUs in this game, I gave for rigorous testing of 31.
So, who of us is a troll? The answer is obvious...

[AbedsBrother]

petergg26님이 먼저 게시:

What pc game do you think is most demanding in hardware ?

That I've personally played? Probably Metro Exodus, though Assassin's Creed Origins is up there.