Coming from low/medium, going to Ultra - What 3 games?

[old.Tohtori]

I'd really like for you to name these previous "envelope pushers". You keep saying what you want, but you haven't produced previous cases of such.

What kind of a megaleap in games are you looking for and when did this happen before?

 

[babs]

Seems to me there are some people not frequenting r/pcmasterrace it gets old pretty quickly, but it is quite amusing

 

[leggy]

Maybe the wrong thread but I was interested to see the recently announced Witcher 3 specs:

Minimum PC Specs

• OS: 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
• CPU: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
• System RAM: 6GB
• Graphics Card: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
• Hard Drive Space: 40GB
• DirectX 11

Recommended PC Specs

• OS: 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
• CPU: Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3.4 GHz / AMD CPU FX-8350 4 GHz
• System RAM: 8GB
• Graphics Card: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770 / AMD GPU Radeon R9 290
• Hard Drive Space: 40GB
• DirectX 11

So the recommended specs hit my PC exactly and it's interesting to see recommended specs no longer include GTX 500/600 series GPUs. Plus my pc is only a few months old which is annoying

What I'd like to see is some guidance as to what this actually means... i.e. recommended specs = High Settings @ 60fps ish.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It completely depends on their optimisation and graphics customisation. Currently new games seem to handle lower end PCs really well though, even DA3 runs on my TX560 TI at a reasonable rate on medium settings.

If i remember correctly; recommended settings are so that graphics/performance won't hinder your experience(won't notice anything wrong), while not being anything extra(no real "oh wow!"), while minimum means you'll be atleast able to play at some level.

 

[TdC]

tbh I have a rediculous gaming PC; 4.6GHz CPU, 8GB ram, SSD's and SAN disks, 2x 970GTX SLI, etc. there are lots of games where I drop below 60FPS if I run full settings. This is probably due to running a 2560x1440 monitor, but hey, that's why I have a 900 series gfx card, no? anyway, imo the "new" games out there are either really bad console ports or "optimised" to take advantage of things that the average GFX card somehow sucks at, which tbh is somewhat counter intuitive when you consider what optimise means.

nb, I'm not talking about games with mods: I have a modded Skyrim where I *expect* framerate issues. When I fill my screen with artifacts like trees and grass far beyond the original spec, and then tell the engine I want post-processing, AO and AA, I expect framerate issues because I'm going far beyond what the devs originally catered for.

Also, imo things like artificial FPS cap, and effects like film-grain, fog, motion blur, et al are just patches to not have to address real issues. Meh. Anyway, my computer far exceeds the W3 rec. specs. That said I predict it to run like a one legged rabbit.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh yeah, motion blue/grain/fog etc go out the window right away, unless i want them in via mods

 

[leggy]

I like the grain in Mass Effect

 

[Overdriven]

Witcher 3 looks like it'll push my system a a bit.

Grabbing the new Dell 3440x1440 monitor when OCUK decide to pricematch Debenhams, then a 2nd R9 290 or a 8gb 295x - Should be able to cope!

 

[TdC]

yo, I've said it several times already, but be wary of ultra high res monitors if you (professionally) use any Java based programs (like Eclipse, Netbeans, Astah, etc.) because they have not yet caught up with OS UI scaling at all.

I use Astah for all manner of things, and my contact there tells me it's going to be at least the summer before they release a new build that allows for control of icon sizes. Until then, my spanky Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro with it's 3200x1800 screen is usless to me for several apps.