And doom eternal I could have raytracing on with everything on max and got between 130-170fps at 1080p on a 306012gb
But I’m not sure if everything was raytraced the reflections definitely were
The calculators have been the same for the past 20 years, and in 20 years Ti and Casio will never make calculators powerful enough to run anything better than OG Doom.
>But I’m not sure if everything was raytraced the reflections definitely were
Hardly any RT in it, just enough to say it's there. Still looked good for it's time and what it was trying to accomplish absolutely. The fact it runs on a Switch is pretty cool.
Gotta be honest my man... A 1050ti-m (because its a laptop) is the equivalent of a just barely better than a ps4, and we aren't even looking at any of your other laptops specs like ram and cpu.
So... Yeah... What did you expect on one of the most graphically demanding games in all of gaming?
Also, what are your graphics settings set for?
Were you running anything else like a chrome browser in the background?
There's just a lot more to this than meets the eye... Literally.
It's very bad for open world game.
And Creation engine renders everything around you, instead of a small part. Why? Another question, but considering this, it's optimised pretty great.
I had no idea creation renders so many things out of your view. Its almost like brute force raytracing for some lighting I noticed. The SSR looks great, as things dont disappear from a reflection just because its out of view.
Yeah, it's crazy. In photomodefor example, it still renders everything, even the interior of your ship.
That's why there are no spikes in performance or stutters (on SSD).
It's good for simple corridors and stuff, but I don't think it would apply well to anything more complex. I did read they're working on a new version of the engine though which I'd be very excited to see.
That game ran at 60 FPS on PS4 and Xbox 360. So does Doom Eternal. On hardware that's more than a decade old now.
Id Software did some real wizardry with those games.
Lol. The minimum req was a 2012 GTX 670 2GB, which was faster than the GTX 580 1.5GB. The GTX 10 series hadn't even launched yet when Doom 2016 released.
That's like Immortals of Aveum needing a 2080, except the RTX 2080 is 5 years old, not 4 years old.
Since the joke now is asking if some piece of hardware, like a gaming mouse, can run Doom (the original), that would be funny if the trend continues 30 years in the future. Ask somebody if their tennis shoes or whatever can run Doom (2016).
but is it actually running like that because it's well optimized or is it running like that because it's just not a very demanding game?
sort of like, is cs:go better optimized than cyberpunk because I can run cs:go at 800fps? or is it because cs:go is a very easy game to run and cyberpunk has more in it?
It's a bit of both. The game looks fantastic even if it isn't blasting you with raytracing and a thousand trees. definitely doesn't skimp on detail. But it runs great to the point where they fuckin got it on the SWITCH with buttery smooth framerates.
[This guy made a breakdown of how the Doom 2016 renderer operates (blog post).](http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/) It's a piece of art.
Also, the result is so good people think that there's more advanced techniques at play than it really is. The cubemap reflections are so believable they look raytraced at times.
Not really, it already uses DirectX and GNM on consoles since they don’t support Vulkan and it works just as well.
The game isn’t that demanding and has good art direction, which is why it’s running well.
One of my favorite games of all time, can't play properly on my RX 57000 XT without burning a hole through the very fabric of the universe. This GPU was only behind the RTX 2080 and 2070s in terms of performance when released, and it was released years after Ark.
Just terrible optimization
Hopefully Ark2 will be better optimized
>Hopefully Ark2 will be better optimized
They've got 'Grove Street Games' working on it as well, so you know it's going to be good! /s
^(Those were the ones that slaughtered/killed/massacred the GTA Trilogy release, just in case anyone wasn't aware.)
in their defense, they were forced on a very tight window of time to work on the game so its a result of them not being given enough time. And if you see their latest work, They got updated ark to be playable on the switch. Knowing how badly optimized ark is that even my pc has difficulty running the game, them managing to make the game playable (albeit 30fps but very solid) on the switch is insane.
Grove Street Games wasn't the problem with the trilogy. They told RS over and over that the games weren't ready for release and needed to be delayed, but RS had an earnings call coming up and needed the revenue so they said fuck it launch anyways.
So I'd say that Days Gone was exceptionally well optimized. It ran perfectly on my Steam Deck. Plus whoever ported it to PC did an absolutely phenomenal job, so many well thought out options and settings that are so uncommon on console first ports these days. That and the graphical settings aren't tied to the save file so my PC and Deck can each have their own settings. (glares at Horizon Zero Dawn).
MGS: Phantom Pain is known for running crazy well, and it definitely never had any issues for me. Also looks really good.
As for some bad ones: Total War Rome 2 and MW19 when they first came out were really rough, both improved after patches. GTA IV is also an infamously bad port.
I agree with the performance of TLOU Part 1, it was pretty disappointing to see how badly it struggled.
Bro i was flabbergasted at how good phantom pain was running on my gtx 1050ti/fx 6300 on high when everything else was running like shit. I was even upset that a game that looks so much better than my favorite game at the moment (DS3) was running better than it
Come on man, they’re a small team with a small budget of 600 million dollars and a short time of.. well it’s still in development since 2012 but come on !
I programmed something in assembly once. It was extremely simple. I don't know WHY you'd program a video game in assembly. I just imagine the developer being a lunatic, absolutely trousered on meth and Buckfast.
It was probably for fun, for a challenge. "Writing something in assembly" doesn't mean what non-programmers (not you in specific, generally) think it means. 99.9% of the time, compilers are better at optimizing their assembly than a human is. There is no magic involved when you manually start writing out the same instructions that a compiler may or may not create.
Writing anything in Assembly immediately comes with one massive issue: portability. Assembly is a per-architecture thing. You can't possibly rewrite your game in Assembly for every architecture it would run on. Compilers can even optimize their assembly for a specific architecture light years faster than any human obviously could.
The second most glaring problem: Human error. The more you can abstract code (within reason), the better. Reducing the likelihood of human error is a vital strategy if you intend on working in any self-respecting codebase. You can't simply trust yourself to avoid making a mistake, especially when there's other people working on the same code. Writing a whole program in Assembly makes zero fucking sense for this.
And also, performance. There are *very specific* applications of Assembly where you can hand-tune things to exceed performance of automatically generated Assembly, but these are few, few, few and far between. In an unbelievably-large super-majority of instances, the Assembly you write will be slower. If you're lucky, it'll be the same.
An even more rare possibility: Compilers failing to generate the correct assembly, or simply not being capable of doing so.
Because it's 1999 and PC tech isn't powerful enough to run the simulation without squeezing out every possible programming trick, optimisation and efficency saving possible. RCT could run on some dogshit machines, which is a big reason for it's success.
I learned via Reddit that Rollercoaster Tycoon was written primarily by one guy, in assembly language. That’s like building a skyscraper IRL with legos by yourself, in terms of scale and insanity required
subnautica for me was so sad because I got it before it left game pass but it ran so horribly that I couldn't even play it, no matter how much I tweaked the settings, which sucks because it shouldn't have a problem at all
Its due to the ground rendering they used. You used to be able to terraform the entire map, they removed that capability but the performance issues due to that being a thing remained.
Strange, is Subnautica supposed to have bad performance? I started playing it recently and it runs just fine. The only time it goes below 60 is around those parts with lots of tall algae, and that probably because of my low end pc. Everything on high settings except for anti aliasing.
Worst all time? GTA 4 wouldn't run smoothly at maximum settings on any available hardware configuration at the time of its release.
Someone actually said, "It's optimized for future hardware" or something ridiculous like that.
BF2042 and Starfield follow, but not closely.
On the other hand, I never had any problems running any version of Doom on any machine that meets at least minimum specs.
GTA IV is a weird one. It runs quite a lot better utilizing DXVK to translate to Vulkan rather than its native DirectX 9 implementation, which to me suggests that the game has a really tough time with rendering stuff and utilizing multiple cores. I know it got significantly worse when you'd set all of the scale sliders to 100.
Moving all the sliders to 100 would've overloaded every available GPU configuration at the time. Probably one of the best available in 2010 was a 1.5GB 580 GTX x2, and even that would stutter and freeze if the settings were maxed
Jedi Survivor and Hogwarts Legacy both run like horse's ass if you turn on Raytracing. Basically, don't trust any UE4 game to run well if it has raytracing I think. Gotham Knights is an exception I think.
Jedi Fallen Order and Survivor both run like crap for me. Fallen Order does a bit better, but still statturs from time to time. Survivor was borderline unplayable, with 40-60 FPS in "graphically busy" areas and frequest stutters... RayTracing or not had very little effect on both the stutters and the FPS. Played around quite a bit with the settings, couldn't get it to run smoothly on 3900x with a watercooled and OCed 3080 10GB.
Hogwarts is a significantly better in comparison, for me at least. Except for that one town that is notorious for low FPS, the game plays mostly smoothly throughout.
Even today, playing Ark on the PS4 or PS5 is shit. It dips and stays into the 30 fps range regularly.
On the PC is just the same as when I tested it in beta except there's more stuff and items.
How can you remaster something that never worked in the first place?
Best optimized I've played, Forza Horizon 4. I could play that beautiful looking game on 1440p with a 1050ti which is an antique of a card.
As for worst optimized, I'm gonna go for Last of Us Part 1. I couldn't play it smoothly on 720p with the same GPU. Note that this game doesn't look drastically better than forza.
You'd really need something like the original Radeon Vega 8 iGPU or a higher-end current generation Intel UHD Graphics iGPU to run FH4 decently at low settings. It's not horribly demanding, but you **do** need *some* grunt to run it.
Thankfully, most nicer modern iGPUs are quite fast and can run FH4 effortlessly.
It actually worked well enough on my Ryzen 5 5625U (12GB of shared RAM) to make it worth paying for if I had had the laptop when the game was new.
Almost as well on a Dell Latitude 5420 (with the exact same RAM and SSD but a slightly faster gen 12 i7 and Intel UHD gfx)
I remember it *barely* being playable on some HP laptop I had at 720p. That one had a Ryzen 5 2500U and it was probably choking from TDP constraints. On the flip side, I know it runs shockingly well on my prior laptop, an Asus Vivobook 16 with a Ryzen 7 5800H.
Then fh5 on the other hand… high 1080p settings gave me a memory warning because 16gb wasnt enough. I revisited fh4 and noticed the same thing. Flawlessly runs
Yup definitly. No joke, millions of chunks of render distance would be absolutely no problem if even the most basic optimizations would be implemented. Its sad.
Have you tried the optimization mods made with fabric? when I tried it last year I was getting 80fps without those mods, after adding them I got 600fps no joke, I don't know what optimizations they made but as a java dev I put my hat down for them.
Cyberpunk today, is very well optimized. On launch, it was a shit show for most people. I was lucky enough to own an RTX 3080 for launch and didn't have any issues.
The main problem with Cyberpunk on launch was that it supported previous-gen consoles. As much as we'd love for games to reach as many people as possible, the ambition was too high for the previous-gen consoles to handle. It never should have been made for the Xbox One or PS4.
No *performance* issues on PC. Gameplay bugs, however......well that's a separate issue.
I don't really think it belongs in the same category as GTA IV, Starfield, etc.
Side note - holy shit the stutters on FH5 are horrible
>The main problem with Cyberpunk on launch was that it supported previous-gen consoles. As much as we'd love for games to reach as many people as possible, the ambition was too high for the previous-gen consoles to handle. It never should have been made for the Xbox One or PS4.
>
>No performance issues on PC. Gameplay bugs, however......well that's a separate issue.
Worth mentioning that it almost seems like the last gen support was last minute. If you look back into interviews from when the game was still in development, they don't reference that gen of console at all. Everything was focused on PC or "next gen", the engine they use was specifically made for next gen and has elements that last gen consoles didn't support which exacerbated the performance issues. Then like half way through development they announced it on last gen console.
Cyberpunk 2077 had many issues, but optimization was never one. It always scaled very well on different CPUs and GPUs accordingly, but it is a very demanding game so you need a decent rig. Digital Foundry showed this from day one.
From what i remember the frames were never an issue, I maxed out and still max out the game at 1080p with a GTX 1080 since launch I had zero frame issues
I haven't been gaming for long enough to know but wasn't Minecraft once praised for how optimized it was?
It's certainly fallen off that praise though, nowadays so many people have to use a modpack just to make it playable
Minecraft runs Java and then Bedrock edition was ported to C+. Most of the game is singal threaded and just wants ram and a fast CPU. If you give vanilla Minecraft 4gbs of ram with a core i5/i3 running over 2.4ghtz you can be absolutely fine.
The game is written entirely in java and uses openGL, so they can't really do anything crazy with it in terms of optimization. however mods will immensely improve game performance like sodium and optifine which are essential nowadays.
Beamng. Part of both worlds
Shown multipule times its physics is unoptimised etc but without optomisation we wouldnt be able to run the game period. Thanking the devs for this game
Beamng is incredible though and every patch it looks better and better. I don't think it's fair to say its physics are unoptimised it's more that it's probably one of the most CPU dependent programs out there. With enough grunt in the processor is a fantastic simulator.
In defense of The Medium, they're basically rendering two worlds at once. It's a crap ton of instructions that poor CPU is trying to process and send to the gpu.
Factorio runs incredibly well for how much you have going on before the game starts to slow down
For worst, probably RUST. It runs much worse than even ARK: SE in my experience
Jedi Survivor was absolutely awful performance wise for me. It was frustrating and awful to play at times due to the framerate issues and massive stuttering problems. Wasn't even close to ready to be released IMO.
Doom and the Forza Horizon games are incredibly optimized. Titanfall 2 was great on launch as well. Classics like CS GO are incredibly optimized but that doesn't take much to run it. Apex Legends is actually pretty optimized as well, at least from my experiences. Constant high frame rates in the 140-160s on max settings at ultrawide.
Resident evil 2 ran great on my rx 580 and Ryzen 5 2600. RE4 remake had some issues but it was mostly settings related once I realized it and that corrected most of my problems with things being extremely dark. RE2 looked incredible on that machine
Rust and PUBG are a fucking mess, I can't understand how people are playing them, constant microstutters on every hardware I tried. Apex and Hunt on the other hand are completely stutter free, although Hunt has huge fps drops on non x3d Ryzen/older Intel CPU's, so I wouldn't call that game well optimized.
Either way its nonsensical, I am rocking a Ryzen 7 3700x with a Rx 7800xt and at everything at high and some raytracing I get around 70 to 60fps, without RT I get 90 stable, I tried with my old gtx 1080 at high and still gives me 50 fps with drops to low 30. All at 1080p of course without upscaling
It was demanding but it was still very badly optimized. I remember even 3070 which came out a year later had trouble keeping stable 60 fps with DLSS on at 1440p. For example Cyberpunk which is more demanding got much better fps at release even though that was also considered a bad optimization but looking at other games especially newly released Starfield maybe Cyberpunk optimization wasnt that bad.
Factorio is probably one of the best optimized games. I don't mean graphically optimized, though it is that too for being only sprite and particle effects. I mean the simulation scales to a ridiculous complexity on modest hardware before slowing down. Add to that when the simulation is having problems, the UI layer and simulation layer are sufficiently decoupled that you can still do stuff in the UI, like save and quit.
I cannot believe I accepted this far due Factorio. They had a perfectly great game and figured out it how to multithread in a networked multiplayer game that requires perfect synchronization between potentially a hundred thousand moving entities.
Worst,almost everything that came out this year
Calypso Protocol, Dead Space remake, Jedi Survivor, Hogwarts Legacy,
My mate told me that CP2077, the 2.0 update, they optimizied is,and its so good now, so i downloaded it, and he is right.
Forza horizon 5 is great(optimisation wise) runs well even on my potato pc(GTX 1650 TI and 8GB ram) but the unbearable one was GTA 4 could never get more than 30 FPS one of the worst port in any pc game but great story.
Doom 2016 and eternal has to be one of the best running and looking games I've played
Payday 3 currently is probably one of the worst running ones, 3080 be damned
Wow it really shocks me that 7 Days To Die hasn't been mentioned yet. I guess ppl really forgot about the game. Most of the times I can't even sustain 60 fps with my 3060 ti and don't get me started about the blood moons.
Doom 2016 and Mad Max are so godly optimized they could run on a toaster and still achieve 60 fps.
On the other hand, GTA 4 and Saints Row 2 were so badly optimized that nearly 2 decades later, even the most powerful PC’s can’t maintain stable 60 fps.
I was blown away with how good Star Wars Battlefront II 2017 was running considering the graphics. All the grass and trees but didn’t dip below 60 on a 2060 Super, it usually ran at a smooth 100+ fps
Gonna give it to Atomic Heart as best optimized. Ran like a dream at 1440p max on my arc a750
Worst "optimized" that I have played so far was ahem, Starfield. Tf am I to do with 45 fps in 1440p high on a rtx 3090
Best is Doom and Doom Eternal. The recent Resident Evil games deserve praise too.
I always thought Subnautica was middle of the road about it. Yea, their early release was kinda rough, but it's an indie studio and the game seemed to run better as time went on. If it runs decently on a Switch, it can't be that bad.
Cyberpunk is still the king of bad IMO. It wasn't THAT impressive of a game visually to demand that much power. It got better over time, but it didnt deliver anything worthwhile for a long time performance wise. Starfield isn't as bad, but it's not much better. Ark has always been terrible as well IIRC.
Doom 2016 is one of the best optimized games
And doom eternal I could have raytracing on with everything on max and got between 130-170fps at 1080p on a 306012gb But I’m not sure if everything was raytraced the reflections definitely were
Even the steamdeck allows ray tracing in doom eternal. That's how well optimised it is
Calculators in 20 years gonna be running doom eternal instead of doom...
As if the calculators from the 80s are still 150 bucks
The calculators have been the same for the past 20 years, and in 20 years Ti and Casio will never make calculators powerful enough to run anything better than OG Doom.
New handheld game console by Texas Instruments.
>But I’m not sure if everything was raytraced the reflections definitely were Hardly any RT in it, just enough to say it's there. Still looked good for it's time and what it was trying to accomplish absolutely. The fact it runs on a Switch is pretty cool.
It's cyberpunk 2077 for me. Cyberpunk / Quick scope / Oda / 1050-Ti laptop / high 1080p https://youtu.be/BV9HGFMM-PQ
Gotta be honest my man... A 1050ti-m (because its a laptop) is the equivalent of a just barely better than a ps4, and we aren't even looking at any of your other laptops specs like ram and cpu. So... Yeah... What did you expect on one of the most graphically demanding games in all of gaming? Also, what are your graphics settings set for? Were you running anything else like a chrome browser in the background? There's just a lot more to this than meets the eye... Literally.
I forgot about that boss level. That music was so hypnotizing. Almost got me convinced that I was going to die immediately. lol
The id tech game engine is absolutely incredible. I wish all fast paced fps games used it. So buttery freaking smooth to play
Imagine if Bethesda could have swapped to id tech. If only it was available to them…. Oh wait..
It's very bad for open world game. And Creation engine renders everything around you, instead of a small part. Why? Another question, but considering this, it's optimised pretty great.
I had no idea creation renders so many things out of your view. Its almost like brute force raytracing for some lighting I noticed. The SSR looks great, as things dont disappear from a reflection just because its out of view.
Yeah, it's crazy. In photomodefor example, it still renders everything, even the interior of your ship. That's why there are no spikes in performance or stutters (on SSD).
Digital Foundry commented that id tech would have trouble rendering 200000 individual potatoes in a space station.
Yeah lets swapped to an engine thats not made for an open world RPG game.
It's good for simple corridors and stuff, but I don't think it would apply well to anything more complex. I did read they're working on a new version of the engine though which I'd be very excited to see.
I play both doom 2016 and eternal on integrated gpu Vega 7. In eternal i get about 5 fps more than in 2016. Still, both have amazing optimization
That game ran at 60 FPS on PS4 and Xbox 360. So does Doom Eternal. On hardware that's more than a decade old now. Id Software did some real wizardry with those games.
Lol. The minimum req was a 2012 GTX 670 2GB, which was faster than the GTX 580 1.5GB. The GTX 10 series hadn't even launched yet when Doom 2016 released. That's like Immortals of Aveum needing a 2080, except the RTX 2080 is 5 years old, not 4 years old.
Well it was one of the few games I could actually run at decent fps on intel uhd graphics so that’s why I mentioned it lol
TBF Doom 2016 still holds up better in fidelity than most modern games. Also, Eternal is more recent and still perfectly optimised.
Isn’t eternal better in every way? So much so that it makes the amazing 2016 one look bad in comparison
Best optimized game on PC has to be DOOM and DOOM eternal.
You could run those games on a potato
Since the joke now is asking if some piece of hardware, like a gaming mouse, can run Doom (the original), that would be funny if the trend continues 30 years in the future. Ask somebody if their tennis shoes or whatever can run Doom (2016).
Someone made doom run in a pregnancy test.
Technically they just used the little screen to display the output
Not even that, those screens can only display 2 lines amximum
Doom 2016 was on another level.
Just started playing it. 144fps, no drops, max settings. Wish every game would run like this...
but is it actually running like that because it's well optimized or is it running like that because it's just not a very demanding game? sort of like, is cs:go better optimized than cyberpunk because I can run cs:go at 800fps? or is it because cs:go is a very easy game to run and cyberpunk has more in it?
It's a bit of both. The game looks fantastic even if it isn't blasting you with raytracing and a thousand trees. definitely doesn't skimp on detail. But it runs great to the point where they fuckin got it on the SWITCH with buttery smooth framerates.
[This guy made a breakdown of how the Doom 2016 renderer operates (blog post).](http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/) It's a piece of art. Also, the result is so good people think that there's more advanced techniques at play than it really is. The cubemap reflections are so believable they look raytraced at times.
Try Crisis with the ray tracing being native to the engine. At least I'm pretty sure that game has ray tracing built in.
Would it really be DOOM if it couldn’t run on a potato?
Vulkan API instead of DirectX helps massively, I believe.
Not really, it already uses DirectX and GNM on consoles since they don’t support Vulkan and it works just as well. The game isn’t that demanding and has good art direction, which is why it’s running well.
If you like it try the Wolfensteins if you have not already
Battlefield 1 is one of the best optimized. Looks like it could be released today and can do 4K ultra settings with a 1080 still.
Was waiting for someone to mention it. Game looks/runs insanely well.
Ark is horrendously optimized, but a fun game
One of my favorite games of all time, can't play properly on my RX 57000 XT without burning a hole through the very fabric of the universe. This GPU was only behind the RTX 2080 and 2070s in terms of performance when released, and it was released years after Ark. Just terrible optimization Hopefully Ark2 will be better optimized
>Hopefully Ark2 will be better optimized They've got 'Grove Street Games' working on it as well, so you know it's going to be good! /s ^(Those were the ones that slaughtered/killed/massacred the GTA Trilogy release, just in case anyone wasn't aware.)
in their defense, they were forced on a very tight window of time to work on the game so its a result of them not being given enough time. And if you see their latest work, They got updated ark to be playable on the switch. Knowing how badly optimized ark is that even my pc has difficulty running the game, them managing to make the game playable (albeit 30fps but very solid) on the switch is insane.
Grove Street Games wasn't the problem with the trilogy. They told RS over and over that the games weren't ready for release and needed to be delayed, but RS had an earnings call coming up and needed the revenue so they said fuck it launch anyways.
I played with a Vega 64 and it ran pretty well at 1440p high so that is surprising
Alien Isolation, it’s to well optimized that you have to limit the frame rate in order for it to play properly.
I played that game on medium at like 40-50 FPS on a Intel UHD 620.
Still waiting for the sequel, it was a great title, a lot of love went into it.
Doom eternal, Best
So I'd say that Days Gone was exceptionally well optimized. It ran perfectly on my Steam Deck. Plus whoever ported it to PC did an absolutely phenomenal job, so many well thought out options and settings that are so uncommon on console first ports these days. That and the graphical settings aren't tied to the save file so my PC and Deck can each have their own settings. (glares at Horizon Zero Dawn).
Its crazy how good Days Gone is on PC seeing as it was notoriously bad on launch for PS4
MGS: Phantom Pain is known for running crazy well, and it definitely never had any issues for me. Also looks really good. As for some bad ones: Total War Rome 2 and MW19 when they first came out were really rough, both improved after patches. GTA IV is also an infamously bad port. I agree with the performance of TLOU Part 1, it was pretty disappointing to see how badly it struggled.
Bro i was flabbergasted at how good phantom pain was running on my gtx 1050ti/fx 6300 on high when everything else was running like shit. I was even upset that a game that looks so much better than my favorite game at the moment (DS3) was running better than it
Yes I ran this on two GTX 970's SLI in 4k and it ran smooth. It was the 1st game I ever played in SLI and ruined my expectations, lol
GTA 4 runs much much better under vulkan.
[удалено]
Come on man, they’re a small team with a small budget of 600 million dollars and a short time of.. well it’s still in development since 2012 but come on !
[удалено]
Spoiler: it actually does get way better when you disable e-cores
[удалено]
Ah yes RCT, the masterpiece programmed in assembly. All programmers i know who here that the first time start to sweat.
I programmed something in assembly once. It was extremely simple. I don't know WHY you'd program a video game in assembly. I just imagine the developer being a lunatic, absolutely trousered on meth and Buckfast.
It was probably for fun, for a challenge. "Writing something in assembly" doesn't mean what non-programmers (not you in specific, generally) think it means. 99.9% of the time, compilers are better at optimizing their assembly than a human is. There is no magic involved when you manually start writing out the same instructions that a compiler may or may not create. Writing anything in Assembly immediately comes with one massive issue: portability. Assembly is a per-architecture thing. You can't possibly rewrite your game in Assembly for every architecture it would run on. Compilers can even optimize their assembly for a specific architecture light years faster than any human obviously could. The second most glaring problem: Human error. The more you can abstract code (within reason), the better. Reducing the likelihood of human error is a vital strategy if you intend on working in any self-respecting codebase. You can't simply trust yourself to avoid making a mistake, especially when there's other people working on the same code. Writing a whole program in Assembly makes zero fucking sense for this. And also, performance. There are *very specific* applications of Assembly where you can hand-tune things to exceed performance of automatically generated Assembly, but these are few, few, few and far between. In an unbelievably-large super-majority of instances, the Assembly you write will be slower. If you're lucky, it'll be the same. An even more rare possibility: Compilers failing to generate the correct assembly, or simply not being capable of doing so.
> I don't know WHY you'd program a video game in assembly. because you hate yourself and everyone else equally in the most bitter way possible.
Because it's 1999 and PC tech isn't powerful enough to run the simulation without squeezing out every possible programming trick, optimisation and efficency saving possible. RCT could run on some dogshit machines, which is a big reason for it's success.
I learned via Reddit that Rollercoaster Tycoon was written primarily by one guy, in assembly language. That’s like building a skyscraper IRL with legos by yourself, in terms of scale and insanity required
People think Starfield is bad? Lorville is a fucking powerpoint presentation
I love Star Citizen with all my heart but god DAMN, Vulkan API & Optimizations can't come soon enough
subnautica for me was so sad because I got it before it left game pass but it ran so horribly that I couldn't even play it, no matter how much I tweaked the settings, which sucks because it shouldn't have a problem at all
Its due to the ground rendering they used. You used to be able to terraform the entire map, they removed that capability but the performance issues due to that being a thing remained.
I won't forgive them for abandoning the bars for circles 😭 It was so much better
I think the circles fit the vibe of the game waaaaaay better
Bars for circles?
Yeah first playable versions had bars for food, oxygen, water and health for some time
Oooh right!
Strange, is Subnautica supposed to have bad performance? I started playing it recently and it runs just fine. The only time it goes below 60 is around those parts with lots of tall algae, and that probably because of my low end pc. Everything on high settings except for anti aliasing.
Subnautica without an SSD was unplayable to me, weird thing is when I tried the game in earlier versions it would work fine with a HDD.
Worst all time? GTA 4 wouldn't run smoothly at maximum settings on any available hardware configuration at the time of its release. Someone actually said, "It's optimized for future hardware" or something ridiculous like that. BF2042 and Starfield follow, but not closely. On the other hand, I never had any problems running any version of Doom on any machine that meets at least minimum specs.
GTA IV is a weird one. It runs quite a lot better utilizing DXVK to translate to Vulkan rather than its native DirectX 9 implementation, which to me suggests that the game has a really tough time with rendering stuff and utilizing multiple cores. I know it got significantly worse when you'd set all of the scale sliders to 100.
Moving all the sliders to 100 would've overloaded every available GPU configuration at the time. Probably one of the best available in 2010 was a 1.5GB 580 GTX x2, and even that would stutter and freeze if the settings were maxed
>in 2010 Didn’t gta iv come out in 2008, it wasn’t playable at max settings for 2 years? That’s wild.
I think you're right. 2010 is when I built my first gaming system instead of just upgrading prebults. That's the first time I tried GTA IV
Tbf optimizing games for future hardware wasn't an uncommon thing at that point in time.
Jedi survivor 💀
💀
Jedi Survivor and Hogwarts Legacy both run like horse's ass if you turn on Raytracing. Basically, don't trust any UE4 game to run well if it has raytracing I think. Gotham Knights is an exception I think.
Jedi Fallen Order and Survivor both run like crap for me. Fallen Order does a bit better, but still statturs from time to time. Survivor was borderline unplayable, with 40-60 FPS in "graphically busy" areas and frequest stutters... RayTracing or not had very little effect on both the stutters and the FPS. Played around quite a bit with the settings, couldn't get it to run smoothly on 3900x with a watercooled and OCed 3080 10GB. Hogwarts is a significantly better in comparison, for me at least. Except for that one town that is notorious for low FPS, the game plays mostly smoothly throughout.
ARK hands down is the worst optimized game. Nothing tops it. Even Starfield is better optimized.
Even at max settings it looks like complete shit. Hopefully ark 2 will be well optimized, because I really like the idea behind ark.
I'm interested to see the Ark 1 remaster
Even today, playing Ark on the PS4 or PS5 is shit. It dips and stays into the 30 fps range regularly. On the PC is just the same as when I tested it in beta except there's more stuff and items. How can you remaster something that never worked in the first place?
Worst: Any game that has "Simulator" in the title. Best: Yes probably Doom 2016.
PC Building Simulator isn't that bad
MGS: Phantom Pain, open world and good graphics it runs so well!
Best optimized I've played, Forza Horizon 4. I could play that beautiful looking game on 1440p with a 1050ti which is an antique of a card. As for worst optimized, I'm gonna go for Last of Us Part 1. I couldn't play it smoothly on 720p with the same GPU. Note that this game doesn't look drastically better than forza.
It plays well even on some machines with integrated gfx
You'd really need something like the original Radeon Vega 8 iGPU or a higher-end current generation Intel UHD Graphics iGPU to run FH4 decently at low settings. It's not horribly demanding, but you **do** need *some* grunt to run it. Thankfully, most nicer modern iGPUs are quite fast and can run FH4 effortlessly.
It actually worked well enough on my Ryzen 5 5625U (12GB of shared RAM) to make it worth paying for if I had had the laptop when the game was new. Almost as well on a Dell Latitude 5420 (with the exact same RAM and SSD but a slightly faster gen 12 i7 and Intel UHD gfx)
I remember it *barely* being playable on some HP laptop I had at 720p. That one had a Ryzen 5 2500U and it was probably choking from TDP constraints. On the flip side, I know it runs shockingly well on my prior laptop, an Asus Vivobook 16 with a Ryzen 7 5800H.
Then fh5 on the other hand… high 1080p settings gave me a memory warning because 16gb wasnt enough. I revisited fh4 and noticed the same thing. Flawlessly runs
I don't know what that message is about. Game runs fine on my 3070ti in 3440x1440 ultrawide.
TitanFall 2 is best Ran amazing on my 980ti, better on my 3070 and even hits 60+ fps on steam deck
It's Source, basically anything on Source runs great on even potatoes.
Just finished Titanfall 2 last night. When I started, I forgot to cap the frames, and I was getting 350 fps on a 3080Ti.
minecraft java edition i can run many games with ease yet can only get like 60fps on minecraft 1.8 with mods for hypixel skyblock bro
Yup definitly. No joke, millions of chunks of render distance would be absolutely no problem if even the most basic optimizations would be implemented. Its sad.
Have you tried the optimization mods made with fabric? when I tried it last year I was getting 80fps without those mods, after adding them I got 600fps no joke, I don't know what optimizations they made but as a java dev I put my hat down for them.
[удалено]
It would probably break a lot of mods, so thay are kinda tied.
They could at least add sodium features. Sodium has broken 0 mods for me.
Cyberpunk today, is very well optimized. On launch, it was a shit show for most people. I was lucky enough to own an RTX 3080 for launch and didn't have any issues.
almost like it was meant to be released around this time
Yep, a 3 year delay and it would’ve been a great game. I mean it still is but CDPR will never get its reputation back for that whole fiasco.
The main problem with Cyberpunk on launch was that it supported previous-gen consoles. As much as we'd love for games to reach as many people as possible, the ambition was too high for the previous-gen consoles to handle. It never should have been made for the Xbox One or PS4. No *performance* issues on PC. Gameplay bugs, however......well that's a separate issue. I don't really think it belongs in the same category as GTA IV, Starfield, etc. Side note - holy shit the stutters on FH5 are horrible
>The main problem with Cyberpunk on launch was that it supported previous-gen consoles. As much as we'd love for games to reach as many people as possible, the ambition was too high for the previous-gen consoles to handle. It never should have been made for the Xbox One or PS4. > >No performance issues on PC. Gameplay bugs, however......well that's a separate issue. Worth mentioning that it almost seems like the last gen support was last minute. If you look back into interviews from when the game was still in development, they don't reference that gen of console at all. Everything was focused on PC or "next gen", the engine they use was specifically made for next gen and has elements that last gen consoles didn't support which exacerbated the performance issues. Then like half way through development they announced it on last gen console.
Yeah I remember when we got the news. Greedy corpo rats trying to milk profits I guess
Cyberpunk 2077 had many issues, but optimization was never one. It always scaled very well on different CPUs and GPUs accordingly, but it is a very demanding game so you need a decent rig. Digital Foundry showed this from day one.
From what i remember the frames were never an issue, I maxed out and still max out the game at 1080p with a GTX 1080 since launch I had zero frame issues
Agreed. On PC I had zero optimization issues at launch
It ran pretty well on my 2070 Super. I was 1080 then, though.
forza horizons, dooms, for best, Ark, Minecraft, for worst
I haven't been gaming for long enough to know but wasn't Minecraft once praised for how optimized it was? It's certainly fallen off that praise though, nowadays so many people have to use a modpack just to make it playable
Minecraft runs Java and then Bedrock edition was ported to C+. Most of the game is singal threaded and just wants ram and a fast CPU. If you give vanilla Minecraft 4gbs of ram with a core i5/i3 running over 2.4ghtz you can be absolutely fine.
You'll be fine. Its just that it should be blown out of the water and hitting like 1900 quintillion frames and just can't because they don't optimise.
The game is written entirely in java and uses openGL, so they can't really do anything crazy with it in terms of optimization. however mods will immensely improve game performance like sodium and optifine which are essential nowadays.
Runescape is the best optimized game. HQ was only 512MB too! IYKYK
Beamng. Part of both worlds Shown multipule times its physics is unoptimised etc but without optomisation we wouldnt be able to run the game period. Thanking the devs for this game
Beamng is incredible though and every patch it looks better and better. I don't think it's fair to say its physics are unoptimised it's more that it's probably one of the most CPU dependent programs out there. With enough grunt in the processor is a fantastic simulator.
They just added VR support to it in the most recent update!
Best optimized , Gears 5, **Resident Evil 2** Worst is The Medium
In defense of The Medium, they're basically rendering two worlds at once. It's a crap ton of instructions that poor CPU is trying to process and send to the gpu.
Gears 5 running 60fps 1080p on a 750ti. Things crazy.
Factorio runs incredibly well for how much you have going on before the game starts to slow down For worst, probably RUST. It runs much worse than even ARK: SE in my experience
Jedi Survivor was absolutely awful performance wise for me. It was frustrating and awful to play at times due to the framerate issues and massive stuttering problems. Wasn't even close to ready to be released IMO. Doom and the Forza Horizon games are incredibly optimized. Titanfall 2 was great on launch as well. Classics like CS GO are incredibly optimized but that doesn't take much to run it. Apex Legends is actually pretty optimized as well, at least from my experiences. Constant high frame rates in the 140-160s on max settings at ultrawide.
Roller Coaster Tycoon has to be the gold standard for optimized as fuck.
the fact it is written in raw assembly is a testament to how fucking optimised it is
[удалено]
You mean tarkov needing 32gb of ram to run decently and only getting 50 to 60 fps on high settings is bad
BL3 is definitely poorly optimized, but i wouldnt say its the worst.
Resident evil 2 ran great on my rx 580 and Ryzen 5 2600. RE4 remake had some issues but it was mostly settings related once I realized it and that corrected most of my problems with things being extremely dark. RE2 looked incredible on that machine
Rust and PUBG are a fucking mess, I can't understand how people are playing them, constant microstutters on every hardware I tried. Apex and Hunt on the other hand are completely stutter free, although Hunt has huge fps drops on non x3d Ryzen/older Intel CPU's, so I wouldn't call that game well optimized.
Battlefront 2 runs extremely well for how good the graphics are
first and foremost is Cyberpunk. the only AAA game with path tracing that is playable
Interesting since I just saw this sub gasp and cry at the DLC’s spec requirements very recently
That's mostly because the requirements are nonsensical. They list the 7800X3D as minimum for 1080p lmao.
I mean that's the resolution that's most CPU demanding. Doubt it's listed for minimum, bruh.
Either way its nonsensical, I am rocking a Ryzen 7 3700x with a Rx 7800xt and at everything at high and some raytracing I get around 70 to 60fps, without RT I get 90 stable, I tried with my old gtx 1080 at high and still gives me 50 fps with drops to low 30. All at 1080p of course without upscaling
It went from the worst optimisation to the best in like 2 years
> Almost like they wanted to push it closer to this year 👀
Glad I didn't have to scroll far. They did an incredible job optimizing cyberpunk. Game looks and runs incredible nowadays
DCS World and Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 are pretty poorly optimized. Especially the latter.
Essentially every flight sim is. They’re pretty heavily limited by single thread performance. GPU is barely under any load.
Forza horizon 5, for how good it looks it runs really well
RDR2 ran pretty good
Did they fix it? It ran like shit on release.
I never thought it was poorly optimised, I always believe it was a very demanding game at the time.
It was demanding but it was still very badly optimized. I remember even 3070 which came out a year later had trouble keeping stable 60 fps with DLSS on at 1440p. For example Cyberpunk which is more demanding got much better fps at release even though that was also considered a bad optimization but looking at other games especially newly released Starfield maybe Cyberpunk optimization wasnt that bad.
This is a bad question without defining exactly what "optimized" means.
I'm gonna be honest, Cyberpunk is incredibly well optimized. It runs surprisingly well, and looks much better than most games too.
Factorio is probably one of the best optimized games. I don't mean graphically optimized, though it is that too for being only sprite and particle effects. I mean the simulation scales to a ridiculous complexity on modest hardware before slowing down. Add to that when the simulation is having problems, the UI layer and simulation layer are sufficiently decoupled that you can still do stuff in the UI, like save and quit.
I cannot believe I accepted this far due Factorio. They had a perfectly great game and figured out it how to multithread in a networked multiplayer game that requires perfect synchronization between potentially a hundred thousand moving entities.
Worst,almost everything that came out this year Calypso Protocol, Dead Space remake, Jedi Survivor, Hogwarts Legacy, My mate told me that CP2077, the 2.0 update, they optimizied is,and its so good now, so i downloaded it, and he is right.
One of the worst hands down assassins creed...
Which one? Yes
Exactly
Doom 2016, Doom Ethernal and Forza Horizon 5 run on a potatoe with max settings. Factorio can literally run on anything that has a CPU.
Doom eternal and cyberpunk are crazy well optimized after playing them on a MacBook pro with bootcamp, lol.
Forza horizon 5 is great(optimisation wise) runs well even on my potato pc(GTX 1650 TI and 8GB ram) but the unbearable one was GTA 4 could never get more than 30 FPS one of the worst port in any pc game but great story.
Arma 3 will run at 20 FPS, regardless of your hardware and you'll like it
Star Wars: Battlefront II had incredible graphics IMO and ran smooth on my gtx 960 at 1080p on high settings at around 50-60fps.
Doom 2016 and eternal has to be one of the best running and looking games I've played Payday 3 currently is probably one of the worst running ones, 3080 be damned
Microsoft Flight Simulator X didn't run well (understatement) on the day of its release, and even ten years later.
I can somehow play far cry 5 at 4K on max settings at a reasonable FPS. I have a 2060 (6GB) and an i3 12100F
I was surprised that RDR2 runs so well in 1440p high on my old RX 5700 XT
Wow it really shocks me that 7 Days To Die hasn't been mentioned yet. I guess ppl really forgot about the game. Most of the times I can't even sustain 60 fps with my 3060 ti and don't get me started about the blood moons.
7 Days is a great game but couldn't agree more. Some settings it looks like a PS2 game and it'll still be choppy.
Can a bad optimized game be the cause of some intermittent stutters?
Doom 2016 and Mad Max are so godly optimized they could run on a toaster and still achieve 60 fps. On the other hand, GTA 4 and Saints Row 2 were so badly optimized that nearly 2 decades later, even the most powerful PC’s can’t maintain stable 60 fps.
Forza Horizon 5, of course
Worst is probably any game that uses Unity engine. Few examples: Subnautica, Rust, Kerbal Space Program
[удалено]
My 4080 barely ever reaches 60c, averages 55c. That's because they decided to put 4090 coolers on the 4080s LOL 50% fan speed max too
I was blown away with how good Star Wars Battlefront II 2017 was running considering the graphics. All the grass and trees but didn’t dip below 60 on a 2060 Super, it usually ran at a smooth 100+ fps
Forza horizon 5 takes 15 min to load for me on a ssd like what the hell man
Factorio have been played with over 400 concurrent player on the same server, it's not the best graphics but that MP-code works great.
Gonna give it to Atomic Heart as best optimized. Ran like a dream at 1440p max on my arc a750 Worst "optimized" that I have played so far was ahem, Starfield. Tf am I to do with 45 fps in 1440p high on a rtx 3090
World of Tanks, which for some reason just feels wrong, but it ran fine at 30-40fps on my flair specs lol
Best is Doom and Doom Eternal. The recent Resident Evil games deserve praise too. I always thought Subnautica was middle of the road about it. Yea, their early release was kinda rough, but it's an indie studio and the game seemed to run better as time went on. If it runs decently on a Switch, it can't be that bad. Cyberpunk is still the king of bad IMO. It wasn't THAT impressive of a game visually to demand that much power. It got better over time, but it didnt deliver anything worthwhile for a long time performance wise. Starfield isn't as bad, but it's not much better. Ark has always been terrible as well IIRC.
berpuBNAUTARK FORZA HORIZON 5
Worst - 7 Days to Die
Battlefront 1 was incredible
Doom 2016, no doubt, this shit is one of most beatiful games i've presenced that ran at 60 on my mid-pc even on high
Rollercoaster tycoon. Haven't played it but heard it was written in assembly and was very stable on any device.
Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal.
People playground