Current PC Game(s) to Utilize My Graphics Card, but Easy on Processor?
July 30, 2015 2:35 PM Subscribe
I have never been a PC gamer...until now. I have a new gaming laptop that has a GTX970M with 6GB RAM, but only an i7 4710HQ (2.5/3.5Ghz). The only "game" I have for now is X-Plane 10. This is actually very processor-intensive and hardly uses my graphics card at all (about 1.8GB of VRAM according to in-game tools), even with the graphics-driven settings maxed-out. Are there any current games out there that will melt my GPU but leave my processor alone, comparatively-speaking?
I am not too concerned about game content, and as long as I can shoot for 30fps I will be happy. I simply just want to take serious advantage of my GPU, but with a higher-end graphics card but upper-mid-range processor (compared to overclocked desktop CPUs, anyway), I am wondering if there are any games that can put my disproportionate hardware through its paces. I also have nearly 400GBs of SSD, so I am not worried about game sizes, either.
I have a very nice cooling pad under the laptop, so heat for extended periods of time is not a concern, really, either.
I am not too concerned about game content, and as long as I can shoot for 30fps I will be happy. I simply just want to take serious advantage of my GPU, but with a higher-end graphics card but upper-mid-range processor (compared to overclocked desktop CPUs, anyway), I am wondering if there are any games that can put my disproportionate hardware through its paces. I also have nearly 400GBs of SSD, so I am not worried about game sizes, either.
I have a very nice cooling pad under the laptop, so heat for extended periods of time is not a concern, really, either.
Witcher 3 is extremely beautiful and possibly one of the best games of its generation, I'd strongly recommend that; dragon age inquisition is alright but much blander and more like an MMO. Saints Row iv is amazing, as are Sleeping Dogs and GTA V (all open world). I have an i5 4570 and that crushes everything, and I don't think that's significantly worse than your cpu? The main standard for cpu in games is just 'good enough', it's gfx where the real horsepower is needed.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:06 PM on July 30, 2015
posted by Sebmojo at 3:06 PM on July 30, 2015
Oh, and assassins creed black flag is a gorgeous pirate simulator, definitely worth a look. Elite Dangerous is a great spaceship simulator if that sounds like the sort of thing you'd like; it started out rather thin but they're gradually fleshing it out to the point that it's probably a good time to jump in, especially if you already have a joystick.
posted by Sebmojo at 3:08 PM on July 30, 2015
posted by Sebmojo at 3:08 PM on July 30, 2015
The Vanishing of Ethan Carter looks beautiful in the screenshots. I read an article about how they used photogrammetry to make realistic textures for the game.
posted by ajax287 at 5:38 PM on July 30, 2015
posted by ajax287 at 5:38 PM on July 30, 2015
Definitely go and install Witcher 3 - it sets new standards for graphics quality and story writing.
I do want to go on a bit of a rant about laptop graphics VRAM though...
You refer to graphics VRAM as a measure of graphics utilization but it is a red herring when it comes to video games. It's a bit like the megapixel wars in phone cameras - it's a cheap hardware component they put onto a device for bragging rights, but it's not an important factor at all. I can hardly think of any situations where graphics VRAM was the limiting factor in game performance.
For example, even on a just released game like Heroes of the Storm, the highest "ultra" texture settings only need 1GB of VRAM. On a just released game with best-in-class amazing graphics like the Witcher 3, ultra texture settings consumes less than 2GB of VRAM. Sample screenshot when I was playing the Witcher 3 - the intricate interplay of light and shadow in the sunset through the trees and reeds is so mindblowing when there's a slight breeze and it makes all the shadows dance crazily across the water.
So saying "utilizes 1.8 GB of VRAM out of 6.0 GB" isn't really a good measure of GPU utilization at all. Game textures just aren't that large - the main issue you'll have is the GPU being unable to draw the geometry / shadows, not that your VRAM is insufficiently big to hold the textures.
That being said, there are a few games which have super-sized textures - mostly due to being ported over from consoles, which have access to 8GB of shared memory. Shadows of Mordor is an (in)famous one that you could try out. But using "a lot of VRAM" is more a sign of inefficient programming than it is of superior graphics, and it's usually because of the weird hardware configuration of consoles.
I mean, if you were looking at the equivalent for sound quality, you would see that the Titanfall PC port has 35 gigabytes of sound files.... it's huge! Why? Because consoles don't have a dedicated audio decoder and so for performance reasons the sound files were stored uncompressed, and this carries over to the PC version, which mean we have to install 35 gigabytes of sound files.
The problem is, your bottleneck for laptop gaming is always going to be the GPU / CPU - those chips have to be deliberately crippled to fit within a laptop's power and heat envelopes. The GTX970M has only half the processing power of the GTX970 desktop card. There's no good reason for it to have 6GB of VRAM except for marketing purposes - they can put as much VRAM as they like on it, since most of it stays unused and it barely consumes any power or generates any heat. The only time you'll see the benefit of such large textures is if you're gaming at 4k resolution (3840 X 2160), which your laptop will definitely be unable to do at decent frame rates.
(like, what's the point of a supersized texture, if it gets downscaled to 1080p anyway?)
posted by xdvesper at 6:45 PM on July 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I do want to go on a bit of a rant about laptop graphics VRAM though...
You refer to graphics VRAM as a measure of graphics utilization but it is a red herring when it comes to video games. It's a bit like the megapixel wars in phone cameras - it's a cheap hardware component they put onto a device for bragging rights, but it's not an important factor at all. I can hardly think of any situations where graphics VRAM was the limiting factor in game performance.
For example, even on a just released game like Heroes of the Storm, the highest "ultra" texture settings only need 1GB of VRAM. On a just released game with best-in-class amazing graphics like the Witcher 3, ultra texture settings consumes less than 2GB of VRAM. Sample screenshot when I was playing the Witcher 3 - the intricate interplay of light and shadow in the sunset through the trees and reeds is so mindblowing when there's a slight breeze and it makes all the shadows dance crazily across the water.
So saying "utilizes 1.8 GB of VRAM out of 6.0 GB" isn't really a good measure of GPU utilization at all. Game textures just aren't that large - the main issue you'll have is the GPU being unable to draw the geometry / shadows, not that your VRAM is insufficiently big to hold the textures.
That being said, there are a few games which have super-sized textures - mostly due to being ported over from consoles, which have access to 8GB of shared memory. Shadows of Mordor is an (in)famous one that you could try out. But using "a lot of VRAM" is more a sign of inefficient programming than it is of superior graphics, and it's usually because of the weird hardware configuration of consoles.
I mean, if you were looking at the equivalent for sound quality, you would see that the Titanfall PC port has 35 gigabytes of sound files.... it's huge! Why? Because consoles don't have a dedicated audio decoder and so for performance reasons the sound files were stored uncompressed, and this carries over to the PC version, which mean we have to install 35 gigabytes of sound files.
The problem is, your bottleneck for laptop gaming is always going to be the GPU / CPU - those chips have to be deliberately crippled to fit within a laptop's power and heat envelopes. The GTX970M has only half the processing power of the GTX970 desktop card. There's no good reason for it to have 6GB of VRAM except for marketing purposes - they can put as much VRAM as they like on it, since most of it stays unused and it barely consumes any power or generates any heat. The only time you'll see the benefit of such large textures is if you're gaming at 4k resolution (3840 X 2160), which your laptop will definitely be unable to do at decent frame rates.
(like, what's the point of a supersized texture, if it gets downscaled to 1080p anyway?)
posted by xdvesper at 6:45 PM on July 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Mechwarrior Online is what I've been playing for a while. It uses an older version of the Farcry engine. It's free to play so it costs you nothing but time to try it.
It's like a slow-paced FPS with giant robots, feels a lot like the previous Mechwarrior games.
posted by VTX at 7:06 PM on July 30, 2015
It's like a slow-paced FPS with giant robots, feels a lot like the previous Mechwarrior games.
posted by VTX at 7:06 PM on July 30, 2015
« Older Great songs that discuss unequal emotional labor? | A break from the internet, but with internet tools... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Avoid the new Batman game and Assassin's Creed Unity as they are just horrible ports and won't really test your machine.
posted by lattiboy at 2:44 PM on July 30, 2015 [1 favorite]