New CPU, New(ish) Video Card - What games to see how it does?

Avatar image for irishdoom
#1 Posted by Irishdoom (397 posts) -

I recently got an upgrade to both my CPU and my video card. I now have an FX-6300 processor with a Radeon 6950 2GB video card. Yeah, the video card is technically a gen behind, but it's still a capable unit. So, what do I play to best show the power? Some stuff I already HAVE:

  • Skyrim
  • Xcom
  • Fallout New Vegas
  • Dead Island
  • Deus Ex: Human Revolution
  • Sleeping Dogs
  • Metro 2033

Any other good suggestions? I don't mind picking up something new, potentially either. :)

Avatar image for captain_clayman
#2 Posted by captain_clayman (3349 posts) -

Just Cause 2, Far Cry 3 and Crysis. Island-based, explosion-based shooters are some of the best PC benchmark games. I'd also recommend max payne 3 because it looks fucking incredible.

Avatar image for mordeaniischaos
#3 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5904 posts) -

Play Skyrim, max settings, with AA at 4x and supersampling at 2x. It looks fantastic, thanks to how much transparency jaggedness you get without the SS, and it's a bit demanding so it's a good test of your rig. I can usually keep above 60, but occasionally my dense grass mod makes for a drop of about 10 frames per second.

ENB would be another good thing to play with, although honestly I'm not a fan (I'd rather take lots of AA than tonemapping that corrupts the image. Sure, the bloom is much nicer, but I can already get nice AO through drivers and generally don't mind the color of the game).

Obviously, Metro 2033 is a hell of a benchmark.

ArmA 2: Combined Operations is a really good CPU intensive game to push your rig, it takes a lot to render because it renders a hell of a lot of landscape, and is generally a good benchmark of your rig because, like 2033, it's not the best optimized game in the world.

I have a 3770k and a pretty damn fast 680 that struggles to keep above 45 in one particular area even without a lot of action in ArmA 2:OA (the city of Zargabad I believe).

I'd be curious to know how Deus Ex runs for you, I've had some minor issues with performance despite having as potent a rig as you can get without serious overclocking or SLI solutions/ $1000 CPUs.

Assassin's Creed 3 is a fantastic looking PC game that takes a lot to run as well. Sadly, being as you're running an ATI you won't be able to try the (IMO) excellent TXAA that is available to nVidia chaps like myself, but it still looks great and is one of the better AC games.

The original Crysis is always fun if you haven't ever had a rig that could play it at max settings and all that. It's a better game than Crysis 2, and in some ways I think better looking. Just get the crazy black hole grenade to push your rig a bit harder, and you'll have a fun time laughing at all the people spending thousands of dollars to run the game at those settings back when the game releaseed.

Obviously, Battlefield 3 is an excellent plaything for the graphics, assuming you don't mind being very, very bad at multiplayer shooters.

I would not suggest Far Cry 3. While it's a good game, it's got a lot of technical issues and is very poorly optimized. If you have a mate who has it on steam and is comfortable giving you quick access to their account to try it, do that before you get into it. Even the poorly optimized games on my list can be run pretty well with some tweaks to unimportant things (oh no, you can only see 2 kilometers instead of 5). I have a GTX680 that barely runs the game any bloody better at the lowest settings than it does at max with AA. And whenever I reach one of those enemy camps, the performance gets pretty rough. And from what I've seen, it's not an uncommon issue. It's an awesome game, but I couldn't stand the constant stuttering, the performance issues, etc, so I didn't play as much of it as I'd have liked. Just a warning, go there at your own peril.

Avatar image for stonyman65
#4 Edited by Stonyman65 (3614 posts) -

Sleeping Dogs and Metro are some good tests to see how things will run.

Also, Unigine, prime95 and 3dmark are pretty much the industry standard for games-related benchmarking.

Avatar image for justin258
#5 Posted by Justin258 (14373 posts) -

Sleeping Dogs, Metro, Crysis 1 and 2, and Skyrim with some graphics mods.

Also Battlefield 3.

Avatar image for kjbolin
#6 Posted by kjbolin (7 posts) -

I remember The Witcher 2 being a really good piece of demo software after I got my last video card. It was also one of my favorite games that year.

Avatar image for ben_h
#7 Posted by Ben_H (3926 posts) -

Skyrim with like 15GB+ of texture and lighting mods. I did that and it makes it all worth it. 
I have a 6950. It is a great card.

Avatar image for wasabicurry
#8 Edited by WasabiCurry (440 posts) -

Borderlands 2 with the Physx on Max. I would like to hear your results since you have an AMD based GPU and CPU.

I guess another game would be Trine 2. :3


Forgot to say but, congratulation on your upgraded rig!

Avatar image for gimm3nicotine
#9 Posted by Gimm3nicotinE (25 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos: I have a similar rig to yours; 3570k OC'd @ 4.4ghz, GTX670 direct-cuii top (factory oc'd), 16gb corsair dominator in a Asus Maximus V Formula; and I had 0 problems running Farcry 3 @60fps 1080p all ultra settings.

I think all I had to do was turn off anti aliasing in game, because the MSAA just killed the frames, then force FXAA on in the nvidia control panel for essentially better AA at far less of a load.

Avatar image for dauthi693
#10 Posted by Dauthi693 (131 posts) -

Witcher 2 , Battlefield 3, Sleeping Dogs, Crysis.

Avatar image for mordeaniischaos
#11 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5904 posts) -

@Gimm3nicotinE: Technical issues are almost never across every possible build. Turning MSAA on and off on my rig generally actually didn't change the performance that much, despite having a clear affect on picture quality. Nothing did much, again, for the performance. At times, performance was stellar. Well over 100. But then it would swing down into 30's if I was running max settings, 45 at lowest settings, including running in DX9. That's a pretty tiny difference in performance relative to the loss in picture quality.

And a lot of people have had issues with the game, it's not just me. I was just giving a warning that it's not as technically sound as some reviewers might have thought.

And our rig only has one things in common, the amount of ram. Everything else is different. Technical issues are usually more about compatibility and practically random chance. It could be some silly BIOS or OS setting causing problems, just as easily as it could be a lack of power.

Also, how dare you call FXAA essentially better. It just blurs your image. I'll take 4xMSAA and 2xSSAA (or an engine that fucking handles transparencies properly. It shouldn't take that much power just to get unjagged grass, yet I've seen maybe one or two engines that does it right without the huge hit of SSAA).

I'm just giving you a hard time, but come on! FXAA? At least try SMAA, which doesn't have the issue of blurring the living hell out of any sharp details.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.