(enough for highest quality at 4K) yes the game seems to have s* optimisation.
RT = Ray tracing PT = Path Tracing FG = Frame Generation
Source : https://www.techpowerup.com/review/alan-wake-2-performance-benchmark/
This is simultaneously the reason I am not buying a current GPU and not buying recent AAA shit.
Removed by mod
Alan Wake 2 is brand new and not remastered, and by the looks of it, it has fantastic graphics, and gets praised by reviewers.
The industry needs to appreciate QA and optimization more than ever. I don’t feel like getting the latest GPU for a couple of rushed and overpriced digital entertainment softwares, the same say I don’t feel like getting the newest iphone every year because of social pressure.
deleted by creator
I’ve skipped a couple already. I’m on a 1080 now. It’s showing its age a bit but still generally does well at 3440x1440. I will turn settings down as needed to maintain 60-100fps.
Since that gpu has 24 GB of vram the game might be using more than it really needs, just because it can. The best way to test the importance of vram would be to get two cards of the same tier with different vram amounts (like the A770 8GB and 16GB) and see how that impacts performance.
Will you stop making sense already
Looked at the review. 4070ti (12G) and 3090ti (24G) scale similiarly until 4K RT / 4K PT, at which point most 12G cards stop scaling and drop to a couple fps. 6700xt (12G) and 7700xt (12G) doesn’t seem affected in RT. With PT only 7700xt survives, with a whopping 7 fps. Similar thing happens at 1440p to 8GB cards
Edit: edited out a750
According to the posted picture this should happen at 1440p with >14GB VRAM used. It doesn’t. 4k native is unplayable territory for every 12GB card anyway
Per their charts, the 4080 (16G) does fine and outperforms the 3090 Ti even at 4K.
4080 is decisively better than 3090ti in general
There are also plenty of totally reasonable settings that require less than 12GB, 1440p maximum settings for example. If you want the best of the best, obviously you have to pay for the best of the best.
(It’s still a lot and a minimum of 12GB is already ridiculous. I’m just saying the claim of 16GB being not enough is kinda dishonest)
I find myself saying “but why?” for all these spec requirements on Alan Wake 2. Is it some kind of monsterous leap forward in terms of technical prowess? Because usually outliers like this suggest poor optimization, which is bad.
Never seems like there’s much benefit to the insanse resource usage of moderns games to me.
Some of the best fun I ever had was on something like 500MHz and 128 megs of RAM
(could be misremembering entirely, but the point is: not a lot)
Half the time they look a few years out of date as well as run like shit.
Yeah, as someone that got bored in the first part of the first one, what could possibly justify this for the series?
Honest question. Do they need to look like actual people before the shadow monsters or whatever attack?
Because mostly the series seemed to be about picking up collectables in the dark while hoping your flashlight doesn’t go out.
I mean, I know many people like the series. I agree it doesn’t seem like it should be terribly demanding though. I may just be wrong and maybe it’s meant to be the best graphics ever, but I suspect that on release we’ll see a lot of “meh” and potentially backlash if these reqs don’t translate into something no one has seen before.
If these games would make proper use of resizable bar, VRAM size wouldn’t be an issue.
Well the game itself is an Nvidia sponsored title you can expect shit hitting the fan. They want you to use their tech.
At the same time, Armored Core 6 has pretty stunning visuals and runs pretty well even on a 2060. Almost like graphics can be done well with a good art style and optimisation, not just throwing more hardware at the issue.
AC is nowhere as visually stunning as AW.
I honestly couldn’t give two fucks about how a game looks if its going to cost me $2000 to run it.
These requirements are such horseshit. What’s the point of making everything look hyperrealistic at 4K if nobody can run the damn game without raiding NASA’s control room for hardware?
That’s the point of customizable settings
Future proofing
deleted by creator
It will run fine.
This testing methodology of “idk, run it on a 4090 and log how much VRAM it uses!” means absolutely nothing, as VRAM is a dynamic cache.
It’s ok, thanks to Nvidia’s amazing value, I have a whopping 10GB on a 3080 that I paid way too much for! My old Vega 64 had 8GB which was from 2017.
Yeah, rip my 3080. Waited a whole year in that Evga queue to get it.
Yikes, even 1440P isn’t safe. My 12GB 6700 XT is looking a bit oudated already. It barely just has enough at max settings without the fancy stuff.
I think it’s relatively easy to avoid these games, they’re obviously not utilizing these resources well.
I really don’t mind reading as a hobby and other IRL things. Games are kind of shitty nowadays.
My 2060 can’t play any of these. Why is it so resource intensive?
While this is not a good thing, we have to remember that games will take advantage of more resources than needed if they’re available. If keeping more things in memory just in case increases performance even a little bit, there’s no reason that they shouldn’t do it. Unused memory is wasted memory.
My 3070 apparently can’t run it in low detail at the native resolution of my monitor. Weak.
Have you ever expected to play 4k with that card?
I have a RTX 3060 and never thought that it would make sense.
Removed by mod
RIP 4070
The 4070 is consistently faster than the 7800xt and even the 7900xt(in ray tracing) in almost all settings. And only in 4k with ray tracing, it is ram bottlenecked. But even though the 7800xt and 7900xt arent ram bottlenecked, their performance is shit at those settings anyway(sub 30fps), so thats irrelevant.
I dont see how having 20fps is better than having 5fps. Both are unplayable settings for either card.
Wasn’t trying to compare to any specific other cards, this game is gong to destroy a lot of them. Just commenting on Nvidia skimping on the v ram for some very pricey cards.
Me with GTX 1060 3 GB: Ok.
That said, I am probably going to finally upgrade to RTX 3060 this year or next (or some AMD equivalent, if I am going to switch back to GNU/Linux).
I have a 3070 and I’m scared
My 3060Ti has been serving me very well, I’ve played games that look amazingly unbelievably good (Death Stranding for example) with it, but these recent new requirements are crazy. Especially with UE5 games, I can’t help but think it’s just shitty optimization because they don’t look good enough to justify this.
Until they start making 4k displays in a 23", I’m not interested.
I’m so sick of monitors getting larger and larger like this. I sit about arms length from my monitor, and even a 27" I’m having to physically swivel my head to look at both left/right of the screen.
If I had an ultrawide that curved around me, and the software to split it up into 3 distinct areas, so that my immediate frontal field of view was all that center windows popped up in, or if games would allow me to put my HUD only in like a 60 degree field of view but still displayed the rest of the game in the periphery, I’d be happy.
But you want to fuck up my UI, make it so I have to physically turn my head to see the HUD elements, AAAAAND fuck my framerates hard? Nah. I’ll just take the lower fidelity.
I like the immersion and greater breathing space it gives. I sit slightly longer than that and a 32" 1440p 16:9 screen is just nice.
