is the 'evil within' gpu bound?

[ExoMale]

i brought this game along with wolfenstein the new bloody(£6 for both brand new in shop) and only played 'the evil' once as i got in to wolfenstein a moment and while the specs on the back of both cases exceed my computr i can play them rather well.

wolfenstein is locked to 60fps, so its smooth as butter with highest settings going, but 'evil within' for chapter 1(only part i played lol) varied between 27 - 55fps with the very odd dip below 25, so the game is very playable and i had it on highest setting and then eventually set it to a locked 60fps after i realised there is a 30 and 60 lock.

so im curious which component the game caters for as im looking at the r7 370 as the upgrade from gtx 750 . i have a 4th gen i3 and 16gb ram also.

 

[ExoMale]

aha thats good to know although jerky isnt always a good thing lol.

well given my computer holds up well for this game, would it only take that exact system requirement to make it better or will it always be this 'jerky'? i am debating between 2gb and 4gb vram versions, depends what i could and will realistically pay for upgrades.


edit: i use 64bit 8.1

 

[ExoMale]

thanks for replies..

4160, but i know it acts like a quad core due to hyper htreading and i know my computer barely meets the requirements of either game, but at £6 it was worth the gamble at it pays off, 'evil within' looks awesome despite the mix fps, so my computer isnt struggling to the extent of trying to run crysis on a pentium 4 HT 524, 2GB ddr2 and a gt 610 1GB and just about getting 11fps lol, but obviously it leaves much to be improved.

what engine does wolfenstein new blood use because that looks awesome graphically and works prefect at the locked 60fps, but my computer barely meets the specs for it also


as for the 370, i thought the 360 was like on par with the 750/ti and the 370 was like the 950/960 which are better than the 750? gtx cards are higher priced and i like to try amd out again as best ive had from them was the 6670.


oh and my res is 1920x1080 at 60hz as hey are multimedia monitors and nothing too special compared to 120hz etc.

 

[ExoMale]

The 370 is a 7850 rebrand. The 280/X was on par with the 960.

The 370 is actually a step down from the 270, believe it or not.

ah right lol thats a bit of a bummer then as the gtx 750/ti are not rebrands, but 7850 isnt dx12 or support 4k(not that ill ever likely to have 4k, just shows the cards potential) or is that not the case, other than going up in modern purchases i would rather have the older 7850 it its cheaper and no different.

i was almost tempted to get a 650ti because ive seen them for 65 in 2nd hand shops and mainly because it has 2gb vram which i would like, 1gb is fine, doesnt seem to be effecting BF4 or any of my games and dual monitor was only decent for movies, cant game on them because of the central point, but do plan on a 3rd monitor at some point so will need the extra ram.

 

[ExoMale]

I was just thinking as well, if you have the minimum requirement for a game these days, it actually normally means the game will run at 1080p low-some medium settings in most cases.

Remember back when minimum requirements meant the game would run at like 320x240 lowest settings? As in, quite literally 'minimum requirements'.

These days the words mean 'these are the minimum requirements to play the game at somewhat respectable visual levels'.

Which I understand in terms of mainstream is a pretty safe approach of course, less chance of the average user being disappointed.

yeah the system requirement lists are pretty stupid in some cases, games with less than minimum can still run the game and pretty well, but also they state a spec, but no guarantee your computer will actually run the game, take crysis, i know on my haswell i can play great just like the other games, but you put a 3.06ghz pentium 4 in mix(spec requires 2.8) and its a no go with only the menus being smooth regardless of a gt 610 being used for a cpu bound game it didnt really live up to the required cpu in my eyes

 

[ExoMale]

Get a game for £6 and it costs you multiple times that to get it working properly. Biggest performance increases for the op would be a gpu something like a 380.

well 'evil within' is on sale at £2.99 which is why i got it and its the special edition one and the new blood was £5, but i had discount on card hence the £6, i wanted the new order which was also £2.99, but no stock.


i know i havent started the next chapter, but i am very happy with the performance as i didnt know what to expect, but i do agree to get a more perfect game i would need to spend a small fortune, but then this is the price you pay for pc gaming.

 

[ExoMale]

You do know the GT610 is not designed for games at all? Even if you had the fastest CPU in the world it would still suck major ass at Crysis, I'd be surprised if you even got more than about 10fps from it. Crysis original works OK-ish on a Pentium 4, I've tried it.

ha yes i know, it was what came with the computer, but i sold that and the computer been replaced, just i thought it might have been a little better because it had a P4 that meant the requirements, but it got about 3-4 more fps than i tested a 754 sempron i overclocked just over 2ghz and a gt 210 1gb lol.

while i have done one mission on crysis i have only been using the game for testing as i cant seem to get hold of the benchmark software for the game, but i like tinkering with old computers and upgrading them best i can to see what they can do

 

[ExoMale]

Your experience with Crysis was actually the GT610's fault and not the Pentium 4. The G210 is even worse again! a Pentium 4 and something like a 7600GT back in the day was actually fine for Crysis at medium settings.

ha yeah i thought as much and i know for a fact a 7200gs is useless, think i tried with a q6600 and got like 0-3fps


mickey: yeah, but its also fun to do especially if you can upgrade it yourself.