PCGH tested processors in Assault on Dark Athena. According to their benchmarks the game needs far more GPU power than a fast CPU.
Please tell me what you guys thought of this game? I played the demo and I thought it sucked bad. And i keep hearing people say the demo was amazing and stuff. Am I missing something? Did you guys like it?
It's, aeh, different. Ridick's story kept me interested. I like the movies a lot. It transforms the movie pretty well, IMO. But because of that, I think it does not play like a regular shooter. You die fast, but after getting used to the weapons and actually using sneaking and cover (you don't need to kill them all, just try to get by unnoticed) it felt great. And I was surprised that this game runs solid 1080p with full AA (compare that to the second Vin Diesel demo that came out at the same time, Wheelman...but its corridor with shiny surfaces vs. open world).
but Im atleast going to try the game, if nothing else the remake of the first game that's included will be awesome.
They lost a sale with me. The Demo looked like arse and was pretty sad if you ask me.
Haven't played the demo, but some of my colleagues really liked it.
But the original was one of my favourite games of the previous generation. However, this had better be a pretty big graphical upgrade - looking at the computer they used even with the best CPU (Core i7 940) they got average 82fps with: GPU: 285GTX (very high-end) RAM: 6gb DDR3 1066mhz That's the sort of performance you'd expect with a very graphically intensive game considering it's on a very high-end system. As I said I haven't played the demo so now I'm expecting something very pretty at least from the PC version.
I played the demo for about 10 minutes before I switched it off and deleted it. The bit that made me stop played was when Riddick unlocks the door at the start and the alarms go off. Two enemies ran through the door straight into me. No amount of slashing them did any damage and the seemed not to notice me and simply walked around for about a minute. I eventually just put the controller down and watched them walking back and forth right in front of me. Finally I was spotted and I quit.
GPU is always more important than CPU. CPU could be 10 years old and GPU will be doing the grunting on graphics. CPU does minimal work with gaming now. It needs to be improved quite a bit. GPUs have always been top of what makes a game fast. There are plans to combine the two though in the works. That is why companies are moving towards GP-GPUs(General Processing- Graphics Processing Unit)*Maybe other way around don't know. Either way they are moving to them at some point in the future. Intel(Larrabee), AMD(Fusion), and NVIDIA(CUDA) all have new designs based on it though.
a really slow cpu will bottleneck a gpu.
It really depends on the game and how it was designed. The latest Source-engine games, Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, tend to be CPU-limited. It's due in part to a new rendering process used to create the shapes of the models and to animate the faces, helping create a defined silhouette and give the games more character. I forgot the name of it (I read about it on a blog linked on Beyond3D), but it's supposedly a CPU-intensive process.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.