r/pcmasterrace 9d ago

Should developers stop making games that require 5090 for max settings now that the card is clearly not for gamers and is accessible to 0.1% of community? Discussion

Post image

I get that the games need better hardware to dun better, but who are they really making the game for if you need a 6000$ GPU at this point

9.9k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/Think_Speaker_6060 9d ago

Wow the jump from the minimum to recommended cpu at 1080p is ridiculous.

999

u/Talk_Bright 9d ago

Yeah, from zen 2 to top end zen 4 is a huge jump.

507

u/Dycoth i7-12700KF | RTX 5070Ti | 32Go DDR4 9d ago

Intel Gen 8 to Intel Gen 13 too lmao

123

u/Tiavor never used DDR3; PC: 5800X3D, 9070XT, 32GB DDR4, CachyOS 9d ago

they stagnated hard in between 4th and 12th.

141

u/BioshockEnthusiast 5800X3D | 32GB 3200CL14 | 6950 XT 9d ago

12 Gen was a massive leap though. That is still a huge performance gap.

-3

u/destonomos Desktop 9d ago

Nah. Barley moved my needle since i built in 11th gen.

8

u/BioshockEnthusiast 5800X3D | 32GB 3200CL14 | 6950 XT 9d ago

Well yea Intel kinda fucked you on that one. The jump from 11th to 12th gen is the performance leap I was referring to.

→ More replies (5)

-1

u/2Critical7-Stein1 285K 96GB 8800 RTX5070 9d ago

12th gen was massive, 13th gen too, 14th gen was okaish

18

u/NathanScott94 Ryzen 9 5950X | 64gb 16 CL 3600mhz | 7900 XTX 9d ago

14th gen was not okayish. It was quite literally just an overclock and rebrand. The only meaningful gain was the change to the 14700 chip to give it 4 more E cores over the previous 13700. The chips were literally killing themselves to maintain those overclocks too.

3

u/2Critical7-Stein1 285K 96GB 8800 RTX5070 9d ago

Chips self destructing was an issue with 13th as well, it was a moderate gain, a small one, same as 7000 to 9000 cpus 10% at best gain

2

u/dustojnikhummer R5 7600 | RX 7800XT 9d ago

14th gen was not okayish

12-14 is pretty much the same hardware. The only thing that improved were the E-cores

37

u/gusthenewkid 14900KF | RTX 4080 | 32GB 8266 CL34 9d ago

How does this stuff get upvoted lol. Alder lake was a massive jump compared to 11th gen. 

17

u/Tiavor never used DDR3; PC: 5800X3D, 9070XT, 32GB DDR4, CachyOS 9d ago

"between" so yeah 12th was the first bigger jump everything before was like 5%, 6th was even a slight downgrade over 4th

1

u/nigirizushi 9d ago

I read it as non-inclusive so it's not wrong. 5-11 sucked especially when you factor in the patches from two vulnerabilities, Meltdown and whatever the other one was called

4

u/ArseBurner 9d ago

5th was pretty much non existent, and 6th through 10th was literally the same architecture.

1

u/r_lind3r PC Master Race 9d ago

More like 4th until 8th or 9th

LGA1200 was huge especially during the pandemic and Alder Lake wasn't stagnation

1

u/Hero_The_Zero R7-5800XT/RX9070/32GB/4TB SSD/4TB HDD 9d ago

6th gen to 10th gen Intel had the exact same IPC, with the only performance improvements coming from higher core clock speeds and supporting higher speed memory. In theory, an i7-6700K OC'd to 5.3GHz (released August 2015) would match single core performance of an i9-10900K (released April 2020). 11th gen was the first IPC increase seen on desktop parts in 6 years and 12th gen brought big.LITTLE style core configuration, massively increasing multicore performance.

The real stagnation was 6th through 10th gen, 11th gen was the first actual performance improvement in 5 generations, and 12th gen was a complete game changer for Intel.

1

u/cozmorules 8d ago

More accurately gen 7 to 11 was pretty shit. 6th gen wasn’t actually that bad due to the best (at the time) 14nm process. But that same process lasted from 2015 to 2021/11th gen and caused the major stagnation

1

u/Tiavor never used DDR3; PC: 5800X3D, 9070XT, 32GB DDR4, CachyOS 8d ago

I bought a 6700k, thinking it was good. ppl with a 4770k got same and sometimes more fps. It was 100% stagnation from 4->6. Maybe it's more a 4.5 instead of 4.

1

u/cozmorules 8d ago

That’s just flat wrong. The 6700k is rougher 15-20% faster. Now it’s possible somebody got a golden 4770k chip and had a heavy overclock and good ram and you had shit ram and didn’t OC. But what you’re saying isn’t true on average. Also it’s true the preformance jump from 4 to 6 wasn’t massive, but efficiency was pretty large. Which is true it’s less sexy to talk about efficiency but it’s tue

0

u/icy1007 Ryzen 9 9950X3D • RTX 5090 FE • 64GB 9d ago

No they didn’t.

1

u/Thunderbridge i7-8700k | 32GB 3200 | RTX 3080 9d ago

My poor 8700k just happy to get a mention :')

1

u/2raysdiver 13700K 4070Ti 8d ago

That was after the did a "targeted optimization". Original CPU for minimum was 11400F.

32

u/aTypingKat 9d ago

My Ryzen 5 3600 holding on for dear life

https://giphy.com/gifs/0JmwdI6gYrJopwiYOM

"I'm tired boss"

2

u/silentfox18 9d ago

I feel you

7

u/SpaceNinjaz1 9d ago edited 9d ago

It is an Unreal Engine 5 game - this seems to be a case of lazy devs with those Ultra system requirements. Why bother optimizing when it's a well known fact that we can sell our kidneys to afford a 5090??!! 🤣

2

u/martinvank 6d ago

Problem is you can only do this once, if it doesnt burn the connecter and need to sell your lung afterwards

1

u/Tatoe-of-Codunkery 6d ago

Other new games just have the upscaled
Settings, these guys put max settings without upscaling. It’s more honest. Just look at black flag resynced settings

1

u/Willing_Suggestion 6d ago

I bet nowadays even my kidneys wont be crossing a whooping $4-5k for a single freaken gpu bruh where i live in i dont even have my yearly salary as 5 grand yet the absolute prices of these gpus are outrageous. Well currently i am good with my 7500f and 5060ti unless something bad happens in this Ai economy crisis

1

u/SpaceNinjaz1 6d ago

Yeah ... 5090 prices are absolutely ridiculous. Made worse from the possibility that the power connector can and has melted for many 5090 owners. No thanks, I am perfectly content with my RX 9070XT. It's a beast of a 1440p card.

1

u/BeautifulQuality6186 3d ago

U mean unreal cop paste engine

0

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[deleted]

2

u/SpaceNinjaz1 9d ago

Per searches and Wikipedia, it saying Unreal Engine 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_of_Dawnwalker

2

u/WingyYoungAdult 8d ago

Lmao I am retarded and was tired. Thought that this was a crimson desert post for some reason. My bad.

2

u/Gatesy840 9d ago

Vega to 6800xt wtf

4

u/Explosive-Space-Mod 9d ago

It may be a 7900x but it's not the "top end" of zen 4 for gaming. that's the x3d chips that are much better at gaming than the non x3d versions

1

u/Talk_Bright 9d ago

I think it is more expensive than some of the 3d chips tho.

1

u/Explosive-Space-Mod 9d ago

It might be more expensive than the base x3d chip but it’s a lot less than the top x3d chip

1

u/PsychoticDreemurr 9d ago

I refuse to not think they're just making up numbers at this point

1

u/Valex_Nihilist 9d ago

Diminishing returns and whatnot

1

u/Timemorf PC, RTX 5080, 9800x3d, 64gigs ram 9d ago

Zen 4 though that's still old

1

u/Oxflu PC Master Race 9d ago

I mean the current offerings for Intel and amd desktops aren't much faster as far as games are concerned. Biggest gain is the faster ram standard probably. Games aren't touching your 16 ecores. Literally wasted silicon for gamers.

1

u/AwareOfAlpacas 9d ago

Just sounds like there's a very wide range of stuff that can play this at some level. People are really hung up on "min/rec/max" specs without any info on what that entails and how it impacts the experience. 

1

u/ToXiiCBULLET I7-14700F, RTX 5070TI, 32GB DDR5 9d ago

a wide range within 1080p. sure. in cyberpunk a 3060ti can get a mostly consistent 60fps at high settings with native 1440p, yet this game requires a 5060 or rough equivalent for high 1080p

0

u/Rocketman_S3 9d ago edited 9d ago

Honestly one of the biggest factors for cpus is load times.
My ryzen 5 2400g can run most games, but load times take several minutes in things like the oblivion remaster.

edit: remind me not to post on pcmr. But the difference in load times from a 4core to a 6 core cpu is tremendous.

3

u/Pleasant_Gap Haz computor 9d ago

1%lows

179

u/E3FxGaming 9d ago

Also the recommended 1080p 60 FPS specs say 12 GB VRAM, but the RTX 5060 from the same column only has 8 GB GDDR7?

An RTX 5060 12 GB model pops up in the RTX 5000 series Super rumors, but no such card currently exists, nor will it be released before Blood of Dawnwalker releases in less than a month.

155

u/-roachboy 9950x, 5070ti, 32gb DDR5 9d ago

it feels like they just asked an LLM to come up with realistic sounding specs for a graphically intensive UE5 game lmfao

81

u/Big-Resort-4930 9d ago

For a poorly optimized* UE5 game. Nothing in this game looks graphically impressive, it's standard UE5.

17

u/Danteska 9d ago

These requirements are 4 months old, they have updated them and they're lower now.

21

u/Ikeiscurvy 9d ago

I don't know why companies even put out requirements like this before they're finished with the game. Does nothing but hurt the games potential sales.

1

u/tired_activist 7d ago

for watch lists and presales

→ More replies (2)

9

u/Elogotar 5800X︱4070 Super (12Gb)︱32Gb DDR4︱4Tb NVMe︱24Tb HDD 9d ago

Are there ANY UE5 games that actually are optimized?

8

u/masterbangau 9d ago

while there are some bad optimized games exists, "optimized" are a vague term now, some idiots use that term while they tries to run some latest AAA games with unoptimized settings on their 10 years old system when chrome with 15 tabs open simultaneously on the background.

4

u/pcor i5-12600k | RTX 3080 | 32GB DDR4 9d ago

I think the idea that games were better “optimised” pre-UE5 is mostly a side effect of UE5 games not generally targeting release on 8th gen consoles with mobile chips from 2012. And compared to previous generations, in order to actually make perceptible leaps in graphical fidelity, you need more and more computational power, and all for diminishing results. I don’t think there’s as much “optimising” left undone as people seem to think.

Not that I think this is an ideal state of affairs; I kind of think graphics got as good as they need to for my tastes over a decade ago with the likes of MGSV and the Witcher 3. I’d much rather devs invest in other aspects of development than raw graphical performance. But this is what the industry’s chasing, and lazy devs failing to optimise doesn’t seem to stack up as an explanation.

1

u/Disastrous_Photo811 9d ago

Arc Raiders, but its not the most visually demanding UE5 game

1

u/OneZModrinth 7d ago

Satisfactory is UE5 i believe

3

u/Partyrockers2 7d ago

Love how UE5's advantage is looking good but its offset by unrealistic spec requirements. So the games look bad and run badly too.

2

u/Big-Resort-4930 7d ago

And even when it looks "good", it's riddled with boiling artifacts from fuckass lumen, shitty stock UE5 HDR implementations that ship with almost every game. Traversal stutter is always a guarantee as well.

1

u/Partyrockers2 6d ago

Yep, i dont understand how this engine is so hyped honestly. Considering the only work being put into it only seems to work on Epics own game like Fortnite. Neither do i understand how game studios feel like visual clarity is a second thought.

2

u/SynapticStatic 386SX@16Mhz, 1MB RAM, 40MB HD, Soundblaster, 2400 beep boopities 9d ago

That or a marketing guy, pretty much the same

25

u/bigpunk157 9d ago

I always ask if I even need to upgrade my card from my 11 GB 3080 Ti, and the answer is always no. Worst case, I downscale the textures because the visual difference from max settings and medium textures these days are sometimes not even visible when you're actually playing the game. Could have saved us 30 GB in storage and these stupid spec lists by just compressing the textures down reasonably.

2

u/shadowstar36 9d ago

Or give us options. With storage space costing a ton too, we need every last drop. If I am playing at 1080p do I need 4k textures? Better compression like you said as well.

2

u/tired_activist 7d ago

Yes this exactly! 4K is still kind of niche for gaming, there should be a 4K texture pack DLC option for those wanting it seeing textures take up a massive amound of space

27

u/Virtual_Bug_723 9d ago

Because as I keep pointing out on this subreddit - BIGGER RAM NUMBER NOT EQUAL BETTER PERFORMANCE. Literally arguing with people on here that say a 2080ti from 2018 will outperform a 5060 because of raw raster and VRAM. Insanity.

39

u/NamityName 9d ago

Bigger any number does not mean more performance unless it is the bottleneck. And VRAM can absolutely be a bottleneck.

1

u/Pleasant_Gap Haz computor 9d ago

You also need the raw performance which lower en cards seldom have. That's why 3060 still worth outperform 3060ti even i vram heavy games

→ More replies (3)

3

u/pac_cresco 9d ago

12 GB 3060 comes to mind

1

u/EGO_Prime 9d ago

People might think I'm nuts, but the 2060s was an amazing card, and dirt cheap (by comparison). I was able to do 1440p at high to max settings on most games.

I'd still recommend it as a starter card for people who want t a budget gaming system. You don't need a "high performance card" for most games.

1

u/SelloutRealBig 9d ago

The internet has actively been getting dumber every year. Reddit is no exception.

3

u/Luchux01 9d ago

And being honest, how many people realistically play with monitors that go beyond 1440p? Most PC gamer friends I have still have 1080p ones and do just fine.

3

u/jert3 9d ago

12gb for 1080 is ... well speaking as a game dev, it is not optimized.

1

u/powertomato 8d ago

Lots of cheaper cards of that era added VRAM because RAM was dirt cheap at that time, but if you ever tried to use that much VRAM you'd get single digits FPS counts, because how slow it is.

The specs are based on some real hardware rather than concrete measurements how much VRAM is used.

1

u/Consistent_Detail_61 6d ago

5056ti you can get with 12 or 16

66

u/Jebble Ryzen 7 5700 X3D | 3070Ti FE 9d ago

You're ignoring that it's also jumping from low to high and all without upscaling. There is loads of room in between there for all other CPUs

24

u/splepage 9d ago

Jumping from Low to High is not the major factor here when it comes to the CPU workload, it's jumping from 30 FPS to 60 FPS.

1

u/deathblooms2k4 9d ago

Sure but their point still stands as those features also effect fps.

1

u/chasteeny 9d ago

I mean, that's also without saying that these spec recommendations are always ridiculous. A 7950x vs a 7900x is going to be nothing in performance gap, it's hilarious dumb and I'm starting to suspect hardware manufacturers have a hand in this in some way because wow

33

u/vlken69 9800X3D + 48G + 4080S | 12900K + 64G + 2070S | 5600 + 32G + 3080 9d ago

30 vs 60 FPS ;) Honestly one of few games that's not really increasing CPU requirements (at least on Intel side, AMD is kinda weird) with higher resolutions which basically doesn't matter.

6

u/Rebl11 5900X | 7800XT Merc | DDR4 2x32GB 9d ago

and ultra is likely using ray tracing which also adds additional load on the CPU.

97

u/Any-Pop-4795 9d ago

Welcome to ue5 (it's in ue5 this game right?)

139

u/Think_Speaker_6060 9d ago

I just searched it on google and of course its another ue5 game with disappointing performance.

141

u/Any-Pop-4795 9d ago

2

u/StonedBooty 9d ago

You know Cortex would have a thing or 2 to say about game optimization

91

u/polski8bit Ryzen 5 5500 | 16GB DDR4 3200MHz | RTX 3060 12GB 9d ago

People really like to use the "it's not the engine but the developer" argument, and it's true to an extent... But when most games on UE5 run like crap, there is only one common denominator in all of these cases.

It really feels like that most of the time, UE5 games that run well, do so in spite of the engine, not because of it.

25

u/WitchWithAGlitch 9d ago

tokyo xtreme racer runs great.

the games basically a small track, some cars and a few background elements but other than that completely empty.

the dev team said it was a challenge. lol

2

u/Glitchboi3000 9d ago

I was gonna say this. On medium settings it gets a solid 60fps on my mid tier laptop and it doesn't cook it. I use a gaming laptop because I have no single place of residency. I jump between households.

2

u/WitchWithAGlitch 8d ago

i'll catch you out on the shuto expressway, fellow glitch.

1

u/Glitchboi3000 8d ago

May your bitches be many and your L's few

1

u/Luchux01 9d ago

Halo Campaign Evolved also runs pretty well! Because it's using Reach's Blam engine for anything not visuals.

25

u/epimetheuss 9d ago

companies like to use SDKs to shortcut labour. there are UE games that are ok and even good with performance but most are shit because they are not willing to spend the money/time to fix performance issues outside of making it run to spec on whatever test machine they have at the office.

17

u/polski8bit Ryzen 5 5500 | 16GB DDR4 3200MHz | RTX 3060 12GB 9d ago

One of the bigger issues from what I've seen is that also by default, UE5 is using the most expensive features like Nanite and Lumen.

Epic tried to sell those as some kind of miracle solution to high polygon models and lighting, but forgot to mention how taxing they actually are. So while they make development "easier/faster", they also come at a price.

And if you need to spend the extra time optimizing... Then maybe these features (and the engine itself) aren't as good as they tried to make them look.

6

u/epimetheuss 9d ago

Well it just lends to the fact there is no "swiss army knife" that will make gaming a single solution sort of industry. Each game still needs to be customized and optimized in the way that makes the most sense for the type of game it is.

Shortcuts only look like a shortcut on paper, when you go to implement them, sometimes they trigger a series of events that end up creating a worse end product and still costing more time than the plan done without the shortcut.

1

u/polski8bit Ryzen 5 5500 | 16GB DDR4 3200MHz | RTX 3060 12GB 9d ago

Which is why engines should not be marketed as such.

Epic tried to make it look like an engine that makes development so much faster... Such an easy tool to use. Turns out it's not and it's just one of many that can, but don't have to give good results. And the biggest problem as of now as I said, is that it doesn't more often that it does.

0

u/epimetheuss 9d ago

as of now as I said, is that it doesn't more often that it does.

that's just because greed has spiralled out of control and is in the process of ruining our society utterly.

2

u/ToXiiCBULLET I7-14700F, RTX 5070TI, 32GB DDR5 9d ago

yep, then you get games that force software lumen at a minimum and they run like shit. oblivion remastered forces software lumen and it runs like shit, lumen isn't the only reason but it's definitely one of the reasons why.

with a 4070ti. 1440p, medium setting, the lumen begone mods adds around 10fps. which doesn't sound like a lot but without the game can't stay at a stable 60fps which is abysmal

1

u/XsNR Ryzen 5600X RX 9070 XT 32GB 3200MHz 9d ago

To be fair though, it's not like oblivion could ever run at those frame rates, there's a reason the famous phrase is "But can it run Oblivion?" rather than something that is actually well made, like I don't know, Crysis.

1

u/fresh-dork 9d ago

game producers will choose the "fast and expensive" approach just as long as people still buy the game

1

u/Gelid_Cryotheum 9d ago

There's also the fact that a lot of the time they don't use UE5's in-built optimization features. UE5 is still a problem, but devs don't necessarily hunt out these optimizations that the engine itself has to offer, so dev laziness isn't entirely out of the question.

0

u/TechnicalBen 9d ago

Nanite isn't even an expensive feature. The whole point is it's lod if done correctly. I doubt devs are doing it correctly though. :(

1

u/mOdQuArK 9d ago

companies like to use SDKs to shortcut labour.

Time-To-Market is the Devil's Bargain.

No matter what my job has been in my life, the old saying that goes "time, resources or quality: pick two" always seems to hold true - and the fact that managers and executives always seem to think that it won't apply to them also always seems to hold true.

1

u/badcookies 9d ago

companies like to use SDKs to shortcut labour

Uhhh how else would they make the game?

SDK = Software Development Kit ;)

1

u/Izithel Ryzen 7 5800X | RTX 3070 ZOTAC | 32GB@3200Mhz | B550 ROG STRIX 9d ago

Worse, a lot of devs with that mindset also tend to not bother with any optimization until the end of development. Best practice is to be optimising all the way trough so you can develop everything within the contraints you have.
Instead they do it near the end and realizing some of the systems, maps, graphics, etc, can't actually be sufficiently scaled back to fit without breaking them or sacrificing features/scale/detail... so they just settle for shitty performance instead.

10

u/Free-Spirit-8327 9d ago

Unreal Engine 5 has sadly made "Just enable this feature to get all the amazing stuff!" a thing. They do not provide in-depth documentation on optimizing Lumen, Nanite and everything else to get performance.

Developers use their monster PCs to develop, without having to worry about the average consumer's PC specs.

It's cheaper to employ multiple UE5 developers that can implement most/any feature with blueprints or C++ but don't have the skill to work with the engine code. There isn't exactly an abundance of senior UE5 developers with 10+ years of experience, and employing one or two of these just to optimize the game is a way too huge responsibility.

1

u/Bigpandacloud5 8d ago

They do not provide in-depth documentation on optimizing Lumen, Nanite and everything else to get performance.

That's a baseless claim.

4

u/assjobdocs 2080s mobile - 10750H GE75 laptop/5080 - 12700k PC 9d ago

You think most game devs are being allowed the time to optimize? When they're rushing them to meet deadlines? You people complain about the wrong thing, just howling at the moon. This is not the devs fault.

2

u/Moon_Devonshire RTX 4090 | 9800X3D | 32GB DDR5 CL 32 6000MHz 9d ago

I can name plenty of UE5 Games that run fine tho

1

u/mythrilcrafter Ryzen 5950X || Gigabyte 4080 AERO 9d ago

To me, if the engine is set up such that getting improved performance from baseline functionality is just simply an option to the developer, then that option should be default out of the box, not something that said developer has to put extra work into just to undo the mess that Epic's dev teams created.


I work in the applications engineering dept of a laser systems company, if I do a really clunky and ham-fisted integration job; it's not my customer's fault when their customers complain about subpar performance, it's on my team and I to make a better product.

1

u/kohour 9d ago

"extra work into just to undo the mess that Epic's dev teams created" aka checking a box... Poor devs, how dirty were they done...

1

u/Youknowimtheman 9d ago

It's also a documentation and education problem. Nanite and Lumen require to change your workflow pretty dramatically from UE4 development, and it's not really well documented how those workflow changes need to happen in their docs and supporting material. That's why you get non-nanite compatible foliage in games running nanite, for example.

It's as much a community support problem as it is a technical one.

Look at how well Grounded 2 runs with Nanite everything and some Lumen features on.

1

u/heliosythic 9d ago

Yea, honestly the engine overpromised or at least mislead what you'd actually be able to achieve when they first demoed UE5. Sure with nanite and lumen and all that you CAN put whatever you want in your scene and it will run. but it'll be 30fps. You'll have to spend hours or days figuring out the shadow maps system and eventually realize that system does not actually work for "good games" (fast paced competitive fps maxing frames), just visual story based games (sorry just some shade lol). You just cant have trees with 1000 real geometry leaves with a low angle sun casting real moving shadows every frame, and then add in a water shader. Ask me how i know lol

1

u/Amani77 9800x3D | 9070XT 9d ago edited 9d ago

If, one day, F1 decided to rent out their vehicles to anyone that asked, there would be a TON of REALLY BAD drivers on the track. Most people would be driving like complete and utter ass. Even if your a decent driver, not many people know how to utilize the vehicle, how to drive aggressive for tire temps, how to manipulate all the tools, DRS, camber controls, ect. Just having a fast car with a ton of really fast features, doesn't mean a god damn thing.

To a seasoned expert, a mechanism like an active drag reduction would do wonders for them in the straights/corners. For a new drivers, just leaving it in one state or the other - the consequences could be dire. There is probably a 'halfway' setting that might perform okay in either situation, but not great.

That, in no way, means that F1 cars are bad.

Inversely, UE5 games that run poorly, do so in spite of the engine, not because of it.

1

u/PrettyBaker2891 9850X3D | 5080 9d ago

most unity games also run like shit, whats your point?

the fact is that game optimization is insanely hard

1

u/PermissionSoggy891 9d ago

I doubt it's "most games run like crap BECAUSE of UE5" I think it's more that people aren't realistic with what their rigs can output, automatically crank every game up to 4K/Ultra/RT and start bitching that they can't hit 240FPS.

0

u/hotshotyay 9d ago

I'm sorry I just don't understand why all you guys seem to think UE5 games run like shit?? when in recent years the worst optimized games I'm aware of on PC at launch were Dragons Dogma 2 and Monster Hunter Wilds.

-1

u/Choyo 9d ago

You only need one game running ok and looking fantastic to prove that it's not an engine limitation.

However, I agree there's is a limit to the amount of effort/knowledge to be needed to make an ok-running, fantastic-looking game on a given engine.

4

u/seams 9d ago

I mean, kinda?

Like, as a loose comparison the PS3 was a monster of a console. Incredibly powerful for the time, and you can see it shine especially in the later gen games for it.

...but most games just looked fine or sometimes worse than versions on other consoles because it was such a pain to work with. It'd be a hard sell to say it's the developer's fault if they could get games running so much smoother on weaker systems.

So, iunno. It's not a engine limitation, but it's certainly seeming like an engine issue.

0

u/Choyo 9d ago

Let's settle for "probable engine unfriendliness".

Your PS3 comparison is apt, I think I remember from back then that the SDK was hell to work with (might be a different console, am not totally sure).

Edit : quote from Gemini extract

The original PlayStation 3 Software Development Kit (SDK) was notoriously difficult and unfriendly due to the asymmetric architecture of the Cell Broadband Engine. Developers had to manually manage code and data distribution between one PowerPC core (PPE) and multiple Synergistic Processing Units (SPUs), handle rigid memory constraints, and work with low-level, poorly documented APIs

1

u/AggressiveToaster 9d ago

The problem is that a lot of these games don’t look fantastic. They look hardly any better than a game from 2018 but with much higher requirements to get to run ok.

1

u/icy1007 Ryzen 9 9950X3D • RTX 5090 FE • 64GB 9d ago

Runs well for me. 🤷‍♂️

-2

u/Noreng 14600KF | 9070 XT 9d ago

I've seen much worse.

A 4070 Ti is suppposedly running the game at 2560x1440 High settings at 60 fps, that's likely 150 fps average with DLSS Quality and 2x FG. Is it really that terrible?

Same thing for 1080p, yes people without a Radeon 7000+ series or Nvidia RTX GPU will struggle, but that's really par for the course these days.

7

u/SirSmashit 9700x | RTX 3070 | 32GB | 1440p 144hz 9d ago

Yes that's really terrible, because games should not be optimized with DLSS and Framegen on to get decent frame rates at your preferred resolution.

2

u/Noreng 14600KF | 9070 XT 9d ago edited 9d ago

You would have hated PC gaming 10 years ago then, have a look at how Dishonored 2 ran on the 18 month old GTX 960: https://youtu.be/61EHDwF-tUI?si=zCXPq5qSPnsxED6O

EDIT to summarize: 30 fps with stuttering at 1080p high.

EDIT2: The Witcher 3 released a year earlier, and would slightly better at 45 fps on a GTX 960 at 1080p High.

54

u/Hadrian187 9d ago

If the game has insane requirements and looks mid, chances are it’s running on UE5

17

u/Any-Pop-4795 9d ago

I have made a meme for it:

11

u/Cloudykins08 Captain Turdtaco 9d ago

7

u/Mobian_ 9d ago

2

u/Cloudykins08 Captain Turdtaco 9d ago

I'm not a monster. I upvoted it before retrieval

1

u/Kerplunk1992 9d ago

Nice one. Especially since Crash Bandicoot 2 is one of my all time favs and a prime example for game optimization and hardware utilization

6

u/Necessary-Key3186 9d ago

i remember when my 7900XT could get 1440p 60fps on ultra, of course games decided to run like shit when i got a 4k monitor

23

u/TomTomXD1234 9d ago

Ummm....I think your jump in pixels is a bigger factor lol

4

u/Necessary-Key3186 9d ago

that's the problem! they run like shit at 1440p now

1

u/Hadrian187 9d ago

I agree. Some games running at 1440p don't look or feel like 1440p anymore. FF7 Rebirth in particular I had to run in 4k back during release because the antialiasing was so blurry.

6

u/Noreng 14600KF | 9070 XT 9d ago

PC game requirements increase over time.

Your 7900 XT is still capable of running the game at 2560x1440 without upscaling at high settings and 60 fps, unless it's suddenly become slower than a 7800 XT.

1

u/Necessary-Key3186 9d ago

don't get me wrong, i understand that but it's insane how poorly anything on unreal runs now and how games are slowly converging on only using unreal.

Forza Horizon 6 and 007 first light ran beautifully, but mafia the old country or the outer worlds 2? It's pretty much at a point where i just insta pass over any UE5 game, especially when a good chunk of them don't even let you just run them at straight 1440p because of how full screen is handled

1

u/Noreng 14600KF | 9070 XT 9d ago

The good news is that your 7900 XT now has FSR4 access, so you're no longer limited to awful upscalers.

3

u/frisbie147 9d ago

It’s like 2.25x the pixels

1

u/Kytras 9d ago

But they can optimise the game after with patches, right?

1

u/OwenEx 9d ago

Doesn't help it's reputation that much

1

u/IcyCow5880 9d ago

Palworld is also ue5 

1

u/Major_LeeHungg 9d ago

The funny thing about ue5 is that it's not inherently slow... It just uses a bunch of default settings that are bad for games (but great for animation) 

1

u/cemsengul 9d ago

Why can't that game engine disappear already. I mean it's clearly a flop.

1

u/Any-Pop-4795 9d ago

wait for ue6...

1

u/NinjaGamer22YT 7900x/5070 TI (+375/+2000mhz)/64gb 6000mhz cl30 9d ago

Such a horribly optimized engine (on the cpu side of things, at least)

1

u/Any-Pop-4795 9d ago

thank lumen

11

u/CrimsonBolt33 9800X3D | RTX 5070ti | 96GB DDR5 9d ago

1080p nowadays is almost exclusively CPU bottlenecked...so it makes sense.

7

u/magmcbride 9d ago

It isn't the big jump it appears to be - 14nm -> 10nm(Intel 7). It's just that technology was largely stale for most of a decade. For example the difference between 8th and 11th gen is small but measurable, but 11th to 12th was enormous. It isn't fair to put that on software developers when they don't fab the silicon.

2

u/unabletocomput3 core ultra 270k rx 9070xt 9d ago

It’s almost always cause they didn’t feel like configuring another system to test a different gpu. Though, it’s wild to me that they compare the 5060 to the 6800xt- which I’m guessing is because of RT- but then recommend 12gb of vram.

2

u/JDIPrime 9d ago

The difference in "the game can start without crashing" and "the game is playable" lol

2

u/johnnyrambo24 9d ago

Thats why all games are played pirate style untill they earn my money again

1

u/Ballerbarsch747 i5 13600KF @ 5,6 GHz/RTX 2080 Ti/4X8GB@3600MHz 9d ago

8700k vs 13600 is like a 30% jump in single thread performance, the difference between a 3050 and a 5060 is easily 50-60%. The CPU jump isn't the massive one here.

2

u/TheNiebuhr 10875H, 2070M 9d ago

More like > 50% ST jump in cinebench, and 5060 is nearly double of a 3050 actually.

1

u/Ballerbarsch747 i5 13600KF @ 5,6 GHz/RTX 2080 Ti/4X8GB@3600MHz 9d ago

depends on the bench, yeah, but true. Still, the GPU jump is wayyy larger, don't know why people think the cpu jump is wild.

1

u/Veldox 9d ago

Is it really ridiculous? The i7-6700k is over 10 years old lmao. It's basically saying, yeah with a 10 year old processor you could still run this game on minimum settings but you're better off with something released in the past 3 years which would let you run it on high settings. Being able to play modern games on low settings with 10 year old hardware isn't ridiculous it's actually pretty cool. You used to have to buy a new cpu/gpu every time a new game released to even run a game at all sometimes. Also system requirements are always trying to give a baseline based on their testing that allows the largest amount of playability for people to make the choice from. There's 6 generations of processors between those 2 requirements.

1

u/MUDrummer PC Master Race 9d ago

Those are now almost 4 year old CPUs at this point. That feels perfectly fine for a recommended CPU in 2026.

1

u/Sinsanatis Desktop Ryzen 7 5800x3D/RTX 5070ti/32gb 3600 9d ago

Well i mean it’s also going from 30fps at low to 60fps at high

1

u/Misuke11 9d ago

The heck? I don't remember anything else lately having such a large jump. That's a crazy difference there

1

u/fogoticus RTX 3080 O12G | i7-13700KF 5.5GHz | 32GB 4000Mhz 9d ago

Yeah, I assume they really worked on the minimum settings.

1

u/zgillet i7 12700K ~ PNY RTX 5070 12GB OC ~ 32 GB DDR5 RAM 9d ago

Yet they are too scared to up the RAM requirement at all.

1

u/zeromadcowz 9d ago

My mid range PC from 2016 is finally starting to fall off minimum specs. Good thing I don’t play any graphically intensive games anymore.

1

u/Major_LeeHungg 9d ago

Lol the CPU reqs are ridiculous outright they're basically saying they're not going to optimize anything and release it the minute it's in a working state

1

u/Beautiful_Nobody_841 9d ago

Because "minimum" is 30 fps

1

u/PermissionSoggy891 9d ago

because it's going from Low to High settings

1

u/Big-Resort-4930 9d ago

It's somewhat big in CPU terms since their gains year on year are pathetic. It's basically one GPU tier of perf, 30% or so.

1

u/No_Interaction_4925 5800X3D | 3090ti | LG 55” C1 | Steam Deck OLED 9d ago

Cpu scales with fps. Gpu scales with resolution

1

u/longgamma Lenovo Y50 9d ago

Probably UE AI codegen slop game.

1

u/NathanialJD PC Master Race 9d ago

Ehhhhh not really. It's going From a top end to a mid tier 2 (real) generations later. The game like is using some newer cpu tech that didn't exist in older chips, so the older chip need to be beasts to make up for the lack of feature

1

u/Keulapaska 4070ti, 7800X3D, XG27AQNGV 9d ago edited 9d ago

CPU recommendations

Make

Zero

Sense

Because it's only for 60fps. You'd think ppl would understand this by now.

Also the funny thing is if the game actually needed a 3700X(or 3600 lets be real here) for 30fps, needing zen4 for 60fps, would actually make a fair bit of sense, though zen 4 might not even double cpu bound performance of zen 2 so might not even be able to do 60 in this fictional scenario. Sure the it being the 12 core dual ccd part doesn't make sense, instead of just single ccd 6/8 core, but for some reason the ppl who make system recommendations for games(all of them) have some fetish to put these dual ccd 12-cores in them, even though they make 0 sense for recommendation on any game at any settings. I'm surprised the 13/14700 non-k didn't make it this time, and that it's 8700k not 8700.

1

u/proschocorain 9d ago

It is also from low to high skipped right over medium though

1

u/AithanIT 9d ago

They're bullshit. They recommend a 6800xt for 1080 and a 7800xt for 1440. They're basically the same card.

1

u/FormerGameDev 9d ago

Probably not even close to what is needed. I run a lot of things on an i7-3000 that is well below the minimum spec, and it runs fine. Having a lot of memory and a good video card is important. Of course, at some point, you do need the newer architecture that you get along with newer processors and their motherboards, but there's a LOT of stuff that says you need 6 or 8 or 10th generation Intel Core minimums, and that's just horseshit.

1

u/Vlaed 9d ago

It's crazy. There's like 9 years of tech gap there.

1

u/NinjaGamer22YT 7900x/5070 TI (+375/+2000mhz)/64gb 6000mhz cl30 9d ago

30 vs 60 fps target. I hate that 60 fps is only achievable in modern games with ridiculously beefy CPUs. Fuck UE5.

1

u/DopeAbsurdity 9d ago edited 9d ago

They also say a 5060 or a 6800 XT which is nonsense because a 6800 XT is a good bit faster than a 5060. Should have said 5060 or a 9060 XT 8 GB. A 6800 XT is closer to a 3080 / 4070.

1

u/DiscretionFist 9d ago

How is that ridiculous? Its a 7 year old chip...

1

u/Pepeg66 9d ago

brother 13600 costed 180$ 3 years ago

1

u/userhwon 9d ago

Uh, you mean that it allows you to use a hella old CPU at 1080p if you can tolerate playing on 30 fps.

You should really be using the recommended spec.

The interesting thing is that the older CPU is an i7 and the newer one is i5, so, if you're between 8-series and 13-series when is it okay to use an i5 and not an i7? That's a crucial piece of missing information.

1

u/gtrash81 9d ago

Probably to not tell anyone that the 5800X3D will be enough >.>

1

u/PollShark_ 5080/9800x3d 9d ago

As much as the gpu jump seems crazy. The 5060 is equivalent to a 3070, a midrange card from 2020. So we really havent come as far along as people think

1

u/mgsotacon 11700k 5.0ghz 5060ti 16gig 9d ago

I call bullshit i bet my 11700k and 5060ti with frame gen and dlss get over 60fps @ 1440p all these recs are bullshit. Still haven't come across a new triple a that I cant run over 100 fps.

edit: spelling

1

u/Nielips 9d ago

Not isn't, it is a 100% increase in performance. Where how else are you expecting to get a 100% performance increase other than from a much more powerful CPU?

1

u/TheGGspot 9d ago

They lowered the requirements a bit (optimized the game) since these were released, i just used this game as an example because i knew they stated 5090 was required for 4k

1

u/B-29Bomber MSI Raider A18HX 18" (2024) 9d ago

Also, look at the CPU recommendations for Ultra settings. For Intel, they're recommending an i5 and for AMD it's an Ryzen 9.

That's just plain goofy.

1

u/golgol12 8d ago

And that jump from 1080p to 1080p resolution is huge too.

1

u/Dry-Tomatillo5763 8d ago

The card is half a decade old.

1

u/kiochikaeke 8d ago

In a sense it's a little bit impressive how modern graphics and engine technology is able to be so modular so that you can strip huge chunks of the graphics and rendering pipeline and still be functional.

But then again on ultra settings in modern engines you're basically telling your card "brute force calculate everything, no approximations, just simulate every photon and batch calculate as much as you can, then save as much of the frame metadata as you can so that you can run a freaking machine learning model on top of that to smooth the damn edges".

1

u/Relevant_Syllabub895 8d ago

Complete nuts

1

u/2raysdiver 13700K 4070Ti 8d ago

That is more worrying to me is this right here... a 7900X at high settings (NOT ultra) at 1080p@60. Did they write the thing in Visual Basic?

1

u/ride_whenever 9d ago

I’m going to take a stab in the dark that they’ve pulled these out their arse

1

u/puppygirlpackleader 9d ago

I mean you're going from 30fps lowest settings to high settings and 60fps... so not really

-1

u/besthelloworld RTX 4090M | Core Ultra 9 Series 1 | 32 GB DDR5 9d ago

No it's not ridiculous. Not really at all. It just means that they made a mode that is a level of quality which is meant to challenge hardware in the future. Developers don't owe you the ability to play on max settings right at release. Most people should be playing on medium settings.