4 ms·

> the minimum requirements for Alan Wake 2 are 1080p at 30FPS with low graphics, with an Intel i5-7600K CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, and 16GB RAM I think we have differe

> the minimum requirements for Alan Wake 2 are 1080p at 30FPS with low graphics, with an Intel i5-7600K CPU, RTX 2060 GPU, and 16GB RAM I think we have different definitions of "older" then. Does the game runs decently on something like rx580? Ok, the game runs 2 fps even in low res on rx580: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbM433WwY8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbM433WwY8U

Retric 3y ago
The 6 year old rx580 has moved from older to just old at this point. As a midrange card from 3 years ago the RTX 2060 is getting long in the tooth, the 5 year old RTX 2070 is well above the minimum specs. Which seems perfectly reasonable for a new game. You don’t have to upgrade constantly, just put off some titles until you do.
- ernst_klim 3y ago
  > Which seems perfectly reasonable for a new game. Right, I'm okay with that. But "being a visual marvel even on PS5 era GPU" sounds not at all the same as "being a visual marvel even on older GPU" to me. I do consider RTX20xx modern GPU, even if they are not the highest range for sure.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It also runs and looks good on a GTX 1650 with low settings which was a 150$ card from 3 years ago. Which I think is more their point.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      almost 5 years actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_16_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proces... And to a sibling comment: RX 480 is not 6 years old but actually coming up on 8 years here. Yes, these GPUs are quite old now. People don't want to hear it but at some point graphics technology is going to have to move forward from Pascal and Polaris. You can't stay behind on legacy technology forever. AMD knows this very well themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 As Roy says: Don't be cynical, developers are not going to just stop working. But they're not going to be bound to supporting legacy pathways and obsolete APIs/feature-standards forever either. This is literally the "when developers commit from the ground-up" that AMD was referring to. Remember, DX12U is just DX 12.2, it would have been a full api release in the past, and that eventually does come along with the old stuff eventually falling out of support. It was a pretty shortsighted move to downplay all these features for all these years, and eventually sooner or later some big titles are going to utilize them to an extent that makes a legacy fallback impossible or un-performant. Only difference is that nvidia was the first one on the draw with this DX feature set. GN made the case for the importance of early testing and early adoption of these featuresets, back in 2016. Then they lost their mind over Turing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  Meaningful improvements stalled years ago, it's not exactly the 90s anymore. Games from the mid-2010s still look perfectly fine. "It's old" isn't an excuse if there's no real benefit to be had from upgrading.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Comparing midrange settings on modern titles vs older titles at ultra high settings is hardly a fair comparison. You really should be comparing games of each generation on hardware of that generation or hardware that’s powerful enough to maximize frame rates and settings on both. 2015’s Bloodborn looks quite dated when you use the kind of mid range settings most gamers would at the time. We can’t see what 2023 titles look like on 2026+ hardware, but I think people looking back will notice a bigger gap than it currently seems like.
    - Nullabillity 3y ago
      A big enough gap that you'd pay hundreds of dollars to cross it?
      - Retric 3y ago
        I’m in no hurry. Tossing a low end graphics card into a new PC unlocks significantly better back catalog every time with the added benefit of having the most patched version at discounted prices.
      - paulmd 3y ago
        Is playing starfield really such a big deal that you'd pay hundreds of dollars, when you have a perfectly fine iGPU? If you don't buy DX12.2 capable hardware you don't get the DX12.2 features, it's really that simple. buying fermi or terascale or some other ancient hardware will always be cheaper, but studios aren't just going to not release games because someone is clinging to their 4870. and the situation is not different in kind when we're talking about DX12.0 to 12.2 transition instead of DX9 to DX11 or DX11 to DX12. If you've upgraded to a current NVIDIA gpu in the last 5 years, or an AMD card in the last 2 years, you got the capability. And when you next upgrade, you'll get the capabilities on AMD too, unless you go out of your way to buy older cards without support, as many people did with DX12.2 (because reviewers lost their minds over Turing). It is, again, super funny to look back at how uncontroversial this all used to be, when it was AMD who was ahead on DX feature support. Like yeah if you buy a DX11-focused card like Maxwell then your DX12 experience is going to be shit. Doctor it hurts when I do this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg Developers aren't going to not release games just because some people insist on running 10+ year upgrade cycles, or run esoteric hardware with some different tradeoffs because they don't want to pay for newer stuff. I literally don't understand why it's an issue or a confusing topic, other than people having a bit of a rough time with the realization that Turing wasn't a pointless waste of a generation after all. Reviewers kinda did it dirty, you can argue that it was overpriced at first (2070 was still pretty good tho), but buying a used 1080 Ti instead of a 2070S to save $50 was a mistake, and buying a 2080 Ti for $950 was an outright bargain. There were plenty of deals that got shouted down in the whole "turing BAD!" tantrum from reviewers and gamers, and under the general lack of understanding that indeed the cost-trend aspect of moore's law was over and the price trend was gonna be upwards. https://youtu.be/tu7pxJXBBn8?t=273 https://youtu.be/tu7pxJXBBn8?t=273 These sorts of videos are just shameful and utterly incorrect to look back on, and it's absurd to think it's the same Steve who made the above videos 2 years before. Nuclear reaction from tech media aside, almost everything tom's said in their article was correct and has come to pass, it's interesting to re-read the article with 5 years of hindsight. This is exactly the sort of "cost to buying outdated tech" that Steve mocks, and the people who followed Steve's "long-term value doesn't real, buy the older cheaper thing without DX12.2 support" will inevitably have to upgrade sooner as a result. Pascal and Polaris have already received a lot of grace from developers, in the abstract it is crazy that tuning for 8-year-old cards is still such a significant aspect of gamedev today. But there will eventually be a point when Polaris and Pascal fall off, and then eventually can't even launch the game, just like older generations before them. And it seems like it's going to be a very rapid offramp over the next 2 years as studios move onto true current-gen titles and finally stop supporting base-tier PS4/XB1 hardware, because these cards are very very overdue for replacement. The transition to upscaling being a standard part of the pipeline is going to be another of these "gamer moments" too. People are dead-set on it being "just to boost your framerate", but even if you go back to the original launch presentation, it was always framed as making it possible to run much more intensive effects than otherwise could be. Being behind on this part of the pipeline is problematic for AMD, because it is going to be more and more directly relevant to actual game performance and not just an optional extra. Rendering 4x as many raw pixels is going to throw off all the optimizations etc.
KronisLV 3y ago
I actually rebuilt a computer with an RX580 instead of RX570 this year (as well as a Ryzen 7 1700), because everything else is way more expensive at local stores (vs 140 EUR for the 580), to the point where current gen hardware doesn't feel worth it: I don't catch myself wanting to play any of the modern games that look "amazing" (can't tell characters apart from the scenery in some visually cluttered games), but rather ones that have consistent performance/art style and don't make the fans spin up much. That said, it's kind of a shame that not many games let you actually pull back the graphical fidelity if you want to, despite the engines themselves often scaling back even to mobile devices. Maybe I'll upgrade in 3-5 years when Wirth's law will catch up way more. Then again, I can kind of understand companies wanting their games not to look "badly", no matter the graphics settings; it just means that indie games are for me, not AAA titles.
- lithos 3y ago
  Pulling back graphical fidelity is a no go. Art team sizes can scale up so much faster than anything else, and AAA competes on how much it can spend/scale up compared to other AAA games or other offerings (like independent/small team games).
  - KronisLV 3y ago
    Good for them! I hope the majority of players enjoy the advancements in modern titles, if they have adequate hardware. I'll just enjoy games like Valheim, No Man's Sky, Cloudpunk and other stylized ones.
- latchkey 3y ago
  I've run a lot (~120,000+) of 470, 480, 570, 580 gpus and one kind of depressing thing is that they are all complete snowflakes. It is literally luck of the draw on performance. I would suggest learning how to tune them if you really want to pull some performance out.
doikor 3y ago
The game is basically unplayable if your GPU does not support Mesh Shaders which means AMD RX 6xxx / NVidia RTX 2xxx series or newer (or 1650 which is in reality a Turing card so RTX 2xxx but very low end). The game will tell you that during startup.

Retric 3y ago

The 6 year old rx580 has moved from older to just old at this point. As a midrange card from 3 years ago the RTX 2060 is getting long in the tooth, the 5 year old RTX 2070 is well above the minimum specs. Which seems perfectly reasonable for a new game. You don’t have to upgrade constantly, just put off some titles until you do.

ernst_klim 3y ago
> Which seems perfectly reasonable for a new game. Right, I'm okay with that. But "being a visual marvel even on PS5 era GPU" sounds not at all the same as "being a visual marvel even on older GPU" to me. I do consider RTX20xx modern GPU, even if they are not the highest range for sure.
- Retric 3y ago
  It also runs and looks good on a GTX 1650 with low settings which was a 150$ card from 3 years ago. Which I think is more their point.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    almost 5 years actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_16_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proces... And to a sibling comment: RX 480 is not 6 years old but actually coming up on 8 years here. Yes, these GPUs are quite old now. People don't want to hear it but at some point graphics technology is going to have to move forward from Pascal and Polaris. You can't stay behind on legacy technology forever. AMD knows this very well themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 As Roy says: Don't be cynical, developers are not going to just stop working. But they're not going to be bound to supporting legacy pathways and obsolete APIs/feature-standards forever either. This is literally the "when developers commit from the ground-up" that AMD was referring to. Remember, DX12U is just DX 12.2, it would have been a full api release in the past, and that eventually does come along with the old stuff eventually falling out of support. It was a pretty shortsighted move to downplay all these features for all these years, and eventually sooner or later some big titles are going to utilize them to an extent that makes a legacy fallback impossible or un-performant. Only difference is that nvidia was the first one on the draw with this DX feature set. GN made the case for the importance of early testing and early adoption of these featuresets, back in 2016. Then they lost their mind over Turing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Nullabillity 3y ago
Meaningful improvements stalled years ago, it's not exactly the 90s anymore. Games from the mid-2010s still look perfectly fine. "It's old" isn't an excuse if there's no real benefit to be had from upgrading.
- Retric 3y ago
  Comparing midrange settings on modern titles vs older titles at ultra high settings is hardly a fair comparison. You really should be comparing games of each generation on hardware of that generation or hardware that’s powerful enough to maximize frame rates and settings on both. 2015’s Bloodborn looks quite dated when you use the kind of mid range settings most gamers would at the time. We can’t see what 2023 titles look like on 2026+ hardware, but I think people looking back will notice a bigger gap than it currently seems like.
  - Nullabillity 3y ago
    A big enough gap that you'd pay hundreds of dollars to cross it?
    - Retric 3y ago
      I’m in no hurry. Tossing a low end graphics card into a new PC unlocks significantly better back catalog every time with the added benefit of having the most patched version at discounted prices.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      Is playing starfield really such a big deal that you'd pay hundreds of dollars, when you have a perfectly fine iGPU? If you don't buy DX12.2 capable hardware you don't get the DX12.2 features, it's really that simple. buying fermi or terascale or some other ancient hardware will always be cheaper, but studios aren't just going to not release games because someone is clinging to their 4870. and the situation is not different in kind when we're talking about DX12.0 to 12.2 transition instead of DX9 to DX11 or DX11 to DX12. If you've upgraded to a current NVIDIA gpu in the last 5 years, or an AMD card in the last 2 years, you got the capability. And when you next upgrade, you'll get the capabilities on AMD too, unless you go out of your way to buy older cards without support, as many people did with DX12.2 (because reviewers lost their minds over Turing). It is, again, super funny to look back at how uncontroversial this all used to be, when it was AMD who was ahead on DX feature support. Like yeah if you buy a DX11-focused card like Maxwell then your DX12 experience is going to be shit. Doctor it hurts when I do this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqLea0QUW1k&t=176 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qiQH29KAXg Developers aren't going to not release games just because some people insist on running 10+ year upgrade cycles, or run esoteric hardware with some different tradeoffs because they don't want to pay for newer stuff. I literally don't understand why it's an issue or a confusing topic, other than people having a bit of a rough time with the realization that Turing wasn't a pointless waste of a generation after all. Reviewers kinda did it dirty, you can argue that it was overpriced at first (2070 was still pretty good tho), but buying a used 1080 Ti instead of a 2070S to save $50 was a mistake, and buying a 2080 Ti for $950 was an outright bargain. There were plenty of deals that got shouted down in the whole "turing BAD!" tantrum from reviewers and gamers, and under the general lack of understanding that indeed the cost-trend aspect of moore's law was over and the price trend was gonna be upwards. https://youtu.be/tu7pxJXBBn8?t=273 https://youtu.be/tu7pxJXBBn8?t=273 These sorts of videos are just shameful and utterly incorrect to look back on, and it's absurd to think it's the same Steve who made the above videos 2 years before. Nuclear reaction from tech media aside, almost everything tom's said in their article was correct and has come to pass, it's interesting to re-read the article with 5 years of hindsight. This is exactly the sort of "cost to buying outdated tech" that Steve mocks, and the people who followed Steve's "long-term value doesn't real, buy the older cheaper thing without DX12.2 support" will inevitably have to upgrade sooner as a result. Pascal and Polaris have already received a lot of grace from developers, in the abstract it is crazy that tuning for 8-year-old cards is still such a significant aspect of gamedev today. But there will eventually be a point when Polaris and Pascal fall off, and then eventually can't even launch the game, just like older generations before them. And it seems like it's going to be a very rapid offramp over the next 2 years as studios move onto true current-gen titles and finally stop supporting base-tier PS4/XB1 hardware, because these cards are very very overdue for replacement. The transition to upscaling being a standard part of the pipeline is going to be another of these "gamer moments" too. People are dead-set on it being "just to boost your framerate", but even if you go back to the original launch presentation, it was always framed as making it possible to run much more intensive effects than otherwise could be. Being behind on this part of the pipeline is problematic for AMD, because it is going to be more and more directly relevant to actual game performance and not just an optional extra. Rendering 4x as many raw pixels is going to throw off all the optimizations etc.

KronisLV 3y ago

I actually rebuilt a computer with an RX580 instead of RX570 this year (as well as a Ryzen 7 1700), because everything else is way more expensive at local stores (vs 140 EUR for the 580), to the point where current gen hardware doesn't feel worth it: I don't catch myself wanting to play any of the modern games that look "amazing" (can't tell characters apart from the scenery in some visually cluttered games), but rather ones that have consistent performance/art style and don't make the fans spin up much. That said, it's kind of a shame that not many games let you actually pull back the graphical fidelity if you want to, despite the engines themselves often scaling back even to mobile devices. Maybe I'll upgrade in 3-5 years when Wirth's law will catch up way more. Then again, I can kind of understand companies wanting their games not to look "badly", no matter the graphics settings; it just means that indie games are for me, not AAA titles.

lithos 3y ago
Pulling back graphical fidelity is a no go. Art team sizes can scale up so much faster than anything else, and AAA competes on how much it can spend/scale up compared to other AAA games or other offerings (like independent/small team games).
- KronisLV 3y ago
  Good for them! I hope the majority of players enjoy the advancements in modern titles, if they have adequate hardware. I'll just enjoy games like Valheim, No Man's Sky, Cloudpunk and other stylized ones.
latchkey 3y ago
I've run a lot (~120,000+) of 470, 480, 570, 580 gpus and one kind of depressing thing is that they are all complete snowflakes. It is literally luck of the draw on performance. I would suggest learning how to tune them if you really want to pull some performance out.

doikor 3y ago

The game is basically unplayable if your GPU does not support Mesh Shaders which means AMD RX 6xxx / NVidia RTX 2xxx series or newer (or 1650 which is in reality a Turing card so RTX 2xxx but very low end). The game will tell you that during startup.