bit-gamer.net

Max Payne 3 graphics analysis

Comments 1 to 25 of 48

Reply
Cei 7th June 2012, 08:48 Quote
Odd, I maxed everything out on a 2500K, 8GB RAM and a stock GTX 580, not the bleeding edge machine you described - though I must admit this is at 1920x1200, so perhaps you mean at higher resolutions or Surround/Eyefinity?

More interestingly, I had a bug on my last play that forgot to load textures, resulting in a see-through environment backed in grey, it was really bizarre. Overall having a blast though, though deep down I yearn for film noire.
scott_chegg 7th June 2012, 08:56 Quote
Problem opening the DX11 graphics settings image. Page not found.

Awesome looking game though. Will be getting once I work my gaming backlog down a bit!
Mentai 7th June 2012, 09:14 Quote
Hmm, maybe I will end up playing this game with DX10 settings after all. Doesn't seem worth waiting until I buy DX11 hardware. Given that rockstars previous ports have been so atrocious, I really wasn't expecting the experience to be worthwhile without those crazy recommended specs so didn't buy the game yet.
CardJoe 7th June 2012, 09:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2012/06/max-payne-3-graphics-analysis/1-sets.jpg

The webpage cannot be found

HTTP 404

Fixed, thanks.
Dave Lister 7th June 2012, 09:33 Quote
Looking at the first set of screen shots, the DX10 setting looks more natural. DX11 seems to show a white outline around the npc in the distance, a graphics feature/glitch I fist noticed on MOH Airborne. Whatever it is really spoils the realism in games for me.
wuyanxu 7th June 2012, 09:46 Quote
what sort of setting/performance can i expect with 2560x1440 using a single 1.5GB gtx580?

concur with above, high Dx11 lighting seems like it is correctly lit, whereas the low Dx9 looks under exposed, washed out.
Hustler 7th June 2012, 09:55 Quote
"To get the most out of the game and to see the changes mentioned above though you'll need a 3.6GHz six or eight core CPU, anything up to 16GB of RAM and either a GeForce GTX 680 or Radeon HD 7970 with 3GB of VRAM.

Is the upgrade worth it?"

,,sorry, but NO single game is worth spending the best part of a grand on.
Harlequin 7th June 2012, 10:00 Quote
im glad it wasnt said to use above 16GB ram - as you couldnt do that with windows 7 home premium.....
MjFrosty 7th June 2012, 11:29 Quote
I have said specs quoted by Rockstar so can't comment on performance on the moderately 'lower' (used lightly) end of the scale, but graphically I was really impressed with this game.

If you wanted to be a bit of a port basher though, you could argue the lighting could do with a bit of work in places as well as tessellation, which even on very high which is neither noticeable or taxing on the frame rate at all.

Overall though I didn't find myself noticing these things on play-through. The awesome gun play, locations and voice acting make an otherwise linear world come to life. It is what it is, a balls out action game, and it just goes to show that even when a game can lack depth that you can still do it with epic class.

The performance kept above 50 to 60fps at 1080 with only MSAA set to 4x instead of a monstrous 8x.
Blackmoon181 7th June 2012, 11:50 Quote
Rockstar made a big point about the improved sound quality with the PC version. Has anyone playing with good audio setups noticed this ?
blohum 7th June 2012, 11:55 Quote
"The downside is that the game now needs 35GB of space to install too, though that's hardly an issue for modern SSDs."

Could be an issue on my 64GB SSD!
Waynio 7th June 2012, 12:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
what sort of setting/performance can i expect with 2560x1440 using a single 1.5GB gtx580?

concur with above, high Dx11 lighting seems like it is correctly lit, whereas the low Dx9 looks under exposed, washed out.

p67 mobo
I5 2500k @ 4.2ghz
8gb 1600mhz 9,9,9,24
GTX 580
Runs this game maxed & yes including full tessellation, absolutely everything maxed @ 2560x1440 nice & smooth all the way through the game, enjoyed it a lot & I'll be sure to play through it a good few times. :)

The thing I have found with 2560x1440 res is you don't need max AA, just 2x makes things perfect so that is the only thing I don't max on any of my games, no need to, 2x is enough.

I was worried I'd need to upgrade but using 2x AA in games gets rid of jaggies good enough for me while keeping other settings maxed. Only game I play that really makes my rig beg for mercy is metro 2033. :D

I'm good until Nvidia 700 series at least. :)
wuyanxu 7th June 2012, 13:10 Quote
thanks for the info, Waynio, hopefully my CPU won't bottleneck.
MjFrosty 7th June 2012, 13:21 Quote
Going by GPUZ readings I'd say for a dead 100% cert you'll be exceeding your VRAM with maximum settings on that resolution. At 1080 with full whistles and bells I was hitting 1.65GB on my 680.
alex101 7th June 2012, 13:39 Quote
Why do most of these screen shots have jaggies everywhere? Has the MSAA been turned off when taking them? Or is MSAA just no good at smoothing sharp contrast lines (that's where it's most noticable).

Also, is it just me or is this article written a little like an advert? Since when did any of you guys ever recommend 16GB of ram for gaming!? I'm sure you've recently written that most games don't even push 4GB....or does this new game just signal a new wave of titles making use of more RAM? Even if the 16GB recommendation was from the developers i'd have expected you to rubbish the statement a little.....
Griffter 7th June 2012, 14:19 Quote
great article, would have maybe liked a comparison with ps3, xbox as well and maybe a new review pc score just to round things off. but thats just nit picking.
jon 7th June 2012, 15:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cei

More interestingly, I had a bug on my last play that forgot to load textures, resulting in a see-through environment backed in grey, it was really bizarre. Overall having a blast though, though deep down I yearn for film noire.

Not a bug. It's just that the entire level is made of clear acrylic ...

;)
Bauul 7th June 2012, 17:40 Quote
I'm playing it on the rig in my sig below with nearly everything on Very High, 1440x900 with x2 AA. According to the graphics menu, that's circa 900Mb of VRAM used out of my 1Gb available.

So far I've spotted no slow down (although I'm not frame per second watching) and it looks stunning. I've been really impressed with the PC implementation, it doesn't remotely feel like a port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alex101
Also, is it just me or is this article written a little like an advert? Since when did any of you guys ever recommend 16GB of ram for gaming!?

I think all Joe means is because the game has no upper resolution limit, you could theoretically keep pushing it all way to 16Gb RAM if you had a VRAM to match.
Omnituens 7th June 2012, 17:57 Quote
If you look on Steam, that's what they recommend.

Is the executable 64 bit? if not... lol, just lol.
Adnoctum 7th June 2012, 19:21 Quote
Is anyone else having horrible install times from DVD?
I've been at it now for almost two hours and I'm only up to Disc 3 (of 4).
It spins up the DVD and reads from the disc, then it stops for up to 5-10 minutes. The HDD status light shows there is activity happening during this time, so I suppose it is unpacking files to the HDD.
As it is to a SSD there is no mechanical HDD noise to tell me something is happening.

When the DVD is spinning the CPU usage goes up to about 25-30% on a single core (CPU is a quad core) and RAM usage slowly goes up by 200MB (it isn't using anywhere near all of the available 8GB). When the DVD spins down the CPU usage drops to 0 again and the RAM usage drops back down again. Then it sits and vegetates until it happens all over again. I would have thought that unpacking compressed files to the SSD during the quiet times would be using the CPU.
Adnoctum 7th June 2012, 20:10 Quote
Well, that was 2 hours and 45 minutes I'm never going to get back, but at least now I can...oh, you've got to download some patches...three patches already? And you can't do anything until you've downloaded them? Well, make it snappy.
You aren't fast enough, but I forgive you because they are a reasonable size and not like some that another nameless developer releases that demands you download half the freaking game again every time they add some moronic hat I didn't want, don't want and will never, EVER want.
Guinevere 7th June 2012, 20:56 Quote
Sorry but the difference between low and ultimate is the same-ol' same-ol' we've had for years. You get initialising and better shadows... maybe better water effects if you're lucky and like splashing about in molten acrylic.

Can anyone actually say the highest settings generate a more realistic and immersive experience?

I feel games are (by necessity) being developed for the lowest common denominator and then tweaked with filters, effects and the occasional texture and/or vertex bump.

Someone please give us some truly impressive graphics!
uz1_l0v3r 7th June 2012, 21:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere

I feel games are (by necessity) being developed for the lowest common denominator and then tweaked with filters, effects and the occasional texture and/or vertex bump.

I feel that there's not a great deal of difference between games using DX9, 10 or 11. Each new directX seems to bring very subtle graphical improvements, which is hardly satisfactory considering that one must buy a new graphics card each time.
Doctor Hades 7th June 2012, 23:43 Quote
The game is great but MSAA appears to be broken in this game or highly ineffective in my testing as can be seen in my post here which compares different combinations of FXAA and/or MSAA: http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4333270&postcount=59

Notice that 0xMSAA + FXAA=Very High actually offers significantly better anti-aliasing than 4xMSAA + FXAA=Very High... which doesn't seem right at all.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums