Bloodbath of GPUs with less than 12 GB VRAM: Indiana Jones and the Great Circle hammers cards like RTX 4060/Ti

[Redaktion]

Indiana Jones and the Great Circle is the latest game to show that VRAM-limited GPUs are not feasible for the current and upcoming AAA titles. The case is doubly worse for 8 GB cards like the RTX 4060 and RX 7600 that fail to even register a smooth 30 FPS at 1080p.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Bloodbath-of-GPUs-with-less-than-12-GB-VRAM-Indiana-Jones-and-the-Great-Circle-hammers-cards-like-RTX-4060-Ti.928841.0.html

[indy]

Apparently Microsoft Flight Simulator needs a minimum of 64 GB RAM to function decently.

New era of PC Gaming is upon us.

[Worgarthe]

New era of PC Gaming is upon us.

And approximately 98% of all new games are complete trash in almost all regards. No wonder that some of the most played and a bit older games are quite modest in system requirements - they are not popular because of low requirements but because they are actually very good and fun to play, with excellent replayability for those games that rely on single player as their main focus.

Edit: My most played games are Noita, and Age of Empires 2 DE, I have 2000+ played hours in the latter. Both are not demanding in requirements (although Noita is extremely hungry for fast single thread performance, even an i9 14900K can strugle in some scenarios), both combined do not take more than 2.5 GB VRAM, and I have 12 GB VRAM in my laptop along with 64 GB RAM. And while Noita is fairly unknown game with extreme difficulty so it's not particularly interesting to masses, AoE2DE currently has 19,950 players in-game and that's just on Steam, there is about as much more on Xbox or whatever the name is from Microsoft where you buy games. The game doesn't have 20K Steam players online right now because it's not demanding, it has that much players because it's freaking awesome and you can play it for thousands of hours without getting bored one bit.

Is this Indiana Jones going to be the same? I can bet my 🍆 that it won't, and it will die relatively quickly after the initial hype followed by reviews go off, similar to Senua's Saga: Hellblade II which currently as of this moment has a whole ONE (1!) ACTIVE/ONLINE player on Steam, lol. System requirements are irrelevant, the game is simply boring and soulless crap, and from everything I've seen so far this Indiana Jones won't be anything different; beautiful visuals, everything else just being sad... Meh.

Edit 2: The game (Indiana Jones) has quite literally worse graphics than many games from the actually good era of gaming - 2016-2020 - Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Wolfenstein II The New Colossus, and Cyberpunk to name a few. All those games are less demanding than Indy, all of them are miles ahead in visuals. Talk about needing to upgrade because of the NeXt GeN gRaPhIcS,  el oh el...

[Hotz]

New era of PC Gaming is upon us.

And approximately 98% of all new games are complete trash in almost all regards. No wonder that some of the most played and a bit older games are quite modest in system requirements - they are not popular because of low requirements but because they are actually very good and fun to play, with excellent replayability for those games that rely on single player as their main focus.

System requirements are irrelevant, the game is simply boring and soulless crap, and from everything I've seen so far this Indiana Jones won't be anything different; beautiful visuals, everything else just being sad... Meh.

Fully agreed.

The 98% trash is also the reason why I don't bother to buy a GPU anymore. If I ever want to check some newer games, I consider one of the more recent integrated GPUs to be enough (to play in lowest settings). But I haven't even invested in that yet, because there's simply no interesting game.

And as you said, the other couple of games which are interesting, are mostly older ones, and with modest system requirements.

The sad thing is, that "Indiana Jones" and "Avowed" were the only games since years which raised my interest. But after watching gameplay from Indiana Jones, I also realized it's "meh". Not something I want to play. The only game left now is "Avowed", but after watching some gameplays my interest is also pretty much gone.

So yeah... no interesting game again. No reason to buy a new system or be in a hurry. Therefore it's actually a good thing that all these games turn out "meh", because there is nothing to miss if you skip them anyways.

[Worgarthe]

If I ever want to check some newer games, I consider one of the more recent integrated GPUs to be enough (to play in lowest settings). But I haven't even invested in that yet, because there's simply no interesting game.

So yeah... no interesting game again. No reason to buy a new system or be in a hurry. Therefore it's actually a good thing that all these games turn out "meh", because there is nothing to miss if you skip them anyways.

Exactly, Hotz. Well said. I can only speculate but it seems that the issue is that almost every studio and publisher behind them is focused at primarily earnings, earnings, earnings, earnings, and more earnings, focused so hard and strong to the point of simply playing as safe as possible with their games by making as generic, and as predictable as possible story & gameplay that they can. There are also other factors to, well, factor in; ever-present political correctness, #TheMessage, various ideologies... They probably think how that's the safest way to reach the widest playerbase, simply going with numbers where only thing that matters is $$$$$$$$$ and the easiest way to get that $$$$$$$$$ is to lure as much players as they can to purchase their boring crap. All great recipes to get a perfectly boring experience once you start to play. Nice visuals (with 4080 and higher) can get one's interest for only that far, not forever.

I started to play Bioshock (never played it before), Remastered version as I got both the original and its sequel for free during the Halloween sale earlier this year; what a game so far, what a game... Captivating atmosphere, great and intriguing storyline, excellent and enjoyable gameplay, and all of that with fully maxed graphics for less than 3 GB VRAM usage at 1440p.

[GeorgeS]

If I ever want to check some newer games, I consider one of the more recent integrated GPUs to be enough (to play in lowest settings). But I haven't even invested in that yet, because there's simply no interesting game.

So yeah... no interesting game again. No reason to buy a new system or be in a hurry. Therefore it's actually a good thing that all these games turn out "meh", because there is nothing to miss if you skip them anyways.

Exactly, Hotz. Well said. I can only speculate but it seems that the issue is that almost every studio and publisher behind them is focused at primarily earnings, earnings, earnings, earnings, and more earnings, focused so hard and strong to the point of simply playing as safe as possible with their games by making as generic, and as predictable as possible story & gameplay that they can.

Welcome to "Formula Media" where companies attempt to employ a "winning formula" on whatever they are developing.

"Large" and "Demanding" titles get more press then their counter parts.

For those of us that have been in and experienced the industry for decades, it is almost comical watching companies "reinventing the wheel" while tossing orders and orders of magnitude of more resources at use cases that don't really need or benefit from it.

Putting aside and forgetting for the moment the co-dependent relationship "software developers" and "hardware developers" have, without greedy, ineffective & inefficient applications AND operating systems driving system 'upgrades' the entire computer system economy would crash and implode.

For some it is a "Chicken & Egg" thing. If you have 'top of the line' hardware your apt to demanding software that pushes it to its limits. :)

Welcome to Capitalism101 where 'planned obsolescence' is the nature of the beast.

:)

[indy]

I just want fairly mindless fun. Maybe a little brainpower here and there.  FPS's like Portal, Half-life, Control, Dead Island, Wolfenstein, GTAx, RDRx, work great for me. I don't want to put too much effort in, I don't mind rails to keep a story, I love exploration, but I have noticed so many games have interesting concepts/graphics/settings, but just aren't *fun*.

Zero interest in multiplayer, as that has been toxic for decades now.

[Gallo123]

Who designed this game? Terrible.

Indiana Jones has a wide appeal for people of all ages and has the power to draw people who haven't played games in a while. There is zero reason to design the game with such high specification hurdles.

To make matters worse is not once did I get the impression that the game was graphically impressive during the previews. What are the requirements for?

[Dreadpirateflappy]

Weird, cause it works perfectly fine on my 3080 with 10gb vram, constant 60fps at 4k with high textures and mostly high settings elsewhere.

Fantastic game that runs smoothly. I assume all the people moaning about it haven't actually played it yet?

[Toortle]

I assume all the people moaning about it haven't actually played it yet?

People are "moaning" about the game having unreasonably high hardware requirements for unreasonably disappointing mid-range graphics.

The game simply doesn't look good in comparison with what it takes to render it that way. In other words, it looks like a GTX 1070 game even in its highest/maxed setting.

Games such as Cyberpunk have clearly superior graphics which requires less power to render and push in even higher fps than this Indiana Jones thing.

[Hotz]

lol... I didn't know that system requirements were thaaaaaat high, but just saw a video from zWormz Gaming www.youtube.com/watch?v=i68tA7tN35A where it even crashes on his RTX 2060 6GB, which actually has hardware raytracing units.

So not even raytracing units are enough, you also need at least 8 GB. In fact the official system requirements say "NVIDIA RTX 2060 SUPER 8 GB" as a minimum, so it's technically correct. But system requirements hardly ever were that harsh in reality. But here they are.

One funny thing is, that this game runs on the AMD 8500G and AMD 8700G iGPUs only, which are technically (aside from their few raytracing units) much much slower than any RTX 2060 or even a GTX 1080. And yet it works on them. Slow, but it works (native 720p @ 35fps on the 8700G). This is one of the reasons I started to like iGPUs, because they don't have any VRAM limits, only disadvantage is the slower graphics chip itself.

But overall total joke requirements for that game, only because of forced raytracing...

[Worgarthe]

lol... I didn't know that system requirements were thaaaaaat high, but just saw a video from zWormz Gaming www.youtube.com/watch?v=i68tA7tN35A

I like his vids, I'll check this one too, thanks for the link!

But overall total joke requirements for that game, only because of forced raytracing...

We are all just moaning, Dreadpirateflappy has no issues 😜

Edit: I'm checking his previous video, https://youtu.be/i7Qkcu1jxV4, and the game really does look very uninspiring even at 8K fully maxed in detail with 24 GB VRAM being used. He is repetitively saying how graphics are disappointing, especially textures. I mean seriously, this is some straight up 2009 type of visuals, with better shadows and higher clarity due to higher texture resolutions.

[Hotz]

We are all just moaning, Dreadpirateflappy has no issues 😜

lol yes, it's fine for him...


The worst thing isn't even about that specific game anymore, but rather that this becomes an ongoing trend - artifically enforcing high system requirements, artificially enforcing raytracing, not optimizing anymore, forcefully excluding players... and all for what? For approximately 10% better visual quality.

I also expected much better performance from a game engine that has the reputation of being superoptimized - and Doom Eternal (same engine) definitely was, even with Raytracing enabled. But here? Nothing of that sort. I would even say it performs as worse as Unreal Engine 5.