Gaming Max Payne 3 graphics analysis

We discuss Max Payne 3's DirectX 11 content and share graphics comparisons.

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2012/06/07/max-payne-3-graphics-analysis/1

 

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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.

 

im glad it wasnt said to use above 16GB ram - as you couldnt do that with windows 7 home premium.....

 

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.

 

Rockstar made a big point about the improved sound quality with the PC version. Has anyone playing with good audio setups noticed this ?

 

"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!

 

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.

I'm good until Nvidia 700 series at least.

 

thanks for the info, Waynio, hopefully my CPU won't bottleneck.

 

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.

 

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.....

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.