PDA

View Full Version : Why is a game considered cpu-intensive?



khuong1994
04-28-2014, 02:56 AM
Games like 64 player BF, arma, planetside are all considered cpu-intensive games (?). What constitutes a cpu intensive game? What is the justification behind saying that these games rely more on cpu capability than other games? Is it the vast amount players and general chit going on?

I'm not disputing the fact or anything just trying to understand.

EatingPancakes
04-28-2014, 03:11 AM
Depends primarily on what is being done in the game. Games like ARMA, BF3, and Planetside all of a cluster**** of things that need to be processed. Take ARMA for example, I believe the AI in that game is dynamic vs scripted so that has to be processed. BF3 and Planetside is a mess of people it has to keep tabs on. I want to say the GPU heavy games are the single player linear story games with loaded instances where most things like any building crumbling is all scripted i.e. the same thing happens every time.

Games with "freedom" tend to be more CPU heavy.

Then again, you can always make a game "CPU heavy" by lowering the settings to the point the processor has to draw an extremely high amount of frames which puts it under more of a load.

Dippz
04-28-2014, 05:25 AM
Simplyfied, it used to be a matter of high polygon count (CPU-intensive) vs. special textures that conceal lower poly count (aka shaders, bump maps) and lighting effects, which were mainly being processed by the GPU.

Nowadays it's a little more complicated I think, because modern GPU's can do tasks the CPU would've normally done, like ragdoll physix.

Classic cpu-intensive games were RTS games like wc3. I know of at least two guys that had their CPU's smoked by wc3 tower defense maps. That sht happened like a decade ago mind you.

everblue
04-28-2014, 05:43 AM
more calculations required = more processing required