Alan Wake 2 Performance Analysis...

Alan Wake 2 is the new hotness in the games industry. Love it or hate it, you cannot deny the impact that it has had on the general conversation with regards to hardware, software, and game development. While I'm not as on-board with the near universal, unfettered praise for the title as most reviewers appear to be, I do find the discussions surrounding the hardware requirements and performance of that hardware near and dear to my heart.

So, without further ado, let's take a look at how current mid-range hardware performs in this game and whether that actually lines up with the hardware requirements that the developers put out just before the game's release...

In Defence Of: Older Hardware...

Via Twitter...

The release of the required PC hardware specifications of Alan Wake 2, along with the revelation that RX 5000 series and GTX 10 series cards would not be supported* caused quite a stir in various online fora. I, myself, have not been overly happy with them but it may not be for the typical reasons that proponents of advancing technology(!!) would like to paint. At the same time, despite the hyperbole on both sides of the equation, I think there is room for reasoned discourse on the topic and platforms like Twitter and Reddit don't tend to promote or facilitate that. 

So, here goes...

*They can run the game, just not to their normal relative performance envelope compared to other cards due to the fact that they do not support DX12 Ultimate mesh shaders.

RTX 40 series - aka "Did Nvidia jump the shark"...

Yes, I *splashed out*...

Now that Nvidia have essentially completed their consumer RTX 40 series cards, it's time to look back at the releases and take stock of what's happened. 

We've seen the now usual range of responses: from cynical and jaded gamers and games media, to acceptance from those who are coming to terms with the price to performance ratio Nvidia is now asking. 

Bundled up in all of this has been, for me, the question of whether Nvida pushed too far, too fast? Let's take a look...

The problem with 'dumb' metrics (An argument against using GPU busy)...

With the recent release of the new updated beta version of Presentmon by Intel to include their new metric, GPU Busy, many people have become excited about the potential for it to have some sort of positive impact on the game review and user diagnostic testing landscapes.

However, if you follow me on Twitter, you may have noticed how I've not been impressed by the execution surrounding this metric - something which I think many people might have missed in the hubbub for something new and meaningful in system performance assessments.

This is the story of how dangerous undefined metrics can be in the wrong hands...

Starfield Performance Analysis...

Starfield has been a much anticipated title for a number of years now but the hype, counter-hype and social media battles have been raging pretty strongly around this one since it was made an Xbox and PC exclusive. 

Normally, though, those concerns usually melt away shortly after launch when players can actually get their hands on the game and just play. In Starfield's case, this hasn't been quite the experience - there are many players who are struggling to run the game because it can be quite demanding of PC hardware. There are raging debates as to whether the problem lies with the developers, the engine, or the hardware manufacturers...

Since I had my savegame destroyed in Baldur's Gate 3 and didn't feel like repeating thirty hours of gametime I instead decided to switch over to Starfield for a change in pace. As a happy coincidence, I have a lot of familiarity with prior Bethesda Game Studios titles and a penchant for testing on various hardware configurations... and it just so happens that I have a new testing rig (mostly) up and running so it has turned out that Starfield is a prime target for the shakedown of this new testing capability...