Grimrock 2 performance compared to Grimrock 1

[Phitt]

I know threads like this one are pretty annoying, but since the system requirements are out now and the devs are active on this forum it maybe serves a purpose. It's not a surprise that I strongly consider pre-ordering the game (which would be the first game I have pre-ordered since Warcraft 2 came out IIRC...), but my system is quite outdated and I can't enjoy a game if I can't play on native resolution with a decent framerate (absolute minimum would be 30+ fps @1080p).

I have an e8400 with 4 gb ram and an ATI 4890. In Grimrock I got 60 fps in 95% of areas (all areas except boss level IIRC) with almost maxed out settings (only AO set to medium) @1080p. I don't expect Grimriock 2 to run that good and don't I mind turning off or lowering a few effects like shadows, lights or AO and still getting only 40-50 fps on average. But I don't want to go lower than that either.

I would greatly appreciate if a dev could tell me how big the difference really is between the two games since the sys requirements are almost the same for both games. Actually the only noticeable difference is in the graphics section - is a stronger graphics card really all you need to run Grimrock 2 like Grimrock 1?

[antti]

A beefier GPU would make the most difference for performance in LoG2 but the game is also quite a bit heavier on the CPU as well. It also demands a little bit more memory but that is unlikely to be a bottleneck... We'll update the system requirements if/when we get more benchmarking data during beta test and even after release: we only want to have specs listed that we can commit to instead of trying to guess things.

So, for the time being I would suggest you to compare your specs to the ones we released (don't have time to go through your specs in detail at the moment, sorry about that ) and if you're over the minimum, you should be good to go.

[Phitt]

Thanks, since I'm a good bit above min requirements I'll pre-order and hope for the best.

[Neptun]

Hi,

i'm excited about the game and wanted to preorder instantly, unless i saw the system requirements.

Both of my gaming systems offer less beefier hardware. The Win machine offers 512MB GPU memory with the fastest single core CPU which once was available from Intel (i know it's rather old but i don't use Windows this often anymore and mostly it's still good enough for some gaming) and on Mac (a PowerBookPro, so, less of an upgrade option) i use a 330 GTM with 256MB. System RAM and HD space is no problem on both machines. Grimrock 1 was running fine with some adjustments to the settings.

Will there be configuration options which allow you to tweak the game, so that it'll run on systems which were abel to run Grimrock 1 too?

Cheers

[Dr.Disaster]

The important GPU requirements for LoG 1 are:
512MB graphics memory or more.
Shader Model 3.0 needs to be supported.
Minimum supported resolutions 1280×720 and 1024×768.
DirectX 9.0c

Known GPU requirements for LoG 2 are:
1GB graphics memory or more.
Shader Model 3.0 needs to be supported.
Minimum supported resolutions 1280×720 and 1024×768.
DirectX 9.0c


Summary:
Doubled VRAM (not really important)
Same Shader Model.
Same Resolution.
Same DirectX.

Based on this data both LoG 1 and 2 are able to run on 10 year old Geforce 6000 or ATI/AMD X1000 GPU's.

More VRAM is only needed to pre-load more textures or support higher resolutions. My old WinXP PC has a GeForce 7600 GT with 256 MB of VRAM and beside GPU-based speed limits i've seen no problem in running LoG at all.

[Phitt]

[...]
Based on this data both LoG 1 and 2 are able to run on 10 year old Geforce 6000 or ATI/AMD X1000 GPU's.
[...]

Technically that may be correct, but running the game with 5 fps or not running it at all is not that much of a difference (imo). I just hope and pray, just pre-ordered the game. Yay!

Will there be configuration options which allow you to tweak the game, so that it'll run on systems which were abel to run Grimrock 1 too?

I'm 99.9% sure there will be settings (and 100% sure they will add settings shortly after release if there aren't any since they would have to face one of the biggest s***storms in video gaming history). Apparently Grimrock 2 needs quite a bit more power than 1, so if you could barely run 1 at all I would probably wait for more detailed benchmarks or even for the release day to see how it runs on other peoples systems.

[Dr.Disaster]

You can also try some of the gfx-wise advanced LoG 1 mods around (those with complex/multistory tilesets) and see how it goes. ORRR2 comes to mind here, parts of The Elder of Murwynd Woods, Demiosis Domain and even a few rooms in Master Quest. If you ran into anything serious there that can't be fixed by toning done the settings you know it's time to update.

[eLPuSHeR]

I wonder why game developers don't use OpenGL a lot more. It has been more versatile than Direct-x *cough* *cough* and it seems it was more optimized too. I know MS put the last nail on its coffin as soon as they could, but it's being supported under Windows yet. It could be a good choice also when planning to do multiplatform support.

Linux -> OpenGL
Consoles -> I think it's OpenGL too (correct me if I am wrong)
Mac -> I don't know

[JohnWordsworth]

A very subjective topic I'm sure, but I personally think it comes down to the fact that OpenGL went through a bunch of years where it became a bit of a mess and so a lot of developers took to Direct3D. Overall, I still think DirectX offers a more tidy API (no historical cruft) and has better debugging tools. Also, if I recall correctly, Windows comes packaged with the most backwards OpenGL drivers by default, so if the user hasn't installed the latest GPU drivers (not sure what Intel Integrate GPU drivers are like) you've got more work on your hands to get a modern version of OpenGL running.

[petri]

Actually LoG2 engine runs faster on DirectX9 than on OpenGL.