Resident Evil 3 Remake [Demo] Vs Old Graphics Cards
**Resident Evil 3 Remake Demo Performance Review: How Older Graphics Cards Handle the Game**
Hello everyone and welcome to another video! As a kid, I loved *Resident Evil*, so hearing about the *Resi 3* remake was music to my ears. With its release due in April 2020, we do have a demo to give us a taste of what's to come. Today, I wanted to see how it runs on a few older and/or weaker graphics cards. After all, the minimum system requirements aren't too demanding, and we even have some additional notes that tell us what to expect—something I'm glad is being included with more and more games these days.
### Testing the GTX 1650 Super
As a starting point, let's take a look at how the 4GB GTX 1650 Super handles the game. I feel one of the best entry-level graphics cards out right now, it’s impressive to see its performance. First of all, let's look at the settings we do have. The game offers a few preset options suited to a range of system capabilities, but I would recommend playing with each setting yourself and seeing what impact it has on VRAM and the game's looks. I love in-game menus like this because they allow you to fine-tune the visuals to a greater extent. Great job, Capcom!
These are the settings I went with for the 1650 Super. We could have turned things up a little more, but with VRAM usage slowly creeping up to 4GB and even going way above that with just changing one or two more system-intensive options, I decided to leave things here.
Jumping into the gameplay and beginning the benchmark, once we got above ground, we saw a very impressive average of 140 frames per second (fps), as well as fantastic 1% and 0.1% lows. To boot, we could have turned the anti-aliasing up, as I mentioned beforehand, but that's the beauty of PC gaming—you can do whatever you want with the settings to achieve the performance that you desire.
So, if you want to try out this demo and see how it runs for you, I'd strongly recommend doing so—it's fantastic! But I am a little biased. The 1650 Super handles this remake at 1080p while barely breaking a sweat. But what about some of my other cards?
### Testing the RX 550
Most of my older GPUs are Nvidia ones at the moment, but I do have this three-level, two-gigabyte RX 550 on hand. While it isn't that old, it does struggle in a few modern games at 1080p. So, I thought why not give this $79 USD card from 2017 a try? Here's the settings I went for—again, just like before, I've tried to target as close to the VRAM limit as possible without exceeding it. Thankfully, unlike some games, it's not too difficult to stay under two gigs. This should mean that we see at least 30 fps during the test.
Turning things down a little more will guarantee higher performance but with a sacrifice in terms of visual quality. Jumping back into the game, and things still look okay but, as expected, we are seeing closer to 30 fps now, as opposed to 60 or above. However, we aren't getting less than that on average. There were a few dips throughout my test here, but with the 1% and 0.1% lows being relatively close in numerical figures, it wasn't too bad, and there was no serious stutter or micro-stutter to speak of.
### Testing the W5000 and GTX 480
Why am I recording the screen? Well, the actual footage was distorted and pretty much unwatchable during playback for some odd reason. So, what about an AMD card that used to be a high-end workstation option like the ones 599 USD W5000? This is also a two-gigabyte GPU but it launched way back in 2011, and gamers wouldn't have gone anywhere near it for all of your workstation needs. Well, it was excellent, and with a sensible 75-watt TDP and single-slot form factor, it might be worth considering for a cheapish space-saving solution.
Again, I'm recording the screen as the captured footage turned out to be corrupted, which I think is the fault of my capture card and nothing else. This seemed to perform almost identically to the RX 550, and if anything, the two gigs of VRAM was the primary limitation. Well, I can't wait to see how it reacts to 1.5 gigs—that's where the good old GTX 480 comes in.
These are the settings—don't worry, I've cleaned this up a bit for the actual gameplay because this footage looks horrible. I used the resolution of 1280 by 800, which seems to be the only available option here. I could select other resolutions, don't get me wrong, but I got this error when doing so: "We are using a card that is way below the minimum requirements," don't forget—and this was an "invidious" first DX11 GPU, so in modern titles as well, it's bound to face a few issues.
Even at 1280 by 800, the game and way better than I thought. We do have to make some graphical sacrifices, but things are playable at over 30 fps easily. Turns out *Res III* or the demo is a pretty well-optimized game, and if you want to try out for free of course, then it's definitely worth it—even if your graphics card falls below the minimum recommended requirements or the minimum and recommended requirements I should say—you'll be interested to see how the full game compares.
Anyway, thank you very much for watching! If you enjoyed this video, leave a like on it down below, leave a dislike if you didn't, and subscribe to the channel if you haven't done so already. Hopefully, you can join me in the next one when we'll be testing out the old but once very powerful R9 A Fury graphics card from AMD. Thank you, and I'll see you then!