Tool · Can it run it
Can my PC run it?
Enter your graphics card and processor and check them against a list of popular games at once, with an estimated frame rate for each and a filter by genre.
Your parts
No upscaling is applied. DLSS, FSR or XeSS on Quality typically moves a result up one band.
Every game on the list
Sorted fastest first. Figures carry a margin of about 15% and assume no upscaling. Requirements are reviewed each quarter.
How the check works
Each game carries its own two demand values, one for the card and one for the processor. Your parts are scored against both, and the lower of the two results is what you get — because in a real machine the slower half decides the frame rate.
That is why the table does not simply rank games by how new they are. Escape from Tarkov is harder on a processor than Cyberpunk 2077 is, and a build that breezes through one can stumble on the other.
Why thirty-one games and not three hundred
A short list that stays accurate is worth more than a long one that rots. Every title here is checked when the list is reviewed, which is only possible because the list is small enough to check.
Sites that claim thousands of games are mostly reprinting publisher minimum specifications, which are marketing documents rather than measurements. If your game is missing, the closest title in the same group will be within a band of it.
Reading the verdicts
60 fps or better is the comfortable band. Motion is smooth, input feels immediate, and there is room left for the settings to go up rather than down.
30 to 60 fps is playable but compromised. Fine for a slow single-player game, genuinely bad for anything competitive.
Under 30 fps means drop the resolution or the settings before you conclude anything about the game. Most titles in this band move up two full bands at low settings.
Questions about running games
Is 30 fps really playable?
For a turn-based game or a slow single-player release, yes. For a shooter, no — the input delay at 30 fps is enough to lose you fights you would otherwise win.
Treat 30 fps as a floor you can live on temporarily, not a target to build towards. Dropping one settings notch is usually worth 15 to 25 fps and costs almost nothing visually.
My part is not in the list. What now?
Pick the closest part by tier. Cards and processors within a few percent of each other behave the same in practice, and the table carries a wider margin than that gap.
The hardware list grows with the guides. If something common is missing, it is worth telling us.
Why is a new game easier to run than an old one?
Because age is not the same as demand. A competitive shooter built to run on office laptops will always be lighter than a five-year-old open-world game built for high-end hardware.
Optimisation also varies enormously between studios. Two games released the same month can be a full performance tier apart on identical parts.
Does this include upscaling or frame generation?
No. Every figure is native resolution with no upscaling, because the gain depends on the mode, the title and the implementation, and averaging that would hide more than it explains.
As a working rule, Quality mode moves a result up one band. Treat that as headroom on top of what you see here, not as something already counted.
Where these numbers come from. Modelled from published benchmark data and manufacturer specifications — not measured on a bench here. Treat every figure as an estimate range, not a measurement. Per-game demand is modelled from published benchmark runs, not from playing each title here. Dataset: 24 graphics cards, 16 processors, 31 games, reviewed October 2026. Full method →
Next, try these
All reading the same hardware table, so the answers line up.