hiddengoat

Lower resolutions and graphical settings exist.

You have no point.

Shut the fuck up.

For you. On a 40 class GPU. On a game that isn't CPU bound.

By "people" you mean "the kind of wankers that fellate Gamers Nexus."

Cities:Skylines has always had a frame rate that takes the strugglebus to work.

"PURR URPTURMIZURTION"

Or... here's a fucking idea... it's a CPU bound game and not GPU bound. FUCKING WOW, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT that the simulation game may not be graphically amazing but will wreck the shit out of any CPU with its simulation routines?

Only everyone that's ever played any sort of in-depth simulation, that's who.

You clearly never played CS1 on release.

Do you even fucking know what that word "optimization" means, or do you just throw it around because Jim Sterling told you to?

You don't pay much attention do you?

Here's an eight year old thread where a bunch of REEL GAMERZ MAN whinge about the same shit as now.
https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/what-is-happening-with-recent-aaa-games.2866464/

"Can it run Crysis" stuck around because Crysis was built for hardware that didn't even exist yet, but was scalable enough to be played on then-current gen. It wasn't because poor performance was rare.

Go to literally any major release's Steam review page and you'll see review after review shitting on the performance. Almost like there's no way to fix shit you don't know is broken.