[gamegpu] Far Cry 4 performance

[ShintaiDK]

"Given that we found the Radeon R9 280X to be faster than the GeForce GTX 780 at every resolution, there's no doubt some controversy will follow these results.

Just look at same vendor numbers.

The R9 285 sits between a 7950 and 7950 boost, while the 280X is far ahead.

A broken game is a broken game.

 

[davie jambo]

Just look at same vendor numbers.

The R9 285 sits between a 7950 and 7950 boost, while the 280X is far ahead.

A broken game is a broken game.

You are confusing this game with AC unity

Unity is broken , FC4 runs pretty nicely

Nvidia need to do some work with their drivers (seems to be a common theme these days)

 

[ShintaiDK]

You are confusing this game with AC unity

Unity is broken , FC4 runs pretty nicely

Nvidia need to do some work with their drivers (seems to be a common theme these days)

You seem to have missed the numbers I was refering to:
http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page4.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page3.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page2.html

 

[davie jambo]

You seem to have missed the numbers I was refering to:
http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page4.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page3.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page2.html

I've seen the benchmarks and my point still stands

 

[ShintaiDK]

I've seen the benchmarks and my point still stands

So you consider R9 285 performance ok for example? And you dont think 35% performance increase in patch 1.3 on all platforms is considered fixing of a broken game?

 

[davie jambo]

So you consider R9 285 performance ok for example? And you dont think 35% performance increase in patch 1.3 on all platforms is considered fixing of a broken game?

OK performance with one card is not great so the whole game is broken ? Hyperbole much

 

[escrow4]

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Any IVB i3 beats every FX they tested and:

"The AMD FX-8350 also responded well to overclocking, though even at 4.50GHz it was unable to match the Core i7-4770K at just 2.50GHz which is disappointing."

If I laugh any harder I'll put myself into a coma. :awe:

 

[Erenhardt]

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Any IVB i3 beats every FX they tested and:

"The AMD FX-8350 also responded well to overclocking, though even at 4.50GHz it was unable to match the Core i7-4770K at just 2.50GHz which is disappointing."

If I laugh any harder I'll put myself into a coma. :awe:

Yea...strange that intel scales with cores the right way - more cores - faster. And at the same time amd scales with the cores the other way - more cores - slower. It aint the software fault at all that fx 4320 is faster than fx8350.

 

[SlowSpyder]

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Any IVB i3 beats every FX they tested and:

"The AMD FX-8350 also responded well to overclocking, though even at 4.50GHz it was unable to match the Core i7-4770K at just 2.50GHz which is disappointing."

If I laugh any harder I'll put myself into a coma. :awe:

Even an older PhII is almost at 70FPS, no doubt an FX will play this one well. Even a 2.5GHz FX is over 60FPS...

 

[RussianSensation]

http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html

Any IVB i3 beats every FX they tested and:

"The AMD FX-8350 also responded well to overclocking, though even at 4.50GHz it was unable to match the Core i7-4770K at just 2.50GHz which is disappointing."

If I laugh any harder I'll put myself into a coma. :awe:

But it makes no difference in the real world in this game once you enable AA.

FX8350 @ 4.0Ghz gets 48 fps min / 68-69 avg (per TechSpot and GameGPU). Even a 980 can't sustain that performance at 1080P in FC4 with AA and Ultra settings; and that's before the upcoming GPU patch.

You are going to be 100% GPU limited in this game at 1080P with anything like FX8350 @ 4Ghz and above.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that while i3 performance well in FC4, it's doing poorly in other games such as DAI against FX8000/9000 series.

I think it's safe to say that an i5 is well worth it over both the i3 and FX8000/9000 series. In some games i3 is faster, in others FX8000/9000 but an overclocked i5 2500/3570/4670/4690K is the safer long-term choice. At this point I wouldn't build any PC gaming rig with an i3 either. It's not surpsing to see an old architecture like Bulldozer on outdated 28nm node getting spanked by 22nm Intel CPUs. Hopefully Zen catches up to Haswell level of performance and it should be far more power efficient than BD due to 16nm node.

 

[Silverforce11]

CPU wise, as a high-end gaming rig, I see no reason to ever buy AMD CPUs for many generations already, nothing has changed.

You could argue that lack of optimizations or whatever, but the lack of IPC is not made up for having more cores, because then, the onus is on developers to write code specifically for FX series to perform well. Thats just too much to hope for.

Also, all the newer games are severely GPU limited so in a sense, it doesn't matter what CPU you rock, as long as it can deliver 60fps+.

 

[TahoeDust]

So what setting would you guys recommend for my sig rig? I can't get a good grasp on the differences between the ultra and the nvidia settings. Which one is supposed to look better? I will be playing at 21:9 2560X1080...which I heard is also messed up still.

For some reason I don't think my sig is showing...

i7 2700K @ 4.8GHz || Asus P8Z68 Deluxe || EVGA GTX 970 SSC || 2 x OCZ Vertex 60gb Raid 0
4x4gb Gskill Sniper 1866 || Corsair 650D || Corsair H100 || OCZ ZT 750w || Asus MX299Q

 

[escrow4]

8350 gets 48 minimum and a Haswell i5 gets 66 minimum - that is MASSIVE. Any dips on the FX will be noticeable but not on the i5. Sure average cracks 60, but when the CPU is pushed FX falls apart. And for Inquisition look at Nvidia's drivers too, there are changes.

 

[XiandreX]

I apologise if someone has posted this but it helped me a great deal.
I changed the following from the guide I found and it removed most if not all stuttering. I was able to turn most settings back to Ultra.
This included vehicles/microlights etc. :awe:

I suggest reading the tweaks and the user comments as well. :thumbsup:

The parts I changed were to turn off the Atoc and the AlphaToCoverage to "0" in GamerProfile.xml and GPUMaxBufferedFrames="0" to 1.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/far-cry-4-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide#far-cry-4-tweaks

 

[RussianSensation]

O

8350 gets 48 minimum and a Haswell i5 gets 66 minimum - that is MASSIVE. Any dips on the FX will be noticeable but not on the i5. Sure average cracks 60, but when the CPU is pushed FX falls apart. And for Inquisition look at Nvidia's drivers too, there are changes.

That's when they dropped GPU settings to 0AA. Look at the performance data again. Once you are at Ultra with MSAA, you are 100% GPU limited on a 980. Even if you had 5860X @ 5Ghz you would get no performance gain over FX8350 @ 4ghz. Also, 4Ghz on FX is crazy low. Most of them overclock to 4.4-4.7Ghz. Once faster cards than 980 come out, you will run into a CPU bottleneck in this game but right now it's basically 100% GPU limited on max settings with FX8350@4Ghz and a 980.

 

[Whitestar127]

I apologise if someone has posted this but it helped me a great deal.
I changed the following from the guide I found and it removed most if not all stuttering. I was able to turn most settings back to Ultra.
This included vehicles/microlights etc. :awe:

I suggest reading the tweaks and the user comments as well. :thumbsup:

The parts I changed were to turn off the Atoc and the AlphaToCoverage to "0" in GamerProfile.xml and GPUMaxBufferedFrames="0" to 1.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/gui...r-cry-4-tweaks

Hi, could you check that link again? It's not working for me.

 

[boxleitnerb]

O

That's when they dropped GPU settings to 0AA. Look at the performance data again. Once you are at Ultra with MSAA, you are 100% GPU limited on a 980. Even if you had 5860X @ 5Ghz you would get no performance gain over FX8350 @ 4ghz. Also, 4Ghz on FX is crazy low. Most of them overclock to 4.4-4.7Ghz. Once faster cards than 980 come out, you will run into a CPU bottleneck in this game but right now it's basically 100% GPU limited on max settings with FX8350@4Ghz and a 980.

And who forces you to play on max settings? If you want to maintain 60+ fps, you have to dial some settings back a bit, tough luck. And for those people that have these requirements, CPU performance does indeed play a role.

I see no sense in completely disregarding demands for higher fps just to claim that you are 100% GPU limited. That is not true for all use cases, period. And don't get me started on competitive play where *some* people need even higher fps...

 

[XiandreX]

Hi, could you check that link again? It's not working for me.

Sorry about that. I have fixed it on the first link post and here I am posting again.

I hope this helps some of you out

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/far-cry-4-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide#far-cry-4-tweaks

 

[Erenhardt]

LOL! Is that true that you cant run the game with 2 core CPU (ex. g3258)?

 

[SlowSpyder]

8350 gets 48 minimum and a Haswell i5 gets 66 minimum - that is MASSIVE. Any dips on the FX will be noticeable but not on the i5. Sure average cracks 60, but when the CPU is pushed FX falls apart. And for Inquisition look at Nvidia's drivers too, there are changes.

A sub $200 FX 8350 downclocked about 40% can manage over 60FPS on average at real world settings (more than enough for video cards that cost $1000+ not long ago). What does a 780Ti or Titan average in real world performance? How much do those cost? How do they compare to a 290X that is significantly less expensive? Try not to laugh yourself into a coma. :thumbsup:

 

[ShintaiDK]

LOL! Is that true that you cant run the game with 2 core CPU (ex. g3258)?

Seems same artificial limit as the other game that couldnt run on dualcores, until they fixed it.

The cracked version of the game runs fine on a dualcore for example.

 

[tential]

CPU wise, as a high-end gaming rig, I see no reason to ever buy AMD CPUs for many generations already, nothing has changed.

You could argue that lack of optimizations or whatever, but the lack of IPC is not made up for having more cores, because then, the onus is on developers to write code specifically for FX series to perform well. Thats just too much to hope for.

Also, all the newer games are severely GPU limited so in a sense, it doesn't matter what CPU you rock, as long as it can deliver 60fps+.

Given the longevity of each Intel CPU generation, you're CHEAP and SHORTSIGHTED to purchase the FX series, especially in 2014 when you have generations of Intel CPU data to see how well they have held up. An FX processor may be good for a year or two if you purchase it now but you're looking at a good 4 years out of a 4790k easily.

Especially since game devs still try and ensure an FX CPU delivers "OK" performance so you'r Intel CPU will be top of the line or close to it for years to come.
Any doubter just needs to look at the Sandybridge performance to see how well it's held up.

 

[raghu78]

Couple of reviews . purepc and linustechtips.

purepc and linustechtips reviews

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...e_test_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,4
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...e_test_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,5
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...e_test_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,6
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...e_test_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,7
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...e_test_kart_graficznych_i_procesorow?page=0,8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqiOX-4fjdw&list=UUXuqSBlHAE6Xw-yeJA0Tunw

AMD has to fix MSAA performance and Godrays (Gameworks), though the performance is excellent with SMAA. . GTX 980 is dominant with all settings maxed at 1080p.

 

[psolord]

Hey guys.

I uploaded some camera recorded benchmark videos on my Youtube channel, for Far Cry 4.


FAR CRY 4 ULTRA 1920X1080 RADEON 7950 @1.1Ghz CORE i5 2500K @4.8GHz

FAR CRY 4 1920X1080 CUSTOM ULTRA SLI GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @4.0GHz

FAR CRY 4 1920X1080 CUSTOM ULTRA GTX 570 @850Mhz CORE i7 860 @4.0GHz

FAR CRY 4 CUSTOM ULTRA 1920X1080 RADEON 5850 @950Mhz Q9550 @3.4GHz

Crossfire profile does not exist yet, so it will have to wait.

In all benchmarks I used Ultra Setting, with the sole difference that on the smaller cards, my GTX 570s and 5850, I used textures at High and Normal, respectively.

The benchmark results with the frequencies you see on the video titles were:


5850 ~ 35fps

570 ~ 38fps

570SLI ~ 68fps

7950 ~ 67fps

In case you'll want to watch them, please note the following.

My camera recorded benchmarks always start with a nice NSFW wallpaper. It's my thing!

The benchmarks themselves start 5-6 minutes into the video, because I record the specs first, the settings, explaining stuff if needed, then there's the loading, etc.

Unfortunately they came out a little dark, due to stupid settings on the camera.

Hope you find something useful. Take care.

 

[boozzer]

The benchmarks themselves start 5-6 minutes into the video, because I record the specs first, the settings, explaining stuff if needed, then there's the loading, etc.

I like this, it is how it should be done. with just the gameplay with out the settings part, it can be any setting you claim