• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[gamegpu] Far Cry 4 performance

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
amenx said:
Cant trust any of these benchmarks, something awry in the game maybe. Another site, another variation of results, and kepler doing much better:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again
Click to expand...

This is how you do the benchmark. 1% Time Low fps, Average FPS ->draw.chart!
Someone give these guys FCAT, instead of giving it to those who don't want, don't know how to use it.

farcry4-bench1.jpg
 
Gikaseixas said:
and AMD sucks damn
Click to expand...

The AMD FX cpus are about the same age as sandybridge, just shows you how good sandy was/is. I just imagine the AMD directors cringing every time they see CPU benchmarks

AMD do badly need a new CPU even if it was just 10-15% better than the 8350 it would do well I think
 
amenx said:
Cant trust any of these benchmarks, something awry in the game maybe. Another site, another variation of results, and kepler doing much better:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again
Click to expand...

That's because of they tested Ultra but then flicked on the "enhanced God Rays" which is an Nvidia feature and uses heavy tessellation. The Nvidia cards will pull away at that point. I asume gamegpu.ru just used the regular preset.

I remember that setting from Black Flag, it was a very nasty performance hit on my 290.
 
Termie said:
IMO, these day-one benches by GameGPU aren't that valuable. Crossfire doesn't work yet, and the Kepler cards clearly need a driver update. The 770 is underperforming an HD7950, and the 780 Ti is below a 290. Even Maxwell isn't that great - a 980 5% faster than a 290X? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

They are valuable as a LOT of people purchase at day one and want to know the performance they should be getting.

People were furious when they had preordered the game and at 12:05 the game wasn't available to play.

They'll be less valuable when we actually stop preordering games.

That said, nice to see Ubisoft put out a game that performs "well" and looks fantastic. That Nvidia Preset.... looks freaking gorgeous.

Maxwell vs Kepler performance though...
 
f1sherman said:
This is how you do the benchmark. 1% Time Low fps, Average FPS ->draw.chart!
Someone give these guys FCAT, instead of giving it to those who don't want, don't know how to use it.
Click to expand...

It is interesting test methodology for sure, and I agree it is a good way to do things. However, it looks as though they are a small-time tech site. Only a couple CPUs, random GPUs sources from different places... And for some reason they didn't use the latest Nvidia drivers.
 
Grooveriding said:
I still have a problem where I have a black bar on the bottom of my screen, but not on the top. I believe normally there is supposed to be a bar on the top and bottom. I'm guessing it is a problem specific to my resolution.
Click to expand...

Someone at Guru3D forums posted that they have this issue with DSR enabled.
 
beginner99 said:
And the >100 % SLI scaling also adds to mistrusting these results.
Click to expand...

Nvidia's driver update says they have 90% scaling in this game. So their results aren't too far out of line. Probably a slight difference in how the benches went.

This game doesn't have a built in benchmark does it?
 
***Grumble***

Chuck the 3960X already and test a 5930K already.

A Titan @ 280X performance is laughable. Not bothering with this, playing Inquisition from tomorrow until I finish. Rest of these games are on hold. I'll gladly buy a Titan II or 980 Ti but I don't buy poky mid range cards anymore.
 
Gloomy said:
Nvidia's driver update says they have 90% scaling in this game. So their results aren't too far out of line. Probably a slight difference in how the benches went.

This game doesn't have a built in benchmark does it?
Click to expand...

Well, we don't know how many of these frames are drops and runts. The actual FCAT scaling may indeed be 90%
 
GUYS... NEVER EVER PLAY A CONSOLE PORT ON REALESE DATE.
NEVER! UNLESS YOU WANT TO JOIN THE - UBI@ ETC- ALFA BETA TEST


( Copy paste something i said in another thread...)

Watch Dogs was unplayable on release, (pc port) waited 6 months, got the game all pached up... now it runs flawlesly, even on my 750 ti @ i3 combo: full 1080p at 30 fps locked or +55 fps with drops to 45fps, unlocked, all set to ULTRA, ex textures to high.

NEVER EVER PLAY A CONSOLE PORT ON REALESE DATE.


Let's calm down with the caps please.
-Rvenger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another rubish gamegpu test.:thumbsdown:

Farcry 3 was a benchmark game so probably will se a lot of sites testing de performance.
 
^ if you read GameGPU analysis, they state that NVIDIA settings are God Rays and TXAA. With these settings on, the performance drop is 2X on Maxwell (!). They provided the data in their analysis.

1080p Ultra = 980 @ 97 fps
1080p NV (God Rays + TXAA) = 51 FPS

1600p Ultra = 980 @ 61 fps
1600p NV = 980 @ 30 fps

You can manually enable God Rays on AMD cards. In this game GR are made via tessellation. Not surprising that there is a major performance hit on AMD when TXAA + God Rays on Maxwell drop pefromwnce in half. Still, this game runs miles better than Unity which goes to show that Dunia 2 engine is just way more efficient than Anvil Next and the FC team just knows how to code way better. This game does look nice but not next gen enough imo. Still pretty impressive that FC4 on PS5 looks as good as FC3 maxed out on PC. Not bad for an underpowered console. AMD issued a statement that they are working with Ubisoft to get CF drivers working.
 
Svl of GameGPU said tomorrow they will update graphs with MSAA included. We will probably see a large performance hit. Users with 780Ti with MSAA on are reporting big performance drops.
 
Honestly my i5 2320 paired with the ASUS R9 270X plays this game on ultra settings at 1080p flawlessly. Sure it may not be 60fps, but considering the human eye cant even see above 60fps, who honestly cares.

I was quite amazed it ran it so well.
 
Firetrak said:
Honestly my i5 2320 paired with the ASUS R9 270X plays this game on ultra settings at 1080p flawlessly. Sure it may not be 60fps, but considering the human eye cant even see above 60fps, who honestly cares.

I was quite amazed it ran it so well.
Click to expand...
please be sarcasm...
 
RussianSensation said:
^ if you read GameGPU analysis, they state that NVIDIA settings are God Rays and TXAA. With these settings on, the performance drop is 2X on Maxwell (!). They provided the data in their analysis.

1080p Ultra = 980 @ 97 fps
1080p NV (God Rays + TXAA) = 51 FPS

1600p Ultra = 980 @ 61 fps
1600p NV = 980 @ 30 fps

You can manually enable God Rays on AMD cards. In this game GR are made via tessellation. Not surprising that there is a major performance hit on AMD when TXAA + God Rays on Maxwell drop pefromwnce in half. Still, this game runs miles better than Unity which goes to show that Dunia 2 engine is just way more efficient than Anvil Next and the FC team just knows how to code way better. This game does look nice but not next gen enough imo. Still pretty impressive that FC4 on PS5 looks as good as FC3 maxed out on PC. Not bad for an underpowered console. AMD issued a statement that they are working with Ubisoft to get CF drivers working.
Click to expand...

If TXAA and Godrays are the only things I'm missing out on by not using the Nvidia settings, then it looks like I'm not missing much.

You're right that it's not really a "next-gen looking" game. Keep in mind though that this game was also developed for the 360 and PS3, nine-year-old hardware. I imagine it was held back by those.

Firetrak said:
Honestly my i5 2320 paired with the ASUS R9 270X plays this game on ultra settings at 1080p flawlessly. Sure it may not be 60fps, but considering the human eye cant even see above 60fps, who honestly cares.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.
 
Firetrak said:
Honestly my i5 2320 paired with the ASUS R9 270X plays this game on ultra settings at 1080p flawlessly. Sure it may not be 60fps, but considering the human eye cant even see above 60fps, who honestly cares.

I was quite amazed it ran it so well.
Click to expand...



That old chestnut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top