[GPU.RU]Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon GPU benches

[Jaydip]

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/far-cry-3-blood-dragon-test-gpu.html

There are some very interesting charts in this review.

7970 GE is faster than 680 as expected.But dial up the AA settings and all of a sudden 680 takes the front seat.This is contrary to many games where 7970 GE becomes faster as you increase the AA as it should be.Further this is a GE title so any backhand tricks can be safely rules out.This game may favor memory speed over through put.A wild conjecture but I would like to know what you guys think?

 

[Stuka87]

Is it just me, or does Blood Dragon run worse than FarCry 3?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Is it just me, or does Blood Dragon run worse than FarCry 3?

Is that possible?

 

[Jaydip]

@Stuka Are you referring to the benches or saying from your personal experience?

 

[Face2Face]

Is it just me, or does Blood Dragon run worse than FarCry 3?

It looks like it does. A lot worse....

 

[Stuka87]

@Stuka Are you referring to the benches or saying from your personal experience?

The Benches. Blood Dragon is not out yet, so I have not been able to play it. But the benches make it look like it runs quite a bit worse.

 

[Grooveriding]

The Benches. Blood Dragon is not out yet, so I have not been able to play it. But the benches make it look like it runs quite a bit worse.

They're using 8xMSAA @ 1080p which is going to kill those cards in performance. In both benches the only playable cards at those settings are the 690 and the Titan.

 

[MrK6]

Probably rushed the game and it's poorly optimized. It's disappointing how poorly the game runs on modern hardware, especially considering that DX11 was supposed to bring "free" 4x AA.

 

[blackened23]

Is it just me, or does Blood Dragon run worse than FarCry 3?

Without a doubt, It definitely does. I played for a while yesterday and can state that fairly conclusively...it does perform worse than FC3. I'd say whatever framerate you get in FC3, subtract 10-15 in some areas for BD. Fortunately, the game is freaking awesome so I can overlook the engine shortcomings. I'm not a big fan of the FC3 engine at all, although both games (FC3 + BD) are very good so I can look past it. Definitely worth 15 bucks if you didn't get it free via code, great game.

 

[Stuka87]

Without a doubt, It definitely does. I played for a while yesterday and can state that fairly conclusively...it does perform worse than FC3. I'd say whatever framerate you get in FC3, subtract 10-15 in some areas for BD. Fortunately, the game is freaking awesome so I can overlook the engine shortcomings. I'm not a big fan of the FC3 engine at all, although both games (FC3 + BD) are very good so I can look past it. Definitely worth 15 bucks if you didn't get it free via code, great game.

I am for sure going to pick it up. All the little 80's movie/game references and such are just too good to pass up.

 

[24601]

I'd say that the reason for the worse performance is probably because of the fact that the game has ridiculously large volumes and densities of particles.

Obviously this is because of the game's theme in general.

Proper particle implementations aren't free folks.

 

[SPBHM]

same engine and all, it's a little hard to understand,

 

[felang]

They're using 8xMSAA @ 1080p which is going to kill those cards in performance. In both benches the only playable cards at those settings are the 690 and the Titan.

This, 4x is maximum selectable MSAA in game settings, I guess they are forcing 8x?

 

[Face2Face]

This, 4x is maximum selectable MSAA in game settings, I guess they are forcing 8x?

Pretty sure there is an option for 8XMSAA....

 

[aaksheytalwar]

From the benchmarks it seems it gives at least 15-20 FPS more than FC3.
FC3 benchmarks were without AA, and these are with AA and at higher rez.

Going from 1600p 4x MSAA to 1080p no MSAA will nearly triple your FPS!

 

[felang]

Pretty sure there is an option for 8XMSAA....

Guess I missed that, my bad.

 

[frozentundra123456]

From the benchmarks it seems it gives at least 15-20 FPS more than FC3.
FC3 benchmarks were without AA, and these are with AA and at higher rez.

Going from 1600p 4x MSAA to 1080p no MSAA will nearly triple your FPS!

It is a different video card in the two separate tests as well.

What is strange is that FC3 seems to favor FX while in Blood Dragon the FX performs very poorly relative to intel.

 

[Souv]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-C...ar-Cry-3-Blood-Dragon-Benchmark-Test-1067445/

Leaving the Halo card Titan aside,7970 GE on top,7970 edges past 680 and 7950 performs neck and neck with 670..Kepler takes more performance hit at 1600p 4xmsaa than GCN counterparts..
So same as always,GCN giving you much better price/perf in another title.

 

[FearfulSPARTAN]

same engine and all, it's a little hard to understand,

That is really weird

 

[boxleitnerb]

I get different results with my Titan than PCGH. I reproduced the benchmark conditions and my fps are 6% higher in 1080p and 12% in 1600p. Something is not right there, with Titan at least.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I get different results with my Titan than PCGH. I reproduced the benchmark conditions and my fps are 6% higher in 1080p and 12% in 1600p. Something is not right there, with Titan at least.

Yours is overclocked?

 

[boxleitnerb]

No. PCGH uses the average boost clock for all Geforce cards, in this case 876 MHz. I used the same clocks.

 

[kasakka]

I'm running it on a 3570K @ 4.5 GHz and an overclocked GTX 660 Ti 2GB at 2560x1600, full details just low AA and it runs really well. Don't notice any real difference to FC3.

 

[Fx1]

8x AA pointless article

 

[Unoid]

at 1440p I had to set details to high, then lower post processing and shadows to medium. Now i can keep 60-110fps, average around 75.

It is a great game.