[H] Far Cry Primal performance review

[Paul98]

Just because it's a demanding doesn't mean it's good.

 

[boozzer]

Just because it's a demanding doesn't mean it's good.

HA. that was surprisingly super succinct. short and to the point.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'd rather have options I can disable if too demanding, than not have them there at all.

Ubisoft made their own light shafts and sun shafts aka Godrays in FCP, they did not need NV's propriety tech for it, and FCP runs excellent on all GPUs.

So as a gamer, I rather developers put in features that look good and runs good. It's not progress when they put in features where you can barely tell the difference but it tanks performance.

An example for you, NV's VXAO. Drops performance up to 30%.

Can you tell the difference? Which is VXAO?

Source: http://www.computerbase.de/2016-03/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-directx-12-benchmark/3/

1.

2.

3.

4.

Do you know what we call a good looking game that runs well?

OPTIMIZED.

Don't celebrate poorly optimized features. It doesn't make PC gaming better, it just encourages GPU upgrades before you truly need to and only GPU companies benefit.

 

[Silverforce11]

Do you people at [H] seriously thinks this is great for PC gaming?

This is real gimping. There's nothing good about it. Unplayable on both.

Look at what happens when you un-gimp the game, suddenly very playable at 1440p, as it should be for high-end GPUs.

Is this good for PC gamers? Cinematic 30 fps with beefy GPUs?

So Ubisoft has finally seen the gimping that is GameWorks and decided not to go with that propriety approach.

They made their own effects, highly optimized and now Primal looks better than FC4, runs better. But you have the balls to say they are hurting PC gaming.

 

[Bacon1]

Do you know what we call a good looking game that runs well?

OPTIMIZED.

Don't celebrate poorly optimized features. It doesn't make PC gaming better, it just encourages GPU upgrades before you truly need to and only GPU companies benefit.

Very true.

Although I guess upgrading often does benefit [H] as well, since they make money off commissions selling video cards (along with anything else you purchase after following their referral link).

 

[tential]

Brent, mind offering why you guys always paint the Fury in a bad light, but don't do the same for the 980 TI?

In Rise of the Tomb Raider:

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1455189919EDyKUcGV8E_7_3_l.gif

Fury (AIR) is 10% slower avg, 10% faster minimum than 980 TI, and yet you said:



Yet if we look at the Apples to Apples, when it is at those max custom settings like the other cards, we see its only 10% slower avg than the 980 TI, while maintaining 10% higher minimums. And that's a $480 vs $610 card.



Yet here in the Far Cry Primal review, the 980 TI is 8% slower than Fury X and you call that a small difference:



Also looking at the "Limited by 4GB of ram" comment from the Rise of the Tomb Raider conclusion, you actually went back and completely disproved that in your IQ testing, so why is that in your conclusion still? You have said that the 4GB of Ram limits the Fury constantly yet you haven't been able to show that happening in any playable settings.


Why are you disappointed in Fury Air for being 10% slower than the 980 TI (and again, it had 10% faster minimums) while its 25% cheaper, but 8% slower 980 TI vs Fury X is "small difference"?

It's so bad it's pathetic and it's even more pathetic that when there is a serious argument brought up, he just disappears or ignores that argument.
He's got reasons why games need features like Gameworks or another feature that has a 30%+ reduction in performance because "It stresses the GPU!!!!" and "You can just turn it off!!!"
But no reason to defend the analysis of his results. Because there is no real analysis. Some people can run tests, and they're good at it. But when you're asking for analysis, that requires critical thinking, and not everyone has those capabilities in the same capacities.
I think that's the case here, he just struggles with critical analysis, because I don't think a person can have so many glaring inconsistencies in their analysis of hardware results so often.

 

[controlflow]

It's so bad it's pathetic and it's even more pathetic that when there is a serious argument brought up, he just disappears or ignores that argument.
He's got reasons why games need features like Gameworks or another feature that has a 30%+ reduction in performance because "It stresses the GPU!!!!" and "You can just turn it off!!!"
But no reason to defend the analysis of his results. Because there is no real analysis. Some people can run tests, and they're good at it. But when you're asking for analysis, that requires critical thinking, and not everyone has those capabilities in the same capacities.
I think that's the case here, he just struggles with critical analysis, because I don't think a person can have so many glaring inconsistencies in their analysis of hardware results so often.

There is indeed a glaring lack of rationality in the assertions that [H] makes on these so called reviews. This particular individual also claimed to completely stand behind his "analysis" in this review and yet consistently fails to substantiate his outrageous claims. Such unprofessional behavior cannot be expected to garner any credibility for the author.

Intel and AMD have both refused to provide [H] with review HW this year (Haswell E and Fury). The games [H] has been playing is finally catching up with them and I think their disingenuous actions has cost them their credibility. The fact that they would criticize a game developer for properly optimizing a game and developing efficient implementations of graphical features instead of using the poorly implemented Nvidia solution speaks volumes. It is particularly repulsive in that they attempted to present their argument under the guise of avocation for PC gamers.

I am of the opinion that such behavior is either the result of incompetence or an ulterior motive.

 

[Magee_MC]

I am of the opinion that such behavior is either the result of incompetence or an ulterior motive.

No need to limit yourself to either or when both is a reasonable possibility.

 

[raghu78]

So you are the Brent of that site?
I commend you for your bravery coming here, but I don't know if you realize that over here you cannot ban anyone who exposes your lack of professionalism, bias and distortion of reality.

Notice the bold part on the quoted text. Look at the picture below, already linked by several members. Can you honestly, with a straight face, come here and argue that such graphics are nothing short of stunning? By standing on such assessment of "meh" you would prove that you are either incapable of an objective evaluation, or biased and unprofessional to intentionally deny it. I don't know what of either situation is worse, the incompetent or the sleazy, but in both cases means that you should NOT be doing "professional" reviews.

New features that can advantage of newer hardware are always welcome, but a feature that cannot provide a tangible benefit in the relationship of visuals/performance is not a good feature. How could you possibly defend a "feature" that gives a 30-40% performance penalty, but the visual benefit is practically impossible to spot? How is that even defensible? For a 40% performance penalty, I would expect an noticeable visual improvement, but when even on high resolution static images we are having a hard time spotting the visual improvement, the 40% performance penalty is not justifiable at all. Furthermore, a "feature set" that is indeed in there to handicap the competition cannot be considered "forward looking" yet you almost worship it.

The rebellious nature of your website was refreshing at some point in the past, but the maverick website became the online tabloid of computer hardware. If I wanted to read gossip I would have visited the register, but now your site is the one that takes the role. I know that a few of us won't give clicks to the new national enquirer, so guys, play it fair and objective if you want to recover some of those clicks... unless, of course, if the gossip brings more clicks, but then, stop calling it "professional reviews" and call it "reality TV" I mean "reality internet"

fantastic post. If there was a rep feature like in ocn I would have given you a rep man.

hardocp is now the official brand ambassador for Gameworks. lmao

 

[Silverforce11]

This is an interesting coverage from PCPER, who were both at AMD's and NVIDIA's GDC event.

Note how they describe GameWorks:

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Details-about-NVIDIAs-GameWorks-31-Update

Most of our readers should have some familiarity with GameWorks, which is a series of libraries and utilities that help game developers (and others) create software. While many hardware and platform vendors provide samples and frameworks, taking the brunt of the work required to solve complex problems, this is NVIDIA's branding for their suite of technologies. Their hope is that it pushes the industry forward, which in turn drives GPU sales as users see the benefits of upgrading.

It doesn't benefit gamers, it benefits people who sell GPUs because these features are poorly optimized.

Example: HairWorks vs TressFX3.0 aka PureHair.

The latter looks great and has a much less performance impact that many gamers can enable it to enjoy superior visuals.

10% perf hit on V.High settings. Importantly, PureHair does not suffer from aliasing or shimmering.

Now compare to HairWorks.

There's a ~20% hit for HairWorks. With noAA, so it's aliased and shimmers, looks crap basically.

To get it to look right, you have to run with a separate AA filter on the hair.

So there's a double hit in performance. We go from 58 fps to 45 fps with HairWorks and 4x HairAA. When it was released, it defaulted to 8x HairAA...

This is moving the PC industry forward alright:

It definitely encourages more GPU sales or ugprades. But is it good for gamers? Are they actually getting the best out of their hardware or is just artificially gimping by running poorly optimized features?

 

[Bacon1]

Sad that Brent and CO @ [H] are ignoring all the excellent points brought up by people here and on their forums. I'd rather they owned up to it or at least recognize what they are doing and change for the future.

I'd love to do hardware reviews, but its not a cheap business to start up :X

 

[3DVagabond]

Apparently. Instead of giving gamers the feature options, which they can turn on or off, some people would rather the feature options not even be there in the first place, giving gamers less options in terms of visual quality in games. I don't get it either.

I am for, not against, moving gaming forward by providing better visuals in games, and using graphics features that make games look better. If progress was never made on improving game graphics over time game graphics would stagnate, and newer GPUs would not be necessary.

I look forward to improved graphics and the new era we are entering with DX12. Bring on better graphics, don't strip them down. Every gamer should be for this.

Turning Gameworks off does not take away the render path that has been optimized for them. I know it's just a matter of opinion, but a lot of people think Gameworks sucks and is bad for PC gaming. Surely you realize this?

 

[3DVagabond]

So you truly believe that Gameworks is simply a tack on option. It never has an effect on the overall quality of the game?

Sure. Just drop those .dll's into any game folder and they'll run great. /s

 

[crisium]

Brent, mind offering why you guys always paint the Fury in a bad light, but don't do the same for the 980 TI?

In Rise of the Tomb Raider:

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1455189919EDyKUcGV8E_7_3_l.gif

Fury (AIR) is 10% slower avg, 10% faster minimum than 980 TI, and yet you said:



Yet if we look at the Apples to Apples, when it is at those max custom settings like the other cards, we see its only 10% slower avg than the 980 TI, while maintaining 10% higher minimums. And that's a $480 vs $610 card.



Yet here in the Far Cry Primal review, the 980 TI is 8% slower than Fury X and you call that a small difference:



Also looking at the "Limited by 4GB of ram" comment from the Rise of the Tomb Raider conclusion, you actually went back and completely disproved that in your IQ testing, so why is that in your conclusion still? You have said that the 4GB of Ram limits the Fury constantly yet you haven't been able to show that happening in any playable settings.


Why are you disappointed in Fury Air for being 10% slower than the 980 TI (and again, it had 10% faster minimums) while its 25% cheaper, but 8% slower 980 TI vs Fury X is "small difference"?

Don't forget about his Rise of the Tomb Raider hypocrisy.

"For single-GPU our order of recommendation for this game is AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB, AMD Radeon R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X, GeForce GTX 980, GeForce GTX 980 Ti. "

"Technically the AMD Radeon R9 390X is faster than the GeForce GTX 980, by about 7%, but that isn't enough to change settings."

Technically the 390X is cheaper too.

So the 980 costs more and is slower, and nails the recommendation.

"We have also found that AMD video cards below the R9 390X are doing quite well in Rise of the Tomb Raider compared to the NVIDIA counterparts. The only video card we were not impressed with is the Radeon R9 Fury. For the price, and the fact it is based on the latest GCN technology, it doesn't perform up to our expectations. The Radeon R9 Fury X is better, but both of these video cards are limiting at 4K with their 4GB of VRAM."

So Brent "just a gamer" recommends the 980 over the cheaper, and more VRAM heavy 390X? It costs more and is slower. But Brent is disappointed in the Fury, which costs more but at least is faster than the 980? And no comment on the 980's smaller VRAM capacity compared to its cheaper competitor, just Fiji.

And of course the "Maxwell magic" from the Fury Strix launch where it had equal performance-per-watt, but you "cannot deny the efficiency" of the 980!

I don't believe [H] is bought and paid for. But I do believe the launch of the Fury X and especially Nano, has really soured their opinion of any Fiji and to an extent any AMD products. It has affected their preconceived notions before they even start benchmarking, and it slips into their analysis as any reader can see the consistencies and analytical failures. Then we are left with a two-situation level of stubbornness: stubbornness to realize their own bias innately, and stubbornness to acknowledge their inconsistencies out of.. pride? Although, certainly, some of Kyle's inane defense of the Maxwell magic and both Brent's and Kyle's refusal to acknowledge the hypocrisy in both the ROTTR and FCP analysis should hurt their pride and reputation a lot more. Acknowledge your mistakes and move on Brent, otherwise more people are gonna think you are bought and paid for.

 

[raghu78]

Don't forget about his Rise of the Tomb Raider hypocrisy.

"For single-GPU our order of recommendation for this game is AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB, AMD Radeon R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X, GeForce GTX 980, GeForce GTX 980 Ti. "

"Technically the AMD Radeon R9 390X is faster than the GeForce GTX 980, by about 7%, but that isn't enough to change settings."

Technically the 390X is cheaper too.

So the 980 costs more and is slower, and nails the recommendation.

"We have also found that AMD video cards below the R9 390X are doing quite well in Rise of the Tomb Raider compared to the NVIDIA counterparts. The only video card we were not impressed with is the Radeon R9 Fury. For the price, and the fact it is based on the latest GCN technology, it doesn't perform up to our expectations. The Radeon R9 Fury X is better, but both of these video cards are limiting at 4K with their 4GB of VRAM."

So Brent "just a gamer" recommends the 980 over the cheaper, and more VRAM heavy 390X? It costs more and is slower. But Brent is disappointed in the Fury, which costs more but at least is faster than the 980? And no comment on the 980's smaller VRAM capacity compared to its cheaper competitor, just Fiji.

And of course the "Maxwell magic" from the Fury Strix launch where it had equal performance-per-watt, but you "cannot deny the efficiency" of the 980!

I don't believe [H] is bought and paid for. But I do believe the launch of the Fury X and especially Nano, has really soured their opinion of any Fiji and to an extent any AMD products. It has affected their preconceived notions before they even start benchmarking, and it slips into their analysis as any reader can see the consistencies and analytical failures. Then we are left with a two-situation level of stubbornness: stubbornness to realize their own bias innately, and stubbornness to acknowledge their inconsistencies out of.. pride? Although, certainly, some of Kyle's inane defense of the Maxwell magic and both Brent's and Kyle's refusal to acknowledge the hypocrisy in both the ROTTR and FCP analysis should hurt their pride and reputation a lot more. Acknowledge your mistakes and move on Brent, otherwise more people are gonna think you are bought and paid for.

They are not going to acknowledge their mistakes or bias. Kyle and Brent will keep praising Maxwell as they won't change their preconceived notions at the end of the current gen. Moreover these guys are quite arrogant and lack the humility to accept a mistake and move forward.

 

[tential]

They are not going to acknowledge their mistakes or bias. Kyle and Brent will keep praising Maxwell as they won't change their preconceived notions at the end of the current gen. Moreover these guys are quite arrogant and lack the humility to accept a mistake and move forward.

It's partly our fault for continuing to push these sites and not moving towards us donating to reviewers who buy products and review independently

 

[littleg]

I don't believe [H] is bought and paid for.

I do. 100%

 

[Headfoot]

Don't forget about his Rise of the Tomb Raider hypocrisy.

"For single-GPU our order of recommendation for this game is AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB, AMD Radeon R9 390, AMD Radeon R9 390X, GeForce GTX 980, GeForce GTX 980 Ti. "

"Technically the AMD Radeon R9 390X is faster than the GeForce GTX 980, by about 7%, but that isn't enough to change settings."

Technically the 390X is cheaper too.

So the 980 costs more and is slower, and nails the recommendation.

"We have also found that AMD video cards below the R9 390X are doing quite well in Rise of the Tomb Raider compared to the NVIDIA counterparts. The only video card we were not impressed with is the Radeon R9 Fury. For the price, and the fact it is based on the latest GCN technology, it doesn't perform up to our expectations. The Radeon R9 Fury X is better, but both of these video cards are limiting at 4K with their 4GB of VRAM."

So Brent "just a gamer" recommends the 980 over the cheaper, and more VRAM heavy 390X? It costs more and is slower. But Brent is disappointed in the Fury, which costs more but at least is faster than the 980? And no comment on the 980's smaller VRAM capacity compared to its cheaper competitor, just Fiji.

And of course the "Maxwell magic" from the Fury Strix launch where it had equal performance-per-watt, but you "cannot deny the efficiency" of the 980!

I don't believe [H] is bought and paid for. But I do believe the launch of the Fury X and especially Nano, has really soured their opinion of any Fiji and to an extent any AMD products. It has affected their preconceived notions before they even start benchmarking, and it slips into their analysis as any reader can see the consistencies and analytical failures. Then we are left with a two-situation level of stubbornness: stubbornness to realize their own bias innately, and stubbornness to acknowledge their inconsistencies out of.. pride? Although, certainly, some of Kyle's inane defense of the Maxwell magic and both Brent's and Kyle's refusal to acknowledge the hypocrisy in both the ROTTR and FCP analysis should hurt their pride and reputation a lot more. Acknowledge your mistakes and move on Brent, otherwise more people are gonna think you are bought and paid for.

fantastic post. Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Rvenger]

I think we are done discussing this. It is getting personal and Brent is a member in our forum, which is considered a personal attack.

Thread closed.


-Rvenger