PCGH FARCRY 2 Benchmarks

[Tempered81]

Also a noticable improvement from quad-cores. At a low resolution, the 2.4ghz q6600 and 3.0ghz e8400 perform the same.

link:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...PU_and_CPU_benchmarks/

their graphic for 1900 4xAA is just a dupe of the 1650 on the high-end gpu page.

update: performance with ati hotfix for FC2 dx10.1

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/...C2_Hotfix_1920_DX9.PNG

 

[Ares202]

Its good to see that mid range hardware can run it on full settings, (8800gt 4850) i should be set with my 4870 512mb. Looks like ATI does a little better on games designed for console hardware maybe because the chips on the PS3+360 are being heavily shader+texture rendering based with a small amount of memory avaliable

BTW this game looks as good as crysis graphically and performace is much better, shows how much more work is done on optimisation for a console release GRID is another example of this

*edit* the mid range benchmark doesnt look right as 8800gt is faster than 9800gtx+ and 3870 faster than 4850

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...y_2_benchmark_test.png

 

[toyota]

nevermind

 

[YBS1]

Uhh, look again...The 260 is getting beaten by a single 4870, you're looking at two 260s in SLI.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: YBS1
Uhh, look again...The 260 is getting beaten by a single 4870, you're looking at two 260s in SLI.

yeah I noticed that right before you said something.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: YBS1
Uhh, look again...The 260 is getting beaten by a single 4870, you're looking at two 260s in SLI.

who is this directed towards?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: YBS1
Uhh, look again...The 260 is getting beaten by a single 4870, you're looking at two 260s in SLI.

Unless he edited the title before I saw this, the thread title says:

"GTX260 216 SLi slightly faster than a single 4870X2

 

[YBS1]

No, but there was a post above mine edited.

 

[CrystalBay]

Where are the gameplay reviews ?...

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: YBS1
Uhh, look again...The 260 is getting beaten by a single 4870, you're looking at two 260s in SLI.

Unless he edited the title before I saw this, the thread title says:

"GTX260 216 SLi slightly faster than a single 4870X2

Of course it was edited....

-------------------------------------------------------
Edited: 10/16/2008 at 07:34 PM by jaredpace
-------------------------------------------------------
ybs1 posted at 10/16/2008 07:30 PM
-------------------------------------------------------

 

[Munky]

The first thing I noticed in the article is a single 4870 beating a gtx260. Multi-gpu performance is of less importance to me.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I'm happy to see the 3800+ x2 and the 4670 both reaching above a minimum fps of 20. That is great as i have a slightly better setup in my sig.

 

[CrystalBay]

That single core 2.4Ghz A64 4000 does horrible in those benches...

 

[RockinZ28]

Texture detail looks really low on just about everything, just doesn't seem that impressive graphically. Not that I mind, I'm hoping it will be a really good game in what matters most, the gameplay.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: RockinZ28
Texture detail looks really low on just about everything, just doesn't seem that impressive graphically.

Consolized?

 

[MarcVenice]

Looks like it's at least slightly optimized for quadcores. To bad my CPU is going to dip into the 20's. Damnit.

 

[Atechie]

Originally posted by: Ares202BTW this game looks as good as crysis graphically and performace is much better, shows how much more work is done on optimisation for a console release GRID is another example of this

Where the hell do you see it side-by-side with crysis for graphics IQ? :shocked:

 

[Qbah]

Check out Enthusiast Warhead screenshots and try to tell me those games are in the same league... Unless the person taking the screens had really bad luck and took the worst possible ones, this game doesn't come close to Crysis in terms of visuals. As for performance... I'd say the GTX260s in SLI soundly beat a 4870X2. A HD4870 is faster than a GTX260. 20FPS min and 30 avg at 1920x1200 with AA seems decent enough though

 

[RockinZ28]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: RockinZ28
Texture detail looks really low on just about everything, just doesn't seem that impressive graphically.

Consolized?

Indeed, a shame really. I was hoping they'd do something for the PC version like Call of Jaurez did with DX10 vs DX9. Really a huge difference in quality, think it's the only DX10 game I've played so far that after seeing it, I couldn't go back to the DX9 version despite the fps loss.

Here's a comparison I'm referring to if anyone is wondering: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...w2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[uribag]

Far Cry 2 is DirectX 10.1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=9992&Itemid=1

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: uribag
Far Cry 2 is DirectX 10.1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=9992&Itemid=1

FN Nice! Even more FPS boost. Wonder if later Nvidia will somehow get it removed. ( AC anyone )

 

[Zebo]

Screen Shots don't look much better than original Far Cry. I am surprised it puts any strain on newer HW.

 

[MarcVenice]

Then you're not looking hard enough Zebo ... Imo the game looks pretty good, but don't forget, it's never been promised it would be the graphical powerhouse Crysis is.

 

[Modular]

I'll have to wait and see what further benchmarks have to say about CPU performance. I've got an A64 3400+ paired with an HD4850 and according to this bench it's unplayable. I have a hard time believing this as I can play Crysis on my CPU with playable FPS, and I can't see FC2 stretching my system more than Crysis...

 

[Phew]

The first thing that jumped out at me is that YOU CAN ACTUALLY TURN ON AA IN THIS GAME.

Current computer hardware can't produce playable framerates at native LCD resolutions with 4xFSAA in Crysis.