PCGHFar CryPrimal benchmarks

[crisium]

You got the 980 SLI and Fury CFX charts wrong.

Fury CFX isn't scaling well at all at 1440p, and is reverse scaling at 1080p. The 4K results are quite nice though.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

You got the 980 SLI and Fury CFX charts wrong.

Fury CFX isn't scaling well at all at 1440p, and is reverse scaling at 1080p. The 4K results are quite nice though.

Edited, sorry was a quick post. Fury cfx 4K performance is suprisingly great.

 

[boozzer]

woah, 290 beating 980. AMD seems to be doing really well with the recent games.

will maxwell performance become kepler 2.0?

 

[thilanliyan]

will maxwell performance become kepler 2.0?

Maxwell is supposed to be Kepler 2.0 isn't it?

 

[Dygaza]

Fury crossfire scaling on low resolution issues look like downclocking issue. If only some site would test this. Atleast AMD is working on that problem.

 

[Silverforce11]

another benchmark which shows Fury X on par with 980 Ti. the Fury X is only 17% faster than R9 390X despite having 45% more shaders. This has been the problem with Fury X. Poor perf scaling over R9 390X point to some serious bottlenecks in Fury X design.

In most games, at 1080p and 1440p, Fury X is really gimped. Same front-end as Hawaii driving 45% more shaders lead to the result we're seeing, not unexpected. DX11 afterall, is limited to only using the Command Processor of GCN's front-end.

But in Fable and Ashes (esp beta 2), we see a clear pull away by Fury X as those ACEs get to work alongside the CP.

 

[Magee_MC]

Maxwell is supposed to be Kepler 2.0 isn't it?

And here I was thinking that Pascal is Maxwell 2.0.

 

[3DVagabond]

In most games, at 1080p and 1440p, Fury X is really gimped. Same front-end as Hawaii driving 45% more shaders lead to the result we're seeing, not unexpected. DX11 afterall, is limited to only using the Command Processor of GCN's front-end.

But in Fable and Ashes (esp beta 2), we see a clear pull away by Fury X as those ACEs get to work alongside the CP.

It seems to be alright overall @ 1440. Runs pretty even with 980 ti. Remember that on new games it often takes a driver update to dial in the performance. That's not unusual though.

 

[Actaeon]

Didn't want to create a new thread for Primal, but just picked this up the other day and I am very impressed with the visual fidelity, performance, and multi-GPU scaling.

I know GameWorks features are of much debate regarding the benefits and performance hit, but I will say that even without tessellated Godrays and HBAO+ and just using the 'standard' god rays and SSAO, FCP looks great. (Side note, while there is no option for them in this game I am learning to not bother with 'Ultra' Godrays and HBAO+ because I don't see a difference and the performance hit is huge).

Performance wise I am very impressed too. I am running 2x 980 Ti in SLI, running 4K with Ultra settings. Ultra means all of the settings are maxed out and 60-55fps is the norm. The worst I've seen so far was a dip to 47fps in one scene/environment. Very playable performance with the most demanding settings.

Ubisoft has announced a patch on April 12th that will deliver 4K textures so I'd be very interested to see what that does to performance and fidelity. The game looks and runs very good right now. According to GPUZ, current VRAM usage is around 4GB using current settings, so it'll be interesting to see what the 4K textures will do to VRAM usage and how well Fury will cope.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/51377...-adds-4k-textures-survival-mode-pc/index.html

Ubisoft has just detailed its new update for Far Cry Primal, which is a free update that adds the awesome Survival Mode and 4K textures to the PC version of the game - which will be released on April 12. The company has confirmed the upcoming free update will also include 4K textures for the PC, which is exciting. We'll report back when the update has been pushed back to see what differences we've noticed.

 

[Silverforce11]

Those 4K textures, will be ok at 1080 and 1440p like FC4. But at 4K, Fury may need a new driver to handle it.

 

[Actaeon]

I installed and tested the 4K texture pack released yesterday. No performance hit to frame rates on my SLI 980 Tis. That was a pleasant surprise.

VRAM usage went up to 5.2GB from about 3.7GB. Unknown if it really needed all that or just used be VRAM as a buffer. But if it really did need it then 4GB cards might have a hard time with these high resolution textures without any special driver optimizations.

 

[moonbogg]

Those 4K textures, will be ok at 1080 and 1440p like FC4. But at 4K, Fury may need a new driver to handle it.

Does Far Cry 4 have a 4k texture pack? I didn't know that. Also, how would it benefit someone to use 4K textures at a non 4K res? Aren't they meant for 4K monitors with tighter pixel pitch?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

another review

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/657...est-met-22-gpus-testresultaten-wqhd-2560x1440

R9 390 nipping at the heels of 980. the venerable Tahiti aka R9 280X nipping at the heels of 780. :thumbsup:

Tahiti and Hawaii are clearly going to go down in GPU history as some of the best GPUs in terms of longevity behind 9700 Pro, 8800 GTX, GTX 580.

Don't forget the hd5870!!!

 

[RussianSensation]

another review

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/657...est-met-22-gpus-testresultaten-wqhd-2560x1440

R9 390 nipping at the heels of 980. the venerable Tahiti aka R9 280X nipping at the heels of 780. :thumbsup:

Tahiti and Hawaii are clearly going to go down in GPU history as some of the best GPUs in terms of longevity behind 9700 Pro, 8800 GTX, GTX 580.

580 is automatically disqualified and I am surprised you included it. It's barely 1 year older than 7970 but over 5 years from December 2010->December 2015, how do they stack up?

9700Pro is famous for slaughtering GeForce 4 and most of 5 but its longevity was nothing special. 8800 GTX is good but that too never could play modern games a High/VH settings at 1080p for 4.5 years -- 7970 OC could. 7970 OC also kept up with 780/OG Titan (next gen NV high end cards) as more modern games came out. 9700 Pro got slaughtered by 6800GT, 8800GTX got destroyed by GTX 260 216/4870, and 580 got smoked by 7970/680/770. That means in that context 7970 also beats 9700 Pro, 8800GTX, and 580. Add in Bitcoin and Ethereum mining, FP64 support, almost never VRAM gimped over 4.5 years, and that makes 7970 the best card ever made in my eyes.

The reason 9700Pro and 8800GTX are so epic is how badly they beat their competition but their longevity comes nowhere close to 7970s. Granted, games and hardware advanced far faster back then so it's a bit unfair to those older cards.

----

Great to see Ubisoft going out of its way to add 4K textures to largely console ported game. I like to see more effort being put into AAA games vs. say Dark Souls 3 or Quantum Break which are 99% identical to console versions in terms of IQ.

For next gen, 8GB should start to become mainstream as more gamers upgrade to Polaris 10/GP104 1060Ti/1070.