Far Cry 3 Tested, Benchmarked

By on December 5, 2012, 2:22 AM

Like the original game, Far Cry 3 is set on a tropical island, this time found somewhere at the intersection of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In typical TechSpot fashion, we'll be testing Far Cry 3's open world environment using 29 DirectX 11 graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia across all price ranges.

This new game is built using an advanced version of the Dunia engine called Dunia 2, which is said to feature new water rendering technology, a realistic weather system, advanced AI technology, a new animation system, realistic facial expressions, motion capture technology and global illumination -- many of which are made possible by the game's adoption of DirectX 11 and can only be experienced on the PC version.

Read the complete review.




User Comments: 66

Got something to say? Post a comment
Experimentongod said:

Fantastic job, finally a benchmark that includes the GTX 460, a GPU so many of us still use!

bony1984 said:

Why not test the AMD Catalyst 12:11 CAP2 ?

AMD says * Improves performance in Far Cry 3 (up to 25% with 8xMSAA, enabled SSAO @ 1600p, and up to 15% with 8xMSAA, HDAO enabled @ 1600p) (AMD Catalyst 12:11 CAP2 must also be installed)

raghunathan said:

Was the game patched to the latest available patches 1.01 and 1.02 . also was the 12.11 CAP 2 installed . the AMD 12.11 beta 11 driver page says

"AMD Catalyst 12.11 CAP2 has just been released, and should be used in conjunction with AMD Catalyst 12.11 Beta11

Improves Far Cry 3 performance for single GPU configurations with AA enabled"

Both the pcgameshardware.de and computerbase.de show HD 7970 Ghz doing much better than GTX 670 with latest drivers at MSAA 4x.

[link]

[link]

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Fantastic job, finally a benchmark that includes the GTX 460, a GPU so many of us still use!

The GTX 460 is featured in all of our gaming evaluations and has been since it was released.

Why not test the AMD Catalyst 12:11 CAP2 ?

AMD says * Improves performance in Far Cry 3 (up to 25% with 8xMSAA, enabled SSAO @ 1600p, and up to 15% with 8xMSAA, HDAO enabled @ 1600p) (AMD Catalyst 12:11 CAP2 must also be installed)

Guys the CAP2 was installed relax.

Was the game patched to the latest available patches 1.01 and 1.02 . also was the 12.11 CAP 2 installed . the AMD 12.11 beta 11 driver page says

The graphs were all labeled "version 1.01". Version 1.02 came out the day I finished the article.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Both the pcgameshardware.de and computerbase.de show HD 7970 Ghz doing much better than GTX 670 with latest drivers at MSAA 4x.

Both CB and PCGH might have been using the latest AMD driver, but both used an older Nvidia driver (310.64). 310.70 was rushed out (still awaiting WHQL certification) primarily because it has some specific FC3 performance benefits.

@Steve

Very timely and comprehensive review once again. Many thanks for the time and effort.

fimbles fimbles said:

Can confirm there is no real diffrence between version 1.01 and 1.02 for me.

Evga 460 sc 1024 sli.

Ultra settings, 2 x msaa

1.01 = 48.4 fps

1.02 = 48.5 fps

Stupido Stupido said:

I just wish that older Core2 quads are thrown into the mix (CPU scaling)...

raghunathan said:

Both the pcgameshardware.de and computerbase.de show HD 7970 Ghz doing much better than GTX 670 with latest drivers at MSAA 4x.

Both CB and PCGH might have been using the latest AMD driver, but both used an older Nvidia driver (310.64). 310.70 was rushed out (still awaiting WHQL certification) primarily because it has some specific FC3 performance benefits.

@Steve

Very timely and comprehensive review once again. Many thanks for the time and effort.

Both the reviews used the 310.64 beta drivers. the 310.64 had the farcry 3 improvements built into them.

http://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/53254

from the beta driver page

"Up to 38% in Far Cry 3"

in fact pcgameshardware.de shows the performance for 310.54 and 310.64 in tables and compares the performance improvements.

computerbase has the first chart with nvidia 310.64 and amd 12.11 beta 8 drivers and the second with the update 310.64 and 12.11 beta 11

[link]

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Both thre reviews used the 310.64 beta drivers. the 310.64 had the farcry 3 improvements built into them

So, you're telling me that 310.70 has no performance benefit over 310.64 ? You have some evidence to support that hypothesis?

The release notes are a simple C&P from the earlier driver - including the bug fixes and PhysX engine update. If the drivers are supposedly identical then why did Nvidia release the 310.70 driver ?

Classic. Rabidly howling for benching with the latest driver from one vendor whilst simultaneously dismissing the use of the latest driver from another. There's a name for that...I'll get back to you after I check the dictionary.

fimbles fimbles said:

My results

310.64 = 44 fps

310.70 = 48 fps

A nice increase in my opinion

Blkfx1 Blkfx1 said:

Great article! I was hoping TS would release some benchmarks for FC3.

Thanks, Steve!

raghunathan said:

Both thre reviews used the 310.64 beta drivers. the 310.64 had the farcry 3 improvements built into them

So, you're telling me that 310.70 has no performance benefit over 310.64 ? You have some evidence to support that hypothesis?

The release notes are a simple C&P from the earlier driver - including the bug fixes and PhysX engine update. If the drivers are supposedly identical then why did Nvidia release the 310.70 driver ?

Classic. Rabidly howling for benching with the latest driver from one vendor whilst simultaneously dismissing the use of the latest driver from another. There's a name for that...I'll get back to you after I check the dictionary.

yeah 310.70 seems to have improvements. anyway looks like the difference for performance between PCGH and techspot is HDAO. HDAO provides the best image quality and is faster on HD 7970 Ghz than the GTX 680.

hardocp has a farcry 3 preview and they test with HDAO, A2C and 8X MSAA, though its not playable. for 1080p they seem to suggest HDAO, A2C, 4X MSAA would be playable on HD 7970 Ghz and GTX 680.

[link]

"DIRECTCOMPUTE ACCELERATED HIGH DEFINITION AMBIENT OCCLUSION

Far Cry 3 implements a new and improved version of HDAO that uses full 3D camera space position data to detect valleys in the scene that should be shaded darker, and attenuates the lighting based on valley angle. In Far Cry 3 this technique has been significantly improved in both performance and quality relative to previous implementations."

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

I've been waiting for a game that can push my system. I've been debating about buying Hitman, but this game looks pretty damn fun...almost like a next gen Mercenaries.

Excellent/timely performance review Steve!

Guest said:

Holy cow! I was reading thinking that Very High Quality was the highest of all, but was astonished when I kept reading and it went Ultra!

This is a hell of demanding game!

Lionvibez said:

I just wish that older Core2 quads are thrown into the mix (CPU scaling)...

So why dont you donate a Core2Quad to the site!

peperonikiller peperonikiller said:

My MSI Hawk Radeon 6950 does a pretty decent job with this game without being OC'd. Looks like it's time to push my system a bit harder to get some beautiful gaming going on. Already on my second playthrough :P

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

So why dont you donate a Core2Quad to the site!

Not to mention the bucketloads of time to install and test the game on another system that's 4 generations old. If you're still on a C2Q chances are you aren't that fussed about running modern games at their most demanding settings anyway.

Jesper Poulsen said:

From 3.5GHz to 4.5GHz the i7 gained only 5 fps. In the same clock range the FX gained 13 fps. This comment: "It's interesting to note that the FX-8350 at 4.5GHz was only able to match the Core i7-3770K at 3.5GHz." is very biased and unsuitable for a serious tech site. Combined with the driver "choice" towards a better nVidia performance (or worse AMD performance) makes this test less trustworthy. Very, very biased against AMD. :-(

For the CPU part i7 scales poorly with clock speed. FX scales much better. Make them both run at 5GHz and see the FX outperform the i7 (if i7-3770K would ever run at 5GHz).

5 people like this | slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

From 3.5GHz to 4.5GHz the i7 gained only 5 fps. In the same clock range the FX gained 13 fps. This comment: "It's interesting to note that the FX-8350 at 4.5GHz was only able to match the Core i7-3770K at 3.5GHz." is very biased and unsuitable for a serious tech site. Combined with the driver "choice" towards a better nVidia performance (or worse AMD performance) makes this test less trustworthy. Very, very biased against AMD. :-(

For the CPU part i7 scales poorly with clock speed. FX scales much better. Make them both run at 5GHz and see the FX outperform the i7 (if i7-3770K would ever run at 5GHz).

And the comedy comment of the day goes to...

Try reading the graphs again, the i7 3770K at 3.5Ghz gets 70fps while the FX 8350 at 4.5Ghz gets... 70fps

Blue Falcon said:

Great test, as always Love that you split Very High and Ultra to show us what would happen if we lowered some settings in terms of playable frame rates. Very pretty game but I can't help but think this type of graphics should have been out 2-3 years ago. Yes, it does look better than Crysis 1, finally but it took 5 years to get there.

I am simply amazed at the going power of Core i7 920 though. Probably the best CPU in history. It's only 4 fps behind 8350 and just 10 fps behind i7-3770K. Core i7 920 D0s overclocked to 4.0-4.4ghz. Stunning CPU that still holds its own against modern CPU architectures. And console gamers say you need to upgrade your PC every 6 months. It seems it's all about the GPU in modern games as long as you pair it with some modern AMD/Intel CPU.

Looking forward to seeing how far Crysis 3, Tomb Raider and Metro Last Light push PC gaming graphics in 2013. It's about time we are starting to see better looking games.

1 person liked this | Lionvibez said:

Yes the 920 is an amazing chip I have a d0 on my desk that does 4ghz easily. I replaced it with a 970 that does 4Ghz at 1.24v

And my build is from Oct2009!!!

I'm pretty certain a 920 at 4Ghz will still be faster then the 8350 at 4 and 4.5Ghz!

All I need is to upgrade my 6970 to a 7970 and its right up their with SB , IVY.

O and great review as usual one of the things that keeps me coming back to the site.

Lionvibez said:

And the comedy comment of the day goes to...

Try reading the graphs again, the i7 3770K at 3.5Ghz gets 70fps while the FX 8350 at 4.5Ghz gets... 70fps

lol I think we found a bigger fanboy than the other dude crying about the Nv 690 not being in the reviews. He was mad that the radeon Ghz edition was at the top of all the charts....

1 person liked this | Blue Falcon said:

Lionvibez,

In fairness, the FX8350 is not going to hold anyone back in this game. People who have $800-1000 of GPUs aren't using $195 processors. For those with single HD7970Ghz/GTX680, those cards are choking at 1920x1200 maxed out as it is. Modern CPUs give way higher frames than the GPUs can manaage. It's pretty unbelievable that a game like FC3 crushes modern GPUs and yet it still doesn't look next generation, not even close actually. The textures and character models are still very simplistic. I have a feeling for truly next generation graphics, we'll need GPUs 5-10x more powerful as this isn't it. Next generation to me is like the New Dawn demo or Unreal Engine 4 or the Square Enix demo. I think we need GTX790 in SLI at minimum to manage next gen graphics if just marginal from Crysis 1, Metro 2033 and Witcher 2 seem to be killing GPUs.

Lionvibez said:

Blue I agree when talking about playable frame rate.

Still kinda amazing how well Gen 1 i7 has been holding up.

indiangamer said:

Just one question

does it look better than crysis?

and

what about including some laptops in test?

Guest said:

(hitman absolution even more demanding than far cry 3 @ maxed settings..)

despite fc3 a gaming evolved title amd cards are bit behind than kepler counterparts..

I hope amd brings out another performance driver for far cry 3 similar as nv 2nd fc3 perf driver 310.70..

I inquired this on amd tech support yesterday,waiting what reply they will give..

but I am getting 60 fps vsync on in fc3 with 2500k+7950B+8 gb c.vengeance(everything on ULTRA,post fx medium,4xaa,ambience occlusion on SSAO) with no overclock on cpu/gpu with 12.11 beta 11 cap2

but nicely done bench...thankS

Blue Falcon said:

The beauty of HD7950 cards (boosted or non-boosted) is that they overclock like screamers. Give her a go Guest. You can net 20-25% overclock beyond 950mhz with a voltage bump up to 1.25V. Just be mindful of GPU and VRM temperatures. Let me know if you need help with MSI Afterburner unofficial unlock/voltage unlocking for your 7950 card.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

And the comedy comment of the day goes to...

Try reading the graphs again, the i7 3770K at 3.5Ghz gets 70fps while the FX 8350 at 4.5Ghz gets... 70fps

lol I think we found a bigger fanboy than the other dude crying about the Nv 690 not being in the reviews. He was mad that the radeon Ghz edition was at the top of all the charts....

This is the third time some Ahole has taken a stab at me on a performance review just because I wanted to see charts of the 690. Click on "Ultra" then tell me who is on top for every single resolution? I saw the 7990's performance on other sites, but since it was never released by AMD I understand that it wasn't ever included here. The 690, however, was officially released.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

I just wish that older Core2 quads are thrown into the mix (CPU scaling)...

I agree, it would have been very interesting to see how a Core 2 Quad stacks up against AMD's FX processors.

From 3.5GHz to 4.5GHz the i7 gained only 5 fps. In the same clock range the FX gained 13 fps. This comment: "It's interesting to note that the FX-8350 at 4.5GHz was only able to match the Core i7-3770K at 3.5GHz." is very biased and unsuitable for a serious tech site. Combined with the driver "choice" towards a better nVidia performance (or worse AMD performance) makes this test less trustworthy. Very, very biased against AMD. :-(

For the CPU part i7 scales poorly with clock speed. FX scales much better. Make them both run at 5GHz and see the FX outperform the i7 (if i7-3770K would ever run at 5GHz).

Welcome to Techspot Jesper, I will try to be a bit more preceptive than my fellow TS friends

The fact that the AMD FX scaled more than the Intel CPU simply means that with the Intel CPU the game is not bottelnecked by the CPU, but instead by the graphics card.

This is a good thing since then you are getting the maximum performance possible from the card.

Also look at these numbers:

Core i7 2.5Ghz gives 65fps, it takes 4Ghz for the AMD FX-8350 to match that!

Jesper Poulsen said:

And the comedy comment of the day goes to...

Try reading the graphs again, the i7 3770K at 3.5Ghz gets 70fps while the FX 8350 at 4.5Ghz gets... 70fps

Did you read the graphs?

At 3.5GHz the i7 managed 70fps. At 4.5GHz it only managed 75fps. That's poor scalability. Very poor.

The FX gained 13fps within the same span. If you OC both by 500MHz the FX will do better than the i7.

Jesper Poulsen said:

The fact that the AMD FX scaled more than the Intel CPU simply means that with the Intel CPU the game is not bottelnecked by the CPU, but instead by the graphics card.

If the performance was really bottlenecked by the GFX there shouldn't be a performance difference with the different clock speeds on the i7. But there is. A very tiny one compared to the great jumps in clock speed. That's poor scalability.

1 person liked this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

If the performance was really bottlenecked by the GFX there shouldn't be a performance difference with the different clock speeds on the i7. But there is. A very tiny one compared to the great jumps in clock speed. That's poor scalability.

Come back once you sober up mate and can make sense of the numbers.

Guest said:

Hi,

Is this with SSAO, HBAO or HDAO? Because with 4x msaa with the latest drivers using gtx 680 on 1920x1080 and HDAO I get not as good average FPS as here, I got dips nearly all the time to 40-46..

What transparency AA? thx

Lionvibez said:

Lol Jesper isn't it past your bed time?

Didnt' anyone teach you brand loyalty and making stuff up is for children and fanboys!

How does a 4Ghz 8350 only matching a 2.5Ghz i7 equal poor scaling for intel?

Lionvibez said:

This is the third time some Ahole has taken a stab at me on a performance review just because I wanted to see charts of the 690. Click on "Ultra" then tell me who is on top for every single resolution? I saw the 7990's performance on other sites, but since it was never released by AMD I understand that it wasn't ever included here. The 690, however, was officially released.

Funny thing is I wasn't even talking about you it was the other guy.

But thank you for showing the rest of us that you are in that same camp.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

Funny thing is I wasn't even talking about you it was the other guy.

But thank you for showing the rest of us that you are in that same camp.

Link the post. I want to see if you're BSing me or if there actually is another person "in that same camp". Truth be told, I was an AMD guy, until BC2 and BF3 crashed every time I wanted to play the game. That's why when I upgraded, I got the 680 instead of the 7970.

Lionvibez said:

Link the post. I want to see if you're BSing me or if there actually is another person "in that same camp". Truth be told, I was an AMD guy, until BC2 and BF3 crashed every time I wanted to play the game. That's why when I upgraded, I got the 680 instead of the 7970.

I will go back and find the poster name later but I assure you it wasn't you. And lets use some logic here I play both BC2 and BF3 and been on a Radeon 6970 since launch and I had no crashing. So maybe the issue isn't the radeons and something else in your system.

You are going to have to make a better argument than one game crashing if you are trying to say the NV cards are more stable then the AMD cards in those two games.

Reminds me of one of my boys during the Windows XP era, whenever the system was unable he would just format and reinstall windows instead of trying to fix the problem.

So what trouble shooting did you so you can place the blame purely on the radeons?

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

I will go back and find the poster name later but I assure you it wasn't you. And lets use some logic here I play both BC2 and BF3 and been on a Radeon 6970 since launch and I had no crashing. So maybe the issue isn't the radeons and something else in your system.

You are going to have to make a better argument than one game crashing if you are trying to say the NV cards are more stable then the AMD cards in those two games.

Reminds me of one of my boys during the Windows XP era, whenever the system was unable he would just format and reinstall windows instead of trying to fix the problem.

So what trouble shooting did you so you can place the blame purely on the radeons?

You're making me sound like I have no idea what I'm doing. I tried everything to get my 6970 to work, but the card just would not play BC2 for longer than 20 minutes without crashing. I reseated the card, installed latest drivers, searched forums for fixes, and I even put the card into a different system with the same results. I was fine with BC2 crashing because at least I could play it for 20-30minutes, but BF3 didn't play longer than 3 minutes. That card was an "upgrade" from SLI 460s (temps entirely too high on a micro atx board). I never had these problems with my 460s. Maybe I was just unlucky and got a dead card. I have had absolutely zero problems with my 680. It's worked like a dream since I installed it back in July. I'm not an nvidia fanboy, I just want to see what the two monster cards can do (690/7990). It's nice seeing how games scale in sli and crossfire.

peperonikiller peperonikiller said:

You're making me sound like I have no idea what I'm doing. I tried everything to get my 6970 to work, but the card just would not play BC2 for longer than 20 minutes without crashing. I reseated the card, installed latest drivers, searched forums for fixes, and I even put the card into a different system with the same results. I was fine with BC2 crashing because at least I could play it for 20-30minutes, but BF3 didn't play longer than 3 minutes. That card was an "upgrade" from SLI 460s (temps entirely too high on a micro atx board). I never had these problems with my 460s. Maybe I was just unlucky and got a dead card. I have had absolutely zero problems with my 680. It's worked like a dream since I installed it back in July. I'm not an nvidia fanboy, I just want to see what the two monster cards can do (690/7990). It's nice seeing how games scale in sli and crossfire.

RMA

Blue Falcon said:

ghasmanjr,

I have to agree with Lionvibez. I actually sold my HD6950 to a person who said he only wanted to play BF3 with them. As I tell all the people to whom I sell my cards, they have 7 days to return the card to me if it has problems or crashes or doesn't work. My 6950 was unlocked to 6970 too using the shader BIOS mod. He said it ran BF3 just fine on his system. 1 month later I inquired how the card is doing, and he said it is running beautifully. I myself tested BF3 on my 6950 briefly and it ran without any stability problems. Maybe you had an unstable card (the voltage wasn't high enough), maybe your driver install got corrupted and needed an OS re-install, maybe you had a system wide compatibility issue with the card (it happens)? I can tell HD6950 works perfectly fine in terms of stability in BF3.

Regarding GTX690 vs. HD7990, maybe a separate round-up can be made for those 2 that includes triple monitor gaming. I can't see many people spending $1000 to play at 1080/1200P on these 2. Also, this comparison could go into a lot more details such as micro-stutter and how it can be alleviated using Radeon Pro, etc. I think it really requires a separate article for a good comparison with high resolutions, AA and multi-monitors. I can't see either of those options being good though at the end of this generation and also because GTX670 SLI/HD7970 CF cost significantly less now (You can get either setup for about $750).

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Truth be told, I was an AMD guy, until BC2 and BF3 crashed every time I wanted to play the game. That's why when I upgraded, I got the 680 instead of the 7970.

Actually I have to agree somewhat, AMD didn't put out decent drivers for the 7970 until several months after release and Crossfire support was non-existent. BF3 never crashed for me though. But the drivers are much, much better now and CF scaling is approaching 100% in games such as BF3 which is hugely impressive.

Blue Falcon said:

"NVIDIA introduced the updated video card driver GeForce 310.70 , which at the request of the press release in the game do increase to 38%. This figure is most likely derived from the last release version drivers, and performance relative to the beta itself has not changed at 310.64"

Looks like with the latest drivers installed and Caps in place, the performance between HD7970 vs. GTX670 and HD7970 Ghz and GTX680 is practically indistinguishable:

[link]

Lionvibez said:

You're making me sound like I have no idea what I'm doing. I tried everything to get my 6970 to work, but the card just would not play BC2 for longer than 20 minutes without crashing. I reseated the card, installed latest drivers, searched forums for fixes, and I even put the card into a different system with the same results. I was fine with BC2 crashing because at least I could play it for 20-30minutes, but BF3 didn't play longer than 3 minutes. That card was an "upgrade" from SLI 460s (temps entirely too high on a micro atx board). I never had these problems with my 460s. Maybe I was just unlucky and got a dead card. I have had absolutely zero problems with my 680. It's worked like a dream since I installed it back in July. I'm not an nvidia fanboy, I just want to see what the two monster cards can do (690/7990). It's nice seeing how games scale in sli and crossfire.

Sorry for making it seem like that but there was no details in your post about the actual issue and what you did to try and resolve it. It just came across as I switch cards and now I have no issues and the guy above me is correct sounds like you had a bad card an a RMA was neccessary.

And it may also have been a heat issue if you kept crashing 20-30 mins. I always replace the stock cooler on my videocards so I've yet to run into crashing due to heat. I really don't trust some of the generic crap they put on for coolers on some of the cards.

While I agree it is nice to see what the $1000 dual card setups can do they are a minority due to how expensive they are and the other issues SLI/Xfire bring so I can see why they would leave it out to simplify the testing.

Lionvibez said:

Actually I have to agree somewhat, AMD didn't put out decent drivers for the 7970 until several months after release and Crossfire support was non-existent. BF3 never crashed for me though. But the drivers are much, much better now and CF scaling is approaching 100% in games such as BF3 which is hugely impressive.

He was talking about crashing in BC2 and BF3 with the 6xxx radeons not the 7xxx series.

raghunathan said:

Hi,

Is this with SSAO, HBAO or HDAO? Because with 4x msaa with the latest drivers using gtx 680 on 1920x1080 and HDAO I get not as good average FPS as here, I got dips nearly all the time to 40-46..

What transparency AA? thx

this review tests with SSAO. they use enhanced A2C which is the highest alpha coverage setting. HDAO provides the best image quality. AMD cards run better with HDAO in Farcry 3. look at PCGH, gamegpu and hardocp

[link]

[link]

[link]

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

AMD cards run better with HDAO in Farcry 3. look at PCGH...

Back to quoting the same review that's using an old Nvidia driver not fully optimized for HDAO? [link] .

...gamegpu

Technically the four HDAO benches they ran are all unplayable, and of those four, the highest res/game iq (25x16/ HDAO+8xMSAA) actually favours the GTX 680 by a solitary fps

...and hardocp

Not overly definitive (hence the preview status), and not exactly a slam dunk at the max playable settings for CrossfireX I would say:

We've talked about this before, and it is very true here, that GTX 680 SLI was smoother, I.e. no stutter, no choppiness, no lag, no "micro stutter" as we played at this setting. Yet, with 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire we definitely felt it stuttering. It doesn't show up in framerate, but it was very blatant and obvious as we moved about the game at this setting on 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire.

A couple of points:

The 7970GE is generally a faster board than the 680, so it should perform better, and secondly, FC3 as an AMD Gaming Evolved title really should be showing a clean pair of heels to the 680, especially since Nvidia were scrambling to get a driver out to utilize an AMD developed feature (HDAO). Hope you get that Sunnyvale internship you're angling for.

Guest said:

UPDATE :: in previous post I told that I inquired amd,this is the reply:

Response and Service Request History:

We do have our Engineers working on driver improvements for Far Cry, so that should hopefully be available through either a newer 12.11Beta or the 12.12 release coming later this month. I know that it is being viewed as a priority concern, so we are working on improvements for this driver suite currently. We appreciate your concern and I have forwarded these comments to our Catalyst team. Thank you for supporting AMD!

In order to update this service request, please respond, leaving the service request reference intact.

Best regards,

AMD Global Customer Care

Guest said:

Great job!! Very detailed and well explained! Thank you!! One of the greatest articles on benchmarking! Keep up the good work!

Guest said:

Hi Blue Falcon .

I use a 7950 dual X and afterburner. I Oc her to 1000 1400 without voltage change. I try to increase but no stability . I m not able to incresea more . What do you think about it cause I read I could up to 1125 and 1600 with 20% more volt but unstable like hell .

I m looking for play ultra 4x MSAA HDAO withtout sync V. Actually I run 45 - 55 fps with huge frames loss at 30 when I m near sea or when I look a large landscape and sometimes freezes of 10 seconds and frames loss while 5 seconds after that.I see an advice to decrease shadows to High and msaa *2 I need some tips to obtain a "60fps stable" if possible

Many thanks in advance

I3570K 3,4 Ghz Asus P8z77-V

Hd 7950 dual X Lg 32' Television

8 go ram 1600 Intel SSD 180 Go

raghunathan said:

Back to quoting the same review that's using an old Nvidia driver not fully optimized for HDAO?

Technically the four HDAO benches they ran are all unplayable, and of those four, the highest res/game iq (25x16/ HDAO+8xMSAA) actually favours the GTX 680 by a solitary fps

gamegpu tested with 310.70 beta and 12.11 beta 11. yet the HD 7970 Ghz was 10% faster than GTX 680 at 1080p. 44 fps at 1080p on HD 7970 Ghz is definitely playable. At the higher 1600p resolution and 8x MSAA settings its not playable. in the resolution that counted most and at the highest IQ settings the HD 7970 Ghz was the clear winner.

We've talked about this before, and it is very true here, that GTX 680 SLI was smoother, I.e. no stutter, no choppiness, no lag, no "micro stutter" as we played at this setting. Yet, with 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire we definitely felt it stuttering. It doesn't show up in framerate, but it was very blatant and obvious as we moved about the game at this setting on 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire.

read the hardocp preview properly. at 1080p the HD 7970 Ghz CF was faster and as smooth as GTX 680 SLI. at 1440p HD 7970 Ghz CF had stuttering. its probably a driver issue which should be resolved soon. HD 7970 Ghz was faster as a single GPU.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.