Far Cry 3 Tested, Benchmarked

[Julio Franco]

Read the full article at:
[newwindow=https://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/]https://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/[/newwindow]

Please leave your feedback here.

 

[Experimentongod]

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

 

[bony1984]

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]

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.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-C...y-3-Test-Grafikkarten-CPU-Benchmarks-1036726/

http://www.computerbase.de/news/2012-12/eigene-benchmarks-zu-far-cry-3/

 

[Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[raghunathan]

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

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http://www.computerbase.de/news/2012-12/eigene-benchmarks-zu-far-cry-3/

 

[dividebyzero]

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]

My results

310.64 = 44 fps
310.70 = 48 fps

A nice increase in my opinion

 

[MrBlkfx1]

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

Thanks, Steve!

 

[raghunathan]

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.

http://far-cry.ubi.com/fc-portal/en-gb/community/detail_news.aspx?c=tcm:21-73246&ct=tcm:6-231-32

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[slh28]

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]

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).

 

[slh28]

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]

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.

 

[Lionvibez]

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]

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....

 

[Blue Falcon]

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]

Blue I agree when talking about playable frame rate.

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