Far Cry 4 Benchmarked, Performance Review

  • Open My documents > Open Folder My Games
  • Open Folder Far Cry 4
  • Open the GamerProfile.xml file with Notepad
  • Find DisableLoadingMip0 = "0" and change it to DisableLoadingMip0 = "1"
  • Find GPUMaxBufferedFrames="0" and change to GPUMaxBufferedFrames="1"
 
Here is the website that cited that AMD performed horribly also you have 3 R9 290X for 1080p?

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again
No for Eyefinity and for 4K which I have a 4K monitor but since its not allowing CFX to work properly yet I am not using that monitor to play the game as I would probably . Either way though the results are great with the 290X as shown here and a few other sites as there is no stutter in game.
 
The CPU performance on AMD systems is horrible. Such drastic differences should not be the case. Ubisoft also has some optimization work to do!
 
I was not expecting this at all!!!

In almost every single benchmark I have seen, nvidia cards were equal if not better than their AMD counterparts and considering that this game used Nvidia game works it even more mind boggling how AMD got the upper hand, not to mention the stupendously good framerates overall.

What's weird is that I'm using an R9 290 in my rig and in FC3 the frame rate is mostly 60 but it almost never gets over 70. So how does it run better in FC4?!, plus many people with AMD cards are complaining about low framerates in FC4. I'll just have to wait and see by my self.
 
  • Open My documents > Open Folder My Games
  • Open Folder Far Cry 4
  • Open the GamerProfile.xml file with Notepad
  • Find DisableLoadingMip0 = "0" and change it to DisableLoadingMip0 = "1"
  • Find GPUMaxBufferedFrames="0" and change to GPUMaxBufferedFrames="1"


This will also make a lot of texture look really bad. so its still a trade-off. I also tried this (running an HD 7970) and it seems to maybe work for a bit but then I was back to getting really bad stuttering and hangs. So I put DisableLoadingMip0 back to 0 from 1 and it didn't seem to make a difference. Use at your own risk.
 
This is strange because it's the only site I have seen where AMD cards do better than Nvidia cards. I personally can say that the game runs at around 40-65fps average on ultra @ 1080p on my computer. (4770k, 16gb DDR3, HD 7970ghz). I'm very curious how TechSpot got these numbers, because I find it very hard to believe that I'm getting the same performance as even a GTX 780 would get. Just doesn't make sense....WISH I was getting 60+fps on average.....
 
The CPU performance on AMD systems is horrible. Such drastic differences should not be the case. Ubisoft also has some optimization work to do!

Well its not exactly a secret that Intel CPUs are better for games than AMD ones are. I do find it a little bit crappy, though, that the 4770k is faster @ 2.5ghz than the fx-8350 is at 4.5ghz. Doesn't seem fair. TechSpots FC3 benchmarks were all outta whack when that came out as well. I wanna know what they're doing to get the performance that they claim they are out of AMD cards though....Would be nice.....
 
Well its not exactly a secret that Intel CPUs are better for games than AMD ones are. I do find it a little bit crappy, though, that the 4770k is faster @ 2.5ghz than the fx-8350 is at 4.5ghz. Doesn't seem fair. TechSpots FC3 benchmarks were all outta whack when that came out as well. I wanna know what they're doing to get the performance that they claim they are out of AMD cards though....Would be nice.....
Yeah I get that Intel may have better CPUs, but it doesn't mean a game should favor it by 20 fps...
 
Dear Ubisoft, I would like to know why, even after applying the 1.4.0 patch, I'm still experiencing a black screen when I launch the game. Why Ubisoft, why? Is it north korea attack fear? is it water crisis affecting france? there's lots of muslims at the next door on ubisoft building putting fear on devs souls? Why ubisoft! why!!!!!
 
I5 3570K vs your i7 4770k that's why there's such a difference in FPS between the benchmarks maybe?
old gen and new gen.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again
vs
https://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/

I say don't use presets but instead set each setting exactly the same for each card and if cards don't support certain settings then that setting must be turned off on all of them.

Just a thought

and maybe bench the game on a 1366x768@60 monitor, since its the most popular screen resolution.
 
I was not expecting this at all!!!

In almost every single benchmark I have seen, nvidia cards were equal if not better than their AMD counterparts and considering that this game used Nvidia game works it even more mind boggling how AMD got the upper hand, not to mention the stupendously good framerates overall.

What's weird is that I'm using an R9 290 in my rig and in FC3 the frame rate is mostly 60 but it almost never gets over 70. So how does it run better in FC4?!, plus many people with AMD cards are complaining about low framerates in FC4. I'll just have to wait and see by my self.

There are mixed results for sure but don’t just assume one review is wrong. From what I have seen and I have seen almost all of them the ones that show Nvidia beating AMD used MSAA x4. We tested with SMAA and the sites that also did this such as GameGPU showed the AMD cards doing much better. SMAA is applied when using the ultra-quality preset.

Are you comparing FC3 using MSAA to FC4 using SMAA? Whatever the case you can’t make that comparison accurately.

This is strange because it's the only site I have seen where AMD cards do better than Nvidia cards. I personally can say that the game runs at around 40-65fps average on ultra @ 1080p on my computer. (4770k, 16gb DDR3, HD 7970ghz). I'm very curious how TechSpot got these numbers, because I find it very hard to believe that I'm getting the same performance as even a GTX 780 would get. Just doesn't make sense....WISH I was getting 60+fps on average.....

Obviously you haven’t read all the Far Cry 4 performance reviews and you haven’t looked closely at how everyone has test the game.

TechSpots FC3 benchmarks were all outta whack when that came out as well.

What is out of whack about the results in our first FC3 performance review? I still stand by those.

Yeah I get that Intel may have better CPUs, but it doesn't mean a game should favor it by 20 fps...

Why doesn’t it mean that? The Intel Core i5 and Core i7 processors were 20% faster than the FX-8350, this can’t be the first time you have seen a benchmark result where the Intel processors were 20% faster. The FX processors get trashed in a lot of games. AMD fan boys scream poor coding or optimized for Intel each time but the truth is Intel offers superior core performance.

Furthermore we have seen numerous times when checking scaling performance that a 2.5GHz Core i7 can beat a 4.5GHz FX processor, again better core performance from Intel.

I5 3570K vs your i7 4770k that's why there's such a difference in FPS between the benchmarks maybe?

old gen and new gen.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again

vs

https://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/

I say don't use presets but instead set each setting exactly the same for each card and if cards don't support certain settings then that setting must be turned off on all of them.

Just a thought

and maybe bench the game on a 1366x768@60 monitor, since its the most popular screen resolution.

Setting the ultra preset sets the exact same settings on all AMD and Nvidia hardware, so it does exactly what you are proposing we should do. Also 1080p is the most popular screen resolution. We don’t have a cheap 16:9 screen though so we test at 16:10.
 
Last edited:
The most popular resolution in the world is 1366x768 but for gaming it 1080.

and how is it that specific things made only for nvidia work on amd??
 
Hey I was wondering if anyone could help me out, I'm playing on an r9 290x tri x by saphire, with a i5 4690k, 16 gb ddr3, and I have the game installed on an ssd yet I AM STILL getting stutter issues and texture pop ins while driving and slight stutter at other scenes. Is anyone else with a high performance set up having any problems and what can I do to fix them (aside from the gamerprofile.xmp changes)
 
In the main CPU benchmark, the FX-8350 gives 66 FPS at 4.00 GHz, but below in the overclocking table it gives 69 fps at 4.00GHz.

Coincidentally, 69 fps is the value that the 4320 gets in the main table.

Mix up?

Also, would've liked to have seen how the FX-9590 performs, but I guess we can't have everything.
 
I have 260x and I can play at about ~30FPS on Ultra while on Low it's still about 30FPS, both at 1080p, and I also changed the res to 720p, no difference what so ever. What's the point of having graphics options if the game is gonna run the same?
 
It just means you're probably running into a non-gpu related bottleneck.
 
Back