Far Cry 5 Benchmarked: 50 GPUs Tested

[Julio Franco]

To play Far Cry 5, Ubisoft recommends that you have a Core i7-4770 or Ryzen 5 1600 processor along with a GeForce GTX 970 or Radeon R9 290X -- fairly heavy recommendations. Benchmarking the game has been made easy by its built-in benchmark which appears to do a good job of replicating the kind of performance you can expect to see when playing the game.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1600-far-cry-5-benchmarks/

 

[meric]

What was the cpu used in test system? Probably a 8700k? I wonder if my i5 4460 (8gb ram) + r9 380x system could run this at 1080p with good quality&fps

 

[Steve]

What was the cpu used in test system? Probably a 8700k? I wonder if my i5 4460 (8gb ram) + r9 380x system could run this at 1080p with good quality&fps

8700K @ 5 GHz [32GB DDR4-3200]

 

[Colonel Blimp]

...Apparently, I can't post what I wanted to post as "an error occured"

Was trying to say great job and my 280x is going to last longer and longer.

Looking forward to the CPU part to see how my 1600 stacks up.

 

[Cryio]

Ah, the classic situations where a 280X is faster than 780 and HD 7870/270/X faster than 760 and on par with 960.

Best GPUs AMD ever made.

 

[dirtyferret]

What was the cpu used in test system? Probably a 8700k? I wonder if my i5 4460 (8gb ram) + r9 380x system could run this at 1080p with good quality&fps

You should pcgamesn used an i5 4c @ 3.2ghz, 8gb ram, and a GTX 1060 to mimic the average steam user PC and they never dropped below 60 fps on ultra setting at 1080p.

 

[Lounds]

What was the cpu used in test system? Probably a 8700k? I wonder if my i5 4460 (8gb ram) + r9 380x system could run this at 1080p with good quality&fps

8700K @ 5 GHz [32GB DDR4-3200]

Would be interesting to see how Far Cry 5 works with Ryzen 5 1600 (bought one back in November). Any plans for this Steve?

 

[Vulcanproject]

Premature publish unfortunately. Nvidia's drivers specifically for this game released today when you dropped this article.

 

[Lounds]

Ah, the classic situations where a 280X is faster than 780 and HD 7870/270/X faster than 760 and on par with 960.

Best GPUs AMD ever made.

Probably due to it's similarities with current consoles. I have a 7870XT (7930) which I bought after reading an article on techspot!

 

[Squid Surprise]

Premature publish unfortunately. Nvidia's drivers specifically for this game released today when you dropped this article.

He did say that this would be updated when Nvidia's drivers were released... guess we can expect that soon

 

[GreenNova343]

Not a bad review. Now we just need the CPU-based review.

Although this is weird, this is at least the 2nd time where I've seen a game's hardware review be split into multiple articles (I.e. separate reviews of CPU vs. GPU performance), with PUBG being the other one that comes to mind. Not sure if it's just a random change, or if they thought it would make articles easier to read if there aren't as many pages to go through.

 

[dirtyferret]

What was the cpu used in test system? Probably a 8700k? I wonder if my i5 4460 (8gb ram) + r9 380x system could run this at 1080p with good quality&fps

8700K @ 5 GHz [32GB DDR4-3200]

Would be interesting to see how Far Cry 5 works with Ryzen 5 1600 (bought one back in November). Any plans for this Steve?

Guru3d did test the ryzen 1700

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_5_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

 

[Steve]

Not a bad review. Now we just need the CPU-based review.

Although this is weird, this is at least the 2nd time where I've seen a game's hardware review be split into multiple articles (I.e. separate reviews of CPU vs. GPU performance), with PUBG being the other one that comes to mind. Not sure if it's just a random change, or if they thought it would make articles easier to read if there aren't as many pages to go through.

Try and replicate this article and I bet you'll work it out 400 benchmark runs later.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Not a bad review. Now we just need the CPU-based review.

Although this is weird, this is at least the 2nd time where I've seen a game's hardware review be split into multiple articles (I.e. separate reviews of CPU vs. GPU performance), with PUBG being the other one that comes to mind. Not sure if it's just a random change, or if they thought it would make articles easier to read if there aren't as many pages to go through.

Probably much easier time meeting deadlines, etc.

 

[ZackL04]

What was the cpu used in test system? Probably a 8700k? I wonder if my i5 4460 (8gb ram) + r9 380x system could run this at 1080p with good quality&fps

8700K @ 5 GHz [32GB DDR4-3200]

Would be interesting to see how Far Cry 5 works with Ryzen 5 1600 (bought one back in November). Any plans for this Steve?

What is your GPU? Im sure the 1600 is not your limiting factor

 

[brkbeatjunkie]

Why didn’t they test this with Nvidia game ready driver released this morning??? These results are borked

 

[GeforcerFX]

I wonder how much more demanding this is over Far Cry 4? I can run 4 (if just barely) never tried primal yet. I live in Montana so I can go do half the stuff this game offers outside my house (even got some crazy religious neighbors)

 

[TrexAverell]

Why didn’t they test this with Nvidia game ready driver released this morning??? These results are borked

An update is expected from Steve

For now, Guru 3D had already updated their review and it seems that the new green driver doesn't change too much things

 

[MrBlkfx1]

Great review per usual, Steve. I really like that you guys are testing some of the older cards these days. Keep it up.

 

[Prosercunus]

Played a few minutes before work this morning and it seems like an impressively optimized game and this was before the newest nvidia drivers.

 

[NightAntilli]

Premature publish unfortunately. Nvidia's drivers specifically for this game released today when you dropped this article.

Why didn’t they test this with Nvidia game ready driver released this morning??? These results are borked

Over 90% of launch reviews are borked in the opposite direction, where nVidia has a driver available and AMD hasn't. Where were you then?

You can't create such a performance article based on a driver released the same morning. It takes a LOT of time to benchmark so many cards. Give these guys some credit for releasing this so early rather than complaining. Benchmarking is hard work and anything but fun. Additionally, it is stated clearly in the article that the AMD drivers were released to Techspot prior to being released to the public. nVidia didn't do the same, so it's on them.

 

[GreenNova343]

Not a bad review. Now we just need the CPU-based review.

Although this is weird, this is at least the 2nd time where I've seen a game's hardware review be split into multiple articles (I.e. separate reviews of CPU vs. GPU performance), with PUBG being the other one that comes to mind. Not sure if it's just a random change, or if they thought it would make articles easier to read if there aren't as many pages to go through.

Try and replicate this article and I bet you'll work it out 400 benchmark runs later.

OMG, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to complain or anything. I actually like the format better, as it makes it easier for those looking for 1 or the other types of testing to find it. And especially since I've noticed over the past year that many sites have had issues swapping out CPUs for their testing (starting with BF1 -- IIRC, you guys were only able to test 5 CPUs on that game before EA's Origins locked you out for "hardware changes").

 

[Vulcanproject]

Over 90% of launch reviews are borked in the opposite direction, where nVidia has a driver available and AMD hasn't. Where were you then?

You can't create such a performance article based on a driver released the same morning. It takes a LOT of time to benchmark so many cards. Give these guys some credit for releasing this so early rather than complaining. Benchmarking is hard work and anything but fun. Additionally, it is stated clearly in the article that the AMD drivers were released to Techspot prior to being released to the public. nVidia didn't do the same, so it's on them.

I know all this. I would prefer a benchmark article a few days after the game launches if it means there is leeway for drivers AND patches which often come thick and fast within days of launch. Any more than that such as waiting weeks it often takes for AMD to respond isn't the same situation as having drivers or patches within days of a game's launch, or the exact same day. It's one thing missing out on a launch day driver update and another waiting 3 weeks for AMD to pull their finger out.

They can have credit for knocking out the benches the day of launch, but the person who did it also now knows that all that work they did on the Nvidia side is dated the second they hit publish today and they need to do it all over again.

At least wait a few days until you push out benchmarks so you have launch day patches and drivers......

 

[BReal]

Why didn’t they test this with Nvidia game ready driver released this morning??? These results are borked

Not really. There is about 1-2 fps boost for sub-1080Ti cards, 1080 Ti and Titan Xp get about 4% increase. So the difference remains quite big.

 

[Dimitrios]

Awesome review! I was surprised you showed the AMD RX560 4GB and AMD 7790HD which I own both of.