Far Cry 2 Graphics Performance

TheRealDeal · 23 Oct 2008 at 14:34

I don't really like guru's reviews for one reason only they tend never to use a fast enough processor to get the best out of the cards. e8400 at 3ghz is not enough to push the x2 anywhere near to its full performance and most of the other top end cards either. The game may not look as good as crysis but i don't think there will be half as much complaints about the game as it looks playable on good settings for most decent gaming rigs.

pastymuncher · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:15

The stupid thing in the Guru3D review is that they used a Nvidia 680i chipset mobo for the Nvidia cards and a Asus P5E3 for the ATI cards. They should have used the same board for both brands of cards to ensure a level playing field.

helmutcheese · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:25

Clock.It said:
The 4870 512 is performing worse than in should because of the lack of memory in newer games+high res+AA.

It does the same in crysis Warhead with 2/4AA at higher res and grid when 8AA is applied at 1920 res.

Makes me laugh as a few months back peeps were claiming the 512MB of Video Memory was enough as its better than the set up on the Nvidia cards and it will run 1920's or 2560's with Full AA etc etc No Probs.

512MB of any Memory/any 733t Super Duper set up is not enough Period for those high RES+AA etc)

I'm glad to see they have now edited/updated the review with a 1GB version which TBH should have been there at first.

rjk · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:26

oh - i do hope its on my door mat when i get home!

acccc · 23 Oct 2008 at 15:59

so is there a notable graphical difference between directX 9/10 in this game?

mmj_uk · 23 Oct 2008 at 16:04

How come ATI cards are so poor in DX10 mode? So much for DX10.1!

Swordfish125 · 23 Oct 2008 at 16:07

Inazuma said:
So... I'm guessing 2560x1600 is becoming a standard res now?

Lol id go blind, 1600x1050 is more than enough for me. also means my dual 4850 setup should run lots of things for a while.

Crysis is by far and away the best looking game out there on it highestest settings. Even on high its awesome.

Duran · 23 Oct 2008 at 16:11

i'm really satisfied with the performance on my rig. i get an average of 45 fps with everything on very high + 2AA at 1080p res. the game looks stunning to me.

spookywillow · 23 Oct 2008 at 16:19

so is nobody else getting major stuttering in dx10 mode? it looks so much better than dx9 but its just unplayable for me.

helmutcheese · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:10

Inazuma said:
So... I'm guessing 2560x1600 is becoming a standard res now?

More than you would think, not all peeps waste £100's on a GPU/GPU's to game at 1280x1024 on a 19" Monitor :rolleyes:

willhub · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:11

Will be along time until 2560x1600 is a standard res, I think 1680x1050 is becoming the standard res at the moment.

helmutcheese · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:16

1920's is very common now and a few have bigger LCD's that do 2560's, Just stating its not that uncommon and that's why we have today's GPU's, which are wasted and run slower at lower RES.

Some of use Gamers prefer CRT and could choose very high RES years ago but the GPU's could not give good FPS.

fraps · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:19

spec as sig fyi:

Sohaib · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:23

Looks fantastic, but how come console players are getting this too?

And they will be able to play it with ease on their relativly poor hardware compared the stuff we buy and pay out our noses for.

Is FarCry 2 another Console Port?

lego · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:39

before i delve back into pc gaming, how would this run on a Q6600, 4 gig ram and a 3870 @ 1680 x 1050? not a fan of console fps-ing and dont really want to upgrade

TheRealDeal · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:42

I think you could get it running pretty nice with a few settings turned down.

willhub · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:54

helmutcheese said:
1920's is very common now and a few have bigger LCD's that do 2560's, Just stating its not that uncommon and that's why we have today's GPU's, which are wasted and run slower at lower RES.

Some of use Gamers prefer CRT and could choose very high RES years ago but the GPU's could not give good FPS.

Well I'd not say at very low res such as 1280x1024 a GPU like a GTX280 is wasted tbh, 1920 is not uncommon, but if you are referring to to standard res then 1680x1050 is more likely to be that than 1920 res.

Strife212 · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:55

My own personal benchmark, just ran Far Cry 2:

1920x1200
All Settings Ultra High
8x Anti Aliasing
DirectX 10

Average Framerate: 41.57
Max. Framerate: 57.78
Min. Framerate: 31.05

With is without the 180.41 "Far Cry" driver installed.

TheRealDeal · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:57

Why did you not install the 180's. Would be nice to see a comparison now to see if they 180 really does make a big difference. Nice score though strife for those settings.

helmutcheese · 23 Oct 2008 at 17:57

willhub said:
Well I'd not say at very low res such as 1280x1024 a GPU like a GTX280 is wasted tbh, 1920 is not uncommon, but if you are referring to to standard res then 1680x1050 is more likely to be that than 1920 res.

I was getting at the posts sarcasm more so TBH, and trying to point out many peeps do game at 1920's and Higher.

Buying a GTX280 to game at 1280's would be madness/pointless IMO.