• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Far Cry 4 Benchmarked: Graphics & CPU Performance

Permabanned
Joined
19 Feb 2014
Posts
3,832
Location
To
6 pages so you need visit link bellow:


Conclusion :


Nvidia has some optimization work ahead

"Given that we found the Radeon R9 280X to be faster than the GeForce GTX 780 at every resolution, there's no doubt some controversy will follow these results.

We figured something was wrong from the get-go so we contacted Nvidia and they suggested using the newer 344.75 drivers, which were given to us prior to being made public -- initially we were using the 344.65 WHQL. The new driver was pressumably tweaked for Far Cry 4, though the release notes don't make any performance claims. Alas, with the suggested release installed, we didn't receive a single extra frame. We should also point out we are testing with the latest version of Far Cry 4 (v1.3 as of posting).

For all Radeon cards we used the Catalyst 14.11.2 beta driver, which has also been updated for Far Cry 4. AMD claims up to a 50% performance increase over the Catalyst 14.11.1 beta in single-GPU scenarios with anti-aliasing enabled.

It's worth mentioning this latest beta driver doesn't support CrossFire. The CrossFire profile for Far Cry 4 is currently disabled while AMD works with Ubisoft to investigate an issue where CrossFire configurations are not performing as intended.

Getting back to Nvidia's poor performance... we can confirm that the 344.75 driver was used while Far Cry 4 has been patched to the latest version through Uplay. We asked Nvidia if the performance we saw was unusual or different to what they have seen and they have yet to reply.

As it stands, we believe AMD is getting the most out of its Radeon graphics cards in Far Cry 4 and don't expect to see many performance improvements in the future, with the exception of CrossFire setups. Nvidia on the other hand have some work ahead, which is hard to believe with Far Cry 4 being Nvidia-sponsored.

Ubisoft also has work to do. Despite day one patches, we are still experiencing a lot of crashes with both AMD and Nvidia cards when playing via Uplay.

If we ignore Nvidia's shaky performance and focus on what we saw from AMD, then it seems gamers can enjoy Far Cry 4 in all of its glory at 1920x1200 (or 1080p) with a Radeon HD 7850 or R9 265 (a $150 graphics card). Of course, a R9 270X or 7870 will give you ampler room for heavy scenes, while the HD 7970 or better will be required for an average of 60+ fps.

As is often the case, we found that gamers are best served by an Intel Core i5 processor, though the Core i3 is also quite potent here. Sadly, the AMD FX and Phenom II range struggles, though you can still expect playable performance."



http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/
 
I for one am waiting on a few patches and drivers as its not running well for many and I have black bars as a non 16:9 user.

Also no gain for i7 so not well threaded, would have liked to have seen if CPU OC helps like with Crysis 3.
 
Last edited:
12hrs of gameplay and not a single crash on my 980's. Walking/running is smooth, but driving/flying does occasionally stutter.

The shadows/tree popping while flying is terrible and needs a big improvement.

Other than that I have no issues and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.
 
Well it is an nVidia sponsored game, so that is why it runs well on nVidia and poor on AMD....Wait wut?

The 980 still tops them all but the other Nvidia cards should be higher is what they are saying using the 780 vs 280 as example.

You could also say the Nvidia Exclusive (unless you are shanky and co ;) ) settings are the cause of these issues and needs fixing.

I did not see any gains with old to new driver TBH.

I always post the conclusion be it good or bad as a link alone is not really a good thread, if it was not 6 pages with lots of photos/charts I would copy/paste it all as I normally do.
 
Last edited:
Well Titan is older now and not far ahead of the 780 which they are saying wrongly get beat by a 280.

So yes its looks like a few updates needed for Nvidia to get the performance they should be.
 
Well Titan is older now and not far ahead of the 780 which they are saying wrongly get beat by a 280.

So yes its looks like a few updates needed for Nvidia to get the performance they should be.

Agreed that the Titan is older but the Radeon 280X is also fairly old tech as well. With most other benchmarks, the Titan is around 50% faster than a radeon 280X but it is clearly not the case with Far Cry 4 presently.

Good to see the GTX 980 on top though :)
 
I posted in the game thread about nv perf and my issues.

I've found a happy medium and am now able to play 1080@60. Nvidia pre-set but with all AA off and textures on Low. SMAA sees me get a few dips but YMMV.

This game absolutely eats vRAM. I can't play at 1440p without massive stuttering. Upgrade time for those of us on 2GB, I think it's the final push!
 
Now this is ridiculous. I just ordered a gtx 970 and now many recent reviews and benchmarks show my old 7950 is not really that slow. To top it all the 290X appears to be faster when the Nvidia hype and early reviews say otherwise.
 
Now this is ridiculous. I just ordered a gtx 970 and now many recent reviews and benchmarks show my old 7950 is not really that slow. To top it all the 290X appears to be faster when the Nvidia hype and early reviews say otherwise.

I used to have a Radeon 7950 Boost and I have found my new GTX 980 to perform almost 100% faster in everything I have thrown at it. Far Cry 4 seems to be the exception however :mad:
 
Interesting to see not much difference betwwn the i5 and i7. Seems clock speed is more important here rathert than cores.

Off topic, but related, any one have any Unity CPU benchmarks links?
 
Now this is ridiculous. I just ordered a gtx 970 and now many recent reviews and benchmarks show my old 7950 is not really that slow. To top it all the 290X appears to be faster when the Nvidia hype and early reviews say otherwise.

One single game. You cant look at things in isolation. Plus this is a Ubisoft game. I think that says it all. You will not regret the 970, especially coming from a single 7950.
 
I'm surprised as it almost nudges every AMD card 2 notches higher than I'd expect.

For example my card (7870) at 1080p beats the 680 and is close to the 770. Yet in most games will perform at about the same as a 660Ti.

Given that the 970 and 980 seem to perform about where I'd expect I can only conclude that FarCry4 has been poorly optimised for 600/700 series cards so new drivers will need to fix that at some point.
 
Yeah I was surprised to see my stock single 290 pushing over 60fps on full ultra at 1080p I think I avg about 70fps from start of game to first village.

Ubisoft fix the odd stutter and mouse lag I'll continue to play it.
Add crossfire support and I think I'll keep very close to my refresh rate.
 
Now this is ridiculous. I just ordered a gtx 970 and now many recent reviews and benchmarks show my old 7950 is not really that slow. To top it all the 290X appears to be faster when the Nvidia hype and early reviews say otherwise.

The 290X is the faster card, it's only the 980 that is faster. 290 is the one that's on par with 970.
A 970 is faster than a 7950 it just seems amd once again has of late is pushing better driver support.
 
Back
Top Bottom