• 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

I suppose the figures they give are average frame rates, so people suffering moments of lag may still have overall higher averages..? does that make sense?
 
Last edited:
I just tested the game with my brand new Galax gtx 970 Black Edition. The fps are barely higher than my old vapor-x 7950 on ultra settings.
I didn't benchmark but looking at the realtime fps counter the 7950 was getting about 40-55 fps and the gtx 970 is getting about 50-68 fps. The game looks and feels about the same.
Setting to the 'Nvidia' option drops the fps down to about 35-45fps without any major improvement in visuals (only soft shadows and TXAA seem the extra options).

Just shocking that Nvidia paid to develop this game and the performance is actually not much better than a two generation old AMD card. The stutter when panning is the same as the AMD card.

The other thing is the fur option looks exactly the same as the 7950 version which I assumed was broken. TressFX is better by far judging by this feature. The fur looks like some flickery pixels, not actual hair strands.
 
Last edited:
shankly1985 said:
Here the bit they tested.. :confused: Nothing happening. Only thing I can think off is what version of the game was they running. I don't seem to see it listed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKujeRNkPk
Click to expand...

Wait, that website uses a 23 second piece of filming with nothing else on screen, no action and no NPC's running around as a performance test? That is shockingly poor way to test. Regardless of game you will get low/high load area's.

Showing absolutely best case scenario is useless for giving an idea of real numbers that users will hit in the game while playing and even more so, it will give silly results. Hardware with a bigger front end to back end ratio(more rops, less shaders) will do great in low load scenes and struggle in high load scenes. Low load scenes are rop limited more than anything else, high load scenes will be more shader/everything limited. The 980 is going to get higher max frame rates decent averages and worse minimums which is often seen vs the 290x in many games.
 
When you refuse point blank to ignore the parity in 670/290X FXAA(yet the 290X batters a 780 using(driver level brute force) MSAA performance then I suppose your right.

Cue relentless BM graphs.....

Just to add BAO is the only GW's title that I've had issue with, seems the article done a grand job in stamping out any future GW's discrepancies-if there were any to begin with.
 
shankly1985 said:
Here the bit they tested.. :confused: Nothing happening. Only thing I can think off is what version of the game was they running. I don't seem to see it listed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKujeRNkPk
Click to expand...

That is pretty shocking TBH, his field of view is nothing but grass and rock face for a distance of no more than 10 meters.
Thats it, nothing more to it.

This is an apparently professional reviewer, makes you wonder how others that don't describe benching methods in reviews do it.
 
Last edited:
** Broken quote removed **

Those result are cool. No AMD in Xfire and the x295 is slower than one single 290x. Guess if you only test Nvidia in SLI then the chart will look Nvidia owned. Maybe someone should show them where to tick Xfire in CCC.
 
** Broken quote removed **

Those result are cool. No AMD in Xfire and the x295 is slower than one single 290x. Guess if you only test Nvidia in SLI then the chart will look Nvidia owned. Maybe someone should show them where to tick Xfire in CCC.[/quote]

Nvidia own as long as you use it to look at nothing but grass :p
 
** Broken quote removed **

Those result are cool. No AMD in Xfire and the x295 is slower than one single 290x. Guess if you only test Nvidia in SLI then the chart will look Nvidia owned. Maybe someone should show them where to tick Xfire in CCC.[/QUOTE]

GTX970 is faster then the 290x in both those charts... contradicts the other results now doesn't it ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom