• 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 6 GPU performance not bad at all but is severely bottlenecked by CPU

Soldato
Joined
22 May 2010
Posts
11,881
Location
Minibotpc
Did you run the benchmark with FSR UQ? I have noticed that when I turn in FSR UQ, there are 2 deep stutters in the benchmark but when I turn off FSR, those stutters disappear.
Not tried the benchmark yet tbh, i dived straight into the game. I'll give it a go tonight and see if i get those stutters.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2020
Posts
1,438
Oh and the only thing I would say is needing a 'better' cpu is if for example I wanted to stream while playing then the 3600 would not cut it. That or I need 120> fps which I dont but if I magically was given a top grade monitor that could do the hz/fps I would have to reconsider.

TBH i honestly think it will be fine at 120FPS as well , will be nearing its limit but will still do a solid 120FPS at 4k going by the warzone benchmark below and this is with a 3080 and in this particular game a 3090 provides a nice uplift at 4k. If you were looking for a new monitor to enjoy some 4K 120hz i can personally highly recommend the LG CX/C1 OLED , i will forewarn you though once you tried it out with its stunning HDR you will not be going back to LCD screen... when i do switch back to my monitor which is an LG27GN950 ( 4K 160hz ) it looks so bland in comparison, that and the fact there is a 50" difference between the 2 :cry:

As for FarCry 6 , it sound like it needs a few patches before its finally out of Beta phase and everyone can enjoy those lovely textures :D

 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jul 2005
Posts
20,047
Location
Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
TBH i honestly think it will be fine at 120FPS as well , will be nearing its limit but will still do a solid 120FPS at 4k going by the warzone benchmark below and this is with a 3080 and in this particular game a 3090 provides a nice uplift at 4k. If you were looking for a new monitor to enjoy some 4K 120hz i can personally highly recommend the LG CX/C1 OLED , i will forewarn you though once you tried it out with its stunning HDR you will not be going back to LCD screen... when i do switch back to my monitor which is an LG27GN950 ( 4K 160hz ) it looks so bland in comparison, that and the fact there is a 50" difference between the 2 :cry:

Mate that sounds like what I want to do when I replace this AOC screen. I don't need 144+ as im getting old and dont care for the CS 1.6 days of needing the edge, if anything a top internet connection is what you need to start on that but that's another thing I dont have.

A TV or panel that can do modern HDR will be the holy grail but waiting for the price to be reasonable.

Anyone else noticed that FSR resets each time you close the game? I have to manually turn it on again at the start of each game, really annoying...

Can confirm lol, I thought it was me.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
40,567
Location
United Kingdom
The 5950X is indeed a brilliant CPU but i fear i may lose some performance in certain benchmarks if i did the swap from my 10900K;):cry:

In all seriousness though any of these high end CPU be it from AMD or Intel will serve you well for gaming needs and will offer pretty much no uplift at 4k even against the lower tier CPU, 1080P yep we will see a difference but with this level of hardware playing at 1080p is wrong unless you require silly high FPS ....
Which benchmarks?
 
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2020
Posts
1,438
Mate that sounds like what I want to do when I replace this AOC screen. I don't need 144+ as im getting old and dont care for the CS 1.6 days of needing the edge, if anything a top internet connection is what you need to start on that but that's another thing I dont have.

A TV or panel that can do modern HDR will be the holy grail but waiting for the price to be reasonable.

Just had a look at prices and they are coming down already and we haven't even hit black Friday sales yet when TV normally get some sort of discount added but as off today you can get a 48C1 OLED for £1100 and i expect that will drop some more still as next year is the C2 OLED although i hear that will be coming in 42" so bit easier to handle for a desk . My one recommendation is you buy it from John Lewis with their extended warranty which will cover you for burn in for 5 years so basically turn them settings up as high as they can go and enjoy all that OLED goodness :cry: Mine is 77" and i put it up on the wall as its massive but it is my main TV, as its so bloody good at gaming with its ridiculous response time and stunning HDR performance i find myself playing on it 95% of the time and the monitor is a bit wasted tbh. 120Hz is absolutely fine for me , again im knocking on a bit now and my reflexes aren't what they use to be so no need for ultra high FPS anymore and if i do want that bit extra will play on the monitor although i always feel like i am missing out so switch back to the OLED and sacrifice that 40fps gain ( which i don't really notice tbh ):cry:
 
Soldato
Joined
22 May 2010
Posts
11,881
Location
Minibotpc
Mate that sounds like what I want to do when I replace this AOC screen. I don't need 144+ as im getting old and dont care for the CS 1.6 days of needing the edge, if anything a top internet connection is what you need to start on that but that's another thing I dont have.

A TV or panel that can do modern HDR will be the holy grail but waiting for the price to be reasonable.



Can confirm lol, I thought it was me.
Glad its not just me lol, thought i was losing my mind at first.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
40,567
Location
United Kingdom
Things like Tomb Raider , Heaven , Superposition ( although cpu doesn't matter to much for superposition but still ;) )
Glad you mentioned that CPU is irrelevant in Superposition since it is so GPU bound.

5950X is faster in Tomb Raider.
iFoAMYx.png

Heaven is so old I can't find any benchmarks. :cry:

Not sure I agree with your assessment. :p
 
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2020
Posts
1,438
Glad you mentioned that CPU is irrelevant in Superposition since it is so GPU bound.

5950X is faster in Tomb Raider.
iFoAMYx.png

Heaven is so old I can't find any benchmarks. :cry:

Not sure I agree with your assessment. :p

My assessment is sound, check out our Benchmark results and ignore what HUB have found ;)

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/shadow-of-the-tomb-raider-bench-thread.18832183/

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/tomb-raider-ultra-bench.18654903/

:D

We have a pretty active thread for Heaven on here , i did wonder why i couldn't see your results but here you go .. time for some quick Sunday benchmarks:p

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/unigine-heaven-4-benchmark.18487976/page-206#post-28330031
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
40,567
Location
United Kingdom
My assessment is sound, check out our Benchmark results and ignore what HUB have found ;)

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/shadow-of-the-tomb-raider-bench-thread.18832183/

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/tomb-raider-ultra-bench.18654903/

:D

We have a pretty active thread for Heaven on here , i did wonder why i couldn't see your results but here you go .. time some some quick Sunday benchmarks:p

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/unigine-heaven-4-benchmark.18487976/page-206#post-28330031
That's a graphics card bench though. HUB kept the GPU the same (using a 3090 btw ;)) to ensure that you are testing CPU performance not GPU performance.

If you think you have a faster score in Tomb Raider because of your CPU then you are wrong. If you switched to a 5950X your score would go up at 1080P, not down.

Sorry, I got a whiff of BS so I thought I would ask for specifics to see if you had anything of substance. :p
 
Associate
Joined
25 Apr 2017
Posts
1,122
Reports on the Ubisoft forum indicate an RTX 2060 cannot handle Far Cry 6 on even the low setting at 1080p as it’s running out of VRAM and blurry textures start popping up after a few hours. This is hilarious as not even Cyberpunk or Metro Exodus demand this much VRAM.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2020
Posts
1,438
That's a graphics card bench though. HUB kept the GPU the same (using a 3090 btw ;)) to ensure that you are testing CPU performance not GPU performance.

If you think you have a faster score in Tomb Raider because of your CPU then you are wrong. If you switched to a 5950X your score would go up at 1080P, not down.

Unigine is the same

Sorry, I got a whiff of BS so I thought I would ask for specifics to see if you had anything of substance. :p

No BS the results speak for themselves:cry:

At 1080P in the tomb raider benchmarks we do it is also a CPU test to some degree as we are CPU limited at that resolution and it doesn't lose much if anything to the 5950X in our benchmark ... if the cpu was that bad it wouldn't be up top, yes the 3090 is doing its part but still . i may gain a bit from switching to a 5950X if i was playing at 1080p BUT i don't so pretty much a mute point but its fun to run some benchmarks and see what the old donkey (10900K) can still do if pushed. Heaven bench you have a few 5950X running 3090 but the 10900k results are still on top albeit overclocked but still and again CPU will very much play a part at 1080p as if i run stock clocks i cant touch my score plain and simple.

I don't care which CPU is faster tbh the main thing should be is it doing what you want it to and providing enough frames at your resolution your playing at , if it is then carry on and enjoy .. if not then maybe look to upgrade . we have the 12900K about to be released and will possibly swing the " Best Gaming CPU " crown back to intel but that will be at 1080p and as mentioned many times why on earth spend that much on a CPU to play at 1080P:rolleyes:
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
40,567
Location
United Kingdom
No BS the results speak for themselves:cry:

At 1080P in the tomb raider benchmarks we do it is also a CPU test to some degree as we are CPU limited at that resolution and it doesn't lose much if anything to the 5950X in our benchmark ... if the cpu was that bad it wouldn't be up top, yes the 3090 is doing its part but still . i may gain a bit from switching to a 5950X if i was playing at 1080p BUT i don't so pretty much a mute point but its fun to run some benchmarks and see what the old donkey (10900K) can still do if pushed. Heaven bench you have a few 5950X running 3090 but the 10900k results are still on top albeit overclocked but still and again CPU will very much play a part at 1080p as if i run stock clocks i cant touch my score plain and simple.

I don't care which CPU is faster tbh the main thing should be is it doing what you want it to and providing enough frames at your resolution your playing at , if it is then carry on and enjoy .. if not then maybe look to upgrade . we have the 12900K about to be released and will possibly swing the " Best Gaming CPU " crown back to intel but that will be at 1080p and as mentioned many times why on earth spend that much on a CPU to play at 1080P:rolleyes:
I don't care either mate, but just had to pull you up on what you said as it was wrong.

Your benchmark scores would improve, they would not get worse by switching to a 5950X. I was not making it a GPU benchmark competition which is how your post reads to me so I guess you got the wrong end of the stick.

Would the CPU performance uplift of 5%+ be worth it? Probably not for most people, but it depends how important 'maximum performance' is to you. If you like benchmarking as you indicated, then every little helps.

A 5950X would make your 3090 even faster than it already is on water cooling and with a 500W BIOS, so please stay with Intel. I truly hope you stay with Intel, as it's going to be easier to try and beat your scores when you are using a slower CPU. :p
 
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2020
Posts
1,438
I don't care either mate, but just had to pull you up on what you said as it was wrong.

Your benchmark scores would improve, they would not get worse by switching to a 5950X. I was not making it a GPU benchmark competition which is how your post reads to me so I guess you got the wrong end of the stick.

Would the CPU performance uplift of 5%+ be worth it? Probably not for most people, but it depends how important 'maximum performance' is to you. If you like benchmarking as you indicated, then every little helps.

A 5950X would make your 3090 even faster than it already is on water cooling and with a 500W BIOS, so please stay with Intel. I truly hope you stay with Intel, as it's going to be easier to try and beat your scores when you are using a slower CPU. :p

TBH i would hope they did improve if i was to switch to a 5950X ( not going to happen ) with the ipc uplift and increased core count over the intel 10th gen plus the fact it would allow the 3090 to run @ PCI-E 4.0 rather than 3.0 its currently locked to, but these would only be visible/noticeable at 1080p and even then the uplift would be so small that no it wouldn't be noticed imo as both will be knocking out silly amounts of frames at that point.

Yep i do enjoy running the benchmarks and stretching the systems legs and agree when pushing for the absolute maximum possible then every single bit helps:cry:

I will be dropping down the ranks shortly i imagine with the arrive of 12th gen so no fear of my scores going any higher for now, my plan is to get a 4090 or 7900XT next gen ( depending on what is best ) and will then look at maybe upgrading the CPU to either intel 13th gen or AMD equivalent ( again will go with what is best at the time i buy ) as both processors could possibly bring nice uplifts and will support both DDR5 and PCI-E 5.0. I've got no brand loyalty but will buy the best that is out at the time be it Intel / AMD or Nvidia :)
 
Back
Top Bottom