Soldato
Looks like Nexus created a few accounts with the boys!
Looks to be about 2% of the reviews in comparison from Users, critics have them a lot closer!Will be interested in the response to this from the shareholder.
-
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
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
Looks like Nexus created a few accounts with the boys!
Looks to be about 2% of the reviews in comparison from Users, critics have them a lot closer!Will be interested in the response to this from the shareholder.
Those scenes with the crowded NPCs are the reason this game needs one of the fastest gaming CPUs. My 9900K gets crushed at 100% usage in such scenes while my 3080 Ti drops to 81% even at 4k with DLSS Performance. Here's hoping my Alder Lake upgrade fixes that.And again, the point I made was are they "worlds apart", no imo. They shoot much the same, they flank/take cover much the same, they die much the same, I don't find myself thinking, gosh these guys takes bullets really well or wow they react just like they would if being shot at etc. etc. compared to real life.... reality is no game out there has what I would classify as ground breaking AI.
Combat there is a big difference, yes they are both "FPS" but in terms of variety, cyberpunk offers you more in terms of a rpg type of game play. In fact, I actually found FC 6 a bit of a step down in terms of combat/weapon variety compared to new dawn and also more limited, neither are bad and both are good for what they set out to achieve (well CP could have done the RPG, crafting, hacking etc. way better tbf given the type of game it is). The only thing they have in common is that they're open world (completely different setting....), FPS, you can drive around (cyberpunk I love driving around especially at night, FC games, I always hate driving as it doesn't feel good and given the setting, I rather walk/run through the jungle/air drop in than drive)
PS. I'm not defending the lack of AI in npcs in cyberpunk, in fact, don't think you'll find me really saying many good things about it (although I didn't fall for the BS like most did with the pr pieces before game release and feel the need to bash the game for the rest of my life like some in the CP thread), just simply stating that FC 6 has made many compromises and is arguably a worse implementation imo.
If presented these 2 options (ignoring the setting...), I know what I would rather have....
All disco/party areas are like the above in cyberpunk too, are all those NPCs in the screenshot smart, absolutely not but for the scene, it does exactly what it set out to achieve i.e. life to the party/festival unlike FC 6 "party" scenes.
I've played and completed div 2, good game but it's just like fc 6 imo:
- checkpoints with enemies
- patrols with enemies (on the exact same path)
- bases with npcs stuck in their post
If talking about enemy NPCs AI then yes it is far better than FC 6 but again, I don't find myself stopping to think wow, they react to me waving a gun in their face extremely well.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
1. I had the PC version, and the experience of the game was OK, a number of bugs but nothing game-breaking as far as I was aware. But the game itself just wasn't that great, combat felt like a simulation of a simulation, and people appear out of absolutely nowhere!
2. That's fair to a degree, but an RPG with FPS elements of that scope should feel like a firefight when you get in them, which you certainly will. Deus Ex managed this fine.
3. Subjective, so can't say you're wrong, but I didn't find it a great game. An open world where the vast majority of doors are [locked] with no means of opening, legal or not, is pretty immersion breaking. Why have it as a selectable item if you can't use it?
4. First sci fi setting game? I mean, it's neon, bright and looks spectacular. But what about Mass effect? Deus Ex? Hell, the Star Wars franchise? Plenty of others I'm sure I'm not thinking about. Also other genres of game, such as Dragonfall, Xcom etc.
Again, I say all of the above with Cyberpunk being exactly the sort of game I should like, but it wasn't worth a 7, it was all mouth and no trousers. I haven't played Far Cry 6, but I do not believe that it is only going to be deserving of a 3.5. Wonder what other games score about that, for a comparison?
I think the reason FC6 gets low scores is because its not doing anything new. Its Far Cry 3 rehashed for the third time and people are getting bored of playing the same game again and again. The game even mocks itself for this (see the burning of viviro plants at the beginning of the game) where the Dani says "This feels familiar". It needs an overhaul like how Assassins Creed got with Origins. Also if you visit the Ubisoft forums, there are 30 and 50 page threads on Far Cry 6 stuttering and showing low resolution assets on NVIDIA GPUs in addition to constant respawning of enemies in cleared zones. Remember the infinite NCPD respawns when CP2077 launched? Its also there in this game which makes the game frustrating as you clear out one part of as base only to find enemies have respawned on the other side. This is also affecting the scores.
If you go into this as your first or second Far Cry game and you are on an AMD card/PS5, you will like this game much better.
Looks like Nexus created a few accounts with the boys!
Yup, many bots were set up for it!
It's a score lower than it deserves tbf, as mentioned, I would give it a 6. If I had never played a FC game before, then probably be at least a 7.I never go based on critics reviews anymore either, the fact cyberpunk scored well on the last gen consoles at release says all you need to know.....
Should do as the nvidia driver overhead issue will be reduced as well.
Funnily I have encountered more issues with driving npcs in FC than my time in cp2077
Tons of trucks/cars getting stuck in roads vertically facing and npcs/enemies stopping for no reason.Yup no doubt the rpg/gunplay element should have been so much better, whilst it offered the variety and you had the perks there when you drink/eat certain things, it ultimately didn't matter and wasn't required to be done/thought out before approaching battles, they would have been better of getting rid of all those elements and have it just be a plain old FPS and nothing more but who knows, maybe the next lot of patches will improve this area further.
By setting I mean a futuristic open world city like blade runner, dredd, fifth element. Mass effect isn't really that "open world/free roaming", star wars, which ones? Deus ex especially the most recent one is pretty good but again, not what I would say great for a true open world/free roaming experience. Only other game to date that I would say is on par is the ascent, in fact arguably a better looking game world than cyberpunk for the setting and also has a lived in/dense feel to it, could even say the npcs have better AI too.....
Soldato
Sounds like a fair assessment most people I know who played it said about it!
I would rate it about a 7. I would not have paid release price for it, and like Valhalla would expect less than £30 for it to be right for the PC.
I think this was acknowledged by most and I mentioned unique for me as I have not played any previous ones. I think most of these franchises rinse/repeat this model to the same extent tbh.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
Wondered about the franchise thing affecting scores, so had a quick look at Call of Duty Cold War metacritic score.
3.4. Lol. Maybe there is something in that!
Soldato
Ubi update:
Be interesting to see what effect it has as I am definitely not seeing texture issues anywhere as much since venturing out of the main problematic starting areas of the map (not using FSR @ 4k and 3440x1440), vram usage still seems to be much the same, very rarely going above 8.5/9GB VRAM.
Be interesting to see what effect it has as I am definitely not seeing texture issues anywhere as much since venturing out of the main problematic starting areas of the map (not using FSR @ 4k and 3440x1440), vram usage still seems to be much the same, very rarely going above 8.5/9GB VRAM.
This makes it sound like this issue won't be fixed in the first title update. I was hoping to use the pack with my 3080 Ti. I think I'll just play the game and get this over with.
Also that 12GB of VRAM is just BS. I cannot use the pack no matter which settings I use at 4k short of FSR Ultra Quality which introduces stuttering in the game
Given they have said they have fixed the issue, which going by that thread and my experience as well as what DF pointed out is a vram management issue/handling of textures loading/switching, I think it will be mostly fixed, however, expect there to be some micro stuttering when loading new areas etc. basically when vram has to be "managed", which is the main symptom when vram is an issue.
Just out of interest, have you got further in the game where you are past the first 1-3 areas and noticed the texture issue happening less?
I reduced some of my settings to "high" (iirc volumetric fog, shadows and geometry) anyway for extra FPS, noticed decent increase and little to no visual difference.
No, that sounds right. For example, when I boot into the game at 4K it already pops to 12 GB immediately. If I put it on FSR UQ then it goes to ~11 GB and fluctuates a bit. The thing is if I put resolution scale to 1.2x (4K, no FSR ofc) then it immediately goes to 16 GB, and anything after that just slows the game to a crawl as it runs out of vram (I have 16). It's clear that the way this game loads things into memory makes it so that it is very sensitive to changes in rendering resolution but requires a lot of memory regardless. This is all with the texture pack enabled.
It makes sense to me that if you have 12 GB of vram you can't really play with the pack on at 4K, but works with FSR UQ (because now it goes <12 GB). The stuttering is down to engine issues mainly but CPU demands as well. Will be very interesting to see how Nvidia + Alder Lake combos do in this game next week.
Caporegime
If only people had read the requirements for the optional texture pack it would have been a maximum of 20 pages.To think that a HD texture pack would lead to 61 pages (short format
Last edited:
If only people didn't keep their fingers in the ears despite ubi acknowledging the issue..... 
The problem is a lot of nvidia users aren't seeing their vram being maxed though i.e. I never see my allocated vram going above 9GB where as cyberpunk, RDR 2, division 2 is right at 10GB limit.
There is no doubt some/most areas of the map are less affected (at least on my end) and seem to act how a game should with textures loading properly, below screenshots is exactly the kind of behaviour I would expect from vram limitations, not having "both" "constant" stutters (I'm not having constant stuttering issues but the likes of shaz and others are having this) and textures not loading at all:
Of course, this could also "potentially" be an engine thing and still not entirely vram as previous FC games are well regarded for stutter issues like that (and looking at amd footage, those stutters are also there and also present on consoles)
Guess we'll see soon enough what happens though.
Quite like this particular area, much better in motion and seeing the sunset with the orange glow and watching the waves was nice:
The problem is a lot of nvidia users aren't seeing their vram being maxed though i.e. I never see my allocated vram going above 9GB where as cyberpunk, RDR 2, division 2 is right at 10GB limit.
There is no doubt some/most areas of the map are less affected (at least on my end) and seem to act how a game should with textures loading properly, below screenshots is exactly the kind of behaviour I would expect from vram limitations, not having "both" "constant" stutters (I'm not having constant stuttering issues but the likes of shaz and others are having this) and textures not loading at all:
Of course, this could also "potentially" be an engine thing and still not entirely vram as previous FC games are well regarded for stutter issues like that (and looking at amd footage, those stutters are also there and also present on consoles)
Guess we'll see soon enough what happens though.
Quite like this particular area, much better in motion and seeing the sunset with the orange glow and watching the waves was nice:
Soldato
To think that a HD texture pack would lead to 61 pages (short format
If only people had read the requirements for the optional texture pack it would have been a maximum of 20 pages.
Sensitive subject that Matt..
I had kept the game on hold until they fixed this issue with the textures and I was still in Madrugada. I think I'll just wait until I get that 12900k as I think the HD Textures are playable to me with FSR UQ but the stutters just ruin the experience, which may be due to the game extracting the limits of my 9900k.
My main gripe with the game is its VRAM usage and lowering settings to high doesn't really do much for that. Notable gains I see are only by disabling RT or enabling FSR
I don't think its utilizing VRAM efficiently on NVIDIA cards. If you check several YT benchmarks, the peak usage on an RTX 3090 is just about 13GB and even that's rare. Most of the time its below 12GB. I have tested this multiple times and have found that when the memory usage goes past 10.8GB, those low resolution assets start streaming.
On top of the NVIDIA issues, the game is running horribly on Intel processors. Just to see how bad it really is, I ran the benchmark with FSR Quality at 4k and averaged 69 FPS with GPU usage around 70%. A 3090 paired with a 5900X using the same settings at 4K is averaging 95 FPS. That's how bad it is.
Caporegime
That sounds about right, i see video memory usage anywhere from 11-13GB ish when playing for extended periods of time but it fluctuates between those values.
I have one video where it starts at 11GB and ends at 12.4GB, and another video where it starts at 12.4GB and ends at 13.1GB.
It really depends on where you are in the game, background apps (I was recording via ReLive at the time for example) etc.
Yes, there does seem to be an additional layer of an issue between Nvidia drivers & the game but I thought that was solely for texture quality as it streams in rather than it creating stutters. As for Intel I'm not so sure because I have an i7 6800K and it behaves "appropriately" for its spec.
Nice pics btw.
