Had a 30 minute play there, just running through jungle, shooting any patrols about
- At 4k with no fsr, max settings, RT and hd textures, lowest dip I seen was 49 but as you can see from the frame latency graph, perfectly playable "if" you're happy with that FPS
- At 4k with FSR UQ, max settings, RT and hd textures, lowest dip I seen was 60 but as you can see from the frame latency graph, perfectly playable too "if" you're happy with that FPS
Will play later on for longer periods and get to day time setting to see fps then.
It runs at stock settings with PBO and curve optimiser enabled. It will be at most a few percent faster than your 5600x in Far Cry 6 since the game only uses a handful of CPU threads. It won't make any difference at 4K though.
You didn't want to read technical pieces when numerous outlets (PcGamesHardware, Computerbase, TechPowerup) outlined the issues regarding the 3080 and video memory saturation in this game at 4K max settings.
In fact, you outright ignored them and the minimum requirements to run 4K with everything at max settings, even when the developer came out and clarified and released updated requirements KB article reiterating said requirements.
The game is CPU limited at 1080P, a little at 1440P. It is not at all limited at 4K. Since this whole discussion is about 4K max settings and video memory usage requirements, it's irrelevant. Your bad numbers are at 4K, not 1080P.
Video memory saturation can show in multiple ways and it comes down to how the game engine handles memory. FPS can fall off a cliff (down to single digits), there can be stuttering and bad 1% lows/drops etc, the textures can load in at low quality, the application can crash. It depends on the game and not all engines handle it the same as we see over various games.
The comparison is made since you obviously forgot what you posted on the previous pages. Declaring that you are right and 10GB is sufficient with a 'I am right gif' and patting yourself on the back for being right all along. Clarifying performance is great and then posting those 4K numbers that show your definition of great can get in the bin.
I think maybe you get confused about what you have previously posted at times.
Emmmm what.....
I never disputed the issues, I posted screenshots showing my issues and other threads with 70+ pages where people were posting issues too...
It was you who was adamant that it was "only" because of vram and nothing else despite the developers acknowledging that there was an issue with vram/texture loading/management and here we are, it's fixed and a non-issue now
Shall I go and quote some more posts showing said fingers in ears?
Again, re-read your posts where you have acknowledged there is an issue with the min fps even at 4k in the benchmark
My "i told you so" was in reference to the following:
- saying there was an issue with the game and it's texture/vram management (again, shouldn't have come as a surprise given the developers did say there was an issue....)
- perf., which going by my play testing is a noticeable step up whilst not having texture issues now
Again, list the games where vram causes FPS to drop to 1-3fps and stay at that regardless?
I was going to post icarus comparison there to show the frame latency difference (not the best game given its well documented optimisation issues) but it appears they have fixed/improved the perf. in the last patch as it isn't all over the place like before when the texture shading was set to 10GB, FPS is a lower with max texture shading but it is an improvement to before where the frame latency was all over the place:
Given how horrible the game optimisation is, still no consistent fps drop to 1-3fps...
EDIT:
Also, for my own sake, can you post where I said performance is "great" now???? Again, my main point here is:
- textures issues fixed (at all res. and settings)
- perf. improved whilst retaining HD textures throughout (at all res. and settings, unless we stick to your goal post of the benchmark being "super duper accurate and the only representation for perf." now...