Far Cry 5 Benchmark Performance Analysis

[W1zzard]

It's probably the scene and a few percent from your Zotac card clocks (I'm using Founders Edition).

 

[Vayra86]

The most interesting bit here to me is that Vega performance.

That is remarkable!

 

[Readlight]

I happy whit halo game, its unique game. not so much has been improved in these years. but works fast, now. and costs nothing.

 

[Assimilator]

I happy whit halo game, its unique game. not so much has been improved in these years. but works fast, now. and costs nothing.

... what?

 

[rtwjunkie]

... what?

I think he is saying Halo was the epitome in game making, and he is happy with the quality of it, and that most newer games don’t offer that much more for him.

 

[SKD007]

I find some of the results curious as well. My 1080 Ti produces 50-60 FPS constant on 4K. I therefore find the conclusion that you need CF or SLI for 4K a bit misleading. I have been playing on Ultra 4K for several hours now and the experience is butter smooth.

Actually the 40 FPS reported for the 1080 Ti in the review is roughly what I got when I set the resolution scale to 1.2.

Really curious to know where the difference could be coming from! Maybe a really heavy actual gameplay scene since it's not the in-game benchmark being used?

You are correct. Even my Vega 64 at power saver mode is doing 44 to 55 at 4K ultra setting. Ti can easily do well. I have even attached screenshot in my earlier comment.

 

[Assimilator]

I think he is saying Halo was the epitome in game making, and he is happy with the quality of it, and that most newer games don’t offer that much more for him.

Well that's nice for him, but what exactly has that got to do with TPU's review of Far Cry 5?

 

[rtwjunkie]

Well that's nice for him, but what exactly has that got to do with TPU's review of Far Cry 5?

Not a clue!

 

[lexluthermiester]

I think he is saying Halo was the epitome in game making, and he is happy with the quality of it, and that most newer games don’t offer that much more for him.

And that would likely be Halo1 for PC. If he were to try out Halo Custom Edition(again PC) and then try out a few of the custom campaigns out there he would have his mind blown..

 

[wolf]

Weird, Guru3D bench for this game shows a GTX 1070 getting 93FPS on Ultra... here its MUCH lower... someone is wrong and I am not sure who...
@W1zzard Please help me understand, my brain hurts senpai ; ;
source: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_5_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,4.html

I just think it's quirky that it is an AMD sponsored title, and in their included benchmark NVIDIA cards perform favorably compared to AMD cards.

I trust that W1z has done his due diligence and provided us with a great representation of what to expect in game however, and the results be as they are, all should enjoy solid performance on pascal/vega.

Really looking forward to sinking some time into this title, they've been onto a formula since Farcry 3, and it's one I very much enjoy.

 

[Arkaign]

This game scales really well. My main box is 8700k overclocked with a Strix 1080 with a decent OC. With mostly max settings it's 60fps at 4k, I turn off motion blur and hate AA, but force 16AF in the driver.

However, I built a project budget gaming box with a price limit of $300, and came up with :

Lenovo S20, Xeon 3670 3.2Ghz 6C/12T, 12GB Tri-channel DDR3, Nvidia 780 3GB OC, 2TB HDD, W10 Pro (used W7 Pro key on case for legal upgrade/digital rights activation)

FC5 is yet another game I can run at 1080/60 on it with a mix of medium/high settings, and 16XAF. Others : Witcher 3, Dark Souls 3 (maxed), AC:Origins (dips to high 40s though in Alexandria), BF1, etc. Really impressive for a cheapie. I'd rather do 1080/60 vs 4k/30 1000 times out of 1000 if I had to choose. After playing around with FC5 4K on a TV though, I went back and connected rig back to 27" Gysnc 1440p for 80-100+ FPS maxed. Just feels better than 4k to me, and looks better than 1080. If I had a gsync 4K and a card capable of 80-100+ on 4k, I'd switch permanently though.

 

[Space Lynx]

This game scales really well. My main box is 8700k overclocked with a Strix 1080 with a decent OC. With mostly max settings it's 60fps at 4k, I turn off motion blur and hate AA, but force 16AF in the driver.

However, I built a project budget gaming box with a price limit of $300, and came up with :

Lenovo S20, Xeon 3670 3.2Ghz 6C/12T, 12GB Tri-channel DDR3, Nvidia 780 3GB OC, 2TB HDD, W10 Pro (used W7 Pro key on case for legal upgrade/digital rights activation)

FC5 is yet another game I can run at 1080/60 on it with a mix of medium/high settings, and 16XAF. Others : Witcher 3, Dark Souls 3 (maxed), AC:Origins (dips to high 40s though in Alexandria), BF1, etc. Really impressive for a cheapie. I'd rather do 1080/60 vs 4k/30 1000 times out of 1000 if I had to choose. After playing around with FC5 4K on a TV though, I went back and connected rig back to 27" Gysnc 1440p for 80-100+ FPS maxed. Just feels better than 4k to me, and looks better than 1080. If I had a gsync 4K and a card capable of 80-100+ on 4k, I'd switch permanently though.

Give it 2-3 years and you will have that. I am in a similar boat, I can't abandon my high refresh 1440p. Not ever, until a few years from now anyway.

 

[Arkaign]

Give it 2-3 years and you will have that. I am in a similar boat, I can't abandon my high refresh 1440p. Not ever, until a few years from now anyway.

Can't wait Gonna be awesome. Maybe by the card after the 1180ti (1280?). I usually skip the TI because I am just on the cycle where I go with the mid-top card. 3GB killed the 780ti for me, 980 kept me for a long enough time to see 1080 vs 1080ti, and I got a hell of a deal on the Strix, and of course any thought of going TI now is hopeless because of crypto lol.

I feel like 4K is a hard thing to go to after playing at beyond 60 and gsync/freesync. I don't know how console people deal with it tbh. I left consoles after PS2, though I've been a PC gamer since the 80s. I remember playing Shadow of Mordor on PC and having a great time with it (680FTW, 1440p maxed at 60fps locked), but I never played the DLC. So eventually I got a PS4 as a gift. I have a great time several times a year playing a PS4 exclusive, and even at 30fps I can bear it for an outstanding game if the frame pacing is well done. 60 would be better, but I can hack that at least. So, I see SoM for $5 at a used game store for PS4, final edition with all the DLC included. Cool, I think, gives me something else to play on the bedroom TV as a chill-out game. HOLY CRAP, it was terrible. 30fps with horrendous frame pacing and drops under 30fps. Terrible panning, even some screen tearing. Just felt terrible to play. And you know, I remember the game getting mediocre reviews back in the day, and wondering why. I had a blast with the PC version. But man, a solid 8.5/10 experience on a good PC was suddenly a 4/10 nightmare on PS4. It's not like the PS4 is terrible or anything, but 30fps and under multiplats with laggy controls are just painful to experience back to back with PC. Same deal with Assassin's Creed games, Far Crys, The Crew, NFS, etc. And beyond 60 / gysnc is sublime.

Cheers.

 

[coonbro]

''Far Cry 5 is based on the very latest version of Ubisoft's Dunia Engine. Its designers focused on crafting as beautiful a world of the great American outdoors as they could without leveraging DirectX 12. What this means is that the DirectX 11-based engine can take advantage of legacy multi-GPU solutions such as SLI and CrossFire. ''
shame that dont mean developers are tired of microsofts choke hold and a shame there not going to a linux friendly platform like opengl or vulken
with that ubi duna is just the original cryengin they ripped off from crytek from the first farcry .
you see how crytek ended up and maybe theres only so far with that old engin they can inprove on
good thig is the broad market covered with this ''What this means is that the DirectX 11-based engine can take advantage of legacy ''
sad thig is no ownership of the game just there client to get to play the game cause with out them [steam ubi and that what ever the EA game s need , origin? ] you have nothing unless they give it to you unlike real PC gams that were fully on the disk [ no internet required , no manatory clients . no changes to your computer as thy see fit , ect,, ]
good thing i dont need to gasme that bad to have to agree to things as that to do so
i love to see the euls on this game . i'll bet you hand your computer over to them just to install it ..

ever look at some of steams ? this is the best part to agree to
you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.
For reasons that include, without limitation, system security, stability, and multiplayer interoperability, Steam may need to automatically update, pre-load, create new versions of or otherwise enhance the Content and Services and accordingly, the system requirements to use the Content and Services may change over time. You consent to such automatic updating

heres the killer
''For reasons that include, without limitation, system security,''
ya, sure i agree to let you do that for a game ...... lol..... ''without limitation''

thats steam we all know from the past how honest UBi is and how they do and can be in agreements
ask crytek



shame PC gaming is now this way I use to enjoy ''buying '' a game for my personal use , them days are long gone . good thing I got 100's of the good old real PC games fully on the disk to use in private with out 3ed party involvement of any kind heck don't even need internet to enjoy just load and play as I see fit

 

[Keullo-e]

Upgrading from 7600K to 7700K helped pretty damn lot with this.

 

[las]

Hmm, I guess my 980 Ti is doing quite decent then. I'm getting 36.7 fps avg. Ultra preset and 2160p.
Acording to your numbers that's between Vega 64 and 1080 Ti...?
It's heavily OC'ed but still.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I'm getting 36.7 fps avg. Ultra preset and 2160p

FPS are more important than resolution. Try dropping to 1440p, 1080p or turning off AA. At 2160p AA has little noticeable affect.

 

[las]

FPS are more important than resolution. Try dropping to 1440p, 1080p or turning off AA. At 2160p AA has little noticeable affect.

I am not playing at that res, it was simply a test. I'm playing at 1440p with 100-150 fps using custom preset. I own a high refresh rate monitor afterall. Would never be able to enjoy ~40 fps