Does far cry 4 hate my new gtx 1080 ti?

[Hunter21]

Quite happy with the 1080 ti when I got it yesterday and thought I'd give far cry 4 a shot today, the game didn't run that well with my 980 but I did manage to obtain a reasonable FPS setting everything to High running at 1080p (solid 80+ to 100ish from what I can recall).

But, soon as I loaded into the game the fps went from a few hundred to the 70s and 80s on high quality preset, setting everything maxed at 1080p would let that fall to the 60s. This is when things got fishy for me since even running the game on low quality presets at 1080p doesn't lift fps above 100. Just an hour ago I was happily playing witcher 3 maxed out with 100+ fps in the starting area, 120-140 when i turn off any hairworks..... does far cry 4 have bad gpu optimization or did I do something wrong?

Specs:

Ryzen 1800x at 4.0ghz
g skill ram at 3200mhz
aorus xtreme 1080 ti stock (boosts to 1987mhz in games, runs at that level in far cry 4, witcher 3, battlefield 4)
windows 10

Not gonna post the rest of the system specs since they aren't that relevant in this context.

 

[chemmajorp53]

CPU bottleneck, Far Cry 4 isn't CSGO you can't expect most AAA titles to be running at 100fps+ all the time. The devs don't have a reason to optimize it for that.

 

[maxalge]

Quite happy with the 1080 ti when I got it yesterday and thought I'd give far cry 4 a shot today, the game didn't run that well with my 980 but I did manage to obtain a reasonable FPS setting everything to High running at 1080p (solid 80+ to 100ish from what I can recall).

But, soon as I loaded into the game the fps went from a few hundred to the 70s and 80s on high quality preset, setting everything maxed at 1080p would let that fall to the 60s. This is when things got fishy for me since even running the game on low quality presets at 1080p doesn't lift fps above 100. Just an hour ago I was happily playing witcher 3 maxed out with 100+ fps in the starting area, 120-140 when i turn off any hairworks..... does far cry 4 have bad gpu optimization or did I do something wrong?

Specs:

Ryzen 1800x at 4.0ghz
g skill ram at 3200mhz
aorus xtreme 1080 ti stock (boosts to 1987mhz in games, runs at that level in far cry 4, witcher 3, battlefield 4)
windows 10

Not gonna post the rest of the system specs since they aren't that relevant in this context.

ryzen is great for work related tasks, it is however a bottleneck at 1080p in gaming


a 1080 ti is simpy too strong for it


I suggest you get a higher resolution screen or use DSR to get more use out of your expensive gpu

 

[bishopi5]

Really? You suggest him upgrading his resolution... In result putting more load on the CPU which is already bottlenecking at 1080p??

 

[maxalge]

Really? You suggest him upgrading his resolution... In result putting more load on the CPU which is already bottlenecking at 1080p??

XD

 

[bishopi5]

=D

 

[Supahos]

The CPU resolution hit of going to even 4k is minimal. It most only shifts the bottleneck to the GPU in most cases. Very little extra has to be done for the CPU when a resolution is upped. The same goes with dropping setting when CPU bound. You gain little to no fps in tougher scenes.

 

[Hunter21]

CPU bottleneck, Far Cry 4 isn't CSGO you can't expect most AAA titles to be running at 100fps+ all the time. The devs don't have a reason to optimize it for that.

I get good fps with witcher 3, 140-200 fps when playing battlefield 4 64 player conquest , 120+ ultra everything in rainbow six siege, 150fps overwatch ultra......I don't understand how I'm not even close to that performance on far cry 4.

 

[Supahos]

It's from 2014 the rest are all old as heck... Why would you expect the same "pointless" performance let's be honest anything above 75 means nothing

Well Witcher isn't but I get over 90 fps on a 3350p/GTX 760 max settings

 

[Hunter21]

It's from 2014 the rest are all old as heck... Why would you expect the same "pointless" performance let's be honest anything above 75 means nothing

Well Witcher isn't but I get over 90 fps on a 3350p/GTX 760 max settings

I run a 144hz monitor so it does matter for me, there is a huge difference between 120+ frames vs 60 frames in fps games when you do run at high refresh rates....

 

[chemmajorp53]

CPU bottleneck, Far Cry 4 isn't CSGO you can't expect most AAA titles to be running at 100fps+ all the time. The devs don't have a reason to optimize it for that.

I get good fps with witcher 3, 140-200 fps when playing battlefield 4 64 player conquest , 120+ ultra everything in rainbow six siege, 150fps overwatch ultra......I don't understand how I'm not even close to that performance on far cry 4.

Have you noticed that all the games you listed apart from the Witcher are multiplayer fast paced FPS games that have esports scenes and long-term play-ability? Devs have a reason to optimize those titles, getting 100fps+ all the time is important. Witcher 3 is just a better game and was designed with PCs in mind whereas FC4 is essentially a console port that was never fully optimized for high FPS.

 

[Supahos]

There is no difference. Ive played with every combination of GPUs and monitors under the sun. Once it hit 80 and stays there comfortably there is no difference on a 144hz monitor either​. Though it it's odd you picked the worst possible situation to put your CPU in. At 4k you'd never notice a difference but 144hz is where ryzen makes zero sense

 

[Hunter21]

There is no difference. Ive played with every combination of GPUs and monitors under the sun. Once it hit 80 and stays there comfortably there is no difference on a 144hz monitor either​. Though it it's odd you picked the worst possible situation to put your CPU in. At 4k you'd never notice a difference but 144hz is where ryzen makes zero sense

Maybe I have different eyes than yours? 120+ hz sure theres no difference but going from 75 to 120 is a different experience, playing far cry 4 on my old rig on low and high settings are different stories for me.

 

[Supahos]

That just means your old rig was GPU bound in the game. This one isn't

 

[Supahos]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3192807/ultimate-bottlenecking-guide.html


Maybe this will make some of what you're asking about clearer

 

[bishopi5]

you really think there is no difference between 80 and 144?? and you are here giving advice.

 

[Supahos]

The thousand or so people here and hundreds in real life tend to think it's okay. But I suppose were all entitled to our opinions.

 

[krells]

CPU bottleneck, Far Cry 4 isn't CSGO you can't expect most AAA titles to be running at 100fps+ all the time. The devs don't have a reason to optimize it for that.

I get good fps with witcher 3, 140-200 fps when playing battlefield 4 64 player conquest , 120+ ultra everything in rainbow six siege, 150fps overwatch ultra......I don't understand how I'm not even close to that performance on far cry 4.

It isn't a gpu optimization issue. If I set my resolution to 1080p and use the ultra preset I average 120 fps in far cry 4 and that is with a reference clocked 1080 Ti.

 

[Hunter21]

CPU bottleneck, Far Cry 4 isn't CSGO you can't expect most AAA titles to be running at 100fps+ all the time. The devs don't have a reason to optimize it for that.

I get good fps with witcher 3, 140-200 fps when playing battlefield 4 64 player conquest , 120+ ultra everything in rainbow six siege, 150fps overwatch ultra......I don't understand how I'm not even close to that performance on far cry 4.

It isn't a gpu optimization issue. If I set my resolution to 1080p and use the ultra preset I average 120 fps in far cry 4 and that is with a reference clocked 1080 Ti.

I assume I'm getting a cpu bottleneck since the 1080ti runs at 40 to 50% usage on 1080p and doesn't even stay at 99% most of the times at 4k. I can run the game 4k 55-60fps and 60-70fps on 1080p, its pretty funny. Some of these games just aren't optimized for ryzen which is quite understandable. But at least for games that I do play 1800x runs ok