Far Cry 4 Game Performance Review

[FTLAUDMAN]

Running FC4 on Ultra at 1440p with a 4760K and 780 Ti Classy. The fur on the animals when I go to skin them looks like the "furry donut" from MSI Kombuster. Cool effects, but it's actually kind of distracting. It's like when films blend live action and cartoons together - something about their reality just looks out of place.

 

[Moiz77]

But how to reduce from 1080p to 720p , shall I have to change my screen OMG!!!

 

[709zzy]

lol 270x beats the 760 in this new game Far Cry 4, and 290x goes head to head with the 980 under 4k. Seems like AMD doesn't even need to do anything to compete with Nvidia. The 2 superior gtx cards perform equal or even worse in new games lmao.

 

[VincentP]

lol 270x beats the 760 in this new game Far Cry 4, and 290x goes head to head with the 980 under 4k. Seems like AMD doesn't even need to do anything to compete with Nvidia. The 2 superior gtx cards perform equal or even worse in new games lmao.

Minimum framerate of 39 for the 290X compared to 50 for the GTX 980 at 1440p hardly seems "head to head", not to mention doing this at 165W compared to 250W for the 290X.

The GTX 760 is a Kepler card rather than the newer Maxwell cards. The 270X was released well after the GTX 760 and has always performed a little higher since release in some games:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-14.html
Mvidia won't be long away with a Maxwell replacement for the GTX 760 hopefully.

 

[Tzn]

why you don't show r7 250X at higher graphics? paid to advertise only expensive products?

 

[logainofhades]

lol 270x beats the 760 in this new game Far Cry 4, and 290x goes head to head with the 980 under 4k. Seems like AMD doesn't even need to do anything to compete with Nvidia. The 2 superior gtx cards perform equal or even worse in new games lmao.

Minimum framerate of 39 for the 290X compared to 50 for the GTX 980 at 1440p hardly seems "head to head", not to mention doing this at 165W compared to 250W for the 290X.

The GTX 760 is a Kepler card rather than the newer Maxwell cards. The 270X was released well after the GTX 760 and has always performed a little higher since release in some games:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-14.html
Mvidia won't be long away with a Maxwell replacement for the GTX 760 hopefully.

The 270x is just a higher clocked HD 7870.

 

[VincentP]

lol 270x beats the 760 in this new game Far Cry 4, and 290x goes head to head with the 980 under 4k. Seems like AMD doesn't even need to do anything to compete with Nvidia. The 2 superior gtx cards perform equal or even worse in new games lmao.

Minimum framerate of 39 for the 290X compared to 50 for the GTX 980 at 1440p hardly seems "head to head", not to mention doing this at 165W compared to 250W for the 290X.

The GTX 760 is a Kepler card rather than the newer Maxwell cards. The 270X was released well after the GTX 760 and has always performed a little higher since release in some games:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-14.html
Mvidia won't be long away with a Maxwell replacement for the GTX 760 hopefully.

The 270x is just a higher clocked HD 7870.

The GTX 760 is also just a variation of the older GTX 670 with less shaders and TMUs but a higher clock rate, with similar performance to the GTX 660 Ti.
All these cards are based on 2012 technology.

The point is that the GTX 760 is not a Maxwell card like the GTX 970 and that we would expect it to have similar performance to the R9 270X, better in some games and worse in others. The newer Maxwell cards are well ahead of the older technology from Nvidia or AMD for performance and power efficiency.

 

[VincentP]

why you don't show r7 250X at higher graphics? paid to advertise only expensive products?

A selection of suitable cards have been tested at each resolution and detail setting.
The article is an illustration of game performance, not a detailed review of particular graphics cards or an advertisement for some cards.

An R7 250X will give you roughly 60% the performance of a GTX 760.
This would mean average frame rates for the R7 250X of roughly 35 FPS at "Medium Details @ 1080p" and 19 FPS at "Ultra Details @ 1080p".
This makes the card unplayable for "Ultra Details @ 1080p" and borderline for "Medium Details @ 1080p".

Typically a playable card will have minimum frame rate above 30.
These are my best guesses of minimum playable card based on other results:
For "Medium Details @ 1080p" an R7 260X or GTX 750 Ti are suitable.
For "Ultra Details @ 1080p" an R9 280X or GTX 770 are suitable.
For "Ultra Details @ 1440p" an R9 290X or GTX 970 are suitable.
For "Ultra Details @ 2160p", none of the tested configurations can meet minimum 30 FPS. With game and driver optimisations multi-card configurations will likely get there (2 x GTX 970 or 2 x R9 290X).

 

[Shekarsheky]

I rtum Far cry 4 on Asus AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5450 1 GB DDR3 Graphics Card and having issues. It's lagging too much even at he minimal videos setting..... Any thoughts plzzzz.....

 

[rgd1101]

Yes, upgrade.

 

[logainofhades]

I rtum Far cry 4 on Asus AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5450 1 GB DDR3 Graphics Card and having issues. It's lagging too much even at he minimal videos setting..... Any thoughts plzzzz.....

Get a real graphics card. That card isn't meant for gaming.

 

[Onus]

The HD5450 is a HTPC card, not really able to play modern games. Take a look at this months "Best Graphics Card for the Money" article to get an idea of a potential upgrade, based on your budget. The only amendments I'd make to that are:
1. At the bottom end, look for a GT740 over a GT730.
2. Do not forget power requirements! Unless your PSU is capable of running a more powerful card, you will need to upgrade that too. Note that the GTX750Ti would almost certainly be able to run on your existing PSU, as it does not need auxiliary power.

 

[evolucion888]

Also the chart shows that the R9 290X is a 6GB version, quite a lot of errors on here.

 

[Brad K]

@ Brad K. I'm pretty sure they were using the omega drivers and the 14.9 was a typo. The Omega drivers are 14.12 and the Omega driver didn't exist back when 14.9 came out.

On the test setup page they called the driver 14.9 Omega which is not right either way, although people have asked for clarification but there has been no answer yet....

You are right, it is confusing. There was a 14.9 set of drivers made by a 3rd party known as Omega (omegadrivers.net). He's been making his custom version of ATI's drivers for more than 10 years. They could have been referring to those, instead. That would still be the 14.9 set.

It really should be clarified.

 

[ykki]

" It all was avoidable by stocking up on instant-heal stims, of course. But ain’t nobody got time for that."

= Made my day.

 

[Setiawan]

if you want to get >90 fps in Far Cry 4 on 1080p (ultra-enhanced god rays) like my self ;
-msi gaming board (me : msi z87-gd65) with vga boost
-msi gaming gpu (me: msi gtx980 gaming 4g - not LE @ 1567Mhz boost)
-any intel core i-5 (me : i5-4430 @ 3 ghz)
-corsair RAM (me : 8 GB (2x4) corsair vengeance @ 1600 mhz)
-win 7 64
-plextor m6pro 256 boot drive & pagefile
-wd black 2 gb game drive
try it..!

 

[Guest]

Nice test, thanks for posting this guys! It's interesting how this game seems to take advantage of multi threading, hopefully this trend continues more often in the future.

I did notice an error though, on the second page, the R9 285 is listed as a 3GB card. Does this mean the card tested was an R9 280/280X or is it a typo?

 

[Guest]

why not reduce the resolution to 720p with the cpu tests so we can see if there would be a difference between the i5 and i7? What another site also found was the game does not load at all with a dual core (non ht) processor. Doesn't even run. Apparently there is a fix for it, but still....

Dual core CPU's wont run it, that's quite strange. I guess the Pentium owners who try and play it won't be too happy! Anyways, I'm glad they ran the CPU results at real world settings. Personally I like that comparison a lot more as it will tell me how my hardware will likely run the game when I actually play it. For a CPU review, I can see why they would do the 720p low settings comparison, but even then I'd still like to see a real world settings comparison there, too.

 

[missourigirl61]

On your FarCry 4 game performance review, on the ultra details - @1080p, at the end, you say you're not surprised to see Radeons demonstrate an undesirable amount of frame time variance. What exactly do you mean, the frame rate is slower?

 

[Nvidia_Mike]

tomc100 - Yes you can run farcry4 on an AMD based CPU it all really adds up too the amount of memory your GPU & the GHZ the CPU has - I Use an AMD Based processor and farcry4 runs over & above performance specs .

 

[iam2thecrowe]

why not reduce the resolution to 720p with the cpu tests so we can see if there would be a difference between the i5 and i7? What another site also found was the game does not load at all with a dual core (non ht) processor. Doesn't even run. Apparently there is a fix for it, but still....

Dual core CPU's wont run it, that's quite strange. I guess the Pentium owners who try and play it won't be too happy! Anyways, I'm glad they ran the CPU results at real world settings. Personally I like that comparison a lot more as it will tell me how my hardware will likely run the game when I actually play it. For a CPU review, I can see why they would do the 720p low settings comparison, but even then I'd still like to see a real world settings comparison there, too.

i always like to see them test at lower res to remove the gpu bottleneck so you could theoretically see what fps gain you might get as if you had a faster gpu, like the people with dual 970's/780's and such, and just to see what the cpu is truly capable of pushing, since reducing resolution has no effect (or next to nothing) on the data the cpu must crunch.

 

[Gratell]

1231v3 and R290 here:
On HIGH (with AA) @ 1080p and Vsync it runs at 60 fps on foot and mostly when you fly, however when you drive the FPS jumps between 45-60. Don't really know why since it didn't bother me enough to play around in the settings.
Also if a lot of action (a lot of people like in cities, fires, etc) is going on then also the FPS stays around >50-60.
And there is one place, a temple which name I forgot, on a small island in a little lake (surrounded by water) where also the FPS rather stays around 50-55.

1231v3 and HD 7870:
With MEDIUM @ 1366x768 it's about the same. Meaning tuning down the resolution and a few details still makes it perfectly playable with an older card and it still looks great.
Honestly, most graphic options aren't even worth a med-high end GPU.

 

[Sig2525]

i dont get this, why does my 270x perform better than what is shown here, i get 45-55 fps on utlra presets.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

i dont get this, why does my 270x perform better than what is shown here, i get 45-55 fps on utlra presets.

a few months have gone by and driver tweaks and game updates have increased the performance. Also note that only a specific part of the game was tested http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-4-benchmark-performance-review,4019-2.html

 

[fasterbetter]

What's GT 650? Its GTX 650 not GT 650.