Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Far Cry 3 - GPU killer

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 22, 2012 5:37:20 PM

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34273388

Wow! A console port that makes the GTX 680 run @ 36FPS!
Far Cry repeat itself again...

More about : cry gpu killer

November 22, 2012 7:29:44 PM

Its not difficult to bring any GPU to its knees. What's important is to realise that settings can be turned off, and sliders can go to the left.

Mactronix :) 
November 22, 2012 7:40:58 PM

Aye, they say maxed out which I assume means at least 4x MSAA if not 8x MSAA, and it's hard to know how much of that will be improved with driver optimization. Time will tell.
Related resources
November 23, 2012 5:09:46 AM

mactronix said:
Its not difficult to bring any GPU to its knees. What's important is to realise that settings can be turned off, and sliders can go to the left.

Mactronix :) 



Yes, but I didn't expect to see that until the next generation console ports... (this console generation = 7800GTX). What is weird is that the game doesn't look THAT much differernt at low or high or ultra...
December 1, 2012 12:22:10 AM

FunSurfer said:
Yes, but I didn't expect to see that until the next generation console ports... (this console generation = 7800GTX). What is weird is that the game doesn't look THAT much differernt at low or high or ultra...


Far Cry 3 looks rubbish on consoles but can look breathtaking on PC, I'm always happy to see games that can take advantage of a gaming PCs specs :)  Also it's an AMD game so they got to update their drivers, I'm sure Nvidia cards will be much improved in the future.
December 1, 2012 5:35:11 AM

mactronix said:
Its not difficult to bring any GPU to its knees. What's important is to realise that settings can be turned off, and sliders can go to the left.

Mactronix :) 


Thats totally right :) 

In fact the game is still beautiful in no MSAA.
All that matters in the end is the "Experience" you had, and the plot you just came out from. Its a awesome game :pt1cable: 
December 1, 2012 5:56:44 AM

The game isn't a gpu killer, its a cpu killer. When i'm in a town or some other placthat you expect to have 90% + GPU usage it drops to around 60-70. Same thing in AC3 and I have a i7 2600 at 4.3 ghz , and without any OC on the cpu I gt around 40-50 fps in FC3 and AC with oc I get 50-70.
December 3, 2012 4:02:27 PM

yordan159753 said:
The game isn't a gpu killer, its a cpu killer. When i'm in a town or some other placthat you expect to have 90% + GPU usage it drops to around 60-70. Same thing in AC3 and I have a i7 2600 at 4.3 ghz , and without any OC on the cpu I gt around 40-50 fps in FC3 and AC with oc I get 50-70.


I disagree, a 6950, which is not THAT bad GPU is bottlenecking two cores of 2500K in this game:

http://benchmark3d.com/far-cry-3-benchmark


December 4, 2012 2:22:08 PM

FunSurfer said:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=34273388

Wow! A console port that makes the GTX 680 run @ 36FPS!
Far Cry repeat itself again...

I hate these words, when you play on your XBOX 360 you can't enable 8X MSAA, HBAO or AF...these resources are so damn intensive.
December 4, 2012 7:59:47 PM

ilysaml said:
I hate these words, when you play on your XBOX 360 you can't enable 8X MSAA, HBAO or AF...these resources are so damn intensive.


To be fair, I have questions about anyone who enables 8x MSAA. The visual integrity is hardly improved from 4x, unlike the difference from 4x to 0 where the difference is monumental.

But, I think he was referring to poorly optimized port jobs, not the fact that it's a miracle that it's so demanding.
December 5, 2012 4:39:54 AM

Go into the open world, take a far screenshot of the trees and you'll see the difference between 8x MSAA and 4x MSAA on the jagged edges.

December 5, 2012 7:02:16 AM

ilysaml said:
Go into the open world, take a far screenshot of the trees and you'll see the difference between 8x MSAA and 4x MSAA on the jagged edges.


You say that as if I haven't done it in countless games for years. Bear in mind, I said that the difference between 4x and 8x pales in comparison to the difference between 0x and 4x. I figured that it could go without saying, but the visible difference (which is not apparent in the majority of renders anyway) doesn't outweigh the enormous difference in necessary resources. That, and through the years games that are truly cutting edge do not co-exist with hardware that is capable of pushing them at sufficient fps with 8x MSAA (Crysis and so on).

And beyond that, I have to be honest with you. Even in a game like Crysis, the number of draws that have significant enough aliasing to see any difference between 4x and 8x are few and far between.
December 5, 2012 11:31:19 AM

The game pushes my aging GTX570 with everything on Ultra, but dropping a few settings back to high (post-processing and AA) bumps the FPS back up into the high 40's.

Overall it seems to run well. It is a beautiful game.....not amazing graphically, but very pretty to look at.
December 5, 2012 6:05:25 PM

Stringjam said:
The game pushes my aging GTX570 with everything on Ultra, but dropping a few settings back to high (post-processing and AA) bumps the FPS back up into the high 40's.

Overall it seems to run well. It is a beautiful game.....not amazing graphically, but very pretty to look at.


I have a GTX570 too, and this is the first game that I can't max out since I bought the card back in April 2011, and I my monitor resolution is only 1440x900... But I can play at ultra with 2xAA, just waiting to the latest nvidia drivers to become VHQL so I can play at 4xAA. Well, it is expected from a game that pushes the GTX 680 down to 36 FPS, a card that manages 60 PFS in Metro 2033 @1920x1200...
!