Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poor Far Cry 3 Performance?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 20, 2012 1:15:10 AM

I realize it is a very demanding game, but this seems kind of low to me. I generally maintain 60 FPS, but that is at 1600 x 900 on medium. I think I should be able to do at least high at 1920 x 1080 with my overclocked 7870.. What do you think is happening? Or do those frame rates make sense.

Thanks,

More about : poor cry performance

December 20, 2012 6:10:24 AM

i have a 7950 OC and i get about 45fps on average at 1920 x 1080 on max settings. Personally i think your frame rates are fine, but I guess check your GPU load. If it is less than 80% then i think you may need a new CPU. Im not too tech savvy so somebody else might have a better answer for you
m
0
l
December 20, 2012 6:24:07 AM

Leave MSAA off. This way you can play at ultra setting with a great framerate. I would be weird if my GTX 660 beat your Radeon 7870?

I get about 45-50 fps in average at 1920x1080.

Just look here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRnKfQaVVwM

If you don't got MSAA on then you should consider updating your CPU or RAM, if you still get bad fps. Far Cry 3 is on of the first games I've seen where it's recommended to have 8GB of RAM.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 20, 2012 2:01:02 PM

I have an i7 and 16GB of RAM. I doubt either of those are causing problems.

I'll try disabling MSAA.

Edit: Oh, my signature is being glitchy again. That's why you guys couldn't see my other specs.
m
0
l
December 22, 2012 10:54:37 AM

man i`m running 4 way sli 670`s with an i7 3770k and i`m lucky to see 60 fps on 5760x1080 there`s deffo an issue in the game or drivers, all my cards are 40% usage with everythin on ultra. i`m waiting on a fix, PIA to be honest was looking forward to it aswell, fps dips are quite bad at some points aswell even with it turned down to low.

Davie
m
0
l
December 24, 2012 3:41:50 PM

Okay. First go to My Documents/My Games/Far Cry 3/ . Open the GamerProfile file using notepad. Over there search for PostFXQuality. It might be "low". "medium" or "high" Change it to "false". This will surely get you 5-10 frames per second. Hope it helps. Good luck
m
0
l
December 25, 2012 6:54:05 AM

I just found all the patched the other night, i should have written back . worked a treat there`s 4 all together and seems to have solved my fps problem. i noticed if i turned prescision x off aswell it helped. but cheers for ine info guys and have a merry Christmas

Davie
m
0
l
December 25, 2012 6:36:53 PM

Just bought the game yesterday and I'm seriously not impressed with the graphics performance. Last August I built a new system- i5 3570K, Samsung SSD, 8 Gb RAM, 560 Ti yanked from my previous system. I know 1080 is pretty tough on a graphics card, but it's pretty pathetic that I spent over $1000 on my new system and I have to drop down to the same resolution as the consoles in order to get really good framerates. The funny thing is that the game doesn't look all that great, either; frankly, I think the 5-year-old Crysis looks way more realistic. The water is nothing special. I don't think it looks that much better than Far Cry 2. It does have very nice lighting, and the foliage can look good depending on the scene. I just don't see how I can be getting only ~30FPS given the visuals. Gameplay seems pretty fun. It seems to me that maybe they could have worked on optimizing the PC version? Who knows?
m
0
l
December 25, 2012 6:52:48 PM

sweatlaserxp said:
Just bought the game yesterday and I'm seriously not impressed with the graphics performance. Last August I built a new system- i5 3570K, Samsung SSD, 8 Gb RAM, 560 Ti yanked from my previous system. I know 1080 is pretty tough on a graphics card, but it's pretty pathetic that I spent over $1000 on my new system and I have to drop down to the same resolution as the consoles in order to get really good framerates. The funny thing is that the game doesn't look all that great, either; frankly, I think the 5-year-old Crysis looks way more realistic. The water is nothing special. I don't think it looks that much better than Far Cry 2. It does have very nice lighting, and the foliage can look good depending on the scene. I just don't see how I can be getting only ~30FPS given the visuals. Gameplay seems pretty fun. It seems to me that maybe they could have worked on optimizing the PC version? Who knows?



Agreed. I'm running Crysis with photorealism mods and it looks much better than Far Cry 3, yet I still maintain 50 FPS at 1920 x 1080. I can do Far Cry 3 on high at 1600 x 900 and maintain 60 FPS, but it doesn't look that good. The physics in Crysis are also much better IMO.
m
0
l
December 25, 2012 6:59:16 PM

BTW I'm getting ~30 FPS with AA turned off! Not impressed.
m
0
l
December 26, 2012 7:54:10 AM

well for a laugh i turned everything down to medium with AA off and was getting 90 fps dropping to 30 in some parts with 4X670`s and a 3770k LOL!!!, i got crysis 2 with all high res packs and dx11 and push 120 fps it can only be bad coding in the game also latest nvidia driver said 38 or 39% increase in far cry 3 performance :lol:  . PITA aswell as being deleted in my opinion i cannot be annoyed with the console graphics man this is why we build these machines. as your man said a couple of reply`s above

Davie
m
0
l
December 27, 2012 7:24:15 PM

I lowered the global setting to "high" (some features were turned up higher than that under "optimal") and I got a modest bump in performance at 1080. It doesn't look as pretty, but whatever. Does anyone know if there's a built-in benchmark in the game? I couldn't find one.

There are some things I like about the visuals in this game, but it's not balanced at all. The colors are over-saturated to Zelda proportions. The water looks totally unremarkable, which is disappointing considering it's a tropical island-ey type game. The water in Crysis and GPU water in Just Cause 2 are far superior. It does look cool when you're underwater though.
m
0
l
!