Benchmark Results: Far Cry 2
Far Cry 2
Far Cry 2 contains a built-in benchmarking tool that enables CPU-intensive physics effects, does a decent job of delivering consistent results, and represents actual gameplay. There certainly may be some more graphically-demanding areas of the map, but 40 FPS in the small ranch demo represents a fair target for playability. Here, we crank details to Ultra High quality and also enable 4x AA to smooth out the jaggies.
Even with 4x AA enabled and Ultra High details, the overclocked Radeon HD 5750 manages playable frame rates in Far Cry 2 at this low resolution. The dual-core Phenom II is sufficient, while little benefit is seen with a single GPU when stepping beyond the Athlon II X4.
The two dual-GPU cards do not reach their true potential on the Socket AM3 platform but eventually pull to the top of the scale when paired with enough processor power. The Socket AM3 platform joins the LGA 775 platform from Part 3, holding a slight advantage over both Core i5 and Core i7 when Far Cry 2 is seemingly GPU-limited.
As we bump up to our initial 16:10 resolution, we again see the lowest-priced GPU and CPU combo provide an acceptable level of performance. The GeForce GTX 260 reaches 60 FPS on average, slightly surpassing the Radeon HD 4890.
Given enough CPU muscle, the more powerful graphics cards rank as expected. While we know Far Cry 2 can load more than two CPU cores, the overclocked Phenom II X2 550 balances out fairly well with even our top tested single-GPU graphics card.
The shift towards a GPU limitation is more evident at 1920x1200, and the dual-GPU cards see only insignificant gains stepping above the 3.7 GHz Phenom II X4 955 BE. Smooth gameplay with the overclocked Radeon HD 5750 now comes into question, and the extra 10-12 frames per second make the GeForce GTX 260 or Radeon HD 4890 a better graphics option.
Pushing over 4 million pixels at 2560x1600 requires the factory-overclocked GeForce GTX 285 paired with any one of the processors as a minimum recommendation. The Radeon HD 5970 tops the chart, regardless of CPU pairing, while the GeForce GTX 295 pulls to within 3 FPS when paired with the 3.86 GHz Phenom II X6 1055T.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Latest Tweaking & Tuning News
Latest Tweaking & Tuning reviews
- 05/11 – Do-It-Yourself: Upgrading Apple's 27" iMac With An SSD
- 04/17 – Overclocking: Asus Rampage IV Extreme Versus EVGA X79 FTW
- 03/30 – System Builder Marathon Bonus: Newegg Customer Choice PC
- 03/29 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: System Value Compared
- 03/28 – System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $2600 Performance PC
-
Latest Xigmatek reviews
- Five Gaming Cases Between $80 And $120, Reviewed
- In Pictures: Five Mainstream Gaming Cases, Previewed
- Big Air: 14 LGA 2011-Compatible Coolers For Core i7-3000,...
- In Pictures: 14 LGA 2011 Coolers For Your Core i7-3000 CPU
- Power Supply Reference: Consumption, Savings, And More
"such as NVidia’s GeForce GTX 400-series and revamp the benchmark suite with some new DirectX 11 titles."
i'll be waiting for that, and maybe some i5 cpu to see what fit sli best
"We set forth to measure the perfect balance in seven different games and four resolutions in this third of many parts." (?)
I think you copied this paragraph from part 3 and forgot to change it to 4... ;-)
With the amount of love you guys have for the Athlon x3 I was really hoping to see it on here :\
I guess I can kind of predict where it'd fall though.
I love the in-depth articles like these. Keep 'em coming!
Brilliant piece.
I wish I had read this before building my system as I can see that I clearly spent too much on my CPU instead of GPU (i5-750 + HD5770) . Would have done much better with (X2 550 BE + HD5850) !
...ain't hind sight a b***h!
Also interesting to see how GPUs really start to distinguish themselves at higher resolutions. Again, brilliant work.
I built a computer for my brother using a Phenom ii 550 paired with a 5770, and it screams! Fantastic gaming chip! It just goes to show you can achieve fantastic performance by planning and balance.
Personally, i'd be interested to see results from a card with less han 1GB RAM on the GPU.
On the lower end of the spectrum, with the lower resolutions, is the 1GB really necessary?
Basically, i have a 512MB Asus 5770 and want to validate my purchase
Still running a Maximus formula 775 board with a Q6600, 8gb ram and a Radeon 5850 but this is certainly handy for future reference.
Probably skipping the i5/i7 generation as I can still play anything at max settings on my 22" monitor while running a 2nd for a film tho
Please test some newer games, which is essential for an article like this.
Still running a Maximus formula 775 board with a Q6600, 8gb ram and a Radeon 5850 but this is certainly handy for future reference.Probably skipping the i5/i7 generation as I can still play anything at max settings on my 22" monitor while running a 2nd for a film tho
i5/i7 isn't a generation. it's like 5 or so.
It's the same thing as C2D and C2Q
Still running a Maximus formula 775 board with a Q6600, 8gb ram and a Radeon 5850 but this is certainly handy for future reference.Probably skipping the i5/i7 generation as I can still play anything at max settings on my 22" monitor while running a 2nd for a film tho
I hear ya man, i have a Q6600 @ 3.6 and a GTX 285 and i can rock anything i play with really nice settings at 1920 x 1080 so it looks like i will be holding out for another year or two...
Very nice. I really like this series.
Suggestions: there's no need to draw curves; they should be point-to-point lines, as the data is discrete rather than continuous.
For the RPG, I would suggest Dragon Age: Origins as being more demanding at higher settings, and/or Sacred 2 because of its use of PhysX. The latter runs the risk of becoming an ATi vs. nVidia comparison, but still may be useful.
It would also be useful to have commentary on what bare minimum lowering of a setting or two is most likely to restore playability without sacrificing appearance too much.
This totally makes my point, when I say a ~$100 CPU and a $200-$300 GPU are a the best budget gaming machines you can get. I usually make ~$100 CPU choices and ~$100-150 GPU choices when I'm building a budget gaming rig!!
what about the i3 540. Is it horrable i see its not on here.
Great article. Good to see how a faster CPU can really pull out better FPS, and it seems to make much more difference when having dual GPUs - I can only assume the trend would hold true on dual card (sli/cf) set ups, which makes me even happier to have an i5 750 @ 4ghz with my two 5850s.
I hope Part 5 has i3, i5, i7, X955, X965, 1055T, 1090T and concentrates on DX11 performance (4xx vs 5xxx). I'd also LOVE to see a more in depth look at CF/SLI configs. There's not a lot of in depth looks at CF5770, CF5850, SLI470... there's some, but not a lot and none comparing these set ups to different CPUs.
Great article - super helpful; made me quite happy with my recent $70 purchase of an Athlon II x3 440 unlocked to an x4 640 & OC'd to 3.4 GHz. Now I just have to save some money and upgrade from my 3 year old 8800GTS 320!
It's great to see cards paired with non-flagship processors to see how they stand up; I often find that I can't trust graphics benchmarks by themselves because I don't have the cash to shell out for a core-i7 system & therefore can't predict how they will perform for me - this will help me plan my next gfx card purchase.
Again - really helpful article; I've never come across testing suites like this before!!! Keep it up
Catalyst 9.12 and only outdated games... is this January 2010 or what? you should at least test BFBC2, it uses as many cpu cores as you can throw at it...
Felang: they wanted it possible for readers to compare the results with previous articles in the series.
Very nice article! I noticed that HD5970 and GTX295 benefited the most from the i7-920 CPU. This implies that Crossfire and SLI (multi-GPU setups) scale better with faster quads (and duals?). Thus, it would be nice to see how various CF and SLI setups depend on the CPUs in this test.
Why did you use the older generation of Nvidia GPUs in this test? We are looking at the GTX460/470/480 now, with numerous test showing how well two 460's in SLI do.
Nice article, as for the L3 assessment I do agree that the lack of L3 cache does negatively impact performance but at least its not catastrophic as seen with the early days of the Celeron. Personally I use a meager 8250e that I nuked to 2.57ghz and it gets the job done plus it was dirt cheap. $16 after selling off some junked parts.