Image Quality And Settings
Far Cry 3 is powered by the Dunia 2 engine, a heavily modified version of Crytek's CryEngine. The game looks fantastic, and, more than anything, else it reminds me of the original Crysis (a testament to how ahead of its time that game was back in 2007). Some of Far Cry 3's visual elements may be superior to the original Crysis, though it appears that the environment isn't quite as detailed (this is subjective; I haven't played the original Crysis in a long time). No matter what, though, Far Cry 3 looks amazing. My one nitpick is that some of the animal animations seem to halt abruptly and unnaturally as they transition.
Far Cry 3 employs an advanced light culling system that brings down the overhead of shading many lights, some of which don't necessarily affect an entire scene. The title also optimizes multisample anti-aliasing by only applying the feature to "important" parts of the image, purportedly without sacrificing image quality. DirectCompute-accelerated HDAO and Direct3D 11 TSAA also serve to improve the title's better-looking graphics.
The game has five detail presets, but individual settings can be customized as you see fit. What follows are the options you see when you specify Low, Medium, High, Very High, and Ultra on the Overall Quality menu.
The changes between each detail level are often subtle. However, there are gradual improvements in shadow, geometry, and lighting quality as you go from one end of the spectrum to the other.
One thing you can't see in these screenshots is the LOD transition that happens as you approach objects. The developer chose a pixellated fade between levels of detail, rather than a softer transparency fade (perhaps to help performance?), and it's painfully obvious at times. The following screenshot captures the effect as it happens.
The good news is that this artifact is less apparent at higher detail settings because the transition happens further away from the camera. If you're using the Medium or Low preset, though, you're going to have to live with it.
My God... Are the reviewers of this website paid to make AMD look bad? Any person with a minimum hint of common sense can clearly see that there is virtually no difference between FX 8350, the i3, the i5 and i7. This is a big disservice to the community.
I thinks it read like this
"The good news for folks with Piledriver-based processors is that the FX-8350 is nearly as quick as Intel's Core i7-3960X (never mind the fact that the Core i7 costs more than $500..). "
anyways good review...
Why no middle ground? And why no 7970/680 tests in Crossfire/SLI? Why use single flagship cards, but then only use SLI/Crossfire for the medium bunch?
I'm very glad to see that this game uses Crossfire/SLI effectively, ~50% increase in performance for dual GPU configurations.
Thanks Don for the great review as always.
Edit: These still screen shots don't do it justice.
rdc85I thinks it read like this"The good news for folks with Piledriver-based processors is that the FX-8350 is nearly as quick as Intel's Core i7-3960X (never mind the fact that the Core i7 costs more than $500..). "hehe....anyways good review...
The good thing is the game doesn't scale up with intel CPUs making the 8350 really look good in comparison.
Dude, the writer is only trying to point out that using a dual core i3 is more meaningful than using the 8core FX8350. AND B.T.W. its common sense than the latest games dont even benefit from so many cores. Stop moaning about whether or not the writer is an Intel fanboy because AMD performed well in the GPU section.