Far Cry 4 Game Performance Review

Results: 1440p, 4K And CPU

Ultra Details @ 1440p

We continue climbing the resolution ladder, and our next benchmark is run at 2560x1440:

All three high-end graphics cards maintain a minimum of 30 FPS at this resolution, although the Radeon R9 290X exhibits substantially more frame time variance.

Ultra Details @ 2160p

Let's move on to our highest-resolution test at 3840x2160, more commonly referred to as 4K:

We gave our 8GB Radeon R9 290X sample a shot, though it doesn't look like the extra GDDR5 memory makes much of a difference. We also tried dual-GPU solutions, but were surprised to find that Nvidia's SLI technology doesn't seem to work with cards from different manufacturers, limiting us to single-GPU tests. The extra graphics processor didn't seem to help the Radeon R9 295X2 either, suggesting this game and the drivers supporting it aren't yet optimized.

As for results, the Radeon R9 290X and GeForce GTX 980 fall just below the 30 FPS minimum frame rate threshold. I consider them playable, but not especially smooth. Unfortunately, AMD's Radeon R9 295X2 suffers almost three times the frame time variance of a single Radeon R9 290X.

CPU Benchmarks

In our final benchmark, we consider CPU performance using the GeForce GTX 980 at 1920x1080 with ultra details enabled to see how the top detail level affects a variety of processors.

It's interesting that the Dunia 2 engine powering Far Cry 4 happily takes advantage of multiple execution cores (especially when it comes to AMD's FX series). But it's just as significant that the game enables a greater-than-30 FPS minimum on low-end CPUs like the FX-4170 and Core i3-3220.

While your processor choice does have an effect on game performance, it doesn't look like the bottleneck is significant compared to your graphics card.

The Core i5 and Core i7 demonstrate a near-identical result, probably indicating that Far Cry 4 is graphics card-bottlenecked with these processors.

  • gamebrigada
    Which drivers were you using on the AMD graphics side?
  • damric
    How much AA was used and what kind? None?
  • Ellis_D
    14935116 said:
    How much AA was used and what kind? None?

    I'm assuming none since with my GTX 970 and i7 4790k, I was regularly bottoming out into the low-40s/upper-30s with SMAA enabled.
  • johnnyb105
    Kinda wondering why are they using a fx4170 and a 6300 WHEN THERE IS A FX 4350 AND 6350 CPU AND WHERE THE HECK IS THE 8350 AT???
  • stoned_ritual
    I have a gtx780 reference and an i5 4670k, I get BETTER framrates with SMAA enabled at 1080p than with 2xMSAA or the game-suggested level of 2xTXAA. I play this game on ultra. I do get fps drops in highly vegetated areas. The biggest performance gain is seen when I disable god rays.
  • Onus
    Hmmm, I got this game free with a 500GB Samsung 840 EVO. It will be the first shooter I've tried in years. I'm thinking my i5-3570K and HD7970 ought to manage "very high" reasonably well.
  • magic couch
    The AMD drivers used were the 14.9 Omega drivers, but the omega drivers are 14.12, not 14.9. Is it supposed to say 14.12 or were the 14.9 drivers used?
  • airborn824
    I am so BIASED. sigh what is this world coming to when we can trust nothing and no one for good info. I wanna see FX8350 with 290x with updated drivers and i5 4690 with GTX 9802 newest drivers so all of us can compare somewhat lol
  • Cryio
    @ Johnny: FX 4170 for old gen high clocked quad.

    6300, 6350, same thing mostly.

    You can OC an 8350 to that level of performance, so you can approximate.
  • airborn824
    THis game was so badly made. Why would there be such a difference in the CPU FPS? Sigh and very suprised such low FPS on the 295x2 which is the best money can buy these days. Very badly made game, glad i got it for FREE i would never buy it at its point now.