Get Best Far Cry 5 Performance: 10 Graphics Cards Tested at “Ultra” Quality
-
Page 1:How We Tested
-
Page 2:Graphics & Rendering Settings
-
Page 3:Far Cry 5 Benchmarks: FPS, Frame Time & Smoothness
-
Page 4:Benchmarks at 1080p and 1440p
-
Page 5:How Far Cry 5 Uses CPU, RAM & Video Memory
-
Page 6:How Far Cry 5 Uses Multiple Cores
-
Page 7:Our Conclusions (Plus Bonus Testing With Two High-End Cards)
How Far Cry 5 Uses CPU, RAM & Video Memory
Processor Utilization
Let's now see how Far Cry 5 and its Dunia Engine manage available host processing resources. The minimum configuration calls for a quad-core Intel CPU or a hexa-core model from AMD. We expect that our Ryzen is perfectly suited for the job.
- Use_CPU
- Use_CPU_580
- Use_CPU_1060
- Use_CPUFreq_580
- USE_CPUFreq_1060
Right out of the gate, it appears that this game is optimized well for multi-core CPUs, even if workloads jump from one core to the next somewhat frequently. Certain cores are saturated with activity, though overall utilization is still fairly low. And, for the first time, we're testing a game that doesn't just prioritize physical cores, but also makes use of the logical ones enabled by AMD's SMT technology.
This is also the first time we have encountered a game that monopolizes CPU resources to such an extent. Could this be due to the Denuvo DRM and/or the physics engine?
System & Video Memory Utilization
When it comes to system memory, a PC with 8GB of RAM should be fine. Utilization is practically identical, regardless of whether you have a GeForce or Radeon installed. The difference we do measure could be attributable to a margin of error.
Our Radeon card exhibits more GDDR5 usage than the GeForce. But you have nothing to worry about, so long as you have 3GB or 4GB on your board.
MORE: Get Maximum Fortnite Performance: 'Epic' Mode With 10 Graphics Cards
MORE: Final Fantasy XV Performance Review
MORE: Project CARS 2 Performance Review
Does anyone remember ID Soft's "Rage" launch from a few years back? That game was highly anticipated and also got good reviews, but suffered from a wide variety for technical problems on PC. The engine was so glitchy that it barely ran on AMD video cards for a week before they released drivers to make it playable. Also, there were hardly any configurable graphics options besides resolution. ID Soft didn't make the engine from scratch either. It derived from Doom 3's Tech Engine 4.
Comparing the Far Cry 5 launch to Rage reveals a night and day difference.
Also, would have been interesting to see a 8400 system compared to the 1600x at these resolutions with these cards.
You can't even shoot through a wooden fence in this game. For anyone interested, the video below shows all the things left out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCeEvQ68jY8&t=621s
"This is also the first time we have encountered a game that monopolizes CPU resources to such an extent. Could this be due to the Denuvo DRM and/or the physics engine?"
How are the CPU resources monopolized if you have minimal benefit beyond TWO cores plus hyperthreading?
That's not a very heavy load.
You're right about the reasons why Rage was such a mess at launch. As I recall, the drivers at the time were underdeveloped for OpenGL and Rage was asking for more than the drivers were used to. This was largely an AMD problem. I think Nvidia wasn't plagued the same way.
I used Rage for the comparison because it offered VERY few graphics customization options and it wouldn't run for a significant part of the PC user base, regardless of reason.