Results: Far Cry 3
I’ve always been curious about Don’s low-resolution performance scaling in Far Cry 3, since it’s something neither Paul nor I have been able to replicate (even when I’m using the same hardware). Maybe it’s not that we’re doing something wrong—maybe it’s that he’s benchmarking differently.
The $600 machine survived all of its Far Cry 3 tests at our lower test settings, but becomes unplayable at our higher settings. According to Paul, smooth gameplay is possible by either dropping from 1920x1080 to 1600x900 or from Ultra to Very High quality.
The $1300 machine makes a valiant effort to reach 5760x1080 at Ultra quality, but even the $1600 PC struggles. Thankfully, the drop between average and minimum is small in this title, with a 22 FPS minimum recorded for the $1600 machine’s baseline test.
The first I think I'd build as an uncle-nephew project, then he and his sisters would have an excellent homework machine that would be capable of some fun too.
Either the second or third I'd mix and match with some of my own parts, but their platforms would become my new primary machine, just to update what I've got. I'd love to win any of them.
Conversely, 1600x900 and 1280x720 ARE able to run on 1920x1080 displays.
Nobody thinks you're using a 1600x900 display. 1600x900 is a backup resolution for people who want to run 1920x1080 with super-high quality, but find that their graphics card is too weak. Options for a slightly-underpowered graphics card are to set 1600x900, which looks good on a 1920x1080 display, or to use lower quality settings. If you're not geek enough to know that, you've no room to complain.
The motherboard would cost around $120 more, the CPU $50 more, and the DRAM at least $50 more to reach slightly lower overall performance rating (DDR4-2133 CAS 16, for example). The added threads would allow faster encoding and compiling times in roughly 20% of the tests, while lower clock rate would cause slower performance in nearly all the other tests. We'd probably be lucky to break even on this benchmark set, while spending more money.
Thanks for not thinking of me as a geek now go tell that to my ex-wife.
People asked us a long time ago to quit with the 2560x1600 tests because hardly anyone had 2560x1600 monitors. And our 2560x1600 monitors won't do 2560x1440, so we'd have to pay for a new "QHD" monitor in order to drop to 2560x1440 from our long-forgotten 2560x1600.
3x 1920x1080 is cheap enough for most high-end builders (I got my screen for around $120 each), and gives you the advantage of peripheral vision. Gaming is pretty cool in "Surround", a lot of guys even prefer it.