Get Best Far Cry 5 Performance: 10 Graphics Cards Tested at “Ultra” Quality

News
By Bruno Cormier, Yannick Guerrini
published

Benchmarks at 1080p and 1440p

Since the minimum and recommended configurations that Ubisoft suggests are quite reasonable, we decided to run our tests with the graphics options pushed as high as they go: Ultra with TAA. We're also collecting data at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440.

Frankly, we don't understand the interest in activating the cinematic motion blur feature. Gamers deliberately seek out display subsystems offering the sharpest/smoothest picture possible during motion-heavy sequences. So, we left this option turned off at all times.

Benchmarks at 1080p

Image 1 of 6

Only two cards sustain a minimum frame rate here of 60 FPS: the Radeon RX 580 and GeForce GTX 1060 6GB. Even still, the benchmark runs perfectly well on a GeForce GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 970, as well as the Radeon RX 570 and Radeon R9 390.

Taking a big step down, we find the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560, which do maintain minimum frame rates above 30. The GeForce GTX 1050 and Radeon RX 460 cannot do this. Those last two cards are too slow for our tests at 1920x1080 using the Ultra preset.

Benchmarks at 1440p

Image 1 of 6

Stepping up to 2560x1440 taxes all of our cards. Now, none of them maintains a 60 FPS minimum. AMD's Radeon RX 580 does achieve an average frame rate of 50 FPS, though.

Below the Radeon, we find the GeForce GTX 1060 6GB and 3GB, GeForce GTX 970, Radeon RX 570, and Radeon R9 390, all of which make it through our benchmark sequence smoothly.

The GeForce GTX 1050, GTX 1050 Ti, Radeon RX 460, and RX 560 succumb to this higher resolution.


MORE: Get Maximum Fortnite Performance: 'Epic' Mode With 10 Graphics Cards

MORE: Final Fantasy XV Performance Review

MORE: Project CARS 2 Performance Review

Image
Far Cry 5
View Deal
Bruno Cormier
See more GPUs News
10 Comments Comment from the forums
  • jaexyr
    Game is pretty. (All else about the game was hugely disappointing.) My 1080 card running @ 1440/G85hz was quite nice.
    Reply
  • AgentLozen
    I'm really impressed by how well optimized this game is. There are lots of granular options for visual tweaking.

    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.
    Reply
  • redgarl
    AMD console strategy is paying off.

    Also, would have been interesting to see a 8400 system compared to the 1600x at these resolutions with these cards.
    Reply
  • popatim
    @RedGarl. Why x1600? so you can see which ones stutter the most? The game is just playable at 1440 only with several of the cards in this review. LoL
    Reply
  • therickmu25
    The game is 'optimized' because they nerfed the physics and detail that FC2 had 10fold.
    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
    Reply
  • jaexyr
    Even in comparison to 3 & 4.... 5 is horrible. I love that video of 2. I used it in a steam review

    20874573 said:
    The game is 'optimized' because they nerfed the physics and detail that FC2 had 10fold.
    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

    Reply
  • eduardoceliseduardocelis
    Titan v 4k core i7 8700k ultra settings no less than 60fps. I think that's enough to enjoy the game without stuttering. O lag
    Reply
  • photonboy
    Uh.... WHAT??
    "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.
    Reply
  • mitch074
    About the Rage comparison: Rage was the first OpenGL game to push the API so hard. Most fixes were done at driver level - while FC5 is DX11 only. Had it been done in DX12/Vulkan, and really pushing physics, I'm not so sure it would run that well. DE:MD actually looks better to me.
    Reply
  • AgentLozen
    mitch074 said:
    About the Rage comparison: Rage was the first OpenGL game to push the API so hard. Most fixes were done at driver level - while FC5 is DX11 only. Had it been done in DX12/Vulkan, and really pushing physics, I'm not so sure it would run that well. DE:MD actually looks better to me.

    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.
    Reply