Far Cry 5 PC graphics performance benchmark review

Elder III

2018-03-26 20:56

That is a better result then I expected for 4K Ultra on a single GTX 1080 Ti. I might be able to play this without SLI enabled after all. 🙂

#5531885

Pandora's Box

2018-03-26 21:28

@Hilbert Hagedoorn any word on sli performance?

#5531906

Agonist

2018-03-26 22:20

Go Fury Go! Actually pretty impressed with Ubisoft on this title not making it a crap show.

#5531926

Dimitrios1983

2018-03-26 23:50

I have a feeling STEAM will be down from everyone downloading it lol. Looks good though.

#5531961

pharma

2018-03-27 01:58

Netherwind:

Where did you see that? According to the official system requirements 4K/60fps requires a pair of GTX 1080 in SLI mode. This is in line with Hilberts benchmark results where the stock 1080 only achieves ~40fps. http://blog.ubi.com/en-GB/far-cry-5-pc-specs-system-requirements-revealed/

For performance versus proper in-game image quality, you can expect from most graphics cards to run the game. We recommended you use a GTX 1060 / Radeon RX 480 to run the game at 1920x1080, a GeForce GTX 1060~1070 / Radeon Rx 570~580 for 2560x1440, and a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti or Vega 64 or better for 3840x2160.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_5_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,2.html

#5532032

Kaleid

2018-03-27 09:57

Agonist:

Go Fury Go! Actually pretty impressed with Ubisoft on this title not making it a crap show.

I'm not sure why this is a surprise as Primal looked better than 4 and ran better. (at least for me) From the g3d performance review for Primal: " All factors combined make it an original game. Some words of wisdom to Ubisoft though, there's only so many times you can get away with re-spin games. Far Cry could become repetitive like Assassin's Creed and the Anno series in the sense that it is the same stuff in a different jacket. " This is why I won't buy FC5 for full price. I know I enjoy the games most of the time although a lot of time is wasted on traveling here and there if that was cut the games would be a lot shorter.

#5532035

Netherwind

2018-03-27 10:35

pharma:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_5_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,2.html

I see but I'd personally say that 40 something FPS isn't acceptable. I'm a 60-100fps guy 🙂

#5532043

Keesberenburg

2018-03-27 11:22

Hughesy:

Games need to support HDR in the first place, turning it on in Windows will do nothing if the game doesn't support it. As far as I know the PC version doesn't support it, but the console version does.

Ingame i have a HDR option

#5532121

pato

2018-03-27 13:56

@Hilbert Hagedoorn if there really are differences in performance with the newer drivers, could you also please put a little message in here, so that we could revisit the benchmarks?

#5532126

bigfutus

2018-03-27 14:03

Ubisoft releases a well optimised game on launch? The future is now.

#5532135

Hilbert Hagedoorn

Administrator

2018-03-27 14:12

pato:

@Hilbert Hagedoorn if there really are differences in performance with the newer drivers, could you also please put a little message in here, so that we could revisit the benchmarks?

Check the last page of the review for early driver results. Up-to-the GTX 1080 you'll be hard-pressed to notice a perf increase. 1~2 FPS at best. The fastest cards like 1080 Ti / Titan X Pascal both show slightly better results specifically at WHQD ~4%. So it seems, the more GPU bound you get, the smaller (marginal) perf increase you'll see. But even 1 or 2 FPS is relevant of course, as a result currently, I am retesting all Series 10 cards and will update the charts in the performance review. Update: the charts have been updated based on the new driver.

#5532200

holler

2018-03-27 15:56

poor gtx 970. i guess its 3.5 + .5 mem implementation isn't doing it any favors.

#5532204

JonasBeckman

2018-03-27 15:59

Guessing they set the target to 3.8 to 3.9 to give the 4gb 400 and 500 Polaris GPU's some room and then possibly the Fury which is still keeping up. There's ini settings for a high-res texture pack so that could be a thing in the future but it could also be a placeholder from Dunia engine and Primal so don't take this as a confirmation they're making a high-res DLC just yet. 🙂 EDIT: Though perhaps. https://steamdb.info/app/552520/dlc/ Bunch of pre-order and UPlay tie-ins and then conveniently enough 4 blank spaces for unreleased content. Vietnam, Zombies, Mars would be three of these and then ? which could be anything such as a texture pack, we'll know soon I suppose.

#5532221

pharma

2018-03-27 16:41

Netherwind:

I see but I'd personally say that 40 something FPS isn't acceptable. I'm a 60-100fps guy 🙂

Did you notice what type of monitor was used? Article mentioned the Samsung CHG90 FreeSync monitor but was not sure this was the one used in the review.

#5532222

pato

2018-03-27 16:43

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Check the last page of the review for early driver results. Up-to-the GTX 1080 you'll be hard-pressed to notice a perf increase. 1~2 FPS at best. The fastest cards like 1080 Ti / Titan X Pascal both show slightly better results specifically at WHQD ~4%. So it seems, the more GPU bound you get, the smaller (marginal) perf increase you'll see. But even 1 or 2 FPS is relevant of course, as a result currently, I am retesting all Series 10 cards and will update the charts in the performance review. Update: the charts have been updated based on the new driver.

Thanks for the update! 🙂

#5532227

Netherwind

2018-03-27 16:57

pharma:

Did you notice what type of monitor was used? Article mentioned the Samsung CHG90 FreeSync monitor but was not sure this was the one used in the review.

I don't think it's written but most likely HH has three monitors (1080p, 1440p and 4K) that run the game at unlocked framerate. The monitor was just an example of an aspect ratio that the game supports.

#5532421

Agonist

2018-03-28 00:09

Kaleid:

I'm not sure why this is a surprise as Primal looked better than 4 and ran better. (at least for me) From the g3d performance review for Primal: " All factors combined make it an original game. Some words of wisdom to Ubisoft though, there's only so many times you can get away with re-spin games. Far Cry could become repetitive like Assassin's Creed and the Anno series in the sense that it is the same stuff in a different jacket. " This is why I won't buy FC5 for full price. I know I enjoy the games most of the time although a lot of time is wasted on traveling here and there if that was cut the games would be a lot shorter.

Didnt follow primal at all. I never tried it. I only bought it for my exs kid to play. I didnt play 4 either. Had no interest after FC3, which I really enjoyed. He was 12, GTX 670 2GB @ 1600x900 and it did run very well for him.

#5532486

sykozis

2018-03-28 03:51

Romulus_ut3:

Is there an option to enable/disable Rapid Packed Math on the VEGA cards? I'd like to see the difference it makes to the performance. Because if these VEGA figures were achieved with Rapid Packed math.. they aren't all that impressive.

Just looking for something to trash AMD over? If the framerates are achieved without a loss of visual quality, then what does it really matter how the framerates are achieved?

#5532493

Prince Valiant

2018-03-28 04:52

sykozis:

Just looking for something to trash AMD over? If the framerates are achieved without a loss of visual quality, then what does it really matter how the framerates are achieved?

Perhaps they're too used to losing performance with Gameworks that getting a free improvement must be bad 😀?

#5532516

sykozis

2018-03-28 06:45

Could be....