Far Cry 4....

[Spev]

Alright so I recently purchased a GTX 970 from EVGA the FTW edition. So far I'm pretty disappointed in how my game is playing and it seems realllly choppy especially when I am in a vehicle or running. This is pretty frustrating so here are my questions:

 

1. I've heard Ubisoft games can just be really bad, is this the case?

2. Should I maybe have spent more on a GPU? (I want to be playing games on Ultra)

3. Are any of my other system components affecting the performance? Added specs to sig if you need to see.

 

I swapped out my DP cable and am using a DVI-D now to go down to 60FPS, my DP cable only supported 100 or 120. It has seemed a little better after I put it down to 60 fps in the settings. Anyways, I've tried a variety of settings and they are all looking pretty shitty tbh. So far the other games I've played are LoL and Trine 2 which all played and looked perfect. I'm trying to get more into PC gaming so I purchased the 970 last month (was using a 580 before) so this is making me pretty sad as I thought I could play games on Ultra.

[thekeemo]

Its much better than AC unity but still not great you should be fine though

[Majestic]

Watch Totalbiscuit's Port report.

Even on his SLI 980 + 5930K (OC) it chugs. He had to turn down mipmapping to get it stutter free.

 

Expecting good hardware to run everything without a hitch is severely overestimating some developers/publishers. 

[TBNRunity]

Far cry is a difficult game to run especially on ultra. However, If you do believe you are getting minimal fps than thought then there could be something bottlenecking your system. Let me know your specs and I am sure we can help

[Majestic]

Far cry is a difficult game to run especially on ultra. However, If you do believe you are getting minimal fps than thought then there could be something bottlenecking your system. Let me know your specs and I am sure we can help

 

Check his sig...

Also, It's not a difficult game to run. It's just stuck on a single thread mostly. Even the best CPU can't run FC4 on 1 core. This isn't something you can fix by throwing more horsepower at it, it's just shit.

[TheRetiredSlave]

1. Ubisoft has had several recent games that were poorly optimized from a performance standpoint. From what I've heard, Far Cry 4 is also poorly optimized.

2. The 970 is a very strong card. The only thing that would be better would be the GTX 980, and that's substantially more expensive for a relatively small increase in performance.

3. The i7-920 i7-980 is getting a little old, and may affect performance in games that are heavy on the CPU (or poorly optimized).

 

Why would you change out the monitor cables to limit the refresh rate? The monitor's refresh rate will have no effect on the GPU's performance.. 

 

Edit: i7-980 not 920.

[Majestic]

3. The i7-920 is getting a little old, and may affect performance in games that are heavy on the CPU (or poorly optimized).

 

It's a i7-980. That's a 6C/12T 3.33GHZ CPU, not even remotely the same as a 4C/8T 2.67GHZ i7920..

[Spev]

1. Ubisoft has had several recent games that were poorly optimized from a performance standpoint. From what I've heard, Far Cry 4 is also poorly optimized.

2. The 970 is a very strong card. The only thing that would be better would be the GTX 980, and that's substantially more expensive for a relatively small increase in performance.

3. The i7-920 is getting a little old, and may affect performance in games that are heavy on the CPU (or poorly optimized).

 

Why would you change out the monitor cables to limit the refresh rate? The monitor's refresh rate will have no effect on the GPU's performance.. 

As I mentioned I'm just getting into PC games...

 

I originally had it on 120 fps, I figured maybe if I limited it to 60fps in the settings it might not struggles as much to display higher quality settings but at a lower frame rate. Also I have the *980 not the 920, but your statement probably wouldn't change.

 

Far cry is a difficult game to run especially on ultra. However, If you do believe you are getting minimal fps than thought then there could be something bottlenecking your system. Let me know your specs and I am sure we can help

Yeah I added specs to signature.

[123456789qwertyu]

Its probably just Far Cry 4.

Just lower the settings.

Maybe lower the resolution

and if your feeling really daring.

Overclock a bit.

Far Cry 4 is known for being poorly optimized.

 

[Majestic]

Ubisoft Game is known for being poorly optimized.

[D2ultima]

As I mentioned I'm just getting into PC games...

 

I originally had it on 120 fps, I figured maybe if I limited it to 60fps in the settings it might not struggles as much to display higher quality settings but at a lower frame rate. Also I have the *980 not the 920, but your statement probably wouldn't change.

 

Yeah I added specs to signature.

Keep it to 120 FPS. Your CPU is a bottleneck for any games that REALLY want CPU power (though seeing as how this is a console port, Ubisoft is to blame). Set max buffered frames to 3; some users have reported this fixes some stuttering for them in Far Cry 4. Report back with results, enjoy.

[Spev]

Keep it to 120 FPS. Your CPU is a bottleneck for any games that REALLY want CPU power (though seeing as how this is a console port, Ubisoft is to blame). Set max buffered frames to 3; some users have reported this fixes some stuttering for them in Far Cry 4. Report back with results, enjoy.

Do you mean triple buffering? Also should I have vsync on or off?

[Majestic]

Keep it to 120 FPS. Your CPU is a bottleneck for any games that REALLY want CPU power (though seeing as how this is a console port, Ubisoft is to blame). Set max buffered frames to 3; some users have reported this fixes some stuttering for them in Far Cry 4. Report back with results, enjoy.

 

It'd be more useful for all of us if we'd refrain ourselves from using those subjective power-terms like "CPU POWER". It's nonsensical and meaningless.

What you were trying to say is; single-threaded performance. Because that's what console ports rely on.

[D2ultima]

Do you mean triple buffering? Also should I have vsync on or off?

 

Nope, there's something you can set in the config files to set your GPU max buffered frames from 0 to 5. 3 seems to fix a lot of stuttering. I don't have the game so I can't tell you exactly where; FC3 had it straight in the options menu.

 

It'd be more useful for all of us if we'd refrain ourselves from using those subjective power-terms like "CPU POWER". It's nonsensical and meaningless.

What you were trying to say is; single-threaded performance. Because that's what console ports rely on.

 

No, what I mean is "instructions per clock" is low. Single threaded performance or multi-threaded performance doesn't mean anything; if a game won't use beyond say... 50% of your CPU? Then the only way to benefit is to either OC the CPU or get a CPU with better IPC in the architecture. 1st gen core-i series have a very low IPC versus Sandy Bridge and up. If he had a Sandy Bridge CPU I'd have left him alone.

 

So no, I DID mean "CPU power". But at least I explained it properly now =3.

[Majestic]

So no, I DID mean "CPU power". But at least I explained it properly now =3.

 

No not really. You gave it a good shot, but it's not true. The mainthread of Far Cry 4 is unreasonably heavy, meaning that 1 core will be severely overburdened, while the rest is doing diddly. So effectively on a quadcore, you have ~25-30% load in your taskbar. But still your performance is being determined by that single-core performance.

 

"CPU-Power" has no quantifyable measure. It's meaningless.

 

Also, i think you severely underestimate the 980x; http://anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=142

[Spev]

Keep it to 120 FPS. Your CPU is a bottleneck for any games that REALLY want CPU power (though seeing as how this is a console port, Ubisoft is to blame). Set max buffered frames to 3; some users have reported this fixes some stuttering for them in Far Cry 4. Report back with results, enjoy.

Currently not seeing it but I'll keep looking...I messed with some settings and it's a bit better. Pretty much playing on High - Ultra makes no noticeable difference. The regular gameplay is pretty smooth, however running or vehicle gameplay is just choppy.

 

What would be a good game (that is maybe decently optimized) that I can test out my GPU on to test performance?

 

Also so this game was ported from console to PC? Are games "meant" for PC or not ported over usually perform better?

[Majestic]

Crysis 3. 

[Spev]

So I decided to run MSI afterburner on screen display. It seems it rarely goes below 60 fps, and when it does it's a spike. However I notice some skips and stuff like that even when the FPS is over 60fps?

[TheRetiredSlave]

It's a i7-980. That's a 6C/12T 3.33GHZ CPU, not even remotely the same as a 4C/8T 2.67GHZ i7920..

 

Yeah, 920 was a typo on my part. Even then, you're still talking about a fairly old architecture that offers substantially lower single-threaded performance due to both IPC and lower clockspeeds.. Many of Ubisoft's recent games have been severely limited by single-threaded performance (poor coding, frankly), so it's not really going to take full advantage of the 6C/12T of the i7-980..

[D2ultima]

No not really. You gave it a good shot, but it's not true. The mainthread of Far Cry 4 is unreasonably heavy, meaning that 1 core will be severely overburdened, while the rest is doing diddly. So effectively on a quadcore, you have ~25-30% load in your taskbar. But still your performance is being determined by that single-core performance.

 

"CPU-Power" has no quantifyable measure. It's meaningless.

 

Also, i think you severely underestimate the 980x; http://anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=142

No, you're comparing an i5 to a 6-core 12-thread chip. Here's a better comparison http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1316?vs=142

Or for Sandy Bridge vs 980X, here http://anandtech.com/bench/product/443?vs=142

 

Anyway, i5 to i5 and i7 to i7, sandy bridge and up are a decent jump in performance. Sandy bridge to Ivy for example, is not.

[Majestic]

No, you're comparing an i5 to a 6-core 12-thread chip. Here's a better comparison http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1316?vs=142

Or for Sandy Bridge vs 980X, here http://anandtech.com/bench/product/443?vs=142

 

Anyway, i5 to i5 and i7 to i7, sandy bridge and up are a decent jump in performance. Sandy bridge to Ivy for example, is not.

 

What are you on about. This makes absolutely no sense. I don't have to only compare it to the -E series, if i compare it to a 2500K (which, coincidentally, is the CPU you told us would be much better) that's fine. What you're doing is looking for stuff that coincides with your argument, it's called conformation bias. Btw, in games like Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3 it does matter since they scale beyond 4 threads (mostly).

[D2ultima]

What are you on about. This makes absolutely no sense. I don't have to only compare it to the -E series, if i compare it to a 2500K (which, coincidentally, is the CPU you told us would be much better) that's fine. What you're doing is looking for stuff that coincides with your argument, it's called conformation bias. Btw, in games like Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3 it does matter since they scale beyond 4 threads (mostly).

Well you're comparing, as I said, a 6-core + hyperthreading to a quadcore without. Also, the i7-920 and up chips are the "extreme" class. So i compared it to other 6-cores.

 

If you want a consumer comparison, do it to the 2600K.

 

Edit: I did the 2600K. It keeps up a good bit in the consumer stuff. Here it is: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/287?vs=142

And next I did versus the 4790K, since that's what he'd buy right now. Here it is: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1260?vs=142

 

4790K rips it to shreds, even though it's only a quadcore.

 

Next, I did 4690K since you compared to a 2500 before (though it's not a fair comparison): http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1261?vs=142

 

Still beats it in cinebench, but x264 takes the extra cores & hyperthreads and understandably gives the 980X the win. Which is why I said it wasn't really fair (hyperthreading does a good bit).

[SlaughterSmurf]

Alright so I recently purchased a GTX 970 from EVGA the FTW edition. So far I'm pretty disappointed in how my game is playing and it seems realllly choppy especially when I am in a vehicle or running. This is pretty frustrating so here are my questions:

 

1. I've heard Ubisoft games can just be really bad, is this the case?

2. Should I maybe have spent more on a GPU? (I want to be playing games on Ultra)

3. Are any of my other system components affecting the performance? Added specs to sig if you need to see.

 

I swapped out my DP cable and am using a DVI-D now to go down to 60FPS, my DP cable only supported 100 or 120. It has seemed a little better after I put it down to 60 fps in the settings. Anyways, I've tried a variety of settings and they are all looking pretty shitty tbh. So far the other games I've played are LoL and Trine 2 which all played and looked perfect. I'm trying to get more into PC gaming so I purchased the 970 last month (was using a 580 before) so this is making me pretty sad as I thought I could play games on Ultra.

My 780ti runs Far Cry 4 almost all games 4xMSAA ultra 60fps. Far Cry 4 runs Ultra everything SMAA 60fps (Most of the time) Ad the 970 runs about the same as the 780ti for a lot of games, so you'll be fine

[Liquidz07]

i'm using ichill GTX 980 and playing far cry 4 stable run ultra in 70 fps, sometimes it drops to 50ish..but it's ok..it's very rare though..

[Blair]

1. Ubisoft has had several recent games that were poorly optimized from a performance standpoint. From what I've heard, Far Cry 4 is also poorly optimized.

2. The 970 is a very strong card. The only thing that would be better would be the GTX 980, and that's substantially more expensive for a relatively small increase in performance.

3. The i7-920 i7-980 is getting a little old, and may affect performance in games that are heavy on the CPU (or poorly optimized).

 

Why would you change out the monitor cables to limit the refresh rate? The monitor's refresh rate will have no effect on the GPU's performance.. 

 

Edit: i7-980 not 920.

 

Keep it to 120 FPS. Your CPU is a bottleneck for any games that REALLY want CPU power (though seeing as how this is a console port, Ubisoft is to blame). Set max buffered frames to 3; some users have reported this fixes some stuttering for them in Far Cry 4. Report back with results, enjoy.

 

I strongly disagree! A old i7 980 or even the lesser i7 920 or even my old i5 750 would be nowhere near a bottleneck to a GPU twice as powerful as even the GTX 980! Even the old i5's and i3's are still fine for new GPU's! I have no idea why people think that! The problem is the game says by Ubicrap on it! ANd it is going to take about 8 months maybe longer before Ubicrap even fixes this. It might even be never! Look at Watch Dogs! People just need to stop buying Ubisoft period!