Far Cry 4 GPU Benchmarks

[Davehaslanded]

Total Biscuit has just done a performance video:

 

He appeared fairly content with it

[AGGELOS_970]

 

 

 

I'm sure there will at least be driver updates to improve performance, if not patches.

 

 

If your card has only 2GB of memory, it would be impossible for you to see if it's consuming over 2GB of memory. Because of texture downsizing it wouldn't even be revealed to you in any other way besides stuttering. Unless of course the reviewer is just making the entire benchmark results up along with his experience playing the game.

 

I play on "high" settings with SSAO and SMAA, full HD.

Max memory used was 1740 MB. I'm pretty sure my Vram is enough. For high settings at least...

Even on low with AO off I have very inconsistent framerates and I can't hold up a steady 60 fps. I don't think that's pretty normal. A guy above said that he's having a 970 and having the same problems.

I'm not saying that the reviewer is making it up. But if you look, min framerates are saying exactly that. Inconsistent framerates and maybe some stuttering.

As far as I can tell the optimization is not so good. Some people have problems some people aren't. Very inconsistent results.

[DeViLzzz]

The animal carnage in this game is ridiculous and totally unrealistic.  Also players being able to see through walls so they know where the enemy is at?  LOL Ubisoft.  They may have gotten the 60 fps / 1080p thing right this time but there is much to laugh about when it comes to this game.  Heck even if it is enjoyable and runs well on average machines there still is no reason to give Ubisoft your money.  They need to hurt in the wallet for all they have done for over a year now that is bad for gaming.

[MegaDave91]

3.9gb of frame buffer at 1080p?!

[Tonylu1595]

Hey, where's the GT 430?

[BiG StroOnZ]

I play on "high" settings with SSAO and SMAA, full HD.

Max memory used was 1740 MB. I'm pretty sure my Vram is enough. For high settings at least...

Even on low with AO off I have very inconsistent framerates and I can't hold up a steady 60 fps. I don't think that's pretty normal. A guy above said that he's having a 970 and having the same problems.

I'm not saying that the reviewer is making it up. But if you look, min framerates are saying exactly that. Inconsistent framerates and maybe some stuttering.

As far as I can tell the optimization is not so good. Some people have problems some people aren't. Very inconsistent results.

 

Well I just noticed in TotalBiscuits video he's getting some bad stuttering, but then you have the guy a couple posts above who has a 280X claiming he has completely steady FPS. So it's one of those YMMV games for the moment being. At least until patches get rolled through and useful driver updates happen. I never buy games on Launch so I don't typically have to worry about these issues. I won't buy the game until I can get it for for under $30 from a guy on Steam I have (which will probably be in a couple of months, he already has it for $40). By that time many of these problems will hopefully be patched. But between these benchmarks and another set of benchmarks I looked at on another site it seems there are some conflicting results.

[Theo]

I wander what my 4GB 680 will think about this game. Hopefully I will be able to get 60fps solid with some setting tweaking.

My 2gb 680 runs it on ultra/nvidia settings with no aa with pretty good fps 40-60

[AGGELOS_970]

Well I just noticed in TotalBiscuits video he's getting some bad stuttering, but then you have the guy a couple posts above who has a 280X claiming he has completely steady FPS. So it's one of those YMMV games for the moment being. At least until patches get rolled through and useful driver updates happen. I never buy games on Launch so I don't typically have to worry about these issues. I won't buy the game until I can get it for for under $30 from a guy on Steam I have (which will probably be in a couple of months, he already has it for $40). By that time many of these problems will hopefully be patched. But between these benchmarks and another set of benchmarks I looked at on another site it seems there are some conflicting results.

Yeah exactly. It is very annoying and I'm probably going to wait for it to get fixed before I continue playing.

Too bad. The game is fun but this thing is veeery distracting.

[Theo]

The animal carnage in this game is ridiculous and totally unrealistic.  Also players being able to see through walls so they know where the enemy is at?  LOL Ubisoft.  They may have gotten the 60 fps / 1080p thing right this time but there is much to laugh about when it comes to this game.  Heck even if it is enjoyable and runs well on average machines there still is no reason to give Ubisoft your money.  They need to hurt in the wallet for all they have done for over a year now that is bad for gaming.

Yes play FC4 for realism lol. The game is pretty good

[xAcid9]

This before AMD latest driver that improve FC4 up to 50%? 

[ROK]

My 970 has insane fps dips.

[SixtyDashOne]

I played about 4hrs today and the worst I saw out of my MSI Lightning 780 on the ultra preset was dips into the 50's (like 52-57) when driving a vehicle. Other than that the game seems to run over 60fps all the time. I feel like my average is actually more like 70-90fps. I don't know where the hell these guys are seeing 20fps.

[Imabigmac]

3.9gb of frame buffer at 1080p?!

Yeah I find that incredibly hard to believe but I can't argue without alternative testing results. 

[patrickjp93]

Im seriously starting to wonder if Nvidia Gameworks actively shafts AMD cards on purpose..... Not even Crossfire works on it (AMD are trying for FC4 but it are waiting for Ubisoft to fix it at there end)

The moment someone proved that that was the case, Nvidia would be sued out of house and home for anti-trust violations.

[patrickjp93]

Yeah I find that incredibly hard to believe but I can't argue without alternative testing results. 

Part of that is GPU-accelerated physics and global illumination. The latter technique is in its infancy and is currently a memory hog.

[MegaDave91]

Yeah I find that incredibly hard to believe but I can't argue without alternative testing results. 

If it's true and I do get the game, I won't be able to play even remotely close to Ultra at 4k. On the other hand I also won't need AA either, so it's hard to tell.

[Imabigmac]

Part of that is GPU-accelerated physics and global illumination. The latter technique is in its infancy and is currently a memory hog.

Should that not be causing massive drops for cards with under 3GB? Or is it essentially a memory leak? 

[patrickjp93]

Should that not be causing massive drops for cards with under 3GB? Or is it essentially a memory leak? 

Depends. Given the test rig has an iGPU, it's possible someone finally up and went to finally using a heterogeneous system as intended for the physics. It's also possible there's an alternate path of execution to approximate the global illumination via a less intensive process that's "good enough."

 

It's also possible someone set up a memory swapping queue that isn't super I/O intensive and manages to keep all the pipelines fed. Unless I disassemble and decompile the code though, this is speculation.

[deathjester]

Source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1701-far-cry-4-gpu-benchmark-amd-is-broken-again

 

What is surprising by me with the results is even though cards with more than 3GB of VRAM are displaying VRAM Usage of over 3GB on Ultra Settings, the game is still more than playable on Ultra with NVIDIA cards with only 3GB of VRAM judging by the reviewers exclamations on "how smooth and fluid it is." 

 

This benchmark is so fake I don't even know where to begin. At this point companies are just getting brazen with fake benchmarks and misinformation. I corrected the guy in his comment section and he deleted all posts. He also deleted posts with people from 780ti's, 980's and 970's who stutter. Now Ubisoft/Nvidia are blaming AMD through freakin third party bloggers. 

 

1) This game does not use more than like 2.4-2.5 gigs of VRAM and he claims 4. This is a fake benchmark meant to get people to upgrade from 780/780t's. That simple. Also the claim of a 750TI tearing this game up is the most laughable thing I have ever seen. The AMD GPU's at that price bracket will slaughter the 750Ti in this game. 

 

2) These benchmarks are not close and AMD has no problems on this game on the GPU side. They had a new driver out before the official release of the game (and before this BS benchmark video was made) which closed the gap on Nvidia very well. I am running SMAA , when Total Biscuit had to run ZERO AA on his GTX 980 due to the hitching and here is the voice interview.

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/some-farcry-4-concerns-prelaunch

 

 

With even light AA? I get major stuttering on vehicles which Total Biscuit showed in his vehicle. If you drive slower on the vehicles it isn't near as bad. If you floor it on a 4 wheeler this game is gonna stutter big time. The problem is CPU optimization/core usage and this has the same weird hitching problems AC Unity does on AA and it does on ANY GPU.

 

My Sapphire Tri-x 290 on a MILD overclock with voltage hardly touched has HIGH 40 lows (only while driving) and the lows are usually in the mid to high 50's, just like the GTX 970/80 videos I have seen in the village or while driving. The hitching is completely CPU related when you put AA on. HBAO+/soft Shadows/Fur/Nvidia God Rays, I am running all of this PAST ultra settings. AMD should be applauded for optimizing a closed library, instead we have BS videos like this when people with Nvidia are having the same hitching even on the new drivers (which did not help hitching at all). Also my FPS DWARFS this guy in the main village and I can only imagine he is running a 970/980. Why? Cus my CPU is faster than his I5 K Ivy on single core. The game is CPU BOUND.

 

https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/with_replies

 

Oh and these are on the new Nvidia drivers which did nothing for stuttering. That is Ubisoft's fault.

 

TotalBisquid @Totalbiscuit  ·  9h 9 hours ago

"The main culprit for big framerate impact in FC4 appears to be TXAAx4. Turning it down to 2 had huge boost." Keep in mind this is on the new drivers on a Hexa Intel with TWO GTX 980's. AA is a major hit to CPU. 2 X MSAA/TXAA is about as high as you can go on ANY cpu, and still have the game remain somewhat smooth (and driving vehicles fast is still going to suck). I can almost get "playable" on one R9 290 at 2xMSAA, it just hitches a little too much for me.

 

TotalBisquid @Totalbiscuit  ·  12h 12 hours ago

"Y'know, all of these games not hitting 60 on hardware this high end makes me think my PC is knackered." The second this game hitches under a locked 60 (and it is cpu bound), the game will stutter. 

 

TotalBisquid @Totalbiscuit  ·  13h 13 hours ago

"The game is still predominantly maxing out one core and not balancing the load too much to the others"

 

TotalBisquid @Totalbiscuit  ·  13h 13 hours ago

"SLI works for Far Cry 4 and much improves the framerate on max, however the hitching I mentioned still remains"

 

https://soundcloud.com/totalbiscuit/some-farcry-4-concerns-prelaunch

 

Him discussing the hitching. This has not been fixed. This is Ubisoft's problem, not AMD's or Nvidia's. You can also see people with GTX 970's complaining about the hitching on the official Ubisoft forums and Neogaf. 

 

The problem is not AMD. The problem is freakin Ubisoft.Just like AC Unity the game plays better with NO AA. GPU power can't help it. SMAA is "ok". MSAAx2/TXAAx2 is "ok but worse" and you need SLI/Xfire to do it. The drops will suck no matter what GPU power you throw at it. Ubisoft? The idiots claiming this game runs smooth? Have not yet hit the GIANT open world in this game where hitching happens, and or have not driven a vehicle yet. The faster the vehicle/speed, the worse the hitching and it will hitch at high 50's low 40's whatever. The CPU gets bound on one core and my MSI afterburner looks like a rollercoaster on GPU usage, just like Total Biscuit's GTX 980's.

 

[Sky Daddy]

Love that AMD performance - first AC then FC . From now on my 290 will be used as a heater. Well maybe sometimes I'll play few years old games at ridiculous resolutions.

 

Fuck.

eh? That seems right to me, 290x/780 trade blows on a lot of games. The performance like it scaled properly. 

[MegaDave91]

So you're saying no hitching occurs with no AA? I run 4k, so I wouldn't need AA...Hmm...

[deathjester]

eh? That seems right to me, 290x/780 trade blows on a lot of games. The performance like it scaled properly. 

 

Wrong. My 290 Tri-x blows away the 780's in this game. This benchmark is pre AMD patch which was before release of the game. It also is a complete farce on VRAM usage. This game will not get to 3 gigs let alone 4. Ultra SMAA. every single Nvidia setting checked (god rays. fur, soft shadows) and I get higher FPS than this clown gets in his video. Even staring at 3 monkeys with fur lol and the most cpu bound areas in this game are the village and the vehicles. Why? Cus my 4770k is faster on single core. The game is cpu bound. Want more screenshots? 

[carolkarine]

ranging form 25 up to 881fps on 1080 ultra, that game seems unstable as fak

 

 

That minimum fps. I don't care about average if it dips that low on a 980....

 

 

So basically the same as far cry 3 except TERRIBLE minimum frame rates. I am sure that could be ironed out with patches though.

 

 

With my 660Ti I have statters all over the place even with low settings. It's very unplayable for me even with the new nvidia drivers and the latest game patch.

The framerate is inconsistent and it is very noticeable. You can see that on the graphs too. Min fps are are waaay down.

 

 

Reviewer claims that it's not noticeable, judging by his excitement on how smooth the game runs overall. Which would mean even in instances that the frames dropped that low it didn't effect or change his stance on the smoothness. 

 

yeah it's a stuttery clusterfuck.

 

Im seriously starting to wonder if Nvidia Gameworks actively shafts AMD cards on purpose..... Not even Crossfire works on it (AMD are trying for FC4 but it are waiting for Ubisoft to fix it at there end)

 

yep. if you look at the monkeys, that's their furworks/hairworks whatever it's called, and it's achieved through extreme tessellation. when I say extreme, I mean more geometry than pixels. (which means it's also pointless to have it that high.) I should mention this shafts AMD users, but it's still a ridiculous perf hit to nvidia.

[patrickjp93]

 

yep. if you look at the monkeys, that's their furworks/hairworks whatever it's called, and it's achieved through extreme tessellation. when I say extreme, I mean more geometry than pixels. (which means it's also pointless to have it that high.) I should mention this shafts AMD users, but it's still a ridiculous perf hit to nvidia.

By that logic, what's the point of AA? It's more geometry than pixels...

[deathjester]

yeah it's a stuttery clusterfuck.

 

 

yep. if you look at the monkeys, that's their furworks/hairworks whatever it's called, and it's achieved through extreme tessellation. when I say extreme, I mean more geometry than pixels. (which means it's also pointless to have it that high.) I should mention this shafts AMD users, but it's still a ridiculous perf hit to nvidia.

 

Nah Ubisoft Kiev couldn't even deliver Nvidia Hair Works monkeys at this time. This game is a stuttery mess on a OC Haswell with 2 GTX 980's. To be honest having SLI/xfire is freakin pointless in this game. It will get you 2x MSAA or 2TXAA  over SMAA, also add a little more stutter due to CPU and SMAA literally looks better at times. Somehow the AA is directly tied to CPU like Unity. MSAA sharpens the trees too much. TXAA blurs the picture too much. SMAA actually is a pretty good balance and no AA (just like Unity) is where the game will perform best. 

 

Basically OC a Haswell as high as you can and if you don't have one that can OC, don't bother getting this game unless you plan to run no AA and other options not at ultra, just like AC Unity. Mine prob runs better than Total Biscuit's hexa due to my OC and way better than the "benchmark video" shown here and I am on a R9 290. Nvidia God Rays? No performance hit for me. Soft Shadows same, but I think Ultra looks better.  Taking off motion blur can make the driving a little more bearable. 

 

None of the Nvidia option hurt performance at all for me except for Tree tessellation which was just added and I can only imagine was added to give Nvidia cards an edge. It is literally the most pointless setting in the world. You have to walk up to a tree stick your face right up to it, to notice it and it still makes damn near zero difference. If you are a couple feet away from a tree you literally can't tell at all. This is why CDPR refused Nvidia's input on using tessellation for everything in Witcher 3. They are using it on water only, cus that is about the only place it can make a difference. Good textures do not need tessellation and the tree textures in this game are very good at Ultra.