Far Cry Primal benchmarks.

[MMKing]

First of all, some info regarding drivers.

 

Nvidia 362.00: Latest ''game ready'' driver released at games release date. 01.03.2016, and it is stated in the Geforce Experience application that this is for Far Cry: Primal, Gears of war: Ultimate edition and an update Dying Light.

 

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/far-cry-primal-gears-of-war-ultimate-edition-game-ready-driver-released

 

AMD Crimson 16.2 : Released their latest driver 25.02.2016. And on the download page, Far Cry: Primal is not mentioned anywhere among the highlights, resolved issues or known issues. Though it may be that AMD released drivers aimed at Far Cry: Primal performance, it is not stated so.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/amd-radeon-software-crimson-16-2-driver-download.html

 

 

Now to the actual benchmarks. I will only be posting benchmarks released at 01.03.2016 or later, as benchmarks prior to release are at best a poor indication of actual performance at launch and is ultimately unfair.

Note: All sites clearly state that they are in fact using the most up to date drivers, including the 362.00 Nvidia driver released the first of march.

 

Guru3d 1080p and 1440p: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_primal_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

Guru3d 4k: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_primal_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html

Techfrag: http://techfrag.com/2016/03/01/far-cry-primal-benchmarks-show-amd-with-performance-lead-over-nvidia/

German Computerbase.de: http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/far-cry-primal-benchmarks/2/#diagramm-far-cry-primal-2560-1440

German PCgameshardware.de: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-Cry-Primal-Spiel-56751/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1187476/

More coming...

 

It seems that Nvidia, despite having day 1 drivers have been thoroughly crushed by AMD. At 1440p, the most important resolution in my opinion. Without referring to a single test, it seems that Nvidia have been beaten on all price ranges except for the enthusiast 980Ti / Fury X segment. Though personally, i am much more excited for the DX12 exclusive Quantum Break benchmarks.

 

Thoughts?

[EarthboundHero]

AMD has released a driver today, 16.2.1, that has a Crossfire profile for Primal.

http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMD_Radeon_Software_Crimson_Edition_16.2.1.aspx

[VerticalDiscussions]

Cant go wrong with the 980 Ti or Titan X tough, altough surely the 980 should be performing better? New optimizations incoming, making old graphics card that runned better with the current drivers, worst with the sucessor, lol.

[MMKing]

1 minute ago, EarthboundHero said:

AMD has released a driver today. 16.2.1 that has a Crossfire profile for Primal.

http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMD_Radeon_Software_Crimson_Edition_16.2.1.aspx

I was not aware. However, neither of the three websites stated that they used any other driver than the 16.2 Crimson Driver.

[SteveGrabowski0]

6 minutes ago, MMKing said:

It seems that Nvidia, despite having day 1 drivers have been thoroughly crushed by AMD. At 1440p, the most important resolution in my opinion. Without referring to a single test, it seems that Nvidia have been beaten on all price ranges except for the enthusiast 980Ti / Fury X segment. Though personally, i am much more excited for the DX12 exclusive Quantum Break benchmarks.

 

Thoughts?

Not surprising at all, as AMD has been destroying Nvidia in Far Cry 4 for probably a year now.

[LittleCarrot]

Here are the benchmarks for you lazies:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Big-G]

And the all so important 1440p results:

 

Spoiler

 

So @MMKing & @SteveGrabowski0 where's the destruction of the NV GPU's?

[Godlygamer23]

TotalBiscuit has claimed horrible performance(with numbers displayed in his videos) on both his Titan X(single and forced SLI), and a 770M. His WTF video is in the first spoiler, while his second video, the day one performance report is in the second spoiler.

[LittleCarrot]

1 minute ago, GidonsClaw said:

And the all so important 1440p results:

 

 

You do realize I had those included. May you please remove the image or put it in a spoiler so it shortens out the thread?

[LittleCarrot]

3 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

TotalBiscuit has claimed horrible performance(with numbers displayed in his videos) on both his Titan X(single and forced SLI), and a 770M. His WTF video is in the first spoiler, while his second video, the day one performance report is in the second spoiler.

 

Hidden Content

 

 

Hidden Content

 

How dose those benchmarks tie in? Could Uplay have horrible DRM which fucks the game over. I still can't play Far Cry 3 Since Gay DRM.

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, LittleCarrot said:

How dose those benchmarks tie in? Could Uplay have horrible DRM which fucks the game over. I still can't play Far Cry 3 Since Gay DRM.

I'm not sure. TotalBiscuit has stated that he has seen people getting great performance with a 970 while he's getting the short end of the stick. Far Cry 4 performs a lot better than Primal, and in my own experience, Far Cry 4 performs rather well on my 970 Windforce with the GPU at stock.

[i_build_nanosuits]

this one show different results:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-Cry-Primal-Spiel-56751/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1187476/

[Big-G]

sehr gut ya

[MMKing]

15 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

this one show different results:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Far-Cry-Primal-Spiel-56751/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1187476/

Added it to the OP.

 

At 1440p it doesn't really show that much of a difference. The 390 still have a solid lead on the 970, 780, and even the 780Ti which was a 699USD card at launch. And the 980 still lags behind the 390x, the fury and barely beats the 390. 

 

Edit: The graphics cards doesn't shift around position wise when shifting to 1440p and 4k. They are positioned based on the 1080p performance.

[i_build_nanosuits]

10 minutes ago, MMKing said:

Added it to the OP.

 

At 1440p it doesn't really show that much of a difference. The 390 still have a solid lead on the 970, 780, and even the 780Ti which was a 699USD card at launch. And the 980 still lags behind the 390x, the fury and barely beats the 390. 

 

Edit: The graphics cards doesn't shift around position wise when shifting to 1440p and 4k. They are positioned based on the 1080p performance.

you got me wrong...i meant...THIS SITE....is showing a DIFFERENT set of results...that you do not listed already

[MMKing]

Apologize, i thought you meant that the results supported a different conclusion, compared to other benchmarks.

 

Appreciate you sharing it.

[i_build_nanosuits]

14 minutes ago, MMKing said:

Apologize, i thought you meant that the results supported a different conclusion, compared to other benchmarks.

 

Appreciate you sharing it.

no not really...i find really strange that the GTX 980 is THAT much slower vs a GTX 980ti after all they share the same architecture the 980 has less cores but still it should perform better i think something is not right at this point maybe the game will require some more optimization or something...i just think the 980ti and 980 should be closer.

[MMKing]

11 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

no not really...i find really strange that the GTX 980 it THAT much slower vs a GTX 980ti after all they share the same architecture the 980 has less cores but still it should perform better i think something is not right at this point maybe the game will require some more optimization or something...i just think the 980ti and 980 should be closer.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not the case.

 

The GM204 chip is used in the 970, 980, 965m, 970m, 980m and the 980 notebook version.

It has a size of 398mm^2 and it has 5 200 million transistors. Depending on which model, certain cores are disabled. The 980 has the most with 2048 CUDA cores, while the 965M has the fewest, with 1024 Cuda Cores.

 

The GM200 chip is used in the 980Ti, and the Titan X.

It has a size of 601mm^2 (51%), and it has 8 000 million transistors (53%).

980Ti = 2816 CUDA cores = 37.5% increase

Titan X = 3072 CUDA cores