Nvidia And AMD Tested In Far Cry Primal, Radeons Lead The Pack

[Mr_Troll]

Nvidia And AMD Tested In Far Cry Primal, Radeons Lead The Pack
 

Quote

 

Far Cry Primal has been a hotly anticipated title for gamers since its announcement. On March 1st it launched on the PC and the web has since been abuzz with talk about its performance on Nvidia and AMD graphics cards. In this article we’re going to take a look at how well, or otherwise, this ambitious open world game set in the stone age performs on PC hardware that’s very much the antithesis of stone age.

 

1080p:

 

 

Quote

 

At 1920×1080 you will want at least an R9 390, a GTX 980 or something with even more oomph for 50+ frames per second experience at the ultra graphics settings preset.  For a 60+ FPS experience you may need to drop a couple of graphics settings to high or go up to an R9 Fury graphics card or better. Depending on the specific area you’re playing in you can achieve 60+ FPS with an R9 390 or a GTX 980. In other areas these cards will struggle to go over the low 50s range and will also occasionally dip to the 40s.

 

The GTX 780 and the R9 280X both achieve 37.5 and 35.8 FPS respectively but do not dip below 29 FPS. Making them the minimum requirement for the ultra preset even at 1920×1080. We reckon you can get a much more fluid and enjoyable experience by lowering a few graphical settings and that’s the option that we’d op for.

 

1440p:

Quote

 

 

At 2560×1440 with the Ultra preset no single GPU solution achieves a 60 FPS average. For a ~40 FPS average you will want at least an R9 390 or a GTX 980. For a ~50 FPS average you will have to go up to at least a GTX 980 Ti or an R9 Fury X. Dropping the preset down to high changes things dramatically. At the same resolution you will gain ~10FPS. The GTX 980 Ti and the R9 Fury X will now happily cruise along at 60 FPS. The R9 390 and the GTX 980 will also gain 10 FPS and provide a ~50 FPS average.

 

4k:

 

 

Quote

 

Moving on to 4K, just like 2560×1440 with the ultra preset no GPU here manages to deliver a 60FPS average. In fact, even at the high preset nothing comes even close. It’s evidently clear that we haven’t reached a point just yet where running triple A titles at 60FPS 4K is feasible. For a ~40 FPS average or better you will want to go to at least an R9 Fury or a GTX 980 Ti. You will also want to lower more than a few settings to get a more fluid and enjoyable experience.
 

 

Quote

Wrapping things up, we’ve noticed several trends across all three resolutions and both results from pcgameshardware.de and computerbase.de. The R9 380 was consistently ahead of the GTX 960 at all resolutions, presets and in both benchmarks. In fact even the older R9 270X consistently outperformed the GTX 960. The R9 390 was also consistently ahead of the GTX 970 and much closer to the GTX 980 throughout. In fact the results from computerbase.de show the R9 390 consistently outperforming the GTX 980 at all three resolutions.

 

The R9 Fury also matched the reference GTX 980 Ti at 2560×1440, was behind at 1080p and ahead at 4K. The R9 Fury X was consistently ahead of the reference GTX 980 Ti at all three resolutions. However, factory overclocked GTX 980 Ti still ruled the roost, except at 4K where the EVGA superclocked 980 Ti was ahead once and the Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming was behind the R9 Fury X at 4K.

Nvidia GeForce 700 Series Still Not Getting Much Love
 

Quote

 

Disappointingly, the Kepler based Nvidia GeForce 700 series were consistently behind their AMD Radeon 200 series equivalent graphics cards throughout and in most cases by a significant margin. The GTX 780 Ti for example, a card that sold for $700 throughout its lifespan, was slower than the R9 290 at all three resolutions, a card that sold for $400 in the same period.

 

We’ve witnessed this occur in so many games to date and it’s rather disappointing to see this trend continue. Owners of 700 series GeForce graphics cards are being deprived from the performance they expected and had paid for. At this point one can’t be faulted for questioning whether their GeForce GTX 970 or 980 TI video card will be bound to a similar fate once the new generation based on Pascal comes to market. It’s unquestionable at this point that Nvidia needs to step in and rebuild confidence with its 700 series users.

Quote

 

That issue aside, Far Cry Primal is still a beautiful game with a vast open world to explore full of unique and differentiated sceneries. The Dunia 2 engine has proven to be one of the most robust and versatile in the industry. It enabled the game creators to craft expansive beautiful worlds that have consistently struck excellent balance between performance and visual quality. Visually and performance wise Far Cry Primal is a continuation of that success.

Just what i have thought. Outside the 980ti amd is doing really well.

 

Source:http://wccftech.com/nvidia-amd-tested-cry-primal-radeons-lead-pack/

http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/far-cry-primal-benchmarks/

 

[Shoob]

No real surprise here as Dunia 2.0 favours Radeon GPUs.

[Arwanell]

390 beats 980? jesus christ!

 

and 280x beats 380x lool

[Citadelen]

1 minute ago, Arwanell said:

390 beats 980? jesus christ!

 

and 280x beats 380x lool

I have no idea what's going on with the 2/380X.

[Sakkura]

9 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

I have no idea what's going on with the 2/380X.

The 380X has lower memory bandwidth, which is only partially compensated by improved compression. It has a tweaked architecture which can give it a small boost in some situations, like with heavy tessellation. So in games that are bandwidth-heavy and not too heavy on tessellation, you'd expect the 280X to be a little faster than the 380X.

[Citadelen]

Just now, Sakkura said:

The 380X has lower memory bandwidth, which is only partially compensated by improved compression. It has a tweaked architecture which can give it a small boost in some situations, like with heavy tessellation. So in games that are bandwidth-heavy and not too heavy on tessellation, you'd expect the 280X to be a little faster than the 380X.

Ahh okay thanks.

[Curufinwe_wins]

32 minutes ago, Mr_Troll said:

Nvidia GeForce 700 Series Still Not Getting Much Love
 

Just what i have thought. Outside the 980ti amd is doing really well.

 

Source:http://wccftech.com/nvidia-amd-tested-cry-primal-radeons-lead-pack/

http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/far-cry-primal-benchmarks/

 

Just an FYI... It isn't that 700 series gpu owners aren't getting what they paid for... It is that 200 series AMD cards gained exceedingly powerful driver updates (and most importantly tessellation and compression improvements just after the 300 series launched) that dramatically improved their performance.

 

Kinda odd, but it's been a pretty consistent pattern for AMD recently (apparently not giving the cards the best opportunity to preform out of the box...)

 

Also once again, the prowess of GM200 overclocking really kicks in. The stock settings of the G1 gaming are not that much higher but preform dramatically better. Add in personal overclocking and it is likely the only Nvidia card to outperform it's counterpart in this game at all resolutions (the Fury X doesn't have as much headroom performance wise as an aftermarket 980ti even as factory oc'd as the G1 gaming.)

[SuperShires]

My 280X's will withstand the test of time hahaha

[ybriK]

1 minute ago, SuperShires said:

My 280X's will withstand the test of time hahaha

It's a great card back when the GTX 770 was released it was crushed by it, but now thanks to driver maturity the 280X is already getting the lead. Not to mention that extra 1GB of VRAM definitely helps.

 

2016 - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_390_Nitro/23.html

 

2013 - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/R9_280X_OC/26.html

[SuperShires]

Just now, ybriK said:

-snip-

The only thing I'm worried about and tempting me to upgrade is the 3gb VRAM, but I keep saying to myself that I dont play very demanding games to warrant spending more money on my computer, also doesnt help owning a 1440p monitor either ha.

[carolkarine]

14 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Just an FYI... It isn't that 700 series gpu owners aren't getting what they paid for... It is that 200 series AMD cards gained exceedingly powerful driver updates (and most importantly tessellation and compression improvements just after the 300 series launched) that dramatically improved their performance.

 

Kinda odd, but it's been a pretty consistent pattern for AMD recently (apparently not giving the cards the best opportunity to preform out of the box...)

 

Also once again, the prowess of GM200 overclocking really kicks in. The stock settings of the G1 gaming are not that much higher but preform dramatically better. Add in personal overclocking and it is likely the only Nvidia card to outperform it's counterpart in this game at all resolutions (the Fury X doesn't have as much headroom performance wise as an aftermarket 980ti even as factory oc'd as the G1 gaming.)

The G1 boosts past 1400mhz. It's not that clock for clock of overclock nvidia is better, it's just that and doesn't clock that high... Well, some 7970s did.

[ybriK]

4 minutes ago, SuperShires said:

The only thing I'm worried about and tempting me to upgrade is the 3gb VRAM, but I keep saying to myself that I dont play very demanding games to warrant spending more money on my computer, also doesnt help owning a 1440p monitor either ha.

Well even if you played VRAM heavy games like GTA V or Far Cry 4 you would've most likely dropped the settings to medium-high to get 60+ FPS which will most likely not even hit 2.5GB of VRAM.

 

Ultra Settings + MSAA - http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gta-v-pc-graphics-performance-review,9.html

[Coaxialgamer]

Damn , the 390x almost catching up to the 980ti at 4K and 1440p ...

Didn't think that was possible

[Curufinwe_wins]

Just now, carolkarine said:

The G1 boosts past 1400mhz. It's not that clock for clock of overclock nvidia is better, it's just that and doesn't clock that high... Well, some 7970s did.

I know full well what is capable for both.

 

The G1 default gaming mode boosts much more around the 1360 range, although the "OC" mode can hit over 1400 yes.

 

But basically every 980ti can hit 1500+ (and more importantly 7800/8000+ mem clock which is actually a huge performance gain at higher resolutions/4k)

 

Whereas we all know Fiji is quite literally the worst overclocking flagship gpu made in the last say 10 years.

 

I did not mean clock headroom, I explicitly stated PERFORMANCE headroom (aka taking into account that per Mhz AMD overclocking does more).

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Damn , the 390x almost catching up to the 980ti at 4K and 1440p ...

Didn't think that was possible

Dat 512 bit memory bus...

 

Bet you right now memory overclocking on basically all non-HBM cards is a huge performance gain (even compared to normal) with this game.

[ybriK]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

Dat 512 bit memory bus...

 

Bet you right now memory overclocking on basically all non-HBM cards is a huge performance gain (even compared to normal) with this game.

Yea most likely the memory bus massive width helps a lot. But I thought the maxwell architecture has what they call "delta color compression"? Not sure if that's why maxwell cards don't need a big bandwidth due to compressing data or some shit?

[Coaxialgamer]

Just now, Curufinwe_wins said:

Dat 512 bit memory bus...

 

Bet you right now memory overclocking on basically all non-HBM cards is a huge performance gain (even compared to normal) with this game.

yeah , that must help a lot . I know that i'm comparing an overcloked 390x to a reference 980ti , but just the fact that a 400$ card ( or an overcloked 290x for even cheaper , they go used for 200$ where i live ), can get even remotely close to a 650$ flagship card  amazes me . Either this game lets the radeon cards shine , or perfomance is tanked on nvidia cards . Let's see if they bring out better dirvers ( do they have a game ready driver yet ?)

[Humbug]

 

[ybriK]

7 minutes ago, Humbug said:

 

Such a big lead on the 290X compared to the 780 Ti... I guess it's either VRAM limited or Nvidia drivers not playing well with the Kepler Refresh architecture.

[Humbug]

1 minute ago, ybriK said:

Such a big lead on the 290X compared to the 780 Ti... I guess it's either VRAM limited or Nvidia drivers not playing well with the Kepler Refresh architecture.

Ya maybe it's because it's kepler. In the benchmarks posted by the OP, the GTX 770 is performing like a 270x.

[Curufinwe_wins]

33 minutes ago, ybriK said:

Yea most likely the memory bus massive width helps a lot. But I thought the maxwell architecture has what they call "delta color compression"? Not sure if that's why maxwell cards don't need a big bandwidth due to compressing data or some shit?

Compression  helps when things are well compressible,  and even then compression and decompression uses resources that could otherwise be used for actually running the game. 

 

In any event it is well documented that Maxwell loves memory overclocking. 

 

On a separate line of thought, the very high and ultra presets quite probably use much more tesselation than the high preset and that also likely helps AMD cards compared to Maxwell. 

 

I would love to see a ultra/very high 4k comparison.  Or a multi resolution comparison using the same settings. 

[Humbug]

[samcool55]

So, a game without Nvidia gameworks crap, AMD releases a kind-of game ready driver, only 1-2 days after launch is still good enough for me.

And amd takes the lead, clearly. Which is suprising, but also not suprising at the same time.

 

I was expecing things would look better without gameworks and AMD releasing quick driver updates, but i didn't expect this tbh.

[ybriK]

3 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

So, a game without Nvidia gameworks crap, AMD releases a kind-of game ready driver, only 1-2 days after launch is still good enough for me.

And amd takes the lead, clearly. Which is suprising, but also not suprising at the same time.

 

I was expecing things would look better without gameworks and AMD releasing quick driver updates, but i didn't expect this tbh.

I thought this game is GameWorks partnered? Doesn't it have HBAO+?

[samcool55]

5 minutes ago, ybriK said:

I thought this game is GameWorks partnered? Doesn't it have HBAO+?

Well tbh i don't know, but at least gameworks isn't all smudged on it, so if it's in there it's at least kept to a decent amount, which is nice.

I don't mind HBAO+ tbh because i don't really like it, it's too demanding for what it does... But that's what i think of it