Far Cry 3 benchmarks coming in

A german site put up their benchmarks with the review version of Far Cry 3 and it's pretty brutal on hardware it would seem.

A 680 only averaging 35 fps seems a bit steep at max settings. From what I saw the game looks great but the devs said the PC version will look pretty similar to the console version and the gap wouldn't be that big. So do you think the game will be unoptimised or actually a case of it being a b!tch to run?

It would appear the image I had was with 4xMSAA so we can rejoice about that at least. I had previously been told the above image was normal max settings with no AA

Another test without anti aliasing

Source

Yikes, I certainly hope not.

My 5870 Vapor-X is still going strong with almost all games released, but if that chart is to be believed, I will be in serious trouble.

Far Cry 3 has been my most anticipated FPS this year, so it would really suck if I can only get around 20 frames.

Having said that, I'm having trouble believing that the top cards are only getting low to mid 30's. If that's the case, it looks like we are dealing with another "Crysis".

well how does high run at?

max sometimes has stupid settings

Not that it matters, game looks as good as far cry 2

and by good i mean bad

A german site put up their benchmarks with the review version of Far Cry 3 and it's pretty brutal on hardware it would seem.

A 680 only averaging 35 fps seems a bit steep at max settings. From what I saw the game looks great but the devs said the PC version will look pretty similar to the console version and the gap wouldn't be that big. So do you think the game will be unoptimised or actually a case of it being a b!tch to run?

seanmcloughlin

I dont know how the hell the devs made this game and what drivers they used...but this is a disaster...
Maybe new drivers will come out when the game is release...and the game will run better...coz this is insane!!!!!!!

Well Far Cry 2 was extremely well optimized, so I'm expecting Far Cry 3 to be pretty well optimized too,

"Max" settings is often very deceptive for a console port. They could just be doing some sort of an super sampling or something that makes the image look kind of good but run like crap. They also could be running an absurd amount of AA and some stupidly high resolution.

Until I can see the benchmarks myself I won't judge.

Oh the picture wasn't loading properly. Doesn't look too good. Maybe it just needs new drivers that support the game better.

Well Far Cry 2 was extremely well optimized, so I'm expecting Far Cry 3 to be pretty well optimized too,

"Max" settings is often very deceptive for a console port. They could just be doing some sort of an super sampling or something that makes the image look kind of good but run like crap. They also could be running an absurd amount of AA and some stupidly high resolution.

Until I can see the benchmarks myself I won't judge.

Oh the picture wasn't loading properly. Doesn't look too good. Maybe it just needs new drivers that support the game better.

Wasdie

Yeah the image is bugged for me now too, says bad gateway.

But according to it they weren't using AA at all

Seems the picture I had found was posted by someone who mislead me, it was with 4xMSAA so that solves a lot of problems straight away as it's a big hit to run that type of AA. Without AA a 680 gets about 50 frames average

Source added to OP

No TXAA? I was really hoping for it ever since AC3, specially with all the foiliage/transparen textures around in this game.

Won't judge based off of this. I'm waiting until some users play it and report back. chrisrooR

Totalbiscuit said he can run the game on ultra settings on a 680 above 60 fps most times. But he wasn't able to select Dx11 for some reason

well how does high run at?

max sometimes has stupid settings

Not that it matters, game looks as good as far cry 2

and by good i mean bad

JigglyWiggly_

at least it's not all brown like FC2

Totalbiscuit said he can run the game on ultra settings on a 680 above 60 fps most times.

seanmcloughlin

That makes a lot more sense.

I can't imagine that any developer in this day and age really wants to release a game that almost no system can run at a respectable frame rate.

The system requirements that were released a few months back were pretty steep imo. That's why I'm waiting to buy the game untill I can get some confirmation that those high requirements are actually justified.

pc version is doing a lot more than consoles, global illumination from dynamic lights for example. The screenshots of high look pertty good anyway. nutcrackr

Can you link me those screenshots ?

screenshots

It's a Crytek game, it's not going to scale well on current gen hardware.ZombieKiller7

It's a Crytek game, it's not going to scale well on current gen hardware.ZombieKiller7

It hasn't been Crytek since far cry 1, doesn't even use cryengine actually :?

It's a Crytek game, it's not going to scale well on current gen hardware.ZombieKiller7

screenshots nutcrackr

[QUOTE="nutcrackr"]screenshots yellosnolvr

Yes but it seems to look better in motion. I have a feeling it will look a little rough but it seems very fun

I'm glad I upgraded late in the summer for all of these poorly optimized fall releases; AC 3, Planetside 2 and now FC 3. And people told me a GTX 670 was overkill for a 21" monitor. bah!

FC 2 looked amazing on release, hopefully they keep that up with 3

I'm glad I upgraded late in the summer for all of these poorly optimized fall releases; AC 3, Planetside 2 and now FC 3. And people told me a GTX 670 was overkill for a 21" monitor. bah!

FC 2 looked amazing on release, hopefully they keep that up with 3

with_teeth26

The game (from normal people) is said to run pretty well. A 670 should be pretty well able, I have one too. But I agree about all those games, upgrade to play the best available and they run like crap most times. Especially AC III for me. Planetside I can understand cos of the sheer scope of the game. Hopefully a CPU upgrade early next year will fix that though.

Saw a couple of minutes of TBs WTF is Far Cry 3 and the options menu looks fleshed out. So it's not a bad port.

Looks like a b1tch to run then:P

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"][QUOTE="nutcrackr"]screenshots seanmcloughlin

Yes but it seems to look better in motion. I have a feeling it will look a little rough but it seems very fun

With that kind of performance it should look way better than those screenshots.

Crysis looks and runs better and that game is over 5 years old.

Game itself looks awesome gameplay wise, huge open islands, plenty of wildlife, no respawning guards at checkpoints, map editor in multiplayer, coop... Looks like a total improvement over FC2.

I remember playing it at eurogamer and thinking it was a bit laggy.kraken2109

PC gamer said it was responsive to play in their review so maybe it got a bit better

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"]game looks incredibly inconsistentBen-Buja

Yes but it seems to look better in motion. I have a feeling it will look a little rough but it seems very fun

With that kind of performance it should look way better than those screenshots.

Crysis looks and runs better and that game is over 5 years old.

Game itself looks awesome gameplay wise, huge open islands, plenty of wildlife, no respawning guards at checkpoints, map editor in multiplayer, coop... Looks like a total improvement over FC2.

On the gameplay front it's been nothing but positives so far, because it's an open worls game done right. Give the players control and options, make the gameplay fun and exciting to perform. I'm glad they fixed the stealth most, that was the big thing for me. I hated FC2 where I would snipe from a mile or 2 away and suddenly they all knew where I was and came looking. This might not be the most realistic but fvck realism, I want fun

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Yes but it seems to look better in motion. I have a feeling it will look a little rough but it seems very fun

seanmcloughlin

With that kind of performance it should look way better than those screenshots.

Crysis looks and runs better and that game is over 5 years old.

Game itself looks awesome gameplay wise, huge open islands, plenty of wildlife, no respawning guards at checkpoints, map editor in multiplayer, coop... Looks like a total improvement over FC2.

On the gameplay front it's been nothing but positives so far, because it's an open worls game done right. Give the players control and options, make the gameplay fun and exciting to perform. I'm glad they fixed the stealth most, that was the big thing for me. I hated FC2 where I would snipe from a mile or 2 away and suddenly they all knew where I was and came looking. This might not be the most realistic but fvck realism, I want fun

Yeah, glad they fixed that. I want to be able take out an entire camp without being spotted, if that works well it could well be one of the greatest sandbox FPS ever.

Ratings so far are even higher than the original Far Cry and Crysis...

I just wonder why they didn't use Cry Engine 3, it seems to be far superior to Dunia in every way.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Ben-Buja"]

With that kind of performance it should look way better than those screenshots.

Crysis looks and runs better and that game is over 5 years old.

Game itself looks awesome gameplay wise, huge open islands, plenty of wildlife, no respawning guards at checkpoints, map editor in multiplayer, coop... Looks like a total improvement over FC2.

Ben-Buja

On the gameplay front it's been nothing but positives so far, because it's an open worls game done right. Give the players control and options, make the gameplay fun and exciting to perform. I'm glad they fixed the stealth most, that was the big thing for me. I hated FC2 where I would snipe from a mile or 2 away and suddenly they all knew where I was and came looking. This might not be the most realistic but fvck realism, I want fun

Yeah, glad they fixed that. I want to be able take out an entire camp without being spotted, if that works well it could well be one of the greatest sandbox FPS ever.

Ratings so far are even higher than the original Far Cry and Crysis...

I just wonder why they didn't use Cry Engine 3, it seems to be far superior to Dunia in every way.

Because Crytek left the project and Ubisoft took over so they used their own engine because why not I guess. Probably wanted to show how capable they were themselves or didn't want to pay fees to Crytek for using the engine. Who knows. But I agree, Cryengine is far more capable, at least on a technical level, nevermind artistic.

And yeah reviews have all praised the crap out of the game so far. Much better than I was expecting, I thought the game would fail hard. But seemingly the game is just plain fun. Like Just cause 2 in shooter form. Over the top crazy action. And I'm with you on that, I wanna take out a whole camp with the bow and have no one suspect a thing :P

it all seems positive, not many have a bad thing to say.

Good Game, an Australian Game show on TV reviewed it last night and if you go by metacritic, they gave it the lowest score from everyone thus far, a 7.5 and an 8.0 (2 reviewers, seperate score each based on their own opinions).

You can read it here hopefully (for those outside Aus). They reviewed the PC version and also expressed disappointment in regards to the console version (360) - PS3 is meant to be worse than the 360 version alledgedly

it all seems positive, not many have a bad thing to say.

Good Game, an Australian Game show on TV reviewed it last night and if you go by metacritic, they gave it the lowest score from everyone thus far, a 7.5 and an 8.0 (2 reviewers, seperate score each based on their own opinions).

You can read it here hopefully (for those outside Aus). They reviewed the PC version and also expressed disappointment in regards to the console version (360) - PS3 is meant to be worse than the 360 version alledgedly

darksusperia

Doesn't suprise anyone I'd imagine

Yeah, I don't know if it's still the same way, but for years the PS3 versions of multiplats had bad frame rates, bad screen tearing and brutal aliasing compared to the 360 version.

I thought I read one time that it is due to the difficulty in developing for the PS3 and the increase in manpower and budget that would be necessary to overcome it.

Not really Sean. I preordered the PC version so Im now curious to how it will run on my machine and if it uses SLI effectively. i7 950 @ 3.8, SLI 570's.darksusperia

SLI is usually pretty dodgy at launches for games, also isn't it an AMD evolved game? so likely will need to wait for patches and drivers for the game to perform as good as can be on Nvidia cards. Hopefully not though, I'm curious how it runs/looks myself.

Yeah, I don't know if it's still the same way, but for years the PS3 versions of multiplats had bad frame rates, bad screen tearing and brutal aliasing compared to the 360 version.

I thought I read one time that it is due to the difficulty in developing for the PS3 and the increase in manpower and budget that would be necessary to overcome it.

JohnFifteen12

It's likely down to the cell processor, it's not normal architecture or as straight forward. 360 and PC share a lot in common in that regard, just the 360 is a much more underpowered version. But they're easy to develop for and port to. There have been issues with the PS3 porting process causing problems and not running as it should. Only when they have time to really work on the PS3 alone (exclusives) can they get it to work right, in which case the cell can be a bit of a benefit. But it has a lousy GPU too.

Then again im not a dev or a tech guy, this is based on what I read and heard.

[QUOTE="darksusperia"]Not really Sean. I preordered the PC version so Im now curious to how it will run on my machine and if it uses SLI effectively. i7 950 @ 3.8, SLI 570's.seanmcloughlin

SLI is usually pretty dodgy at launches for games, also isn't it an AMD evolved game? so likely will need to wait for patches and drivers for the game to perform as good as can be on Nvidia cards. Hopefully not though, I'm curious how it runs/looks myself.

Well that's a bit insane but there's always something like AA that can make it run like crap with everything on the highest. I imagine I can still get good frames if I just keep most of it high and keep the less important stuff toned down, since I know my 460 could run BF3 on Ultra without any issues my 560 Ti shouldn't have any issues.

Why does it look like HBAO is not even working in the screenshot comparisons?

I hope to get at least 45fps with 570/2500ksilversix_

Same here.

infact, a quick google suggests that the SLI profile has already been released for it in the latest beta drivers. I didnt even bother to look with NVinspector.darksusperia

They were also only running a Phenom II x6 processor. Coula been a bottleneck, maybe?