Far Cry 5 Benchmarked on 50 GPUs

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,943
The crew at Techspot has used the canned benchmark in Far Cry 5 to measure the performance of 50 different video cards. Testing was done at 1080p, 1440p, and 4k, as well as testing some older cards and VRAM usage.

Looks like excellent performance for both teams, very impressive for day 1, especially of a Ubisoft game. That said 4k Ultra is still capable of bringing your system to its knees.

Having just checked out Warhammer: Vermintide 2 and been super impressed with how well that game ran on both AMD and Nvidia hardware, it's great to see another title that's well optimized for both Radeon and GeForce owners. Then again, neither title is riddled with GameWorks, so maybe the well balanced performance shouldn't be too surprising.
 
Doesn't seem that bad even at 4k ultra. Not significantly different from other modern FPS games like Fallout 4, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided or PlayerUnknowns Battlegrounds.

My trick for getting these games that are "almost 4k 60fps" is to create a custom ultrawide resolution of 3840x1646 and run letterboxed at 60fps.

If this isn't sufficient to stay vsynced at 60fps withour tearing, I'll take advantage of the fact that I game on an interbstional speced TV and set the refresh to 50hz and vsync to that.

Not as good as if I could get full 4k At 60fps, but it beats playing at low ass framerates or having to deal with tearing.
 
This game is optimized pretty well. Looking at the minimum fps numbers compared to the avg being so similar, it's good to know you won't pound sand when shit hits the fan. After not getting enough pure chaos moments in primal, this game looks to bring back the bang of 3 and 4. So many good games released recently to play right now on pc, we've been pretty spoiled the last few years!

BloodyIron said:
Here I was thinking this would be some advanced Linux setup where FarCry 5 was being run on 50 GPUs, all clustered together, for the one game, all at once.

That'd be both super rad and super silly!
Click to expand...

 
heatlesssun said:
One of those times though when SLI comes in handy. Anyone have SLI scaling numbers?
Click to expand...

https://www.pcgamer.com/far-cry-5-settings-and-benchmarks/
"Wait, a pair? Yes, in a break from recent releases, Far Cry 5 supports both CrossFire and SLI out of the box, and while scaling appears to favor CF a bit (80 percent vs. 60 percent), at least your second GPU won't be taking a ciesta."

Edit: Went ahead and grabbed it. I'll post what my performance is later tonight.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
Honestly, if I had to I'd spend a ludicrous $3k on a Titan V before I ever went SLI again...
Click to expand...

I get the sentiment. General rule of thumb, buy the best single card you can. But with the 1080 Ti at $700 (that's that I paid for new last year) and the Xp and $1200 and the V at $3k, that rule doesn't apply as clearly. Though mining economics impact this now.
 
What a joke. I guess I thought since they put a SLI config would be needed to run at 4k they would actually make SLI work well? I also have no idea what PC Gamer is talking about. I ran the stock benchmark. Towards the end of the benchmark there is a small NPC battle so performance there would vary but that section is only 10-15% of the benchmark I'd say. The only time I was above 90 was at the very beginning and end of the run so I would drop the averages by a couple of frames.

6700K @ 4.7
16GB DDR4 @ 3200
2x EVGA 1080 SC STOCK (HB BRIDGE)
1440P - DEFAULT ULTRA

-----

PRE DRIVER UPDATE

SINGLE GPU
MIN - 68
AVG - 80
MAX - 93
FRAMES RENDERED - 4625

SLI
MIN - 73
AVG - 84
MAX - 95
FRAMES RENDERED - 4886


==============================

CURRENT DRIVER

SINGLE GPU
MIN - 69
AVG - 81
MAX - 93
FRAMES RENDERED - 4678

SLI
MIN - 77
AVG - 87
MAX - 98
FRAMES RENDERED - 5053
 
Looks like they leveraged some serious performance out of the AMD Vega cards. Cool to see a huge rundown on so many video cards tho.
 
schlitzbull said:
What a joke. I guess I thought since they put a SLI config would be needed to run at 4k they would actually make SLI work well? I also have no idea what PC Gamer is talking about. I ran the stock benchmark. Towards the end of the benchmark there is a small NPC battle so performance there would vary but that section is only 10-15% of the benchmark I'd say. The only time I was above 90 was at the very beginning and end of the run so I would drop the averages by a couple of frames.

6700K @ 4.7
16GB DDR4 @ 3200
2x EVGA 1080 SC STOCK (HB BRIDGE)
1440P - DEFAULT ULTRA

-----

PRE DRIVER UPDATE

SINGLE GPU
MIN - 68
AVG - 80
MAX - 93
FRAMES RENDERED - 4625

SLI
MIN - 73
AVG - 84
MAX - 95
FRAMES RENDERED - 4886


==============================

CURRENT DRIVER

SINGLE GPU
MIN - 69
AVG - 81
MAX - 93
FRAMES RENDERED - 4678

SLI
MIN - 77
AVG - 87
MAX - 98
FRAMES RENDERED - 5053
Click to expand...

Seems to scale fairly well at 4k Ultra motion blur off, sig rig with the 391.35 driver cards clocked at 1431 memory/1702 boost

SINGLE GPU
MIN - 48
AVG - 57
MAX - 70
FRAMES RENDERED - 3284

2x SLI
MIN - 70
AVG - 80
MAX - 89
FRAMES RENDERED - 4655
​
 
Enabled DSR and gave it a go at 4k. Much better scaling. I guess i'll be playing this in "4k" with some setting turned down.

4K

SINGLE GPU
MIN - 40
AVG - 46
MAX - 55

SLI
MIN - 62
AVG - 72
MAX - 85
 
Thanks for the SLI benches, heatlesssun schlitzbull

So bottom line if you want 4K60 @ Ultra, you need 1080Ti SLI.

Everything else - 1440/1080 @ Ultra, or 4K at reduced graphics settings then a single 1080Ti is enough.

Crap, now I gotta redo my gaming rig and add a second GPU because I want 4K60 Ultra. After the first 60mim I am hooked by the game's Montana setting. FC4 took work to force myself to stay interested past the prologue, but FC5 is so far a lot of fun.
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear the game is good! Getting ready to start it. I'm going to start with "4k" with AA turned down and see where I get. Thanks too heatlessun, without your stats I would still be playing it at 2k saving those 4 fps.
 
Nice. My good old 780 ti should be able to handle 1080p ultra, 1440p with a few things turned down just fine. My 1080 ti should do fine with some legs in 4k.

Good to see the AMD cards doing well.

How does this game look though? Does it push the envelope graphically, or is it simply a console port with the resolution and textures bumped up?
 
I'm not surprised...this game is really just Farcry 4.1...that's not a bad thing, but the graphical fidelity is nothing new.
 
TheMadHatterXxX said:
I'm not surprised...this game is really just Farcry 4.1...that's not a bad thing, but the graphical fidelity is nothing new.
Click to expand...

Which means it's Assassin's Creed 7.2.b. Thanks, that's exactly the feedback I was looking for. I'm all Ubisoft'ed out at this point so will probably skip this one.

There came a point recently when I was playing Far Cry Primal and AC Origins when I threw my hands up realizing I've been basically playing the same game with a fresh coat of paint for going on 8 years. If this one had pushed the envelope graphically, maybe I'd be interested, but sounds like it's not far away from prior games.
 
harmattan said:
Which means it's Assassin's Creed 7.2.b. Thanks, that's exactly the feedback I was looking for. I'm all Ubisoft'ed out at this point so will probably skip this one.

There came a point recently when I was playing Far Cry Primal and AC Origins when I threw my hands up realizing I've been basically playing the same game with a fresh coat of paint for going on 8 years. If this one had pushed the envelope graphically, maybe I'd be interested, but sounds like it's not far away from prior games.
Click to expand...


It's a fun game, but it's nothing we didn't see back in 2014....even the game play is the same, go to outpost destroy alarms and kill everyone quietly or not and cause a bloodbath...although with Farcry: Spearchucker I tuned out pretty early and never felt compelled to finish it.
 
harmattan said:
Which means it's Assassin's Creed 7.2.b. Thanks, that's exactly the feedback I was looking for. I'm all Ubisoft'ed out at this point so will probably skip this one.

There came a point recently when I was playing Far Cry Primal and AC Origins when I threw my hands up realizing I've been basically playing the same game with a fresh coat of paint for going on 8 years. If this one had pushed the envelope graphically, maybe I'd be interested, but sounds like it's not far away from prior games.
Click to expand...

Don't know how you came to that conclusion as Origin is nothing like any other AC game.
 
rgMekanic said:
The crew at Techspot has used the canned benchmark in Far Cry 5 to measure the performance of 50 different video cards. Testing was done at 1080p, 1440p, and 4k, as well as testing some older cards and VRAM usage.

Looks like excellent performance for both teams, very impressive for day 1, especially of a Ubisoft game. That said 4k Ultra is still capable of bringing your system to its knees.

Having just checked out Warhammer: Vermintide 2 and been super impressed with how well that game ran on both AMD and Nvidia hardware, it's great to see another title that's well optimized for both Radeon and GeForce owners. Then again, neither title is riddled with GameWorks, so maybe the well balanced performance shouldn't be too surprising.
Click to expand...

Pretty disappointing that they didn't do an SLI benchmark in 4K Ultra. Far Cry 5 is one of very few (if not the only) modern games that advertised SLI support. Other than that, pretty much expected results but I was hoping 1080ti would do 4K@60 but this clearly shows the need for SLI which is supported.
 
zkostik said:
Pretty disappointing that they didn't do an SLI benchmark in 4K Ultra. Far Cry 5 is one of very few (if not the only) modern games that advertised SLI support. Other than that, pretty much expected results but I was hoping 1080ti would do 4K@60 but this clearly shows the need for SLI which is supported.
Click to expand...

Don't really see reviewers doing SLI these days because of the lack of new content though it doesn't make sense not to do it for a game that announced SLI/CF two months before launch. That said it's seems to work fairly well with the 1080Ti at 4k, nothing great but seems to be around 40% scaling. About 2 hours in last night and all way good.
 
heatlesssun said:
Don't really see reviewers doing SLI these days because of the lack of new content though it doesn't make sense not to do it for a game that announced SLI/CF two months before launch. That said it's seems to work fairly well with the 1080Ti at 4k, nothing great but seems to be around 40% scaling. About 2 hours in last night and all way good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree that for most games such test is not necessary but for this one it is since developer specifically announced SLI support. Thanks for the info regarding your SLI testing, this is handy. I'm planning to pick up this game when I finish ACO and Elex. ;)
 
Are you saying you wouldn't want it?

oldmanbal said:
This game is optimized pretty well. Looking at the minimum fps numbers compared to the avg being so similar, it's good to know you won't pound sand when shit hits the fan. After not getting enough pure chaos moments in primal, this game looks to bring back the bang of 3 and 4. So many good games released recently to play right now on pc, we've been pretty spoiled the last few years!



Click to expand...
 
BloodyIron said:
Are you saying you wouldn't want it?
Click to expand...

It's cool to do exotic things like that but hardly practical considering the time and expense and how meaningless it is to real gamers. Seeing some SLI/CF scaling numbers in a new game that supports it would still be fairly exotic by today's but at least have practical benefit to some real players.
 
BloodyIron said:
Are you saying you wouldn't want it?
Click to expand...

Yeah the results would be atrocious.

(linux with some hodgepodge of 50 different GPUs jerry rigged together.)

But just to tickle your fancy, strange human, Windows10 and DX12 might have some capability to render with a setup like that if the title supported it, like AOTS.
 
Since when was practical a barrier around here? Dude, check the name of this place ;)

heatlesssun said:
It's cool to do exotic things like that but hardly practical considering the time and expense and how meaningless it is to real gamers. Seeing some SLI/CF scaling numbers in a new game that supports it would still be fairly exotic by today's but at least have practical benefit to some real players.
Click to expand...
 
BloodyIron said:
Since when was practical a barrier around here? Dude, check the name of this place ;)
Click to expand...

I just think SLI/CF benchmarks would be exotic enough and meaningful to more than zero people. This was a game that said months ago would support SLI/CF and who actually tested that claim?
 
I'm seriously impressed with how the old 7970 has held up vs the GTX 680. 7970 came out a year before the 680, yet is running circles around it. Great job AMD!
 
After seeing the results of the 4k, it feels like the GTX 480 days (playing at 1080p). Decent at playing the intended resolution.
I patiently waiting for the 1180 to see what that can do.
 
Well all this talk here and the other thread got me to buy this.

First Far Cry game and really the first AAA game I've purchased. $60 ouch.

Anyways, in the in game benchmark, I averaged mid 70s with my 1080ti and 8700k.

Don't know what the actual game play gave me fps wise, but woooo 1440 plus gsync it looked smooth.

Very impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top