FarCry 2 Gameplay Performance @ [H]

KaptainKhaos said:
testing an HD 4870 in my rig, only seeing 20-30 fps on Ultra high with no AA, get around 50-60 fps on very high with 2X AA , using the latest hotfix driver. Seems using quad core CPu's might be making a difference as another rig with an e2220 was getting laughable framerates with a 4870 until it was overclocked to over 3.3ghz. Sigh :(
Click to expand...

Your problem is a LACK OF BIG RAM.....my 4850 1 gig allows me to play the game maxed+4 aa 1920x1200.
 
BFG 260 GTX OCX - DX9 everything on low settings no AA no vsync 1920X1200 - was getting 140FPS at the area straight out from the North West bus stop. One thing at a time chart:

140 FPS - Everything at Low nothing on @ 1920x1200
138 FPS - minus 2 from HDR
118 FPS - minus 20 from Bloom
111 FPS - minus 7 from Real Tree, Fire, Physic = High
110 FPS - minus 1 Vegitation = Very High
108 FPS - minus 2 Shading = Ultra High
98 FPS - minus 10 Terrain = Ultra High
51 FPS - minus 47 Geometry = Ultra High
50 FPS - minus 1 Post = High
48 FPS - minus 2 Textures = Ultra High
40 FPS - minus Shadow = Ultra High
40 FPS - minus 0 Ambient = High
38 FPS - minus 2 AA = 2x
34 FPS - minus 4 AA = 4x
30 FPS - minus 4 AA = 8x

Next I switched to DX10 and restarted. The loading time was more than 3x what it was in DX9 with low settings. However once in, the fps meter indicated I was getting 38-41 FPS looking over that same area.
 
for anybody that doesnt think the cpu is important even on a wimpy 4670 it makes a huge difference


1024x768 dx9 very high no AA
5000 X2... Q9300
avg 34 fps... 45 fps
high 51 fps... 56 fps
low 18 fps... 28 fps

1280x1024 dx9 very high no AA 4x AF
5000 X2... Q9300
avg 31 fps... 38 fps
high 44 fps... 47 fps
low 16 fps... 20 fps

thats a 33% increase at 1024x768 just going from 5000 X2 to Q9300 cpu even on very high setttings. yes FC 2 is optimized for quad cores but a faster core 2 duo like an E8500 or 8600 will still be even faster than my slower clocked Q9300. even at 1280x1024 on very high with AF a better cpu gave 25% increase in average framerate.
 
Settings: Demo(Ranch Long), 1280x1024 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(High), RealTrees(Very High)

Average Results

* Average Framerate: 21.54
* Max. Framerate: 60.69
* Min. Framerate: 11.40
 
Thanks guys. Great article as per usual. I have now decided on the new graphics card, a GTX 260 (original)
 
Am I missing something?

Run 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settings: Demo(Ranch Small), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)
Loop 1
Total Frames: 1704, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 33.41
Max. Framerate: 43.54 (Frame:231, 6.06s)
Min. Framerate: 24.58 (Frame:326, 8.80s)

Loop 2
Total Frames: 1723, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 33.78
Max. Framerate: 48.35 (Frame:1477, 45.77s)
Min. Framerate: 17.75 (Frame:1221, 39.45s)

Loop 3
Total Frames: 1973, Total Time: 51.00s
Average Framerate: 38.68
Max. Framerate: 51.80 (Frame:281, 6.28s)
Min. Framerate: 28.84 (Frame:1418, 38.80s)

Average Results
Average Framerate: 35.29
Max. Framerate: 46.33
Min. Framerate: 26.33
 
Any ideas on why they are low?

Run 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settings: Demo(Ranch Long), 1280x1024 (60Hz), D3D10, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(4x), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Custom), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Very High), Shadow(High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(High), RealTrees(Very High)
Loop 1
Total Frames: 19865, Total Time: 284.02s
Average Framerate: 69.94
Max. Framerate: 130.79 (Frame:334, 2.67s)
Min. Framerate: 38.12 (Frame:8430, 108.29s)

Loop 2
Total Frames: 19215, Total Time: 284.01s
Average Framerate: 67.66
Max. Framerate: 122.76 (Frame:498, 4.26s)
Min. Framerate: 36.67 (Frame:7174, 92.50s)

Loop 3
Total Frames: 19269, Total Time: 284.00s
Average Framerate: 67.85
Max. Framerate: 140.76 (Frame:2841, 26.35s)
Min. Framerate: 34.62 (Frame:8989, 126.28s)

Average Results
Average Framerate: 68.48
Max. Framerate: 126.00
Min. Framerate: 38.80
 
Great choice in vc-GTX260. It plays FC2 great and everything else. Also the fact that it has physx and Cuda-which a lot of apps. are starting to utilize.
 
I very much enjoyed this article as I love this game.

But as a Crossfire user and someone that builds Crossfire and SLI rigs for people on a fairly regular basis, I would really like to see some of those numbers.

We have further articles planned to look at FarCry 2’s image quality, DirectX 9 versus DirectX 10 performance and image quality, as well as CrossFire and SLI performance. So if this evaluation did not answer your questions, stay tuned for more.
Click to expand...

Is that still the plan? I mean I know the game isn't getting any newer.
 
Actually I don't think these benchmarks are reliable .

Across all other Far Cry 2 benchs on the Internet , I have never seen an HD4850 scores that high at 1920 resolution .

I own one , coupled with an Intel E8400 OC'd to 3.6 GHZ on an Intel P35 Chipset with 1600MHZ FSB , 4GB of RAM and XP SP3 with latest drivers .

In my experience , the game is great at 1280 X 1024 resolution with 4XAA and Ultra High settings , going for 1600 x 1200 requires sacrificing AA , but at 1920 resolution the game is simply unplayable .

A friend of mine with an E8600 and 9800GTX+ also have the same experience .. running the latest drivers (180.48) with XP SP3 too , as you know 9800GTX+ and HD4850 usually have very close performance .

Another friend of mine with C2Q6600 OC'd to 3.8GHZ and an HD4870 , Vista SP1 64-bit , can run the game very well at 1600 X 1200 and 4XAA Ultra High , but going for 1920 resolution also requires disabling AA for the game to become smooth .

Even a couple of memebers here on this thread already stated that they can't get the game to run with those "Claimed" scores , no one seemed to even care about them , as no other member really showed any evidence of even owning the game rather than having an actual experience with it .

Unless you guys have selected areas with high frame rates for you tests , I would say your scores are fiasco , misleaded or at worst fabricated .

I would also suggest that you get your scores right , as they're obviously contradicted with every Far Cry 2 benchmarks on the Interent .
 
DavidGraham said:
Actually I don't think these benchmarks are reliable .

Across all other Far Cry 2 benchs on the Internet , I have never seen an HD4850 scores that high at 1920 resolution .

I own one , coupled with an Intel E8400 OC'd to 3.6 GHZ on an Intel P35 Chipset with 1600MHZ FSB , 4GB of RAM and XP SP3 with latest drivers .

In my experience , the game is great at 1280 X 1024 resolution with 4XAA and Ultra High settings , going for 1600 x 1200 requires sacrificing AA , but at 1920 resolution the game is simply unplayable .

A friend of mine with an E8600 and 9800GTX+ also have the same experience .. running the latest drivers (180.48) with XP SP3 too , as you know 9800GTX+ and HD4850 usually have very close performance .

Another friend of mine with C2Q6600 OC'd to 3.8GHZ and an HD4870 , Vista SP1 64-bit , can run the game very well at 1600 X 1200 and 4XAA Ultra High , but going for 1920 resolution also requires disabling AA for the game to become smooth .

Even a couple of memebers here on this thread already stated that they can't get the game to run with those "Claimed" scores , no one seemed to even care about them , as no other member really showed any evidence of even owning the game rather than having an actual experience with it .

Unless you guys have selected areas with high frame rates for you tests , I would say your scores are fiasco , misleaded or at worst fabricated .

I would also suggest that you get your scores right , as they're obviously contradicted with every Far Cry 2 benchmarks on the Interent .
Click to expand...
You registered just to say this? :p
 
A bit has changed since the 8.12 ati drivers... dubbed the "Big 2" drivers.

4870 should out play the gtx260 now. 4870x2 got a huge lead.

farcry2benches.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top