FarCry vs Half Life 2 : which is more taxing ?

Emret

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
342
Well.. I'm playin HL2 with my 8500LE 1024x768 medium settings just FINE.. I'm actually suprised how well its running.. Farcry was a slide show unless i played at very low settings
 
Farcry Vs Doom 3 Vs half life 2

rocks.jpg


Im sure it's been posted before, Twinke at rage made this a few weeks ago, but its SO true :D
 
Yeah, I have a 9600XT (with P4 3.0 & 1gig RAM), and at 1200x1000 (about? :)) and decent settings (no AA), i get VERY acceptable results from HL2. i'm not too too far in the game, but between this and CS:S, I am very pleased.

Far Cry on the other Hand almost seemed like it was not worth playing because of the crappy framerate. I don't know if it's better programming or what, because HL2 seems prettier to me as well. just my opinion.
 
As others said, FarCry is more taxing than HL2, and even more than Doom3 imho.
 
Doom 3>Far Cry>HL2 in terms of hardware demands from my personal experience.

Dang Shapeshifter that's some funny stuff. :D
 
The truth is, farcry is actually less demanding then hl2 is. The problem is that you are playing with a ATI card and wondering why it sucks in an nVidia game (Farcry), yet awesome in an ATI game (HL2). My geforce 2 (which is far worse then an 8500) played farcry very well (so did my buddies geforce 2, but we all know it will not work for hl2 and the reason is bc the game is not built to support nvidia cards they nvidia games are.
 
ZMTToxics said:
The truth is, farcry is actually less demanding then hl2 is. The problem is that you are playing with a ATI card and wondering why it sucks in an nVidia game (Farcry), yet awesome in an ATI game (HL2). My geforce 2 (which is far worse then an 8500) played farcry very well (so did my buddies geforce 2, but we all know it will not work for hl2 and the reason is bc the game is not built to support nvidia cards they nvidia games are.

Um, in most of the benches ATI is faster than nVidia in Far Cry. :p
 
Back
Top