Dude far cry has been known as a intense game for the past 20 years it has existed. Far cry 1 pushed hardware beyond the limits. Far cry 2 pushed stuff too. 3 on ultra and 1080 was decent at the time ...
FC was a great game for its time, but if my memory is still working as it should, FC series have been on a downward trend until FC5.
With the exception maybe for Blood Dragon originality, still between spinoff and i don't know what, at the end, the game was pushed toward a more generic shooter, as we got today.
But i could be wrong, as usual!
No problem.
RE: 720p low GPU utilization, 60%.
RE: Ubisoft stereotypes. The game actually runs very well. Even if the engine can’t hit high frame rates, it’s extremely smooth. Rarely, if ever, does framerate dips. For a large scale open world game, on launch day, I’ve experienced little bugs. I’m pretty surprised.
RE: HD textures. Yes, that is understood but it’s worth clarifying my previous results. Also reminding people that my results are from the game installed on a NVME 3.0 drive.
RE: Benchmarking. Yes, true benching takes time but for the sake of this thread and consistency with other benchmarking, I’ll just use the ingame tool.
FWIW, the 3060ti/3800x setup can handle the game at ~100fps average at 4K high / FSR on Ultra. Running on an OLED with VRR… very good experience.
This is my first playthrough in Far Cry. I have 3 / Blood Dragon from a sale but never got into it. To my surprise, i’m enjoying it. I just went in no expectations.
I’ll still do all the benchmarks requested in a single response but it will be next week. I’ll be away from my desktop for a few days.
Humm, no need to bench anymore then, we are good as we are now, with the results you provided, thank you!
720p LOW => 60% GPU usage, (77)/130/157, MIN/AVG/MAX GPU FPS.
1080p LOW => 70% GPU usage, (100)/119/148, MIN/AVG/MAX GPU FPS.
1440p LOW => 90% GPU usage, (106)/115/130, MIN/AVG/MAX GPU FPS.
1440p ULT => 100% GPU usage, (52)/85/95, MIN/AVG/MAX GPU FPS.
Do you weight if a game is pleasant to play, looking at the MAX FPS, obviously not, you weight it by assessing the consistency of the frame-time.
What matter to your brain, is frame-time consistency, to be tricked that everything looks good, hence why, movies and consoles games, are locked at a constant frame-rate.
It provides a very enjoyable experience, without the need of pushing the frame-rate, still having the same frame-time consistency, but with higher frame-rate is better and welcomed!
Which bring us to the initial point.
Do you need a powerful cpu to play this game, i don't think so.
Do you need a powerful gpu to play this game, i don't think so.
Do the game visual prowess are particularly stunning and appealing, i don't think so.
Do the game have been developed, for a computer focused usage, i don't think so.
Do the basic influencers benching the game, will tell you all of this, hell no, i don't think so.
Do the game is actually good, i will let the users decide, i'm not planning to try it, so i don't know.
I have The Best Inside to play with, still need to finish the Throne of Ball, and check out if EA/Dice did their job properly this time, with the last BF.
Or if we are still bound to the APEX, Warzone, pay to win, game pass, purposely allowing cheater etc, which is what the gaming industry model is currently at!
www.dsogaming.com
