Far Cry 3 Performance Test: Graphics & CPU

TechSpot- We'll be testing 29 DirectX 11 graphics card configurations from AMD and Nvidia. The latest drivers will be used, and every card will be paired with an Intel Core i7-3960X to remove CPU bottlenecks that could influence high-end GPU scores.

We're using Fraps to measure frame rates during 90 seconds of gameplay footage from Far Cry 3's third chapter, Dr. Earnhardt's Mansion. Our test begins on one of the nearby islands under a radio tower. At the start of the test, a nearby patrol vehicle approaches and is taken out using a sniper rifle, then on foot we run through some dense vegetation to a nearby enemy camp where some hostiles are engaged briefly before the test ends.

[OneAboveAll]

This game isn't very demanding and is very well optimized.

Running the game at all high (note- not ULTRA) settings with an AMD Athlon II 620 quad core (2.6ghz), 4 gigs of ram and a Radeon 4850 (2GB)

Frames for me are in the 40's (at 1366 x 768)

[Hanuman]

Now go and replace that card!

[AKS]

What are some recent releases that have been more demanding than Far Cry 3? I'm playing with the settings cranked and love the game, but I certainly wouldn't say it's that easy to run. I've been warning friends with lower end systems and laptops about how demanding the top end settings can be. At 2560x1600, there's only one single GPU card on the market that was above 30 fps, and that was by only 1 frame.

FC3 requires more than one GPU at the top end to even run it at a respectable resolution and frame rate. I'm fortunate to have an reasonably high end SLI setup, but I think any friends you have who do not have high end gaming PCs would be pissed if you told them it's easy to run and then they bought it.

I've seen it running reasonably well on laptops and whatnot with the mid-range to lower end settings, but don't go around telling everyone it's cake to run this thing without some compromises.

[chukamachine]

It's a great game, but it's all tree's/ etc, just like the original and crisis. That's why other games are not taxing in the same way.

That's the taxing part.

The a.i could have been better.

The most unoptimized game goes to metro 2033.

[dougr]

I run it on Ultra at 2560X1440 and my FPS are anywhere from 28 to 34. The game play is very smooth even at those frame rates. GTX 670, i5 2500k

[dirthurts]

Smooth and 30fps do not go in the same sentence.

[B-radical]

Halo 4

[dirthurts]

Perhaps Halo 4 will get a pass due to fantastic controls, but still, the game is slow paced comparatively to PC games that use a mouse and keyboard.
The slow movement possible with a gameplad simply isn't affected by frame rates like a kbm.

[dougr]

I disagree, the difference between the 60 FPS I get on high setting and 30 FPS on ultra setting I just can't notice to big of a difference with. I do notice it moving very slowly (obviously) but it doesn't hinder game play at all. With that said though, the difference in graphics from ultra to high really isn't that much and to be honest, the screen shots pre release made this game seem better graphically than it really is. The game is great, but the graphics are definitely just average.

[dirthurts]

I wish I couldn't tell the difference between 60 and 30.
Wow. To me 30 is barely playable. Especially on my pc where I'm close to the monitor.