Gaming: Far Cry 5

The latest title in Ubisoft's Far Cry series lands us right into the unwelcoming arms of an armed militant cult in Montana, one of the many middles-of-nowhere in the United States. With a charismatic and enigmatic adversary, gorgeous landscapes of the northwestern American flavor, and lots of violence, it is classic Far Cry fare. Graphically intensive in an open-world environment, the game mixes in action and exploration.

Far Cry 5 does support Vega-centric features with Rapid Packed Math and Shader Intrinsics. Far Cry 5 also supports HDR (HDR10, scRGB, and FreeSync 2). We use the in-game benchmark for our data, and report the average/minimum frame rates.

AnandTech CPU Gaming 2019 Game List
Game Genre Release Date API IGP Low Med High
Far Cry 5 FPS Mar
2018
DX11 720p
Low
1080p
Normal
1440p
High
4K
Ultra

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

Far Cry 5 IGP Low High
Average FPS
Minimum FPS

Far Cry 5 is another game that at reasonable 1080p settings actually shows some CPU differentiation. To really drive a wedge between the CPUs we do need to drop to 720p Low, but still, in both cases the 9900K comes out on top. And in this case the performance gap between it and the 8700K is actually a bit larger than normal at 12%. Still, this is a game that’s if it’s not GPU-bound is closer to being bounded by a limited number of threads, so the lack of major clockspeed gains for the 9900K keep it from pulling too far ahead. It also keeps the 9700K from falling too far behind.

Gaming: Grand Theft Auto V Gaming: Shadow of the Tomb Raider (DX12)
Comments Locked

274 Comments

View All Comments

  • ChefJoe - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    I have two wants.

    1 - I really want to see the overclocked 9600k vs overclocked 8600k, as the chart differences of it in this early draft of your 9900k-focused review are likely the wildly different clock speeds of the 86 and 96 parts.

    2 - I still want to hear what happens when you drop one of these refresh parts in an older z370 board with an older bios. Do boards that were ok with 8600k refuse to boot a 9600k?
  • ChefJoe - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    ack, 9700k-focused at this point. The 9900k overclock part of the review (and presumably 9600k eventually) is still pending.
  • Ghan - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    My plan was to upgrade from my current i7 6700k to the i7 9700k, and this article seems to confirm that my plan is a decent one. Doubling the core count from 4 to 8 is a decent value. I don't really see the point in paying an extra $100+ just for HT and slightly more cache.

    This release seems a bit tarnished by the fact that it is still the same process node we've had for years now. Addition of cores is great, but it's not without some cost. Still, perhaps we wouldn't even have this improvement if it weren't for AMD's strong return to the enthusiast CPU market. Hopefully the next year will be even more interesting.
  • Arbie - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    "Addition of cores is great, but it's not without some cost. Still, perhaps we wouldn't even have this improvement if it weren't for AMD's strong return to the enthusiast CPU market."

    It's actually with a LOT of cost. And you should consider whom you're going to reward with your business: the big fat company that milked us for ten years and did everything legal and illegal to crush their competition, or the struggling firm that miraculously came from behind and reignited the market. Make your own choice, but if you buy Intel merely to have the fastest today, you're voting for sad tomorrows.
  • Lazlo Panaflex - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Well said, Arbie. Ryzen 2600 (non X) with decent stock cooler for $160 at Newegg = epic win.
  • mapesdhs - Sunday, October 21, 2018 - link

    My next new build will definitely be AMD. Looking forward to it.
  • billin30 - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    Maybe I am just slow in my upgrading, but my 4770k is still going strong. I am in the market for an upgrade, but I would like to see what sort of difference in performance I can expect. Its nice to see all the latest CPU's on this list, but you don't get a ton of deviation when you have CPU's that are so close in performance. It would interesting to see some benchmarks based on the previous generations top performing CPU's so we can see what sort of performance improvements we would get when moving up from past generations. I feel like a lot of people hang onto their core system components for many generations and it would be beneficial for those people to see these numbers.
  • DanNeely - Friday, October 19, 2018 - link

    This is a new set of CPU benchmarks and Ian hasn't had time to retest his other 50+ CPUs yet. From prior history that should happen as he has time and will show up as additional data points in bench.

    I don't think you're particularly slow about upgrading. For gaming purposes a high end CPU is reasonable to keep for 6-10 years now; possibly even a bit longer if you're only using a midrange GPU and are willing to accept the higher risk of having to build a new system with zero notice because something dies unexpectedly. I'm in a similar spot with my 4790k; and unless games needing more than 4/8 cores start becoming common am planning to keep it for at least 2 or 3 more years.

    That should hopefully be long enough that Spectre stops generating frequent new exploits and mitigation is fully in hardware, that PCIe4 (or 5), DDR5, and significant numbers of USB-C ports are available. Also possibly out by then, widespread TB3, or DMI being less of a potential bottleneck on intel CPUs (either a major speedup or additional PCIe for SSDs on the CPU). Also by then either Intel should finally have it's manufacturing unfubarred or if not, AMD will likely have captured the single threaded performance crown while holding onto the multi-threaded one meaning I can have both the ST perf that many games still benefit from and the MT perf for my non-gaming uses that can go really wide.
  • wintermute000 - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    I'm haswell at 1440p too and the charts have confirmed that I'm holding on for another generation. No sense paying 1500 (32gb RAM) for a platform upgrade to get a few % more frames (and it's fine for my productivity tasks, still faster than new laptops lol)
  • Icehawk - Saturday, October 20, 2018 - link

    I only upgraded from my 4770 to an 8700 because my wife’s i5 4xxx rig died and it gave me an excuse to upgrade my encoding power. I see no difference gaming with a 970. Also I don’t notice increased performance really anywhere except encoding and decompressing during my daily use.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now