The Benchmark

Since we are focused on one game, our testing methodologies will be a little different this time around, and we'll take the opportunity to go in-depth on our testing method for this game as well. We will look at 6 different levels of the game, and for each Level Analysis, we will look at image quality as well as demo benchmark performance.

One of the largest caveats about benchmarking in FarCry is that demos don't work like one would expect. For example, in Unreal Tournament 2004, we can start a game, play our hearts out, start and stop recording somewhere in the middle, and we have a very cool little benchmark of the action. This repeatable benchmark is a fair representative of gameplay as far as benchmarks go. This seems reasonable for a game with a built-in demo mode.

FarCry, on the other hand, will record the movement of the player through a level without recording any of the players actions (like firing a weapon or pressing a button to open a door), and none of the other characters in the level are recorded either. When a demo recorded in single player mode is viewed, all the AI controlled characters man the same posts that they would in the game; only they ignore the player moving through the level when the demo is running.

This means that some demos have instances of passing through locked doors, and AI bots making their normal rounds regardless of the player (and can be in different locations for different runs of the benchmark). And as if this wasn't enough, the worst part of the whole experience (have you figured it out yet?) is that demos are entirely absent of any fighting, conflict, or gunfire.

We tried many times to benchmark this game using FRAPS, but our ability to be repeatable was worse than what demo playback gives us.

So, why are we at all OK with using FarCry's built-in demo mode? Because much of FarCry game play has to do with sneaking around, walking through the levels, and taking in the scenery. No, it's not the all-encompassing perfect benchmark, but it isn't the worst thing that we've seen either (*cough* - 3dmark - *cough*). We've compared the demo mode to our very non-repeatable FRAPS benchmarks of walking around levels and we are comfortable with the reliability of the scores that we get from the demo for that purpose.

Also, when we were informed that this patch was coming down the pipe, NVIDIA sent along a couple demos to test the performance difference with the new SM3.0 path enabled. Ubisoft is going to include these 4 demos with their patch, but we were obviously a little wary of just throwing these numbers up. We took a close look at the demos, and we are including them alongside our original custom demo and a new custom demo that we recorded for this article. The reason why we are including the NVIDIA provided demos is that they are definitely sections of the game that are really parts of the gameplay. Whether these are representative of overall gameplay or not, there are definitely experiences in the single player mode of the game that are represented by the demos.

It is important to keep the numbers in this test in perspective. We are specifically investigating the benefit and impact of CryTek's new SM3.0 path. To explore the technology fully, it is necessary to look both at parts of the game that benefit most from the update as well as those that don't see that much impact. We trust that the demos provided by NVIDIA will highlight the best results that we can expect to see, and it just so happened that our original demo and the new one, which we recorded, see less change (as we will soon discover).

What's New in 1.2? The Test
Comments Locked

36 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anemone - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link

    Am one of the increasing numbers of folks who does ues 1600x1200 on everything that supports it, just fyi. Now it's lcd, but before my 19" crt happily did that res too, and that's now many years old.

    Just for note only. :)
  • bearxor - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link

    Yea, when are we even going to be able to buy a Ultra or "Ultra Extreme".

    Heck, I never even heard of "Ultra Extreme" until this preview.

    I guess when ATi releases new drivers, nVidia will have to launch the long-rumored and much-hyped Geforce 6800 Ultra-Extreme Hyper Edition.

    Then, during the ATi refresh,we will all be greeted the the Geforce 6900, 6900 Ultra, 6900 Turbo and 6900 Ultra Hyper Fighting Edition.

    They're getting as bad as Capcom these days...
  • Pete - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link

    Whoa, some huge gains for nV. I honestly didn't expect to see such clear differences this early--props to them.

    ATi's AA hit may be due to an under-performing programmable memory controller, per ATi ppl. We may see them improve memory-intense AA+AF numbers with newer drivers that better utilize the controller. Dunno if that can compensate for nV's huge SM3.0 gains, though.

    I'm still a little baffled by the ever-faster "Ultra Extreme" models, though, considering we haven't seen one for even presale (AFAIK) in the many weeks since the 6800U's launch.
  • TheSnowman - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link

    well Jeff, that explains why ati's peformace tanks, but it does nothing to explain why nvidia's doesn't.
  • Jeff7181 - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link

    Very nice article guys.
    Only thing I'd like to see that I didn't was lower res benchmarks, since I think it's safe to say that most people don't have monitors that support 1600x1200 at a decent refresh rate. Hell... mine can't do 1280x1024 at a decent rate.

    Oh... and gordon151... I wonder if it could be because of the large amounts of objects to be anti-aliased. Grass, trees, etc. ... combine that with the HUGE draw distances and you've got quite a task on your hands. Just my theory anyway :)
  • gordon151 - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link

    I've been wondering lately why performance tanks so much with the x800 series when AA is enabled in Farcry. It almost cuts in half when applying 4xAA, which is something you don't see in other games.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now