Gaming Tests: Far Cry 5

The fifth 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 with a lot of configurability.

Unfortunately, the game doesn’t like us changing the resolution in the results file when using certain monitors, resorting to 1080p but keeping the quality settings. But resolution scaling does work, so we decided to fix the resolution at 1080p and use a variety of different scaling factors to give the following:

  • 720p Low, 1440p Low, 4K Low, 1440p Max.

Far Cry 5 outputs a results file here, but that the file is a HTML file, which showcases a graph of the FPS detected. At no point in the HTML file does it contain the frame times for each frame, but it does show the frames per second, as a value once per second in the graph. The graph in HTML form is a series of (x,y) co-ordinates scaled to the min/max of the graph, rather than the raw (second, FPS) data, and so using regex I carefully tease out the values of the graph, convert them into a (second, FPS) format, and take our values of averages and percentiles that way.

If anyone from Ubisoft wants to chat about building a benchmark platform that would not only help me but also every other member of the tech press build our benchmark testing platform to help our readers decide what is the best hardware to use on your games, please reach out to Some of the suggestions I want to give you will take less than half a day and it’s easily free advertising to use the benchmark over the next couple of years (or more).

As with the other gaming tests, we run each resolution/setting combination for a minimum of 10 minutes and take the relevant frame data for averages and percentiles.

AnandTech Low Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Low Quality
High Resolution
Low Quality
Medium Resolution
Max Quality
Average FPS
95th Percentile

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

Gaming Tests: F1 2019 Gaming Tests: Gears Tactics


View All Comments

  • Shorty_ - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    I'm not sure if you're being wilfully obtuse or ignorant.. the only reason Skylake is even remotely in the game is that intel's 14nm is refined enough to allow them to push raw clock speeds to the moon. Do you not recall how awful Ice Lake was because it couldn't clock? TGL is starting to clock a bit better but it's still pretty damn close. This is on 10nm "superfin" which is ~= TSMC N7(P).

    So Intel don't have some magic engineering pixie dust that would propel them beyond AMD if they were on the same node.
  • Thesubtlesnake - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    Intel already have process equivalent to 7nm – 10nm SF. And they already designed a new architecture on it: Tiger Lake. And Zen 3 is perfectly competitive with Tiger Lake. Reply
  • Teckk - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    Ultimately the latest desktop processors from Intel doesn’t perform well against AMD that’s what it is.
    They chose to release it on 14 nm as their 10nm was still work in progress. The numbers have meaning and not your conjecture about Intel using TSMC advanced node- it’ll be compared whenever that happens, with numbers.
  • Cooe - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    *Zen 3 Reply
  • hfm - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    But we have to live in reality that they don't even have 10nm ready for desktop. Fantasies about creating an alternate reality where their core architecture exists on a smaller node for desktop are just that, fantasies. The reality is AMD clearly has the far better product right now aside from niche edge cases.

    I still agree with the conclusion though that given current circumstances, get what you can get if you need to upgrade or build new. But the reality there seems like the 5800X is available at MSRP in-stock at multiple storefronts.
  • blppt - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    A chip that is just released, the best Intel currently has to offer for the mainstream consumer, can't match a chip that has been out for months. While using more power.

    Thats not a good look for Intel. I hope the 11900K (or whatever they're going to call it) at least matches the 5900X in games.

    This is the first time in a long time, with generations of chips current, that I cannot think of a single reason to recommend Intel's latest and greatest over AMD.
  • terroradagio - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    The 11900k has always been what should be compared to the 5900x anyway. Not the i7-11700k. Reply
  • blppt - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    The point being, the 11700k doesn't even catch the 5800X, which has been out for a few months already. Given that this was supposed to be Intel's "response to Zen 3", its pretty disappointing. Reply
  • Fulljack - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    the only thing that could save Rocket Lake-S are availability and price. otherwise just get Ryzen 5000 processors. Reply
  • SaturnusDK - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    Availability of Ryzen 5000 except 59xx parts is already a non-issue. You can get 5600X with a few days delay at worst, and 5800X is in abundant stock pretty much everywhere.

    The key is price, especially the platform price because Intel MBs are generally more expensive. On top of that you absolutely need a larger cooler, and most likely also need a beefier PSU for the Intel CPUs, so the CPU price for the intel parts have to be substantially lower than a performance equivalent AMD part to be competitive. And given the history of intel that seems very unlikely to happen.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now