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

  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, March 8, 2021 - link

    They're the same chip, the only difference is clock speeds. Dont get your hopes up, RKL is a total dud, much like Williamette was. Reply
  • Samus - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    blppt - my concern is that AMD may have a superior IPC, but the real fruit comes from the manufacturing process. Intel is still (somewhat) competitive at 14nm and that in itself is quite unbelievable. Imagine where this chip would be on 7nm or 10nm, at 6GHz+ and more cores with 2-3x the cache.

    That said, this victory may be short lived because AMD is basically taking advantage of the embarrassing execution Intel has repeated, much like they did 20 years ago with the P4 (albeit that was an architecture failure, not a manufacturing process failure)
  • Thesubtlesnake - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    Intel's latest 10nm process delivers *slower* clocks than its 14nm one. So, no, 6 GHz is not on the table. I imagine that when the transition to 7nm, Intel will be able to achieve moderately faster clock speeds than with 14nm. Reply
  • Otritus - Sunday, March 14, 2021 - link

    10nm SF is good enough for 5 GHz. 10nm ESF can clock higher, so Intel's latest (but unreleased) process should match 14nm. I would not expect 7nm to clock higher than 14nm because it is becoming very clear that 5Ghz+ is just a waste of power and transistors, so i would not expect 7nm architectures to be designed to clock higher. We either are getting lots of IPC or just over 5GHz. Reply
  • Slash3 - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    Mad lad. Reply
  • edved - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    Nice write-up. Thank you. Reply
  • lucasdclopes - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    Power efficiency is abysmal on this one. Reply
  • CiccioB - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    No, it is not. It lower than AMD's efficiency, but it not that bad for being based on such an old process. Reply
  • PixyMisa - Friday, March 5, 2021 - link

    So it's abysmal, but that's only to be expected? Reply
  • Spunjji - Saturday, March 6, 2021 - link

    Not bad for an old process is still abysmal by the standards of 2021. No wonder Apple dropped them like a hot rock. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now