64-bit Far Cry Image Quality

Performance is only one aspect of the new Far Cry patches - the biggest impact will be visual. The visual improvements in the new patches are definitely noticeable, but not across the board.


Hold mouse over image to see the same scene with the new 64-bit patches applied.

For example, the improvements range from very subtle in some levels (see above) to major in others. The improvements in the Pier level are quite bold as you can see by the screenshot comparison below:


Hold mouse over image to see the same scene with the new 64-bit patches applied.

The differences in the Pier level are numerous. First, the improvement to draw distance is very noticeable:


Hold mouse over image to see the same scene with the new 64-bit patches applied.

You can see additional detail in the rock textures:


Hold mouse over image to see the same scene with the new 64-bit patches applied.

And finally, the water looks a lot better in the 64-bit version:


Hold mouse over image to see the same scene with the new 64-bit patches applied.

And of course, there are the new levels that are only available to those running the 64-bit version:


Final Words

Although AMD and Ubisoft are definitely trying to provide 64-bit gamers with added value, it's honestly going to take games that depend on the benefits of a 64-bit OS to really sell the gaming population on 64-bit. For fans of Far Cry, there's no reason not to try the new patches, but we wouldn't expect a mass exodus to x64 Edition because of the content that's been enabled here.

AMD's goals are quite admirable, but the fact of the matter is that none of the visual improvements enabled by the Far Cry patches had anything to do with AMD64 or EM64T. They are artificially limited to run on those platforms alone, but could work just as well on a 32-bit platform.

64-bit Far Cry Performance
POST A COMMENT

59 Comments

View All Comments

  • Cygni - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    The 64bit hardware DID make a difference in how the game was run. Look at the first chart. Not only was the game a little bit faster in 64/64... but the detail was increased a pretty hefty ammount. It wasnt some gimmick to make 64bit computing LOOK good by giving an exclusive and not delivering... 64bit computing actually HAD an impact, on both image quality and speed. Not bad. Reply
  • jediknight - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    #26:
    (jaw drops)
    That's like asking why would more cache, or more RAM increase performance..
    (/jaw drop)
    Reply
  • ncage - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    What people need to understand is these games were most likely NOT optimized for 64 bit. Yes the source code was compiled with a 64 bit compiler but probably not optimized. Those of us who are programmers know that if you want optimal speed then you want to use 32 bit numbers (integers, Floating point, ect) (exactly the size that can fit in a register).With 64 bit processors that changes of course. Even Tim Sweeny (probably spelled his name wrong) said he had to get around the limit of 32 bit registers. Now if we took UT2004 and just compiled it with a 64 bit compiler would it help that much? Umm, maybe a little. Now if Tim wouldn't had to get around the limitation of 32 bit registers and had 64 bit integers and floating point thats where we would have seen the difference. My point is that when people start designing their programs for 64 bit processors is when you will see the big difference. Just because they compile something with a 64 bit compiler doesn't mean its going to improve things that much. Reply
  • msva124 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    Why would having more registers increase performance? Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    For all you whiners out there asking for more detail, go to

    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY3

    for a more indepth review. They list all the changes in the patch, tons of screenshots and show no difference between 32 and 64 bit.
    Reply
  • dougSF30 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    Yeah, there's also the silly complaining about not needing more than 2GB for the new content. 64b is about more than addressible memory, and any speed improvement has virtually nothing to do with larger memory, but rather, the increased number of registers, and operations on 64-bit data. So why go on about the memory footprint of the new content? Reply
  • xTYBALTx - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    This article leaves me with more questions than answers. Reply
  • Bonesdad - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    cool!! More birds and insects!!!...

    hrm...
    Reply
  • robg1701 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    Im not too sure about this review to be honest.

    First up, the comment regarding intel benfiting more than AMD, could it not just be that with the AMD scores being higher in the first place tehre is less room in the radeons performance capability for improvement ? Need more benchies to establish the reason i say..

    Next up, why no benches of the 64bit enhanced mode ? We have no way of knowing from this article if the enhanced 64bit content slows it down or not, which is quite ridiculous given thats one of if not the main reason for bothering to download the 64 bit patch.

    Finally, nvidia cards have historically been a bit slower in Far Cry in particular, but nvidias 64bit drivers have been doing the rounds for a lot longer sp perhaps they are more mature and can reap more benefit, wouldnt it be nice to benchmark an 6800 series card for those users who dont have an X850? Adding to this point, the 6800s having PS 3.0 gives them a different featureset to the X850 under Far Cry, does that make any difference here ?

    All in all, a bit of a rushed article I felt, if your going to bother doing smaller stuff like this at least do it a bit more whole heartedly ?
    Reply
  • dougSF30 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    That merely begs the question.

    What changes are made in the "binary" patch, and what changes are made in the "exclusive content update" patch.

    Draw distance is hardly "exclusive content", so it isn't clear from the name of each patch.

    Which patch causes it to be changed?

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now