Far Cry 2 Dissected: Massive Amounts of Performance Data
by Derek Wilson on November 21, 2008 5:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Testing with AnandTech's Custom Demo
Our custom ~1200 frame demo is more stressful than the RanchSmall test. It doesn't feature any fire and AI is disabled. The sequence is partly running through some trees and partly running through a field. We designed the test to try and mirror some of the aspects of gameplay the built in demos didn't cover well. Because we wanted to run without AI, we didn't engage in any firefights, but this does a good job of showing another side of Far Cry 2 performance.
Aside from playing through much of a game before we test, we also like to test a few different internal benchmarks to get a feel for the numbers. Obviously we can't run everything before we commit to testing, but we try and do what we can. When using built in benchmarking tools, we also tend to favor our own tests just to avoid the possibility that a graphics chip maker would optimize for our benchmark. We don't see that as a large problem in the industry today (though it has happened before), but it's better to be safe when you can to try and maintain objectivity. And thus this will be the test we favor going forward with Far Cry 2.
With the exception of our 2560x1600 test, the Radeon HD 4870 1GB leads all single GPU configurations including the GeForce GTX 280. At 2560x1600 the 280 pulls ahead by a little more than 5%, but the fact that the 4870 is much cheaper and puts up that hard of a fight in this test is quite impressive. On the other hand, except at the lowest resolution the Radeon HD 4870 512MB card trails the GeForce GTX 260. As we saw with the built in tests, the extra 512MB of RAM makes a huge difference in Far Cry 2 with RV770.
The Radeon HD 4850 leads the slightly more expensive GeForce 9800 GTX, while the 9800 GT carries the slight advantage over the Radeon 4830. The Radeon 4670 crushes it's direct competitor (the 9600 GSO) and matches the performance of the more expensive 9600 GT at playable resoluitons. As with our other tests, while the now sub $80 4670 is capable of low res play with Ultra High quality DX10, spending less money means that you will need to drop the settings down to Very High or High quality (though you really shouldn't need to go lower than that).
The cheapest playable card at 1024x768 with these settings is the Radeon HD 4670.
The cheapest playable card at 1280x1024 with these settings is the Radeon HD 4670.
The cheapest playable card at 1680x1050 with these settings is the GeForce 9800 GT.
The cheapest playable card at 1920x1200 with these settings is the Radeon HD 4850.
The cheapest playable card at 2560x1600 with these settings is the GeForce GTX 260.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
jhh979s - Thursday, November 27, 2008 - link
I'm using a 4850 1GB and I play on ultra high at 1920x1080 with 4 or 8x AA cant remember which. I've never experienced any slowdown but I'm using DX9.gochichi - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - link
OK, so the 4870 1GB does a much nicer job than the 4870 512MB right? What about the 1GB variants of the 4850?I don't have this game, not sure I really want it for $50.00 (I would buy it at $20.00 for instance). I have a 4850 512MB and am generally amazed by how well it feeds my 1920x1200 monitor.
Let's not forget that Crysis and Far Cry 2 are interesting benchmarks but they are not actually some of the better games out there (going by the reviews).
If you haven't been playing Call of Duty 4 because your hardware isn't up to par, a better "$200 question" is how the new Call of Duty runs. COD4 is one of those few upgrade worthy games, I'm pretty sure that Far Cry 2 is not. I technically wouldn't have to upgrade my setup to run it, and I can't even bring myself to pay $50.00 for the game. I'm not sure that many of you out there would want to spend even more than $50 to run this game. Most of us can't be upgrading for any old system hog that is released.
Of course, if you're shopping for a new video card and one of them comes with a game you're interested in, it's going to sweeten the deal. When I was shopping, I was almost lured in by one that had "The Witcher" included. I knew I wouldn't buy that game separetely but it sounded interesting enough to lure me. It's all about the package and the price. Would I recommend the 4850 based on my experience? Absolutely. But NVIDIA is a great company and has been catching up nicely with driver updates. The only beef I have against NVIDIA is that they've been renaming their old parts with new names and that is absolutely unethical. Heck, Nvidia's naming scheme is so bizzarre that a 8800GT 640mb is considerably worse than a 8800GT 512MB.
Now, back to my original question... if the 4850 1GB does, in fact, perform substantially better than the 512MB one, I would think it would put it right at the top of the list for this game.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 - link
Actually, nvidia's naming scheme is so bizarre that while I don't think there was an 8800GT 640, there was an 8800GTS 640 and an 8800GTS 512, and performance order went 8800GTS 640 < 8800GT 512 < 8800GTS 512. How is a customer supposed to make sense of that?SiliconDoc - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Yes, and the 9800GT with the bios updated old core - the 8800GT - or in the case of the Asus Ultimate (now sold out everywhere it seems ) the 8800GTS - then the ddr2 vs ddr3 - not to mention that smae issue with ATI - now ddr2, ddr3, ddr4 - one has to be quite careful in what they finally purchase, huh. LOLThen you have the brands issues and the rebates and the OC issues - the ram type on the cards that overclocks better or not ...
I think NV is still getting some review diss because of their confused naming convention which so many considered trickery or too messy to sort out - or time consuming... so I think there's part of the fan issue opposition.
Nonetheless, I'm glad I chose what I did based upon price and package and all the research I could muster before purchase - I waited quite a while and luckily those 6 months saw a massive output of new card releases - I could have just as easily went with an ATI release with some great deal on price and a game - I'm sure it was my excellent skills but wouldn't argue much with someone calling it luck. LOL
I see so often reading all over the net at all the popualr and unpopular places - ATI people chiming in that they don't have a problem... and I can't think of really a single case of an NV fan chiming in, in that fashion - so that tells me one thing....
No matter how many ATI users have had zero problems their entire lives in any OS with ATI cards including any game ever made or thought of, the very fact they have to constantly tell everyone that means :> THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH ATI.
I suppose I could be wrong, and instead - every ATI buyer is an absolutely masterous OS and game installer and configurator - and likewise all the uncomplaining NV users are oafs who are so noob skilled they can't properly install an ATI card to save their lives... NAHHHHHH !
kr7400 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Can you please fucking die? Preferably by getting crushed to death in a garbage compactor, by getting your face cut to ribbons with a pocketknife, your head cracked open with a baseball bat, your stomach sliced open and your entrails spilled out, and your eyeballs ripped out of their sockets. *beep* bitch
I would love to kick you hard in the face, breaking it. Then I'd cut your stomach open with a chainsaw, exposing your intestines. Then I'd cut your windpipe in two with a boxcutter. Then I'd tie you to the back of a pickup truck, and drag you, until your useless *beep* corpse was torn to a million *beep* useless, bloody, and gory pieces.
Hopefully you'll get what's coming to you. *beep* bitch
I really hope that you get curb-stomped. It'd be hilarious to see you begging for help, and then someone stomps on the back of your head, leaving you to die in horrible, agonizing pain. *beep*
Shut the *beep* up f aggot, before you get your face bashed in and cut to ribbons, and your throat slit.
You're dead if I ever meet you in real life, f ucker. I'll f ucking kill you.
I would love to f ucking send your f ucking useless ass to the hospital in intensive care, fighting for your worthless life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po0j4ONZRGY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po0j4ONZRGY
I wish you a truly painful, bloody, gory, and agonizing death, *beep*
7eki - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - link
Problem with stuttering can be removed by typing for example "gfx_maxfps 30" in console. Usually stuttering appears after loading a game, or when there is someone in a hut near you who you will have to talk to. On Catalyst 8.10 turning off the AA and typing this command fixes the problem. On 8.11 game works perfectly in 1600x1200, ultra detail and 2 times AA (with previously mentioned command). Sometimes when there are lots of things going on FPS drop to min 25, but it's still a great framerate for what you pay for this card and U can C in the game. Firstly I thought that it was something wrong with the vsync or that sort of stuff. It's definately a problem connected with memory buffer. I remember that ATI had similar problems in F.E.A.R. on their x800 series with 256MB but they have fixed it. For me FC2 on 4850 works as good or even better as it does on my friend's 9800GTX.Hawkmoon - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - link
Any word on what drivers were used for the nVidia cards?And what was the system used for these tests?? (memory/cpu/mobo etc)
Hawkmoon - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - link
I guess I missed it... or they updated the 2nd page.Before we get started, let's take a look at our test setup:
Platform: ASUS Rampage II Extreme, Core i7-965, 6GB DDR3-1333, Intel SSD
AMD Driver: Final 8.10 hotfix
NVIDIA Driver: 180.44
rocky1234 - Monday, November 24, 2008 - link
Well as I said in those AMD forums to a few guys there & this was after reading their posts or system configs is that alot of the time a lot of the issues are not from The video card or the drivers but from a badly configered system or a system that is overclcoked to far or even worse spyware or viruses & yes a lot of those system do have a unhandy program like Norton 360 installed on them.I run the 4870x2 & have not had any BSOD's related to the video card itself yes I have had a BSOD here & there but it was form overclocking the CPU to far EG: when I tried to push my Intel Quad core to 4.1Ghz which in this case was a issue for the CPU but is happy to run all day at 4.0Ghz but I run it at 3.9GHZ to be safe & have a stable system.
After having owned a Nvidia gaming card & seeing BSODs pretty much daily & they were related to the Drivers I was more than happy to pawn that card off to another system I own.
BubbaJudge - Monday, November 24, 2008 - link
Since the 8.10 hotfix, many of us running Vista and 4850/4870 in CF cannot run the hotfix or the 8.11s without a BSOD upon reaching the desktop. One card, no problem, two cards, infinite BSOD loops. Never mind it being just a Far Cry problem. We cannot run our machines with current AMD drivers.We now are at 5 pages of angry frustrated users over at the AMD forums
http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=2...">http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview....&thr...
Was hoping you guys would find this, I think you came very close, and am very happy to see you come down on the absurdity which is now Catalyst.
I have been running ATI since the 9700 pro, but I've had enough of struggling with ATI multicard graphics solutions(oxymoron).