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
toyota - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
graphics a joke? on very high or ultra they seem pretty good to me. now the character models look goofy but thats about it for my complaints on the way it looks. now gameplay is a different story. I am growing tired of driving around and running through re spawned enemy checkpoints as if nothing happened just 1 minute earlier. also the AI is stupid as hell. they will shoot at you and then look the other way or even up in the air sometimes. too bad ubi screwed this one up.Griswold - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
He's right though. Its aimed at consoles and thus the textures are "cheap" compared to whats possible. It has this typical console touch as far as visuals go. :(clairvoyant129 - Friday, November 21, 2008 - link
Every other sites show GTX 260 Core 216 leading over HD4870 1GB... tells you something about Anand.SiliconDoc - Friday, November 28, 2008 - link
Well someone has to cheer for the stuttering underdawg ... if they all told the truth, amd/ati sales would plummet and competition might then be over.I have been amazed myself - the kind of seemingly unavoidable bias that has been everywhere with the 4000 release - I guess they like the color red or hate the leader - LOL - no that wasn't a political comment.
Maybe it's cheering for the underdog - or blowing off pent up steam on the NV card namings and reissuings of barely changed cards with bit width and shaders mixed about in number.
Something is definitely causing it - but it is becoming ever clearer that just screaming ATI has a driver update every month won't cut it.
People cheer for what they like or bought, for whatever reason and with the massively complex benching and work involved it's no surprise one side gets a break the other side doesn't.
I certainly don't blame the people - gosh having to watch every word is difficult - and then meeting work deadlines - and colluding with the vendors that work with them - there's a lot more to the nightmare than I see when I'm critiquing the benchmark bias....
( Doesn't mean the bias isn't there - but then again human nature is complex )
Anyway, thanks for saying it - what you said about other benchmarks being different.
( Yes I saw Derek's explanation below - oh well pressure at the workplace makes things happen - and with everyone so touchy I suppose threats would issue if they didn't claim everything is almost equal. )
At least some can see clearly what is going on, that makes me happy.
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*
Snarks - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
care to back that claim up, or just spew forth more bs?Carfax - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
Anandtech is the only website I've seen that shows ATI's part leading Nvidia in Far Cry 2.The GTX 260 216 is typically compared to the 4870 1GB in this game..
Anandtech is the only site I've seen where the 4870 1GB actually beats the GTX 280.
Also, there is NO MENTION whatsoever as to what Nvidia driver version the author uses in the article near as I can tell.
The 180xx series brings substantial performance increases for Nvidia cards in this game.
chizow - Saturday, November 22, 2008 - link
The Nvidia drivers and results are probably at least 3 weeks old:http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=51...">http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=51...
And the irony of it all, as the reason given as to why the review wasn't published earlier?:
If this FC2 review wasn't really "Shitting on AMD's Drivers Part 3" you might think AT was being biased. Personally I think its just poor testing standards. Derek is clearly being overambitious with his scope and the result is his work is dated before its even published. Derek really takes criticism and suggestions poorly though, so I doubt we'll see any changes. I was glad to see Gary Key include some additional info in his last set of benches, in a motherboard review of all places! http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3459&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3459&am...
DerekWilson - Monday, November 24, 2008 - link
My drivers for NVIDIA were 180.44This driver featured all the same performance improvements of 180.48, but I had access to it much earlier. The difference is that new features were not yet implemented. I did not use outdated performance data for this. Every other test with Far Cry 2 and NVIDIA would have either used this driver or the 180.43 (well, maybe they would have used 180.47 ... but either way, perf was the same).
The reason my results show the 4870 1GB pushing past the NV cards is very likely for two reasons: I made my own demo, and I took the highest of 3 runs per test rather than the average. It's easy to see that the custom demo does paint the 4870 1GB in a favorable light, and I explain why I take the highest of 3 runs on the second to last page when I'm talking about the problems we had with AMD drivers.
chizow - Monday, November 24, 2008 - link
I'm not sure how you can claim the drivers and performance is the same when:1) You are not using the 180.48 drivers.
2) Other review sites have shown significant differences in performance between drivers, even earlier 180.43 to 180.48.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...">http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha...-2-hardw...
3) Your results are clearly the outlier amongst a sea of review sites that use the actual 180.48 drivers.
4) Your results are at least 3 weeks old, but you still consider them accurate because you think 180.44 = 180.48 in terms of performance.
Besides the other glaring problems with this review that you've acknowledged, that's a pretty far leap to make. Instead of just assuming the results between drivers are the same, why not re-run some tests to confirm or deny? As of right now, running these results really undermine you and the sites credibility.