Far Cry 2 Dissected: Massive Amounts of Performance Data
by Derek Wilson on November 21, 2008 5:30 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Alright. That was a lot of data, and I applaud anyone who was able to successfully wade through it all. For those who didn't want to (or just couldn't stomach it), here's a quick summary of the results.
Most cards, including all cards that come in at >$100, are able to handle Far Cry 2 at Ultra High quality. Adding AA on top of that is fairly stressful and might require a drop back down Very High quality, though we don't see much need for AA in this game as it is low contrast and the effects do a good job of hiding or distracting from aliasing.
DX10 offers a performance improvement over DX9 for Ultra High and Very High settings. DX9 is only useful for High quality mode which offers a very large boost in performance over DX10 and should be enough to get almost any relatively recent discrete graphics card running at a passable resolution. Going forward we will be using our custom timedemo for testing Far Cry 2 at Ultra High quality under DX10.
The stand out in this test is the Radeon HD 4870 1GB. This $300 AMD single GPU part performed on par with NVIDIA's much more expensive GeForce GTX 280. Some tests favored the GTX 280 while others the 4870, but only 2560x1600 with 4xAA was a runaway victory for the NVIDIA part. Obviously this puts the Radeon HD 4870 1GB ahead of the GeForce GTX 260 variants, but they are generally $50 cheaper. If you can afford the price difference, the 4870 1GB won't disappoint. But $50 is a good chunk of change and the GTX 260 parts are still very capable under Far Cry 2. That decision will come down to budget, performance at the target settings and resolution, and simple preference.
Because CrossFire doesn't work yet, we can't really compare how multi-GPU scales against NVIDIA hardware. NVIDIA hardware does scale fairly well, going anywhere from 75% to 85%+ faster with a second card.
While some of the AMD parts, including the Radeon HD 4670 and 4850, performed consistently well against the competition, we don't feel comfortable solidly recommending any AMD part other than the Radeon HD 4870 1GB for Far Cry 2 because of the massive trouble we've had with their drivers. So we'll stick with recommending against the 9600 GSO, 9600 GT, and 9800 GTX... in case that helps. We do honestly believe that AMD will fix this performance issue (that shouldn't be there in the first place), but we just aren't comfortable putting our stamp of approval on hardware when there are these kinds of issues being sorted out.
At what we see as a key gamer price point, $200 - $250, for playing Far Cry 2 we heartily recommend the GeForce GTX 260 core 216. You can save money and go with the GeForce GTX 260 (original version) for $20-$30 less (or more with rebates) as they are on their way out the door (NVIDIA is no longer making the 192 core GPU), but the 512MB Radeon HD 4870 just doesn't stack up to these cards in these tests. To top that off, if you haven't picked up Far Cry 2 yet, EVGA is offering overclocked GTX 260 parts at stock prices bundled with the game. Now if that isn't the sweet spot, I don't know what is.
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.