Get Best Far Cry 5 Performance: 10 Graphics Cards Tested at “Ultra” Quality

News
By ,
published

Far Cry 5 Benchmarks: FPS, Frame Time & Smoothness

Depending on the game, graphics settings can have an enormous impact on performance. Therefore, we took one of our mainstream cards, MSI's GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gaming X 4G, and used it to test the game's different quality presets: Low, Normal, High, and Ultra. We ran each set of measurements without anti-aliasing, and then again with the two available modes (SMAA and TAA).

Image 1 of 6

Based on our performance charts, the four presets seem perfectly distinct. The data clearly indicates trade-offs that accompany higher quality levels. This should allow everyone to find the perfect setting for their graphics card. Additionally, we would like to point out that activating anti-aliasing, whether it be SMAA or TAA, does not affect performance much, but returns non-trivial rendering improvements.


MORE: Get Maximum Fortnite Performance: 'Epic' Mode With 10 Graphics Cards

MORE: Final Fantasy XV Performance Review

MORE: Project CARS 2 Performance Review

Image
Far Cry 5
View Deal
See more GPUs News
Yannick Guerrini
.
10 Comments Comment from the forums
  • jaexyr
    Game is pretty. (All else about the game was hugely disappointing.) My 1080 card running @ 1440/G85hz was quite nice.
    Reply
  • AgentLozen
    I'm really impressed by how well optimized this game is. There are lots of granular options for visual tweaking.

    Does anyone remember ID Soft's "Rage" launch from a few years back? That game was highly anticipated and also got good reviews, but suffered from a wide variety for technical problems on PC. The engine was so glitchy that it barely ran on AMD video cards for a week before they released drivers to make it playable. Also, there were hardly any configurable graphics options besides resolution. ID Soft didn't make the engine from scratch either. It derived from Doom 3's Tech Engine 4.

    Comparing the Far Cry 5 launch to Rage reveals a night and day difference.
    Reply
  • redgarl
    AMD console strategy is paying off.

    Also, would have been interesting to see a 8400 system compared to the 1600x at these resolutions with these cards.
    Reply
  • popatim
    @RedGarl. Why x1600? so you can see which ones stutter the most? The game is just playable at 1440 only with several of the cards in this review. LoL
    Reply
  • therickmu25
    The game is 'optimized' because they nerfed the physics and detail that FC2 had 10fold.
    You can't even shoot through a wooden fence in this game. For anyone interested, the video below shows all the things left out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCeEvQ68jY8&t=621s
    Reply
  • jaexyr
    Even in comparison to 3 & 4.... 5 is horrible. I love that video of 2. I used it in a steam review

    20874573 said:
    The game is 'optimized' because they nerfed the physics and detail that FC2 had 10fold.
    You can't even shoot through a wooden fence in this game. For anyone interested, the video below shows all the things left out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCeEvQ68jY8&t=621s

    Reply
  • eduardoceliseduardocelis
    Titan v 4k core i7 8700k ultra settings no less than 60fps. I think that's enough to enjoy the game without stuttering. O lag
    Reply
  • photonboy
    Uh.... WHAT??
    "This is also the first time we have encountered a game that monopolizes CPU resources to such an extent. Could this be due to the Denuvo DRM and/or the physics engine?"

    How are the CPU resources monopolized if you have minimal benefit beyond TWO cores plus hyperthreading?

    That's not a very heavy load.
    Reply
  • mitch074
    About the Rage comparison: Rage was the first OpenGL game to push the API so hard. Most fixes were done at driver level - while FC5 is DX11 only. Had it been done in DX12/Vulkan, and really pushing physics, I'm not so sure it would run that well. DE:MD actually looks better to me.
    Reply
  • AgentLozen
    mitch074 said:
    About the Rage comparison: Rage was the first OpenGL game to push the API so hard. Most fixes were done at driver level - while FC5 is DX11 only. Had it been done in DX12/Vulkan, and really pushing physics, I'm not so sure it would run that well. DE:MD actually looks better to me.

    You're right about the reasons why Rage was such a mess at launch. As I recall, the drivers at the time were underdeveloped for OpenGL and Rage was asking for more than the drivers were used to. This was largely an AMD problem. I think Nvidia wasn't plagued the same way.

    I used Rage for the comparison because it offered VERY few graphics customization options and it wouldn't run for a significant part of the PC user base, regardless of reason.
    Reply