PC Upgrade for FarCry 3

OmegaRed

So, i bought FarCry3 today and to my disappointment, my current rig can just barely run medium settings. High/Ultra is just unplayable.

As I have a 1900 x 1200 res monitor and I always like to play my PC games on max settings, what do I need to invest in in order to be able to run this beast at full whack. Current setup:

RAM : 8GB-Kit Corsair DDR3 PC1600 C9 Classic
CPU: Intel Core i5-2500K Box, LGA1155
MoBo: MSI P67A-GD55 (B3), Intel P67, ATX, DDR3
GPU: Radeon Toxic HD 5850 - 1 GB
OS: Windows vista

Also have a 120gig SSD

I am hoping this is a case of a new graphics card cos I have the 5850 since August 2010 and its served me well.

Was looking at some cards on HWV but they are spensive:

https://lb.hardwareversand.de/3072+MB/67817/Sapphire+Vapor-X+Radeon+HD+7950+OC+Boost%2C+3GB+GDDR5%2C+Full+Retail.article

https://lb.hardwareversand.de/3072+MB/62361/Sapphire+Radeon+HD+7970+Dual+Fan%2C+3GB+GDDR5.article

Any recommendations without breaking the bank?

tuxy

It's definatly a graphics card bottleneck.
I'm never sure what people mean when they say max settings.
Do you mean everything on high and AAx8?

Many people don't take anti aliasing into consideration.

OmegaRed

tuxy wrote: »

It's definatly a graphics card bottleneck.
I'm never sure what people mean when they say max settings.
Do you mean everything on high and AAx8?

Yes, everything on High. Some settings have Ultra High options also. And yes AA at max (X8).

Dcully

Im running it @ 1920X1200 with my MSI GTX660TI Twin Frozr and getting 80-200 fps on ultra settings everything maxed out everything meaning AAX8 ofcourse,looks absolutely stunning.

Gumbi

My lowly Phenom II is bottlenecking me my frames vary from 15 - 60, generally less than 40. Gotta get me an i5 this Christmas to back up my 7950!

OmegaRed

Dcully wrote: »

Im running it @ 1920X1200 with my MSI GTX660TI Twin Frozr and getting 80-200 fps on ultra settings everything maxed out everything meaning AAX8 ofcourse,looks absolutely stunning.

ok, looking at a few of those cards on HWV. All kinda bellow 310 quid which is great.

Tij da feen

Have a look at the Royal King 7950. Can be overclocked like crazy. Review here

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

Im running it @ 1920X1200 with my MSI GTX660TI Twin Frozr and getting 80-200 fps on ultra settings everything maxed out everything meaning AAX8 ofcourse,looks absolutely stunning.

What's going on with this benchmark then?

Settings
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,4.html

Benchmark
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html

You are getting over twice the performance of a GTX 680 AAx2 at that res

papu

tuxy wrote: »

What's going on with this benchmark then?

Settings
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,4.html

Benchmark
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html

You are getting over twice the performance of a GTX 680 AAx2 at that res

Could be down to quality settings being forced through the NVidia control panel.

on a side note..
That horrible feeling when your graphics card isn't used for benchmarking new games anymore ..poor 6870

tuxy

papu wrote: »

Could be down to quality settings being forced through the NVidia control panel.

on a side note..
That horrible feeling when your graphics card isn't used for benchmarking new games anymore ..poor 6870

I don't think so, they claimed to use the in game menu. And I don't see how forced nvidia settings would make a 680 get half the performance of a 660 ti.

papu

tuxy wrote: »

I don't think so, they claimed to use the in game menu. And I don't see how forced nvidia settings would make a 680 get half the performance of a 660 ti.

I was looking at it the other way round.
I thought it could be performance emphasized image settings on the 660 rather than letting the application decide. It can actually make quite a difference. Forcing things like AA off on a driver level.

Dcully

What's going on with this benchmark then?

Settings
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...nchmark,4.html

Benchmark
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...nchmark,6.html

You are getting over twice the performance of a GTX 680 AAx2 at that res

Ive no reason to lie mate.


I did mean to say 50-200 fps, up to 200 indoors ofcourse but never drops below 50 even in large fights.
My CPU is running @ 4.4 ghz so i assume that helping too

Regarding nvidia control panel i always let the application decide.

Heres some screenshots i took just now captured with fraps and showing fps in top left corner.

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

Ive no reason to lie mate.

Of course, I'm just trying to figure out the discrepancy.

Not sure it makes a big difference but are you running the dx9 exe or the dx11 one?

Dcully

tuxy wrote: »

Of course, I'm just trying to figure out the discrepancy.

Not sure it makes a big difference but are you running the dx9 exe or the dx11 one?

dx 11 ofcourse mate

tuxy

What fps do you get in dx9 then?

This poster seems to think there is a big difference.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82025929&postcount=294

Dcully

Just checked dx9 there and there was no difference at all, same fps as the screenies above in the exact same place ingame.

Headshot

Dcully can I see a screenshot of your far cry 3 video settings please

tuxy

Headshot wrote: »

Dcully can I see a screenshot of your far cry 3 video settings please

Didn't he post that already?

Headshot

tuxy wrote: »

Didn't he post that already?

No

tuxy

Ok, so you don't want to see his in game video quality settings, what settings are you looking for exactly?

Headshot

tuxy wrote: »

Ok, so you don't want to see his in game video quality settings, what settings are you looking for exactly?

You see his pic? The video settings, not the video quality but the video settings....

tuxy

Headshot wrote: »

You see his pic? The video settings, not the video quality but the video settings....

Oh your mean video in options, ok you should have said. There is no menu called settings.

Headshot

tuxy wrote: »

Oh your mean video in options, ok you should have said. There is no menu called settings.

Your being very pedantic. My post was obvious since he already did a screen shot of the video quality

Next time ill just incl his image and make life easy for people.

tuxy

Headshot wrote: »

Your being very pedantic. My post was obvious since he already did a screen shot of the video quality

Next time ill just incl his image and make life easy for people.

You're

jay-me

tuxy wrote: »

Oh your mean video in options, ok you should have said. There is no menu called settings.

You

tuxy

drats! :P

If you really want a specific option shown from a menu just ask for the one you want by name especially when many option have similar names.

zenno

O.P. you will just have to lower the settings or go into your graphics card settings and turn your gpu to high performance and defo turn off antialiasing as that is a major drain. Farcry games were always demanding.

Real life farcry snip and it's in Ireland. Look's familiar to parts of the game but this is with 900x antialiasing.

Dcully

Headshot

There is somthing really up with my computer that I cant beat 660TI

Dcully

What spec?

Headshot

Dcully wrote: »

What spec?

i5 2500k oc to 4.4
8GB ram
2x 670s
res 1980x1080
Far cry 3 on the ssd

tuxy

Just posting this here too as it's a better place for it. I had already posted on the games forum

I think there is a bug where it shows up as running in dx11 even if you run the farcry3.exe and not the farcry3_d3d11.exe

You need to run farcry3_d3d11 to be sure you are running dx11

I just tested there with a gtx 570 60 fps running farcry3.exe
20 fps running farcry3_d3d11.exe

Dcully are you running farcry3_d3d11.exe?

Headshot

I think the problem lies at the nvidia drivers. In terms of forgetting the dx11

Iv improved the frame rate and infact better than what dcully has said. In the open world id have like 90-100 but in fire fights its like 55.

tuxy

You would expect a gtx 670 to be about 15% better than a 660ti.
But gtx 670 in sli should walk all over the 660ti, it still does not make sense.

SickBoy

tuxy wrote: »

You would expect a gtx 670 to be about 15% better than a 660ti.
But gtx 670 in sli should walk all over the 660ti, it still does not make sense.

Dcully

tuxy wrote: »

Just posting this here too as it's a better place for it. I had already posted on the games forum

I think there is a bug where it shows up as running in dx11 even if you run the farcry3.exe and not the farcry3_d3d11.exe

You need to run farcry3_d3d11 to be sure you are running dx11

I just tested there with a gtx 570 60 fps running farcry3.exe
20 fps running farcry3_d3d11.exe

Dcully are you running farcry3_d3d11.exe?

Just seen this now, no i wasnt running via farcry3_d3d11.exe lads i didnt realize changing in the menu done nothing.
However i just tried it for about 10 mins there and fps dropped a tad but was still excellent lowest it dropped to was 45 but was 50-60 almost constant and thats with vsync on.
Ill try some more tomorrow and report if things change.

tuxy

Well in fairness how were you to know, it's a bug.

papu

tuxy wrote: »

You would expect a gtx 670 to be about 15% better than a 660ti.
But gtx 670 in sli should walk all over the 660ti, it still does not make sense.

Perhaps the SLI profile is the problem , few people reporting problems with the new 310.64 Beta drivers. What drivers are you running the 2x670s?

Dcully

Heres some dx11 shots i took, notice the fps counter from fraps is blue now, that must be a fraps feature when rendering dx11.

Headshot

My fps have improved to no ends

Getting 100 plus in nearly every environment tbh

Oh and btw there is no such thing has blue fraps setting for dx11, no such thing at all, so something wrong there dcully

papu

Headshot wrote: »

My fps have improved to no ends

Getting 100 plus in nearly every environment tbh

Oh and btw there is no such thing has blue fraps setting for dx11, no such thing at all, so something wrong there dcully

might have been accidentally Recording Fps Stats

Andy!!

Yeh a 660ti is your best bet here if you can afford it

tuxy

Andy!! wrote: »

Yeh a 660ti is your best bet here if you can afford it

So a 660ti is definitely the way to go rather than a 7950?

Eboggles

tuxy wrote: »

So a 660ti is definitely the way to go rather than a 7950?

If you want to overclock, the HD7950 pulverises the 660ti.

Dcully

Eboggles wrote: »

If you want to overclock, the HD7950 pulverises the 660ti.

They are very close, to the naked eye one wouldnt notice any difference at all.
Depends on the game as always too,both coming out on top by a few frames depending on the game.

Pulverises?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-benchmark-review,3279-11.html

Go with whatever is the cheapest as there is nothing between them @ stock or overclocked speeds than anyone will notice while playing a game which is what counts more than anything else imo.

tuxy

pulverises is too stonge of a word to use.

The benchs you linked compare a overclocked 660ti to a 7950 that comes with a small overclock from factory.
If they were to take the time to see how far the 7950 would actually overclock like they did with the 660ti then the results would be different.
Most 7950 cards have much higher overclocking potential than 660ti cards.

I think the 660ti is normally a little cheaper though.

Eboggles

Dcully wrote: »

They are very close, to the naked eye one wouldnt notice any difference at all.
Depends on the game as always too,both coming out on top by a few frames depending on the game.

Pulverises?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-benchmark-review,3279-11.html

Go with whatever is the cheapest as there is nothing between them @ stock or overclocked speeds than anyone will notice while playing a game which is what counts more than anything else imo.

Destroys it in every game when overclocked, like this Club3D RoyalKing.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/club_3d_7950_royal_king_review/15

Dcully

Eboggles wrote: »

Destroys it in every game when overclocked, like this Club3D RoyalKing.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/club_3d_7950_royal_king_review/15

Destroys?
Pulverises?

Fanboy much?

Come off it, regardless of what site you or I link to benchmarks there is little between them overclocked or not while your playing a game.

Ill say again, go with the cheapest because to the naked eye you WILL NOT notice the slightest difference.

"Pulverises" and "Detroys" is just a tad over reaction.

tuxy

Both overclocked you would notice at 2560x1440 where the 660ti will drop well under 60 fps in many games.

Dcully

tuxy wrote: »

Both overclocked you would notice at 2560x1440 where the 660ti will drop well under 60 fps in many games.

Not if you buy the 3GB 660ti but the 2GB yes as the 7950 is 3GB.

tuxy

Actually it's not a vram limitation, a 2gb card will perform the same as a 3gb card at that resolution.