Holy BALLS. PC 1080p maxed settings GPU tests

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by murisan (1119 posts) -

Thanks to for pointing out that my original image was with 4xMSAA. The first image here is without MSAA.

This image below is WITH 4xMSAA (although it doesn't say.. anyway trust the image above this one first and foremost)

I guess I'll be playing NO WHERE NEAR 1080p. 6870 here. Holy shit.

#2 Posted by JJOR64 (19065 posts) -

I wont be either then. Got a GTX 580.

#3 Posted by BonOrbitz (2252 posts) -

Holy shit, for real?! I'm really having trouble believing this because I don't want to believe.

I've got a 570 1G, 2500K and felt like I was on top of the world... Until this. Oh well, patches and nvidia driver updates will make things better over time.

#4 Posted by Kerned (1169 posts) -

Man, this is gonna look sweeeeeeeet on my 2009 MacBook Pro.

#5 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

my old Geforce FX 5200 can eat this up.

#6 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4495 posts) -

I'm glad I just now upgraded to a 660 ti even though it looks like Far Cry 3 will still take a shit on it. Oh well, I'll just play at a lower resolution.

#7 Posted by Zelyre (1275 posts) -

@murisan: 'Cept its with some old drivers. On top of that, it's DX11, ultra settings @ 1080p.Start turning off performance hogs like SSAO or run it in DX9 and you'll be sittin' pretty at 1080p 60fps.

#8 Posted by ZimboDK (843 posts) -

Well, Nvidia released the 310.64 beta driver today, and it should give up to 38% improvement to the performance. So I'm not too worried with my 560Ti.

#9 Posted by Begilerath (175 posts) -

Maybe don't play it in Dx11 mode and don't max out all the settings?

Anyway I was thinking on buying this but I guess my ATI 5750 is going to burn if I try to play this, or I'm going to have to run it in really poor settings...I guess I'll play the PS3 version...maybe?

#10 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -

@Zelyre said:

@murisan: 'Cept its with some old drivers. On top of that, it's DX11, ultra settings @ 1080p.Start turning off performance hogs like SSAO or run it in DX9 and you'll be sittin' pretty at 1080p 60fps.

Well I'm lucky in that I have a 16:10 1680x1050 monitor right now. Hoping for DX11 on high settings with SSAO, cuz I like that fancy shiz.

#11 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

450. Not a hot chance in hell. But i never expected to, so that's ok.

Also, resolution has less of a bearing on framerate than you might think. It's mostly DX11 and shadows that fuck shit up.

#12 Posted by Scrawnto (2466 posts) -

@Begilerath said:

Maybe don't play it in Dx11 mode and don't max out all the settings?

Anyway I was thinking on buying this but I guess my ATI 5750 is going to burn if I try to play this, or I'm going to have to run it in really poor settings...I guess I'll play the PS3 version...maybe?

Yeah, if this game uses tessellation and such, then it's pretty much a certainty that you won't be maxing it out. Same went for Metro 2033 when it came out. (Still true for my mid-range machine.) Even on mid-high, at 1080p it will likely look way nicer than on consoles.

@murisan said:

@Zelyre said:

@murisan: 'Cept its with some old drivers. On top of that, it's DX11, ultra settings @ 1080p.Start turning off performance hogs like SSAO or run it in DX9 and you'll be sittin' pretty at 1080p 60fps.

Well I'm lucky in that I have a 16:10 1680x1050 monitor right now. Hoping for DX11 on high settings with SSAO, cuz I like that fancy shiz.

I do like me some SSAO.

#13 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -
#14 Posted by Ben_H (3434 posts) -

My Geforce 2/Celeron 1.0 Ghz setup can handle it NP. I mean I even have 256 MB of RAM.
 
In all seriousness, my HD 6950 weeps at those benchmarks. My Phenom II 965 is probably suicidal at this point, since it was having issues with Borderlands 2. 
 
I guess it doesn't matter because I wasn't planning on getting this until it is like $5 anyway. 

#15 Edited by Lukeweizer (2765 posts) -

I have a 7970, but I have no idea what this chart means. EDIT: Ok, I think I get it. I'd just be getting 32-36 FPS. I'm kinda new to PC gaming, but I know Borderlands 2 had an option for 72+ FPS (or something high) in the options. And I'm pretty sure I had that maxed. Is the same thing expected of all PC games? I guess that is one of the benefits of PC gaming.

#16 Posted by BaneFireLord (2957 posts) -

Welp, my 7770 doesn't even rank. Thank goodness the monitor I have available only goes up to 1440x900.

#17 Posted by buft (3320 posts) -
#18 Posted by 71Ranchero (2829 posts) -

Why dont they ever have my card on these lists? My Voodoo Banshee should run this game pretty good.

#19 Posted by Generic_Ninja (131 posts) -

I don't think that the new driver update for Geforce drivers helps with any of the 500 series, I may be wrong but I got a 560ti and I'm really just not sure if I should get this for the computer or just xbox.

#20 Posted by cannedstingray (414 posts) -

I'm running a I7 2600k over clocked at 4.4GHZ

8gb Kingston ddr3 ram

and 2 EVGA superclocked 570's

I can't really run all games maxed anymore. I can run Sleeping Dogs almost maxed, and Borderlands 2 almost max. But Assassins Creed 3 gets pretty framey unless I turn shadows down to med, and environment Quality to med. Even Borderlands with PhysX on max, the FPS takes a dive in super heavy combat with lots of elemental effects on screen.

Hoping to wait till sometime next year to upgrade. I'm not sure that a single 680 will be that much better than the 2 570s, and I don't think I can SLI a 570 with a 680.

Would like to wait till the 700 series GPU's if I can hold off that long

#21 Posted by Spoonman671 (4769 posts) -

I guess my GTX 460 doesn't have much longer to be useful. I'll probably replace it a few years after the Playstation 4 comes out.

#22 Posted by voltronadactylsaurusrex (71 posts) -

I have a 3770k and a 7970 6gb and i can't wait to test this shit out.

#23 Posted by deano546 (184 posts) -

I think the day one patch makes a difference, also, theres beta drivers out for NVidia cards which apparently helps performance a bit too.

#24 Posted by NMC2008 (1237 posts) -

How far could I get with a 9800GT 1GB? LOL!!! I am kidding, I know i'm getting nowhere.

#25 Posted by smcn (926 posts) -

I have a pair of Radeon HD 4890's. The latest drivers have the word "legacy" in the filename. Feels bad man.

#26 Posted by CookieMonster (2448 posts) -

@Kerned said:

Man, this is gonna look sweeeeeeeet on my 2009 MacBook Pro.

My 2011 MacBook Pro chugs on Limbo, so good fucking look with Far Cry.

#27 Posted by Kerned (1169 posts) -

@CookieMonster said:

@Kerned said:

Man, this is gonna look sweeeeeeeet on my 2009 MacBook Pro.

My 2011 MacBook Pro chugs on Limbo, so good fucking look with Far Cry.

Um, yeah. That was the joke.

#28 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

@CookieMonster said:

@Kerned said:

Man, this is gonna look sweeeeeeeet on my 2009 MacBook Pro.

My 2011 MacBook Pro chugs on Limbo, so good fucking look with Far Cry.

he was being sarcastic...

#29 Posted by Bollard (5850 posts) -

@bluecollaralaskan said:

I'm running a I7 2600k over clocked at 4.4GHZ

8gb Kingston ddr3 ram

and 2 EVGA superclocked 570's

I can't really run all games maxed anymore. I can run Sleeping Dogs almost maxed, and Borderlands 2 almost max. But Assassins Creed 3 gets pretty framey unless I turn shadows down to med, and environment Quality to med. Even Borderlands with PhysX on max, the FPS takes a dive in super heavy combat with lots of elemental effects on screen.

Hoping to wait till sometime next year to upgrade. I'm not sure that a single 680 will be that much better than the 2 570s, and I don't think I can SLI a 570 with a 680.

Would like to wait till the 700 series GPU's if I can hold off that long

I would hold on for the 700 series dude, that 680 won't see you any real performance gain over your two 570s... I know your pain too, my 580 ain't what it used to be two years ago. I think my old gen i7 950 is really holding me back though, so I'm looking at a mobo/CPU upgrade next year and maybe hope to get an 800 series (880 plox) if I have the money when the time rolls around three or so years from now.

#30 Posted by CookieMonster (2448 posts) -

@Alexandru said:

@CookieMonster said:

@Kerned said:

Man, this is gonna look sweeeeeeeet on my 2009 MacBook Pro.

My 2011 MacBook Pro chugs on Limbo, so good fucking look with Far Cry.

he was being sarcastic...

I knew that it was going to look shit on his mac, so thats why I pointed out that even macs can't play Limbo?

#31 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -

AW FUCK. My i5 750 might be an issue. I guess it's time to start spec'ing out some new guts for my PC since the LGA1155 doesn't work with my mobo.

#32 Edited by ViciousReiven (822 posts) -

Just to note, the image in the OP is actually incorrect, that's WITH 4XMSAA. 
Here's the correct one for WITHOUT: 

 
I'm sure if you play on High you'll have a major performance increase and still look gorgeous.
#33 Posted by Scrawnto (2466 posts) -

If I can't tweak settings to get this to an acceptable range, it might be the inspiration I need to rebuild my PC. I've got decent drives, case, and power supply, but my CPU (Core I3-540) and RAM are getting kind of old, especially considering they were never that great to begin with. Came from a mid-low end barebones kit I got in college, when I didn't have much money. My GPU is only a 560, but I can manage for a while if I get my other components up to snuff.

#34 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -
#35 Edited by Karkarov (3275 posts) -

Yeah guys remember that is the game at max. Take a lesson from Hitman: Absolution. The difference on my pc between 60+ FPS all the time and 40 FPS was simply turning off MSAA. A feature which honestly had very little impact on the actual look of the game. You don't know what max settings entails yet, or how many of those settings might actually not be to your taste (everyone loves massive bloom), or if the most demanding settings will even make a big difference in the games overall look.

Also one other important point, there will probably be a same day or close to it driver release that improves most cards performance with the game. It happened with Borderlands 2, it happened with Hitman, why wouldn't it happen with Far Cry 3?

@bluecollaralaskan: I use the same processor with a single 670 and 16 gig ddr3 1600 and can play every game you just listed at max with no issue and I don't overclock anything. A single 680 will definitely give you a blatant upgrade.

#36 Posted by Ben_H (3434 posts) -
@CookieMonster said:

@Alexandru said:

@CookieMonster said:

@Kerned said:

Man, this is gonna look sweeeeeeeet on my 2009 MacBook Pro.

My 2011 MacBook Pro chugs on Limbo, so good fucking look with Far Cry.

he was being sarcastic...

I knew that it was going to look shit on his mac, so thats why I pointed out that even macs can't play Limbo?

What Mac do you have? Mine can play Limbo just fine and it is older than yours.
#37 Posted by Kerned (1169 posts) -

@Ben_H said:

@CookieMonster said:

@Alexandru said:

@CookieMonster said:

@Kerned said:

Man, this is gonna look sweeeeeeeet on my 2009 MacBook Pro.

My 2011 MacBook Pro chugs on Limbo, so good fucking look with Far Cry.

he was being sarcastic...

I knew that it was going to look shit on his mac, so thats why I pointed out that even macs can't play Limbo?

What Mac do you have? Mine can play Limbo just fine and it is older than yours.

Yeah, I would like to know this too. The Mac I mentioned in my first post runs Limbo just fine. And just in case it wasn't clear, , it was a joke. I don't play games like FarCry 3 on my MBP. It's for work stuff and lightweight games like FTL.

#38 Posted by Skyfire543 (764 posts) -

me and my 550Ti are fuuuuucked.

#39 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -

@ViciousReiven: Oh shit, didn't see that, thanks a lot!

#40 Posted by Inkerman (1455 posts) -

Well I guess my 5870 is a no hoper either, but I'm looking at rebuilding my computer in two years anyway, get a brand new graphics card. Having said that, I'd like to see what it looks like on full.

#41 Posted by Subject2Change (2966 posts) -

That's Maxed settings, what you'd expect from an Open World game...

#42 Posted by triple07 (1198 posts) -

Holy shit maybe I should reconsider getting this game for PC since it looks like its going to shit all over my PC.

#43 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

Drop a setting or two a notch and it'll run just fine.

I've always said this, playing any game at max settings is silly as you're far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Lowering a few settings will likely affect visuals in a very insignificant way while giving a pretty valuable boost in framerate in return. Having max AA, shadows and SSAO is silly, IMO, as that combination will bring ANY card to its knees.

#44 Edited by zels (207 posts) -

@ZimboDK said:

Well, Nvidia released the 310.64 beta driver today, and it should give up to 38% improvement to the performance. So I'm not too worried with my 560Ti.

It works fine on a 560TI even with the old drivers.

1080p, all settings high/v.high except for lighting (medium), no AA as far as i remember. No noticeable fps drop thus far (~2 hrs playtime).

#45 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -

@zels: Where are you? EU? Jelly.

#46 Posted by zels (207 posts) -

@murisan said:

@zels: Where are you? EU? Jelly.

Eu, got it through greenmangaming, got the key 5 hours ago.

#47 Posted by WilltheMagicAsian (1542 posts) -

I'm kind of curious if these tests were ran with the UPLAY overlay on or off. Apparently the overlay actually hurt the framerate of AC3, I wonder if it's the same for Far Cry 3.

#48 Edited by onarum (2298 posts) -

My GTX 680 is ready!!!

Playing stuff at less than 60 FPS sucks though... I hope the new drivers really fix that.

Online
#49 Posted by BillyTheKid (486 posts) -

Was hoping for orgasmic screenies. I am disappointed. Either way my XP from 2004 will run it no problem!

#50 Posted by Andorski (5366 posts) -

I'm sad that I only have a GTX 570.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.