ATI killing it, that 7950 bundle with Farcry 3, Sleeping Dogs and Hitman Absolution is really the only choice for people looking to buy a graphics card at the moment if you don't own those games.

My poor Nvidia 330. Time to take it out back and shoot it.

I guess I'll be buying the 360 version

I have an EVGA 660ti SuperClocked+, maybe I should buy another one?

I'm getting really weird microstuttering, but my framerate is great. Seems like the release day version (1.01) is fine. i5 750, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD 6870

havent tried it yet but ill report how i go , just finished the steam dl.

got 2x gtx580's , i7950@~4ghz , 12gb ram (triple channel), and ssds , havent had any games really kick this pcs ass since arkham city , and that was mainly a matter of wating for patches and turning off the ridiculously superfluous tessellation, couldnt bring myself to remove physx so i still ended up with framerate issues at some points.

realisticly tho ill be running some settings qite low in an attempt to not put 100% load on my system , since summers just round the corner and ambient temps are skyrocketing already .

hopefully its not just horribly optimized.

Just turn down a couple of settings. And 30 frames average is totally fine. Guess anybody with a decent DX11 card can play the game in 1080p with barely any noticable differences to max settings at somewhere between 30-50 FPS.

I have an EVGA 660ti SuperClocked+, maybe I should buy another one?

@SlasherMan: i used to always agree with that until i was able to run the witcher 2 at 60fps with ubersampling on .. god dammit its so good it seriously looks like 2 different graphics engines but its the most insane resource heavy post processing ive ever seen .. but yeah thats the only case id argue so far , except mabye also metro 2033, looks great on most detail levels but holy shit that dx11 dof blur whatever , cuts your fps in half but makes the game look so much more realistic and immersive as a result.

but ultimately id prefer if the developers could achieve that with the artistic direction and such so that its not reliant upon the best eye candy filters and effects to make it look jawdropping.

My rig at 4.7Ghz should be ok I guess if they got over 30fps at stock. :D

My 570 2gb OCed has really been kicking ass, Battlefield 3 maxed 1080p runs beautifully never had a complaint, maybe this will finally force me to get that SSD and a 2nd card.

Everybody's like "no! I won't be able to play it!" And I'm like "...720p and medium settings will probably still look pretty good?"
Duders. All will be well. Don't worry. On the bright side, all of you will be playing it at a much better framerate than the consoles.

@Sooty said:

I'm surprised because the game doesn't actually look that great. Bad port or?

No really, go and look at screenshots of Crysis on max using 8800 Ultra level hardware (nearly 6 years old) and you'll see what I mean. This is really ass performance for how the game actually looks.

Edit: Crysis 2007 demo - http://www.abload.de/img/crysis2008072900074644aoyp.jpg

Far Cry 3 2012 - http://i1.minus.com/iseB4ToV4aVs.png

lolwut?

I was gonna say, this all smacks of the Crysis issues, or at least seems to if they can't get performance up considerably with new drivers. Crysis is still hard to run at max, 5 fucking years later. Not because of state-of-the-art effects and filters and whatever, but because it's simply poorly optimized. It's not Crytek for this game, though, but it is basically running on a heavily modified version of the same engine, so who knows. Just seems weird.

if i buy it i will play it on max :D

Not seeing this posted within the thread, but Nvidia's newest drivers made their cards 30-40% faster in Farcry 3, which would put them way above what ATI currently has.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-310-64-beta-drivers-released

Numbers in the results there for the old drivers match the ones in the opening post. So I guess if you want to max out Farcry 3, go grab a nvidia card?

Again, the dudes who made these graphs didn't seem to have the latest drivers.

I have a 6870. I have 4gigs of RAM. I don't even have a current gen Intel i5. I'm running it at 800p (1280x800) on Ultra with SSAO enabled and not dropping below 30fps. It's all good. It's pretty well optimised. Low quality doesn't even look bad.

why 560ti why :( I guess I will have to settle for less than perfect visuals.

@Kerned said:

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

I lol'd. Thanks for that haha I don't know why.

@VisariLoyalist: Apparently on another forum guy was running a 560ti having some of the high performance killers (Lighting, Shadows) down to medium/low and was having no problems running 40+ FPS with older Geforce drivers.

Glad I have a 660ti 2GB, 16GB ram and a 3.5 ghz i7 processor. I might be able to run this on almost ultra settings.

Right, to clear up some confusion, here's my setup. I'm running an Intel i5 2500k (3.3 ghz), 16gb ram and a sightly overclocked 560 TI. Windows 7 x64. It's windowed because it's easier to take screenshots, I play in fullscreen. Also, I don't think that it matters greatly but I have a 2-monitor setup. Over 2 hours of gameplay I didn't notice any slowdown.

I didn't update my drivers to the latest version mentioned in this thread either (2/10/12 version).

Screenshot the 2nd:

VisariLoyalist said:

why 560ti why :( I guess I will have to settle for less than perfect visuals.

Disable tesselation and that crap and have the latest drivers and you'll run it fine, as everyone else is saying. Probably not 60FPS still but not the 18-23 that the tests were showing.

Can't wait to let my GTS 450 at this

Got a 6990, let's see how it handles it. The fact that it can handle Crysis pretty well makes me somewhat hopeful.

My 7970 wont't be stable 60? :O

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.

Maaaaaaan I really want a 660Ti.... Can I justify a Christmas present to myself?

HD 6850 here, running it 45-50 FPS average at high settings with shadows and post set to medium. DX11, SSAO, no MSAA @ 1920*1080. Haven't tried DX9 yet.

I'd say that's not bad at all.

Im sure it will run fine with a few settings lowered, im not upgrading my 6970 for one game. Will still look way better then consoles anyways.

@SlasherMan: what CPU are you running? I'm stuck with a 6850 for a while so I'd like to compare.

Hopin my 7950 can run this baby with mostly everything turned up all the way. What would people recommend to turn down or off if it doesn't? I know shadows takes up a lot of performance but is there anything else I should turn off first?

@SirOptimusPrime: I'm running an i3 2120. Nothing fancy.

@Sackmanjones: MSAA, post effects and shadows are what seems to be the biggest drain on resources, in that order. AO didn't seem to have such a huge effect on FPS when I tried the different types, but I eventually set it to HDAO just because it looked the best to me.

According to Nvidia this is what the performance would be maxed out With 8x MSAA at 1920x1080p, which in my opinion is not necessary when playing in high resolutions. Turn it Down to 2x or 4x.

As you can probably tell, the newest beta drivers would give you an average of 10 more frames on the newest GeForce Cards. So turning off MSAA completely should give you around 60 frames per second With the 670, 680 & obviously the 690. Now this is only With the top Three Cards from Nvidia, but the performance increase With the Beta drivers should also apply on the 400 & 500 series aswell. Give Ubisoft a few updates for the game & let AMD / Nvidia release proper WHQL drivers & the game will be much easier to handle. So for me, even though I use the 680, I will wait until I purchase this. The game looks like a lot of fun, so I will definitely check it out.

Forcing tessellation off in AMD's Control Center eliminated all of the "stuttering" in my game. YMMV

@SlasherMan: Well, then that bodes well for me. I don't have a bomb-ass CPU (PII 955), but I should be able to get about the same performance.

Yay.

@FritzDude: Good, looks like drivers will indeed help considerably. Thanks for the info. But really, damn, at just 1080 even the 680 can't hit 40 average FPS? Something's wrong here. Hopefully it's just MSAA causing the performance hit. My 660 Ti and I are sweatin' over here. I play a lot of games on my 720p TV, where performance is usually a non-issue, but I was wanting to play FC3 on my 1080 monitor, so I'll probably be waiting a while to pick this one up as well, and get it cheaper too.

@PillClinton said:

@FritzDude: Good, looks like drivers will indeed help considerably. Thanks for the info. But really, damn, at just 1080 even the 680 can't hit 40 average FPS? Something's wrong here. Hopefully it's just MSAA causing the performance hit. My 660 Ti and I are sweatin' over here. I play a lot of games on my 720p TV, where performance is usually a non-issue, but I was wanting to play FC3 on my 1080 monitor, so I'll probably be waiting a while to pick this one up as well, and get it cheaper too.

From my own testing with a GTX 570, Post FX is what really hits performance. There difference between no MSAA and MSAAx2 at 1080 was negligible, but in terms of image quality and performance. At least, that's what I get on my PC.

Use Sweet FX, it injects SMAA and other things, minimal framerate hits and no jaggies.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/introducing-sweetfx-shader-suite-a-must-have-tool-for-every-pc-gamer/

After youve put the files on the games root directory to get it to work, right click on the game and choose "run as an administrator"

I have MSAA disabled and the best Ambient Occlusion on and everything on High, exept Vegation on Very High and Geomatry on Ultra.

Running it in DX9 and a have not missed 60 yet.

I still have an 8500

Ugh, my card is about 2 years old by now (gtx 570). I fear I will need an upgrade pretty soon. Ok, bank account, don't fail me now.

I'll probably wait to spring.

@Tremore: I might have to try this but I'm worried for the following few scenarios:

1. I won't notice the difference
2. It will send me so far down the rabbit hole, I'll do this to every game and I'll never have fun again.

Is it a big noticeable difference? Do I have to turn in game AA off for it to work? Finally, what card are you running on?

Thank you :)

I'm playing with an over 3 years old iMac that has a Nvidia 8800GS with low settings. Unfortunately I still can't get a decent enough fps with the native 1920x1200 resolution so I have to drop down to 1680x1050. The game still looks great and more importantly is really fun to play.

No need to worry if you have a 560 ti, i run it at high (post fx and shadow at medium) 1080p dx11 ssao no problems even with older drivers. Game looks great and runs at 40-60 fps staying mostly in 50-60 range with no noticeable slowdowns. i5 2500k @ 4ghz, 560 ti @ 900mhz

Left my new PC and big monitor at campus, I'm home for the weekend on my old 8600 GT/AMD Athlon dual core rig and a small 18 inch ASUS monitor. Running Far Cry 3 on lowest everything. Looks GREAT!

@Christoffer I've got it running at a fairly constant 60fps on my i7 860@3.3 and GTX570 by setting it to DX9, but turning on AO in the settings file. Everything on Ultra.

Those benchmarks in the OP are bullshit. This game runs great.

@SamStrife: SMAA will tax your system way less than MSAA so it makes sense to use it.

So you turn off the msaa in game and apply the injected SMAA with various other stuff like sharpening, HDR what have you on the SweetFX settings text file on the game at it will dramatically change the way it looks.

I like it and am using it every time it works, try it out and if you dont like it, dont use it. I have however only got it to work on DX9 so DX11 is out of the picture with SweetFX in this game

ive been using these settings myself.

http://pastebin.com/P9Px3HpX

running on gtx 670

570's oc'd in sli, 4.5ghz overclocked first gen i7, 16gb ram IDGAF.

My computer will bend this game over and treat it just like Vass would want.

@Kerned said:

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

lmfao

I have to play it on High and tweak some to get it run smoothly on my Nvidia GTX570, I have an old motherboard though.

@murisan: Same here. I also have a 6870 so I guess I won't touch this game until they do some optimization or get an upgrade. I'm not sure if it's Ubisoft cranking everything to 11 or it's just another poorly optimized PC port from Ubisoft.

I just don't know why Ubisoft even bothers with PC version at this point. Well one game off my list.

@mordukai: Eh, I'm getting what seems to be 30-60 FPS constantly with everything on V. High except for Water and Post Processing on Medium. DX11, SSAO, 2x MSAA @ 1680x1050.

@mordukai: You're being very silly. You shouldn't go by a benchmark that only tests maximum settings and nothing else and assume you're not going to be able to run it. Merely dropping MSAA yields huge gains in framerate. I have a 6850 and an i3 2120 and it runs pretty well with some reduced settings, and it still looks great.

@SlasherMan said:

HD 6850 here, running it 45-50 FPS average at high settings with shadows and post set to medium. DX11, HDAO, no MSAA @ 1920*1080.