How will it run?

#1 Posted by JohnLocke (256 posts) -

Just facing a bit of a dilemma, I am wanting to pick up Far Cry 3 but am unsure whether to get it on Xbox 360 (where some friends are playing it but I have heard there are frame rate issues) or PC (where other friends have it but I have an old system) so basically I want to know if the game will run better on my current PC or whether the console version is the way to go?

My system is Intel Quad Core Q8300, 4 gigs ram, ATI 5770 1 Gig gpu, and Windows 7 64 Bit.

Will this system be able to cope with the game well or am I going to struggle to run it to the point it would be better to get it on console?

Thanks

#2 Posted by zenmastah (912 posts) -

Id get in on PC regardles simply because you can tweak options on it, so you will have a better chance in hitting well over 25-30 frames on PC but with 360 you will be stuck on those framerates.

Also resolution and m&k makes PC better option imo.

#3 Edited by Asurastrike (2166 posts) -

This is kind of unrelated, but I really don't understand AMD's GPU numbering scheme. I know that Nvidia just went from the 500 series, to the 600 series, and the higher in the tens, the better the card. But I have no clue what an ATI 5770 is comparable to. Is it like a Geforce GTX 570?

#4 Edited by captain_clayman (3321 posts) -

Just ballparking here, but I'm gonna guess It'll probably run/look better than the 360 version does. I'd say you could get a solid 60fps on medium settings, if not more.

EDIT: I just checked the sys req, and an ATI 5770 is the recommended GPU so you should probably be fine.

#5 Posted by envane (1163 posts) -

its basicly a 470

#6 Edited by SirOptimusPrime (2007 posts) -

Despite what the thread on the "KEERAZY GPU specs!" said, there's been anecdotal evidence everywhere saying the game is relatively scalable. Plus, you don't have that old of hardware in the grand scheme of things. You're running on much better hardware than a 360.

And, if you have the chance of decent framerates then fuck yes you buy that version.

EDIT: 2^10

#7 Posted by Giefcookie (600 posts) -

Even with an older GPU you can get better frame rates than the xbox version just by turning off the DX11 stuff and tweaking some of the lighting/after effects stuff.

#8 Posted by Jaqen_HGhar (895 posts) -

Now, I never manage to keep up with what is good and what is not when I don't actually need anything new myself. So I can just list what I use instead, maybe that will help. I run this on what they call "Ultra" in the settings, which puts everything on max. I only use DirectX 9, as that is the max my GPU allows it seems (that is what I need to upgrade next year), and I don't have a crazy monitor so only play on 1366x768. Fraps reports my FPS to never dip below 30, and it usually stays around 50-60.

I am running this on Win7 64bit, 8 Gigs of RAM, GeForce GTX 275 and an Intel i5-2500K Quad Core. I also have two monitors, so some of the GPU power goes to that I guess.

The "Optimal" settings puts all the graphics to medium. With that I always keep the FPS on 60, and it still looks bloody awesome.

#9 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@JohnLocke: Depends on your definition of "well", honestly. If you want 1080p @ 60FPS, that isn't going to happen. I can venture a guess and say it'll look and run a bit better then its console counterparts, but I don't have hard numbers on that. Just a gut reaction.

@Asurastrike: Well, the numbers went a bit screwy a while back. You had your 9800s and so on for the longest time, but then ATI adopted the HD prefix which tossed the old order out, and ushered in a new hierachy of confusion. Best I can tell you is that the 6970 runs close but isn't exactly the 570, the 6950 is more or less equal to the 560 Ti, and the new 79xx are in knife fighting range with the new 6xxs. Frankly, everyone who markets GPUs should be taken out behind the shed and shot.

@SirOptimusPrime said:

Despite what the thread on the "KEERAZY GPU specs!" said, there's been anecdotal evidence everywhere saying the game is relatively scalable. Plus, you don't have that old of hardware in the grand scheme of things. You're running on much better hardware than a 360.

And, if you have the chance of decent framerates then fuck yes you buy that version.

EDIT: 2^10

Something to keep in mind: while he does have much better tech then a 360, that version is designed to take complete and total advantage of the 360 and the PC version isn't designed with any specific hardware as the focus. While he could easily eclipse the quality of the 360, it isn't a good rule of thumb to just assume "More powerful GPU = better experience".

@Jaqen_HGhar: I would seriously consider upgrading your monitor(s): the most powerful GPUs in the world only look as good as the device that turns that horsepower into pretty colors, and 1366x768 is quite tiny anymore. No point in cranking up that GPU if it's going to be limited to that anyway.

#10 Posted by EVO (3908 posts) -

I asked this in another thread, but how will it run on a 2011 Macbook Pro? I'm happy with medium setting at 720p.

#11 Posted by JohnLocke (256 posts) -

@Mirado said:

@JohnLocke: Depends on your definition of "well", honestly. If you want 1080p @ 60FPS, that isn't going to happen. I can venture a guess and say it'll look and run a bit better then its console counterparts, but I don't have hard numbers on that. Just a gut reaction.

I am wanting it to run smooth (so 30fps or higher ideally) and the game look nice (so low/medium settings or higher).

#12 Edited by SirOptimusPrime (2007 posts) -

@Mirado: I have limited knowledge, but from what I gather it seems that most games that are optimized to run "well" on consoles (i.e. 25 FPS @720p) scale fairly well to higher-end PC's. I understand that's a bad rule of thumb (though, I was comparing his spec's in total versus the 360's not just the gpu) when you take optimization into the picture, but this game seems fairly well put together. Driver updates, mobo's and etc. as well...

Then again, I'm mostly talking anecdotally and (for the most part) through my nose.

#13 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@JohnLocke: You'll get that, depending on your resolution. Triple monitor? No. 720p? Sure. 1080p? At low, I'd give a cautious "yes". Medium might cut it close but you can play around with the various settings and see for yourself. Since the 5770 is the recommended GPU, it should do it.

If you are ok with low/medium @30FPS, I can say you'll get that at 720p. If you think that looks better then a console version, I'd go for it. There's a good chance it'll run well enough that you can tweak some settings and make it look even nicer.

#14 Posted by CannonGoose (373 posts) -

Play it in DX9 mode and you should be alright. DX11 mode might as well be called "Drop 10-15 FPS for no reason mode".

In the Neogaf Far Cry 3 PC Performance thread there are several config file tweaks that are easy to implement and adjust yourself to make the game look and perform better.

#15 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

if you can get it to run at 720p with details at medium and get over 30 fps, then you should play it on PC (the console version runs at about 26 fps).

#16 Edited by GetEveryone (4455 posts) -

@SirOptimusPrime said:

Despite what the thread on the "KEERAZY GPU specs!" said, there's been anecdotal evidence everywhere saying the game is relatively scalable. Plus, you don't have that old of hardware in the grand scheme of things. You're running on much better hardware than a 360.

And, if you have the chance of decent framerates then fuck yes you buy that version.

EDIT: 2^10

Yeah, considering the scope for how well it can look, it's surprising that so many people are able to play it really well.

I'm running a somewhat mid-range machine (i5 2500K, GTX560 ti 448 and 8GB RAM) @ 1920 x 1080 and DX11 activated. With careful tweaking I can run it nearly maxed.

Besides ambient lighting and ssao (which were the performance killers for The Witcher 2, too), everything is on ultra/very high and the frame-rate is smooth as hell.

Edit: Should probably note that I upgraded my graphics driver before I even thought about running the game. It's been said that it gives a noticeable performance boost.

#17 Posted by Jaqen_HGhar (895 posts) -

@Mirado: Oh, certainly. One of the reasons why I haven't bothered upgrading yet is that I can barely afford a new GPU. And I don't see any reason to get a new GPU until I can also afford a new monitor. I could of course just buy a monitor, but seeing how the card can barely hold together on these newer games on this resolution... I don't think that would be wise.

#18 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

@Jaqen_HGhar: Well, look at it this way: A great GPU is wasted on a shit monitor, while a great monitor won't make a shit GPU any worse, in fact it'd probably look a bit better! However, the key to keep in mind is that a monitor won't help anything run better, so the march of time will always be against you.

You're in a a bit of a pickle, so my suggestion is: if you can get a deal on either, go for it. Don't wait to upgrade both if that's a distant dream; a new GPU will still let you run new games better (and they'll look better even at your current res), and a new monitor will let you enjoy things like movies (if you do that on your PC) to a far greater degree.

If you're in the market for either, toss me a PM with your budget. You'd be amazed what $150 (or even a bit less!) can do anymore, especially on the GPU front. And I know monitor bullshit (and it really is bullshit) inside and out, so I can give you some tips for that as well.

#19 Posted by Swoxx (2999 posts) -

Interesting question. I have a better one.

Will it blend?

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.