🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Far Cry forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #1
    chase2195's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    162

    what would the far cry 3 performance be like on my pc?

    i have a GeForce GTX 570 combined with: i5-2500K CPU @ 3.30GHz and 16GB RAM, is my system still very high end for the next few years? please answer honestly cause id be dissapointed to learn that after having it for 1 year its not suitable for games like far cry 3 or medal of honor warfighter

    thanks
    Share this post

  2. #2
    iiiNero's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,031
    i think this will be fine for the next 4-5 years. after 3-4 years u may will have really small issues if u want them games to run on Ultra settings or with a high FPS number.

    if i would have such a system i wouldnt think of buying a next gen console like i do atm
    Share this post

  3. #3
    ULTRAS13's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Italy, Bari
    Posts
    22
    I take advantage of this thread to ask you a question:my PC has this hardware:ATI HD 4850Intel Core2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00 Ghz 3.00 GhzRAM: 4,5 GBWill it able to run farcry3?
    Share this post

  4. #4
    I have the same GPU and CPU

    The only games I have tried are Portal2, batman arkham city and Farcry1. All of them run smooth on MAX settings
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Far_Cry2_Fan's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The much Malaigned USA
    Posts
    372
    Any discussion of "can my PC run xxx" should include the display resolution you intend to run it at. At 1440*900 you have 1,296,000 pixels to fill, at 1920*1080 there are 2,073,600, or 1.6x more pixels.

    It should be easy to see that a machine that can provide 60FPS at 1440*900 has no hope at all of providing smooth gameplay at 1920*1080.

    Also, there are "shades" or degrees of "max settings". Many cards will provide adequate framerates with high resolution settings so long as you keep the AA (anti-aliasing) set to OFF. Once you start bumping up the AA settings, even very high end systems start to choke on the processing requirements. To me, higer AA settings are a requirement. If I'm seeing a truck tire on screen, I want it to look ROUND, not faceted like an octogon or decogon, it should be near-perfectly ROUND. Same goes fro barrels, vegetation, signage and most everything else onscreen, it should look natural or as near natural as the settings will allow.

    Stated another way, declaring "I can run max settings" is positively meaningless unless you specifically include the AA settings and actual framerate you are getting.

    I have a I7-2600K system with a GTX580 video card, and I run FC2 with the resolution at 1920*1080, all settings at very high or ultra high where allowed, and I enable VSYNC (60hz in the USA), and the game runs perfectly at 4xAA. I get 60FPS virtually constantly, only loading from disk (map transitions) with lots of explosions and movement will cause the framerate to change to 59FPS for the breifest of times. However, if I run 8xAA, the framerate plummets, and the only way to get good framerates is to hold still, make sure there are no explosions or other movement, in other words, while the scenery looks awesome at 8xAA, the game is unplayable. In other words, using near top-tier equipment, I can't run even FC2 at TRUE max settings, AA represents a huge processing overhead that can bring a system to its knees, but without AA, games look genuinely horrid.

    Long story made short, no one can answer in a knowledgeable manner unless they know the resolution you intend to run, the frame rate you expect, and the AA settings you want to use. Once we have all that info the only question is how much more efficient is the new Dunia engine compared to the one in FC2.

    DAS
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Far_Cry2_Fan's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The much Malaigned USA
    Posts
    372
    Viragoxv535:
    I disagree, only because "mimimum" means different things to different people. With a 1920*1080 LCD monitor, I will NOT be satisfied with having to run a game at 1440*900. In the same vein, some people will accept chunky gameplay at barely 15fps as "playable", to me, unless the game is completely fluid with NO chunking at all, it is irritating and unplayable by my standards.

    If you don't know the individual, and yet you are certain what he himself meant by "can I run it" and be able to fill in all the obvious gaps in such a generic question, you are a better man than I. When somebody says "run", I have to decide what "run" means. I had an old laptop that would "run" FC1, but it took SECONDS for each screen update. It never stopped (locked up or otherwise failed), but the chunkiness made it unplayable by I would imagine, anyone's standards. Technically, it "ran" the game, but no one I know would have wanted to play the game on that machine.


    DAS
    Share this post

  7. #7
    chase2195's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    America
    Posts
    162
    Originally Posted by Far_Cry2_Fan Go to original post
    Any discussion of "can my PC run xxx" should include the display resolution you intend to run it at. At 1440*900 you have 1,296,000 pixels to fill, at 1920*1080 there are 2,073,600, or 1.6x more pixels.

    It should be easy to see that a machine that can provide 60FPS at 1440*900 has no hope at all of providing smooth gameplay at 1920*1080.

    Also, there are "shades" or degrees of "max settings". Many cards will provide adequate framerates with high resolution settings so long as you keep the AA (anti-aliasing) set to OFF. Once you start bumping up the AA settings, even very high end systems start to choke on the processing requirements. To me, higer AA settings are a requirement. If I'm seeing a truck tire on screen, I want it to look ROUND, not faceted like an octogon or decogon, it should be near-perfectly ROUND. Same goes fro barrels, vegetation, signage and most everything else onscreen, it should look natural or as near natural as the settings will allow.

    Stated another way, declaring "I can run max settings" is positively meaningless unless you specifically include the AA settings and actual framerate you are getting.

    I have a I7-2600K system with a GTX580 video card, and I run FC2 with the resolution at 1920*1080, all settings at very high or ultra high where allowed, and I enable VSYNC (60hz in the USA), and the game runs perfectly at 4xAA. I get 60FPS virtually constantly, only loading from disk (map transitions) with lots of explosions and movement will cause the framerate to change to 59FPS for the breifest of times. However, if I run 8xAA, the framerate plummets, and the only way to get good framerates is to hold still, make sure there are no explosions or other movement, in other words, while the scenery looks awesome at 8xAA, the game is unplayable. In other words, using near top-tier equipment, I can't run even FC2 at TRUE max settings, AA represents a huge processing overhead that can bring a system to its knees, but without AA, games look genuinely horrid.

    Long story made short, no one can answer in a knowledgeable manner unless they know the resolution you intend to run, the frame rate you expect, and the AA settings you want to use. Once we have all that info the only question is how much more efficient is the new Dunia engine compared to the one in FC2.

    DAS
    i intend to run it on 1980x1200 res and have it max on all other settings
    Share this post

  8. #8
    ULTRAS13's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Italy, Bari
    Posts
    22
    Originally Posted by Viragoxv535 Go to original post
    "Minimum" means basic requirements that need to be met by the system and in some cases if are not met, the game won't run. Capisc?
    That's exactly what I asked :P

    Grazie per la risposta di prima; / (Thank you for your answer)
    ti stimo per il "capisc" xD
    Share this post

  9. #9
    Far_Cry2_Fan's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The much Malaigned USA
    Posts
    372
    Actually, no, I don't understand. I just got through telling you FC1 let me install it and run on a machine that was wholly inadequate for playing the game.

    I think what you are trying to accomplish here is disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreement. You have succeeded.

    To those who have PCs and know how this stuff works, they understand explicitly that my posts on this topic make good sense, and will even recognize Ubisofts own "minimum" specs won't address real-world performance unless they frame the "minimum" by specifying frame rates at typical resolutions.

    What good is "minimum" if it is not defined in some meaningful way? Is 15FPS playable?

    DAS
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Tigra2009's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Semey, Kazakhstan
    Posts
    447
    Originally Posted by Viragoxv535 Go to original post
    I solely play on pc i7-970 gtx470 12gb
    Share this post