Far Cry Performance

Far Cry remains one of the more graphically intense games, and it gives a somewhat different performance picture between ATI and NVIDIA than Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. We tested with the 1.33 patch installed, though we didn't attempt to force HDR or instancing. We ran the standard Ubisoft benchmarks for the Regulator, Research, Training, and Volcano levels. We then averaged the results across these four benchmarks to come up with the final score. If you'd prefer to see the performance on the individual levels, you can download the 18 graphs in a Zip file. We tested with everything - including water - set to Very High quality. (Remember, this is a CPU overclocking article, not a GPU performance article.)

Going from 640x480 through 1024x768, we gain 41%, 29%, and 13%. As with Doom 3, adding antialiasing into the mix at 1024x768 really stresses the GPU, limiting performance gains to 5%. As we mentioned in our latest Mid-Range Guide, gamers are much better off getting a slower CPU with a faster GPU rather than the other way around. With some judicious overclocking, even the slowest Athlon 64 Venice part can achieve great performance with the right GPU. We should mention that we haven't shown results for 640x480 4xAA and 800x600 4xAA on any of the games for a reason: if you can't run at 1024x768 resolution or higher, you probably can't run 4xAA well either. We would definitely increase resolution at least to 1024x768 before worrying about antialiasing.

The trend of more expensive RAM realizing higher scores continues, as expected. This time, the gap grows to as much as 9%, indicating that Far Cry is slightly more demanding of the memory subsystem than other games. The 2T timing at 9x300 really kills performance, coming in 15% slower than 9x300 OCZ RAM. If you opt for the Venice 3000+ chip, you might want to spend a bit extra for 2-3-2 RAM as opposed to 2.5-3-3 RAM. The extra $15 or so should bring up performance at 9x300 substantially.

Doom 3 Performance Half-Life 2 Performance
Comments Locked

101 Comments

View All Comments

  • Powered by AMD - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    Do not forget The Athlon XP 1700+ 1.5Volts, DLT3C, mines is OC from 1467 Stock to 2250 Mhz and pretty cool with an old Thermaltake Blower...
    It can ever reach 2450 Mhz but with 1.8 Volts.
    hey, at 2250 Mhz its a 53% OC too!!
    Great article but it will be useful for me only when I need an Athlon 64 :p
  • donkeycrock - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    i noticed that frys is selling x-connect (500 Watts)psu for 25 dollars after rebate. it is extremely heavy, and not many reviews say if they are very good PSU's for overclocking, anybody have knowladge about this PSU.

    thanks
    brad
  • cryptonomicon - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    nice article jarred, and you worded the disclaimers perfectly, bravo.

    and its nice to see those ram comparisons. good to see those results on the latest a64 platform and confirm once again that the ram makes only a few percentage points difference, if that. shelling out all your dough on a good GPU, then buying the lowest model venice, a DFI board, and value ram is the way to go.
  • Googer - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    http://www2.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/Down...">AMD Thermal Grease List PDF
  • RupertS - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link

    Interesting, AMD only recommends thermal grease for short term use 'where the heat sink is removed and attached multiple times over a short period'. They definitely do not recommend it for long term use.
  • StriderGT - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    Both me, Zebo and many others have clarified long time ago in Anands forum the pointless struggle of purchasing extreme memory parts in Athlon64. Dividers and value ram will do the trick of excellent ocing giving you 95%++ of the performance someone gets with expensive and overvolted ram modules. Nice seeing anandtech come up with an article backing up the threads like this one (http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...mp;threa...

    PS For those owning MSI Neo3 m/bs -and even the rest- I have created back then an excel calculating the actual memory frequency with the various BIOS settings. Enjoy
    http://www.geocities.com/gtstrider/">http://www.geocities.com/gtstrider/
  • JarredWalton - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    Yeah, I've seen quite a few threads around the 'net on this, but AT hadn't covered it very well, and I hoped to get something "official" out there. (None of the enthusiast sites have really covered this that well, as far as I could see.) Since I've been fooling around with various AMD CPU overclocks for a year now, I figured others might like to see the possibilities. High-end, high-cost is well and good for dreams, but like most people I live a bit closer to reality. $200 is about as much as I'm willing to pay for a CPU in most cases.
  • andyc - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    So you can basically overclock the 3000 to the same speeds the 3200 can? So it's not even worth it to go with the 3200?
  • JarredWalton - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    Well, perhaps. 9x300 requires a better motherboard than 10x270, though most boards than can handle 270 MHz CPU bus speeds will also handle 300 I think. For value overclockers, though, I don't think I'd bother spending the extra $50 on the 3200+, no. Spend it on the GPU instead (if you play games).
  • Mogadon - Monday, October 3, 2005 - link

    Great article Jarred, thanks for putting in all the hard work and time.

    I have one question regarding voltages. As I understand it, you wouldn't recommend running a VCore above 1.65V for a long term overclock. I understand the warnings and possible effects on the CPU with running a high VCore but I wanted to know if this is around the VCore that you would run on, say, your overclocked system?

    The majority of people on the forums here don't really recommend going above 1.55V or 1.6V, i was wondering if you had any comments about this.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now