gamers
Report a problem

Far Cry 2 performance in-depth

Julio Franco   on 29 October 2008 - 12:09 · 6 comments & 4442 views

Advertisement (Why?)
If like us you are a fan of first-person shooters, then there is a good chance you have spent the better part of this year anticipating the arrival of Far Cry 2. Last week marked the release date for this awaited sequel, and so we immediately jumped in and bought our copy. However, rather than play the single player mission from start to finish and then go into some multiplayer action, we have been hard at work for bringing you this article.

As usual our in-depth performance review takes various ATI and Nvidia graphics cards and compares them in this new first-person shooter title. Having recently completed a similar article with Crytek's Crysis Warhead, we have been keen to see if Far Cry 2 is just as demanding.



The quality presets tested include Ultra High, Very High, and High, which will be tested at 1280x1024, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 resolutions. The built-in Far Cry 2 benchmark tool has been used to test the various graphics cards, so you will be able to accurately compare your systems performance to ours.

View: Far Cry 2 performance in-depth @ TechSpot

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 6 additional comments
#1 mscrivo on 29 Oct 2008 - 13:18
The only problem is, this game absolutely sucks. I tried to grind through 5 hours of it to see if it got any better, but it doesn't compare to Crysis, or Far Cry for that matter.
#2 IceBreakerG on 29 Oct 2008 - 14:43
Main thing I don't like about the game is having to drive around the damn map so much just to get somewhere. That part sucks. The bus stops help some, but not much. Having to buy your weapons and look for diamonds gets old too. I do like that the silenced makarov sounds the way a real silenced weapon does (I have a suppressed P22, and it's nowhere near as quiet as the movies and tv would have you to believe unless you're using subsonic ammo, or extremely low velocity ammo, which really isn't that deadly, but it'll hurt like hell). That made me happy.
#3 SirEvan on 29 Oct 2008 - 15:37
I agree. While graphically nice, I've been playing for a few hours, and trying to figure out the wonky gps just to get 5 maps away sucks, plus its getting kind of repetitive...drive for an hour...go shoot 5 guys to take their safehouse or guard shack....repeat....repeat...repeat...oh wait take a malaria pill.....repeat.
(1 reply) #4 tom5 on 29 Oct 2008 - 16:47
I experience regular, a few-seconds-long slow-downs during gameplay which makes it virtually impossilble to play (GF 8800 GT).
#4.1 IceBreakerG on 29 Oct 2008 - 19:00
I have a 1GB Radeon HD 4870 and the game "feels" like it's skipping frames. A lot. But only when moving. I installed the ATI hotfix for the 8.10 catalyst drivers before I played the game for the first time. Sometimes it'll smooth out, but it feels kind of laggy. The weird thing is Fraps reports that I'm getting like 50-60fps, so I don't know why it feels that way.
#5 virtorio on 30 Oct 2008 - 03:10
Game runs alright on my laptop (2.4ghz, 4GB RAM, nVidia Quadro FX 1600m) - 1400x900, all settings on high except for shadows which I have to turn off as the low settings look terrible and the higher shadow settings make it run garbage.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)