Is that in Ultra high or very high? On the result screens it says its Very High but in another part it says "...on Ultra High 8800GT could run at 40 fps..." and the Screen said Very High aswell...so Very High means ultra high in all tests? And I figured out that with texture on Medium or Ultra High the image quality is the same, but Ultra High eat all my VRAM, and the game runs at a slide show, with riva tuner saying 600 MB of VRAM usage, when with medium it shows about 300 and the game run smooth (8800GS)

Thanks for this tipp, we fixed it. When our CMS has updated the site, every should be fine.

I created this account just to show this.
The 4870 X2 actually does beat out the GTX260 SLi.

If you look at the image URL, you'll see
www.pcgameshardware.com/s...

What you should look at is the image part.
004_far_cry_2_benchmark_test.png

Change the 4 to a 5 and you get this:
www.pcgameshardware.com/s...

005_far_cry_2_benchmark_test.png

www.pcgameshardware.com/s...

Just thought I'd let everyone know in case they check this before building a system. I don't want any misconceptions based on a little image URL mistake.

The results shouldn't be much different if you change it from 4x FSAA to 8x.

pcgh_thilo,

Thanks for the extra work you are putting into the benchmark review! Please let us know when follow up is ready.
I would be interested to know what a 4870 X2 does against either a 260 SLI or 280 with the QX9650 at 3.60GHz using 4xAA.

You're right - 1.920x1.080 is missing.

I'll check for the cpu scaling.

Stay tuned - we will do a follow-up with new drivers from AMD and Nvidia.

yes, it would be nice to see some benchmarks of gtx280, or ati cards with the Farcry2 hotfix, or overclocked CPU comparisons.

Could you also do a follow up? AMD has release a Far Cry 2 hotfix which improves performance.
source

Am I looking at something wrong or is the 1680x1050 @ 8xAA results posted twice
source

Also, is it possible to see the results of a 4870X2 with the QX9650 at 3.60GHz? I like to see if there is a difference when the QX9650 is at stock.

Great job guys, awesome benchmark review to wake up to!

At 1680x1050 I still think we are seeing a GPU limitation, if you look the E8400 gets the same score as the super fast 4ghz QX9770, with only .6 fps difference which is nothing.
The Q6600 is around 2fps slower than the E8400, again a very small amount which does show that there could be a benefit from the extra 2 cores... as its 600mhz slower, but at the same time this 2 fps diff could be the 600mhz slower clock?

I think it would be good if you could OC the Q6600 to 3ghz and then do a E8400 vs Q6600@3Ghz test, we would see a good cpu comparison (although not perfect as penryn has better architecture etc.)

And lastly would be good to see the CPU test with GTX260 in SLI, that would really stress the CPU's a lot more and would further show the diff between mhz and more cores!

Good to see the game runs fast even on medium range GPU's ! My 8800GTX should play this "ok" good retirement torture for it :P

One or two mistakes i picked up, on the high end GPU tests the last chart is showing 1680x1050, not 1920x.....

The vegetation in that SS reminds me a bit of Stalker CS, same kind of art style :P

Again an awesome review, thank you!

Yapa

PS: would also be good to see task manager CPU usage in Dual and Quad core