I have a 2GB GDDR5 AMD Radeon HD 7850 and an AMD FX-4100 CPU overclocked at 3.8 GHz. My screen resolution is 1920x1200. This computer setup should be able to play Far Cry 3 at Ultra settings. But I get a maximum of 19 to 20 fps when running on Ultra settings preset. On high and very high preset settings I get about 26 fps, on medium preset settings I get a fluctuating 30 to 28 fps, and on lowest settings I get about 40 fps. All of these presets I use I have MSAA at lowest SSAO on lowest, Directx11, vsync off, and max buffered frames at 1. Don't say "try directx 9, because I have already tried directx 9 and it got a little better of a frame rate, but it stuttered all the time. Why is this happening? I have installed the latest rivers, and i have uninstalled and reinstalled Far Cry 3, I have checked and changed all of my graphics card settings, and none of them fixed anything at all, just the same old slow Far Cry 3. I have a lot of friends who have Radeon 7000 seris graphics cards with the same problems I have. Is Far Cry 3 just poorly optimized? Or will they patch it later and release a new driver update to fix it? I got Far Cry 3 because I got it free with my graphics card, since they had the deal going on were people purchasing Radeon 7800 series graphics cards got it free, and I was looking forward to playing it, but it's unplayable at these speeds unless I switch to low settings, and I do not like play games on low settings.
I'd like to know the answer to this as well - I also got the game free with a Radeon 7800, part of an all-new computer, and have exactly the same problem with framerate. I've experimented with all the video settings with no improvement. I know it's not a bad computer because it runs Skyrim beautifully.
On the one hand it was free, but I was really looking forward to this after Far Cry 2, so it's a bit of a joke if it doesn't work on a video card they've tied it in with.
I have a 680 & runs fine on ultra with Vsync on 1 frame buffered 1 but zero AA. MSAA of any sort just kills it for me, so maybe try turning it off. I get people saying try DX9, but am I the only person who finds DX9 terrible & actually runs worst than DX11 ?
Like some other players have said, there are a number of settings in FarCry 3 which can affect performance.
My advice to you is to set everything on the lowest setting (apart from your preferred resolution). And then increase all settings incrementally. Usually it's the Post FX settings (Anti-Aliasing for example) that drags down the framerate. What are the highest settings you can get without the frame rate dropping too low?
Problem = Dunia Engine and UBI soft continuing to use such junk game engines. If they only had the brains to go back to cryengine engine everyone would see a major improvement.
So funny many games out there right now look and run 10x better then Far Cry 3 even with low quality hardware... I can run BF3 on ultra and get 50-60 FPS and looks amazing on a GTX560 AMD FX-6100 But yet have to edit files in far cry 3 to turn off Post FX and run everything else on medium or low just to get 50 FPS? LULZ? Not to mention all the graphical bugs within the game.
UBI Ditch that poor excuse of a game engine and go back to cryengine or at least create or use something better and more competent please. Why you guys didnt learn from your first mistake using it in Far Cry 2 is beyond me.
I think the thing you are missing is BF3 has by comparison, almost nothing to post process. Each leaf (edges, surfaces, shadows) is post processed in FC3, and while I don't play BF3, I've seen nothing that consistently offer the raw amount of individual "things" that need AA post FX support.
So BF3 has (again, by strict comparison) a heck of a lot less work to do to clean up the images than FC3 does.
Look at any jungle scene, mentally record the frame rate. Now find a spot where you can see nothing but sky, and note the frame rate.
With Vsync off, my by now "old" GTX580 gives me framerates in the 250-280 range on the sky, little if any work to do. Looking at dense foliage with buildings to de-alias, tires to make "round" bark to make look real as opposed to "jaggies used with artistic intent" and all the rest, the framerate drops to the 70's with Post-FX set to medium. Ergo, I can run 60Hz Vsync with solid lock-step performance, things look mighty good, but still well below the visual intensity of running everything completely maxed out. Max out is PHENOMINAL in FC3, Flag poles have no jagies AT ALL, the flags waving in the breeze look like footage from a camcorder, the textures and leaves, including of course shadows, are near photographic quality.
But my 580 can't run maxed out with tolerable frame rates. The jump from Post-FX from medium to high is so great, even (2) cards in SLI aren't capable, and I doubt 3 cards would do any better.
So I believe (with a huge background in video gaming including graphics card design, I was an engineer at one time) trying to compare BF3 to FC3 as some sort of bechmark in video performance is where the error lies in your equation. There is simply more work to be done in FC3, and you could argue that if it's so much work, why design a game that can't run maxed out on current hardware, all I can say is this has been the way of things for the last 20 years of PC gaming. The game developers are always pushing the envelope.
Back when I fell in love with FC1 (except the stupid trigens and "bio-engineered" mutants), I so badly wanted a video card that could handle it. I finally got one that would run it as full maxed as the game would allow, but this was after many many full play-throughs at less than optimal settings, but I still had fun. Now even my laptop can run FC1 fully maxed, but it really doesn't matter to me because FC2 and FC3 are so much better in every way, that I'm able to leave FC1 behind.