64-bit Far Cry Performance

For the most part, 32-bit games run at the same speed or slightly slower under x64 Edition compared to 32-bit Windows XP Professional. And from what we've seen with titles that have native 64-bit binaries (e.g. Chronicles of Riddick), there aren't any real performance gains to be had there either. In order to find out if Far Cry was any different, we looked at two separate platforms: an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and an Intel Pentium D 3.2GHz. All benchmarks were conducted with an ATI Radeon X850 XT and at 1024x768 with Very High quality settings enabled.

We compared performance under 32-bit Windows XP, as well as x64 Edition, while running both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Far Cry under the latter. We used our standard Far Cry demo that we've used in all other reviews, and in order to isolate the performance differences from the extra content, we only looked at performance changes with the first 64-bit patch installed - not the Exclusive Content Update.

Far Cry 64-bit vs 32-bit Performance Comparison

First, we see that the difference between running the 32-bit binary in XP Professional and x64 Edition is basically nothing. Next, there's a modest performance gain seen by the Athlon 64 X2 when using the 64-bit binary - we see a boost of 4%. Note that this sort of a performance improvement isn't noticeable at all to the end user, but there is a numerical advantage.

Interestingly enough, Intel actually does a little better - showing a 6.5% increase in performance. It's tough to say exactly why Intel gets more of a performance boost here, other than assuming that for whatever reason, Intel is facing more register pressure in our particular benchmark.

We're just happy that there is any sort of performance improvement at all - but to those looking for major increases in performance by moving to 64-bits, it's less and less likely to happen.

Index 64-bit Far Cry Image Quality
POST A COMMENT

59 Comments

View All Comments

  • ViRGE - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    #16: Taken from the article "As we just implied, the 64-bit add-ons to Far Cry come in two separate packages. First, there's the actual 64-bit patch that installs and enables a native 64-bit binary to run under x64 edition. The second package is the AMD64 Exclusive Content Update that improves the actual content in the game."

    So AT only installed the 64-bit patch, which was the executable only, the test was not done with the content patch, and as a result the test was apples-to-apples.
    Reply
  • dougSF30 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    There may not be "extra content", but is the draw-distance increased?

    Other problems with this article, if one is looking to measure code speed improvement 32b vs. 64b:

    1) Should be run in low-detail, 640 x 480. Just like in CPU shoot-outs.

    2) Single-core CPUs should have been used.

    But again, the biggest *potential* issue is with any changes between 32b and 64b versions that do not fall into the "exclusive content" patch. Draw-distance is not content. What about other "all-level" changes? Are they affected by the first patch, or the second?
    Reply
  • Icehawk - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    It would be interesting to see if the added content did make a change to the FPS #s though. Reply
  • smn198 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    #14 Glad it was clear for you. Where does it say in the article which changes are in the 64-bit patch and which are in the Exclusive Content Update?

    Reading this I was lead to believe that running the 64-bit patch changed textures, view distances, etc for everything in the 64-bit version.

    "AMD listed the changes to the 64-bit version of Far Cry as follows:

    All Levels

    * Improved terrain textures
    * Increased view distance
    * Offset bump mapping added for rock and stone objects
    * More insects and birds"
    Reply
  • jediknight - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    I wonder if the video card drivers for XP64 are at par with their 32 bit counterparts.. I wonder if the performance advantage you get by going 64bit is negated by performance disadvantages in 64bit video drivers. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    #6, #10

    I wish you people would read the article. This is an apples to apples comparison. Please read the f*cking article.

    The article clearly states,

    "We used our standard Far Cry demo that we've used in all other reviews, and in order to isolate the performance differences from the extra content, we only looked at performance changes with the first 64-bit patch installed - not the Exclusive Content Update."

    The benchmarks are not including the extra content. Damn, and I thought PC enthusiasts could read. Read the article next time.
    Reply
  • saechaka - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    did anyone see the difference between intel and amd? thats why i bought a amd64, and whatever benefits i get elsewhere is a perk Reply
  • Lord Zado - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    #11, you don't need to justify your 64 bit processor because it likely allows all 32 bit games to run faster than on a 32 bit *cough* Intel *cough* processor. Now if you made the switch to 64 bit Windows already... Reply
  • L3p3rM355i4h - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    #10, exactly! It made a good looking game that much better, IMHO, better than Doom3. And it still runs better. Granted, the engine has been matured, but its possible they could have tweaked the AI also to take advantage of the 64 bit power.

    But maybe i'm just trying to justify my 64 proc after all ;)
    Reply
  • smn198 - Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - link

    #3,5,8
    I am impressed. If I understood correctly this is not comparing apples to apples. There are performance gains whilst having higher detail. That is great!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now