Recomended :NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
AMD Radeon HD5850
Lol....NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
AMD Radeon R9 290X
In this game yes it is faster.Average nope...Also doesn't address the fact that the 290 is faster. And not by a little bit. Reference 290's can also O/C a lot too.
And when you play the Firewatch or Dying Light The Following a reference GTX970 is better than a 290X.
So finding one game and claiming this card is a failure is just nonsense.
Or nVidia cards are just superior.
Farcry Primal has even gotten a graphical downgrade from 4:
No HBAO+, no PCSS, no God-Rays, no Hairworks
In this game yes it is faster.Average nope...
390 and GTX970 are after oc pretty much same maybe GTX970 is little bit faster(in 1080p)
few results after oc in 1440p(in 1080p GTX970 will have lead)
http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...0_g1_gaming_najtanszy_rywal_gtx_970?page=0,15
And no Gimpworks. Finally even Ubisoft realized that Gimpworks is not helpful. Or NV did not manage to bribe erm "support"this Game.
Latley Ubisoft Games are running rather smoothly on AMD. And all other games. PVZ2, the devision, cod Bo3.... Seems that finally the consoles GCN structure runs through to PC.
Look like Ubisoft dont know at all what the GPUs perfs are with their own game....
http://www.clubic.com/jeu-video/article-740121-3-far-cry-4-guide-technique.html
Minimum required :
Recomended :
Lol....
I hope people will soon realize how bad Gameworks is and how much it is killing the PC gaming industry.
I'm looking forward to this game, one of my best series. But none will beat Far Cry (1).
Not to mention most 390 can do 1150Mhz with a little overvolt. Some can run 1200 stable.So you take a 390 that won't even do 1100 and compare it to a 970 that does 1500? I wouldn't call that typical. That's more like an extreme case example.
Stock GTX970 in reviews runs at 1100-1200Mhz.A 970 can boost up to 1300 even without tinkerin by user, so if user overclocked it to 1500, then it is just 15% overclock.
I think you forgot that nvidia's boost technology doesn't really have a hard cap like amd does. For example reference titan x (as in all titan x sold) normally operates at higher frequencies than their max boost clock in nvidia's spec, it happens if the chip is good and all other parameters like power consumption and temp is under the limit.Stock GTX970 in reviews runs at 1100-1200Mhz.
Stock GTX980 runs at 1260-1280Mhz in reviews.
Non reference gtx970 cards are much closer to stock GTX980.
After OC its beat stock GTX980 pretty easy
I dont saying 390 cant OC,but in 1080P GTX970 is better after oc.in 1440P results are similar after oc and depends on game.
I would argue that the Primal is better because it doesn't have GameWorks. Nobody gives a crap about those settings if turning them on makes the game a slide show on even the fastest of cards. The game is already very demanding as it is right now. Needing the fastest card in the world to hit 60fps on 1080p is nuts. Imagine if they threw in GameWorks, too? Holy Hell.
Nvidia should optimize GameWorks to run well on their own hardware instead of rushing an unpolished, and unoptimized version of GameWorks into games. I'm glad it isn't in. Maybe Nvidia is learning from the backlash?
I know this and stock GTX970 have 1050mhz base clock and boost at 1100-1200Mhz.I think you forgot that nvidia's boost technology doesn't really have a hard cap like amd does. For example reference titan x (as in all titan x sold) normally operates at higher frequencies than their max boost clock in nvidia's spec, it happens if the chip is good and all other parameters like power consumption and temp is under the limit.
Second, i don't think cherry picking gtav benchmark is a good comparison, at max settings the game favors nvidia more.