Far Cry New Dawn PC System Requirements Announced

[WYP]

Settings and Framerate targets included.



Read more about Far Cry: New Dawn's PC system requirements.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Interesting to see them recommend SLI and Crossfire setups.
Based off that the only single card to probably hit 4k60 is the 2080ti. Don't think the Vega 7 will if it's similar to a 2080

 

[AlienALX]

My Fury X had no issues running FC5 smoothly @1600p. I can't see why this would be any more punishing, given it's basically the same game albeit rather burnt lol.

Will be a nice distraction from the stress.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Because 1600p is not nearly as demanding as 2160p60?

 

[AlienALX]

Because 1600p is not nearly as demanding as 2160p60?

It's more than 1440p, on a card with half of the VRAM of Vega 56. Then again in all honesty Vega 56 really isn't that much faster than a Fury X. Both were around 1070 levels.

I'm just saying that I think they may have exaggerated just a little bit on those specs. I reckon you could get way more than 30 FPS on a Vega... We'll see though, as I will be sure to test mine for y'all when it comes out. Already pre ordered it

 

[looz]

1600p as in 2560*1600? It's less than half the pixel count of 4K.

 

[grec]

It states the 4k60 settings are with the preset on Ultra, so you presumably could get 4k60 on Vega if you knocked a few less noticeable settings down (MSAA?)

 

[WYP]

It states the 4k60 settings are with the preset on Ultra, so you presumably could get 4k60 on Vega if you knocked a few less noticeable settings down (MSAA?)

Far Cry 5 didn't feature MSAA. I don't see why New Dawn would.

 

[grec]

It was just a guess at a taxing setting that loses value at 4K, I've not played any FC on a PC since 3, though I remember never really noticing much visual difference at all between half the settings in that.

 

[AlienALX]

1600p as in 2560*1600? It's less than half the pixel count of 4K.

On a Fury X with 4gb VRAM. I know 4k would be more taxing, I'm not saying it won't, I just feel they have exaggerated the necessary GPU grunt to run this at 4k. Yes it's a very pretty game, but it runs really well. Oh, and I was using a 2.4ghz CPU as well.

 

[Dicehunter]

Seeing as though it's the same Dunia 2 engine I can't see it running much differently to FC5.

 

[WYP]

Seeing as though it's the same Dunia 2 engine I can't see it running much differently to FC5.

Yeah, it should run similarly to Far Cry 5. I don't see the envelope getting pushed much further with this release.

 

[Dicehunter]

Yeah, it should run similarly to Far Cry 5. I don't see the envelope getting pushed much further with this release.

Maybe at a stretch they may use higher res textures or have an optional high res pack download, Not that the one from FC5 did much.

 

[AlienALX]

Here we go. Vega 64, OC to 1700mhz but without lowering the voltage (I cba) so it normally clocks to around 1650 on the P state.

Settings.

And the results were exactly what I expected.

Basically the 64 gives me almost exactly the same FPS as I got running the Fury X @ 1600p. A very smooth, playable experience.

 

[Dicehunter]

Basically the 64 gives me almost exactly the same FPS as I got running the Fury X @ 1600p. A very smooth, playable experience.

Very odd you are getting exactly the same performance as the Fury X at the same res considering even at 4K, Not your res I know just using it as a high res example, The Fury X is 15FPS behind the Vega 64 -

 

[AlienALX]

Fury X was 1600p not 4k.

I am quite surprised though that I got exactly the same results with my 64 @ 4k (edit, the same as the results you posted there), because I am using a CPU that only all core boosts to 2.4ghz (and that is with the bus @ 104). I didn't know that Turbo was disabled on this CPU. It's the first time I have seen Intel hobble a ES.

Mind you, once you drive up the res it simply doesn't matter, but I bet whoever benched those results wasn't using a slow CPU.



Specs are all in there. Only running 8gb ram too, but it games very well indeed.