Why does this game stutter so much?

[Drillbo Baggins]

I've looked all around google for different solutions and none of them work. I am on a ryzen 5 2600, msi rtx 2060 gaming z, 16gb ram. None of my other games stutter like this including division 2 when all graphics are maxed. Is it just the game engine or something? I can run witcher 3 with ultra hd graphics mod with all settings max and still get smooth 60 fps, i can run division 2 60 fps all graphics maxed, but nope, this game is just all over the place.

[Drillbo Baggins]

The game still stutters in areas where i would get way above 60 fps though so it's not purely a cpu power issue. Games with identical cpu requirements don't perform as badly as far cry 5 does, and that is because the game isn't as optimized as it should be.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

The game still stutters in areas where i would get way above 60 fps though so it's not purely a cpu power issue. Games with identical cpu requirements don't perform as badly as far cry 5 does, and that is because the game isn't as optimized as it should be.

Here's what the "minimum requirements" means: 1080p @ 30 FPS / console experience.

It's basically a marketing gimmick, the developers of the game want to sell the game to as broad of an audience as possible so they reduce the performance standards to 1080p @ 30 FPS because that's how the games run on consoles.

If they use 1080p @ 60 FPS they have to increase the "minimum requirements" and foreclose upon a larger potential audience / consumer-base.

Look at this: https://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/requirements/far-cry-5/15464

i5 2400 and a GTX 670? Yeah we are talking about a 30 FPS experience @ 1080p on low settings.

Never gauge how a game may perform by looking at the minimum system requirements. Always wait for CPU benchmarks to come out before picking up a title if youre not running the fastest hardware.

There is a lot going on in this game because of the open world environment. Expecting 60-90 FPS with an Ryzen 5 2600 @ 3.7? GHz is beyond wishful thinking.

You want better FPS go play an on-rails shooter like COD that doesn't have X number of random events that can happen. All of those random events? Yeah that all taxes the CPU. The moose emerging from the clearing and ramming the cultists meanwhile a helicopter emerges from behind the mountain? Yeah that all requires a lot of CPU overhead. It isn't the limitation of the engine per se, it's that Far Cry 5 has a lot going on.

Well I plan on getting a ryzen 5 3600x within the next month or two anyways so I should see a big improvement in how all my games run. All my games like witcher 3 with graphics mod, division 2, dying light, etc... run 60 fps smoothly except for far cry 5 so I just find it weird that far cry 5 is the exception.

[Drillbo Baggins]

I have 16gb corsair vengeance that can go up to 3000 MHz but I don't overclock it because this is the only game that I own that runs like crap. I also game at 60 fps so anything beyond that is just pointless since my monitor is 60hz. I use nvidia ultra low latency so input lag isn't an issue.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

I have 16gb corsair vengeance that can go up to 3000 MHz but I don't overclock it because this is the only game that I own that runs like crap. I also game at 60 fps so anything beyond that is just pointless since my monitor is 60hz. I use nvidia ultra low latency so input lag isn't an issue.

What frequency are you actually running it at? Because memory speed is very impactful, it may be a contributing factor for who knows 10 FPS even down low. It's not just that you will pick up 20 FPS up top over 100 FPS as in the video, you will also lose FPS down low, 30-40-60 FPS with slower memory.

Edit:

Next time dont skimp on your system, save and do it right. Sure you might save $50-100 on memory going with slower sticks but don't complain on the internet when the next game comes out and youre at 50 FPS with your Ryzen 3600.

To be honest with you, youre wasting your time upgrading from 2600 to 3600 (hundreds of dollars for maybe a 15% bump in performance?), you should just save and get whatever just came out AMD side if you insist on staying with them.

If you want better performance in games, Intel has way faster single core speed and can be overclocked way higher.

No fanboyism here, just stating facts.

My overclocked 8700k is 45% faster than an overclocked 3600.

Not sure how much 3600 is but 8700k can be had for $350.

Sure, you will save a few hundred dollars, but get prepared to bend over and kiss your ass goodbye with the next CPU + Memory intensive title that you get into.

AMD excels at productivity. If youre not building your PC primarily for that then youre wasting your time and should go with Intel if youre only doing gaming.

Amd is right up there with intel for gaming idk what you're talking about or where you got that information. The 3600x doesn't even need to be manually overclocked to get high fps (100+) since it has xfr automatic overclocking, and the overclocking capabilities are phenomenal, I've seen benchmarks. You can get a 3600x for $309 CAD ($232 USD) Whereas an 8700k is $500 CAD ($375 USD).

[Drillbo Baggins]

The 3600x im planning on buying is equal to an i7 8700k, with the 3600x being much cheaper, there is a much better price to performance ratio.Intel still has higher minimums but it's not high enough for me or anyone really to justify paying way more money for only like 10 fps higher minimums when the new ryzen 3000 series cpu's like the 3600x still get above 100 fps in just the minimums and basically the same fps on the averages and max between the 3600x and 8700k.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

The 3600x im planning on buying is equal to an i7 8700k, with the 3600x being much cheaper, there is a much better price to performance ratio.Intel still has higher minimums but it's not high enough for me or anyone really to justify paying way more money for only like 10 fps higher minimums when the new ryzen 3000 series cpu's like the 3600x still get above 100 fps in just the minimums and basically the same fps on the averages and max between the 3600x and 8700k.

8700k is still faster than 3600, both chips overclocked.

https://youtu.be/vzjFxFljbVE

This time around don't skimp on the memory whatever you go with.

A pretty biased benchmark since the frequency on the intel is way higher, so technically yes, the intel overclocked is faster, but only by like 10 in most cases, and im not spending 200 more dollars for only 10 more fps when the ryzen gets the same performance for much cheaper. And with intel to get those speeds, you'd need to watercool or buy a very expensive air cooler, so that drives the cost up much further. Amd is dominating intel at the moment and it would be foolish to buy intel seeing as how more and more games are starting to use more threads. Amd is the future, intel is falling behind.

Also, this isn't the 3600x its the 3600. The x version gets like a bit more fps than the 3600 non x while at stock, because higher frequency out of the box, and I will not be overclocking the 3600x when I get it because the gains are pretty small while manually overclocking since xfr automatic overclocking. That's why ryzen processors have such good performance while not overclocked, because xfr does it all for you. I also didn't skimp on the memory. My ram kit is capable of 3000MHz and the sweet spot for ryzen cpu's is 2666MHz, the jump from 2666 to 3000+ MHz is only around like 3 fps higher compared to the 20 fps increase from 2133 to 2666. Corsair vengeance is some of the best ram you can buy for your system.

This video mostly just proves how much intel is a rip off. You pay more money for identical performance.

[FerSantander]

It is a classic problem that began the Dunya revision of Far Cry 3, specially when driving, as the game has to load assets more quickly as you move through the open world.. Game is still consolized, so you understand it straight away.

Also, some enlighted one at Ubisoft had the brilliant idea of making the game autosave for you anytime you pick anything. Those are the shutters you notice when grabbing stuff, but the rest of those annoying shutters you notice as stuff is loading is just because of that, asset loading issues regardless you have the game installed on a ssd.

Also, you need a minimum of either 6 physical cores or 4cores/eight threads to run the game properly. Classic i5 four core cpus can't handle games properly anymore, let alone a cpu bound one like fc5.

Unparking cores won't also help with the shutters in FC. I have a i74790k, 16GB Ram, 970G1 etc etc blahblah, and still get the shutters you speak about with all 8 threads unparked, let alone when driving, so you can laugh hard at all these ♥♥♥♥♥ telling you your rig ain't good for this game. It is the Dunya engine indeed, since the Far Cry 3 version for PC.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 FerSantander：

It is a classic problem that began the Dunya revision of Far Cry 3, specially when driving, as the game has to load assets more quickly as you move through the open world.. Game is still consolized, so you understand it straight away.

Also, some enlighted one at Ubisoft had the brilliant idea of making the game autosave for you anytime you pick anything. Those are the shutters you notice when grabbing stuff, but the rest of those annoying shutters you notice as stuff is loading is just because of that, asset loading issues regardless you have the game installed on a ssd.

Also, you need a minimum of either 6 physical cores or 4cores/eight threads to run the game properly. Classic i5 four core cpus can't handle games properly anymore, let alone a cpu bound one like fc5.

Unparking cores won't also help with the shutters in FC. I have a i74790k, 16GB Ram, 970G1 etc etc blahblah, and still get the shutters you speak about with all 8 threads unparked, let alone when driving, so you can laugh hard at all these ♥♥♥♥♥ telling you your rig ain't good for this game. It is the Dunya engine indeed, since the Far Cry 3 version for PC.

I mean my cpu is most likely the main cause for my stutters and I'm getting a 3600x pretty soon but I also agree that the game engine that is used isn't very good. I'd say the problem is 40% my cpu, and 60% the game engine.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

A pretty biased benchmark since the frequency on the intel is way higher, so technically yes, the intel overclocked is faster, but only by like 10 in most cases, and im not spending 200 more dollars for only 10 more fps when the ryzen gets the same performance for much cheaper. And with intel to get those speeds, you'd need to watercool or buy a very expensive air cooler, so that drives the cost up much further. Amd is dominating intel at the moment and it would be foolish to buy intel seeing as how more and more games are starting to use more threads. Amd is the future, intel is falling behind.

Also, this isn't the 3600x its the 3600. The x version gets like a bit more fps than the 3600 non x while at stock, because higher frequency out of the box, and I will not be overclocking the 3600x when I get it because the gains are pretty small while manually overclocking since xfr automatic overclocking. That's why ryzen processors have such good performance while not overclocked, because xfr does it all for you.

This video mostly just proves how much intel is a rip off. You pay more money for identical performance.

Oh and you think youre going to be able to overclock the 3600 with anything less than a 240mm AIO?

https://www.overclock.net/forum/10-amd-cpus/1731492-ryzen-3600-high-load-temps.html

Just because Intel clocks higher doesn't mean that it runs hotter per se, it's all about how much voltage, wattage and current is running through the chip. If youre going to get a 3600 and run it a stock clocks and expect 8700k @ 5.0 GHz performance youre straight smoking crack.

Here's 3600 @ default clocks @ 120 FPS in Rise of the Tomb Raider and 150 FPS for the 8700k @ 5.0 GHz: https://youtu.be/vzjFxFljbVE?t=123

If you don't OC your chip youre wasting your time, xfr isn't "doing everything for you".

XFR 2.0 does not have a set upper limit so long as thermals are within the specified range you are getting pretty much the most performance you can get out of it without overclocking to dangerous levels. You just contradicted yourself by saying the 3600 won't get the performance levels an 8700k does at 5GHz. The video proves that it does, with the 3600 getting only like 15 fps less at most. Why do you think that the stock ryzen gets almost identical performance to that of a max overclocked 8700k? It's because xfr. If you read up on xfr and what it does, you would know how good it really is.

Sure in some games like shadow of the tomb raider, you can see the intel does get way higher fps, but that's a game engine flaw, not hardware, and in all the other games, you can see the ryzen is right up there with intel.

[HalloweenWeed (US)]

No stutter at all on mine:
i7-3930K (six-core, 12 thread, SB-E) (10-yr old!)
Asus Rampage IV Extreme mobo
Crucial MX500 SSD 1TB (game disk)
GTX 1080, 6 or 8GB (Asus)
1200x1980res.
16GB SRAM
High graphics preset

Buttery smooth 60FPS min.

Friend had stutter until he switched to SSD

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

XFR 2.0 does not have a set upper limit so long as thermals are within the specified range you are getting pretty much the most performance you can get out of it without overclocking to dangerous levels. You just contradicted yourself by saying the 3600 won't get the performance levels an 8700k does at 5GHz. The video proves that it does, with the 3600 getting only like 15 fps less at most. Why do you think that the stock ryzen gets almost identical performance to that of a max overclocked 8700k? It's because xfr. If you read up on xfr and what it does, you would know how good it really is.

Ryzen 5 3600 isn't getting the same performance as 8700k @ 5.0 GHz except for a handful of highly optimized titles where even at 1080p they weren't able to remove the GPU bottleneck.

Aside from Rise of the Tomb Raider, where 3600 is 118 vs OC 8700k's 150 FPS we have:

Ashes of Singularity (:43 mark):
3600 = 119,
8700k @ 5.0 GH = 138

Total War: Three Kingdoms
3600 = 119
OC 8700k = 138

Rage 2
3600 = 153
OC 8700k = 171

The Division 2
3600 = 153
OC 8700k = 175

World War Z
3600 = 180
OC 8700k = 210
(look at the 1% lows, 40 FPS difference, there's your stuttering!)

Apex Legends
3600 = 188
OC 8700k = 218

Far Cry New Dawn (Dunia engine, relevant here)
3600 = 112
OC 8700k = 130

Battlefield 5
3600 = 153
OC 8700k = 182

Total avg across 25 games:
3600 = 161, 116 1% low
OC 8700k = 183, 136 1% low

The titles you see compared where there isn't a difference are GPU bottlenecked even at 1080p, i.e. Red Dead Redemption 2, and others that don't show a substantial difference are extremely well optimized, i.e. The Witcher 3.

The 1% low difference is around 30 FPS in all of the titles. Youre experiencing stutter in Far Cry 5 and 1% low performance is the cause of that. So 30 FPS difference in 1% low between 3600 and OC 8700k.

But hey, youre going to save $150! You can go to Jack In the Box more now! Also, be sure to save another $100 with the cheapest memory you can get, get 2133 MHz memory instead of 3200 MHz memory, that way you can go to Jack in Box once a week for 6 months! ($10 per happy meal x 24 = $240).

Didn't this same logic land you in the situation you are in now where youre complaining about stuttering in Far Cry 5?

Einstein has a famous quote that is often used that I believe is applicable here "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome"

When you get those high fps values though, you aren't going to experience stutters and freeze ups, especially not with 60 fps gaming, and not at 144hz gaming where you have a monitor with gsync, it won't be freezing up like far cry 5 does. If you take the average fps numbers from all the games, the 8700k and 3600 are pretty much identical and it's not worth paying 250 dollars more for the same performance. In normal gaming with the fps counter turned off, you aren't going to even notice those 1% lows at that high of fps. I cant believe how many people intel has brainwashed into paying more money for same performance lol.

I can overclock my ram to 3000 if I wanted to like i've said many times, I didn't cheap out on memory, there's just no point in overclocking it right now.

The ryzen 3000 series has just launched, it hasn't even had much optimization, there isn't anywhere for the 8700k to go, there is however, much room for improvement with the new ryzen 3000 cpu's so given more time, the processors will be more optimized and those numbers will most likely increase.

[Drillbo Baggins]

There's very very few titles where intel gets 30 fps more in the minimums, but amd gets the same performance intel does in all other games, and when ryzen is already achieving very high fps numbers, it honestly doesn't even matter. And for 250 dollars cheaper, you can purchase a top of the line cpu cooler, and buy a top of the line ram kit, so you get better value when you buy the 3600, instead of the 8700k. Paying 250 dollars more for an older cpu that isn't going anywhere and performs the same (aside from like 3 games where it gets 30 fps more in the minimums), just doesn't seem logical when you won't even notice the minimums with your fps counter off since the fps is already very high.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

There's very very few titles where intel gets 30 fps more in the minimums, but amd gets the same performance intel does in all other games, and when ryzen is already achieving very high fps numbers, it honestly doesn't even matter. And for 250 dollars cheaper, you can purchase a top of the line cpu cooler, and buy a top of the line ram kit, so you get better value when you buy the 3600, instead of the 8700k. Paying 250 dollars more for an older cpu that isn't going anywhere and performs the same (aside from like 3 games where it gets 30 fps more in the minimums), just doesn't seem logical when you won't even notice the minimums with your fps counter off since the fps is already very high.

Dude like 70% of the titles compared in that vid there 8700k @ 5.0 GHz is between 20-30 FPS higher 1% minimums. If you want we can list all of the games per title and break them all down. I mean I'm ready to do that. You keep saying there is no difference and I just spent 10 minutes creating my last post showing you that there is a difference and why there doesn't seem to be a difference with a minority of titles (be they GPU bound or highly optimized). Even accounting for those titles the total avg. across 25 games is still:

3600 = 161, 116 1% low
OC 8700k = 183, 136 1% low

I mean that's per the video, it's right there, how you can see and read this and conclude there is no difference is beyond me. Is it a mental issue? ADHD? I don't want to be mean but youre saying there's no difference and there's clearly a difference, I spend the time to show you the difference and you still say there's no difference.

Fun fact: 9700k is as fast as 8700k and is $330 on newegg US.

9700k = $330
R5 3600 = $230

But hey man, you do whatever you want, don't come crying on here with title X 1.5 years hence why your 3600 is not performing so well.

Per your other comment, you can have hitching and freezing even with a G-Sync panel. I've been with a G-Sync panel since 2014 (PG278Q, now AW3418DW) and used to see hitching frequently with my older processor, i7 4930k @ 4.5 GHz +2133 MHz DDR3. I even see it on occasion now with 8700k.

As I said, 1% low performance disparity is where youre going to see stuttering, and a variable refresh monitor isn't going to smooth that out for you.

"I can overlock my memory if I wanted to so many times again nows, I didn't cheapens out on memories"

But you still refuse to answer the question as to what speed is your memory actually running at, I've only asked you like 3 times and you only answer "I can overclocks ma memories to 3000 MHz but I aint wanna too"

My ram is at 2133Mhz currently, I know it's low but it hasn't been an issue in any of my other games that I play. Funny how you are saying the 3600 is garbage when the 8700k is only getting 20 more fps on average, best case scenario. When you turn off the fps counter, it doesn't even become an issue because the fact is, the 3600 is a good cpu and to say otherwise would be incorrect.

You keep fanboying over your overpriced intel where it only gets considerably more fps (20 fps) in 3 games due to unoptimized game engines and ill enjoy my better value same performance 3600.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

My ram is at 2133Mhz currently, I know it's low but it hasn't been an issue in any of my other games that I play. Funny how you are saying the 3600 is garbage when the 8700k is only getting 20 more fps on average, best case scenario. When you turn off the fps counter, it doesn't even become an issue because the fact is, the 3600 is a good cpu and to say otherwise would be incorrect.

You keep fanboying over your overpriced intel where it only gets considerably more fps in 3 games due to unoptimized game engines and ill enjoy my better value same performance 3600.

Intel i7 8700k: 2017
AMD R5 3600: 2019

That it's faster than a CPU two years it's elder, I mean golf clap?

I've been enjoying i7 8700k @ 5.0 GHz performance since 2017, your might put something together that will be 15% slower at best now and you will save $100 and youre looking for some positive feedback?

"Intel only getting 5 FPS more in 2 games, I watching the video and that what it tellin me"

You mean the list of like 10 games I wasted 10 minutes of my life typing for your ADHD ass?

I didn't even include all of the games, in fact out of 25 games maybe 5 there is no substantial difference between 3600 and OC 8700k. It's actually closer to 30 FPS in the vast majority of games, with the highly optimized and GPU bound titles bringing DOWN THE AVERAGE to "only" 20 FPS difference across 25 titles. Think about it. You have like 5 out of 25 games where there isn't a substantial difference and the avg. is still 20 FPS difference, including 20 FPS difference in 1% lows.

Honestly youre stupid. I went from not wanting to argue with some random on the internet to genuinely being incensed by your complete ignorance.

You call me ignorant after you just insult me when I never insulted you? Hmmm. That doesn't really make sense but okay. I'll be happy with my 3600 because I won't be gaming on a 144hz panel, I'll be gaming at 60hz 1080p, which I'm more than happy with. So all those minimums you are talking about don't honestly matter to me.

[Drillbo Baggins]

引用自 Pure Mana Supreme (Strong)：

引用自 Mr.Bubz：

You call me ignorant after you just insult me when I never insulted you? Hmmm. That doesn't really make sense but okay.

Also, And now it finally comes out, "Mah rams is at 2133 MHz"

You think you can overclock that to 3000 MHz?! LOL.

Dude. You could ♥♥♥♥♥♥ the timings as much as you want and up the voltage to 1.5v but you will never get 2133 MHz sticks to run 50% faster @ 3000 MHz, even Samsung B Die sticks.

Keep dreaming moron.

So your problem has been sitting right in front of of you, I know that because of your ADHD me posting this video and you being quiet means either:

You don't want to acknowledge that your memory is garbage.
You want to justify spending $300-$400 upgrading your chipset and are in denial.
You don't want to lose an argument.

Or a combination of all of the above.

Here's that video again, just for you, special, because posting it here 3 times now you somehow managed to miss it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgY6OnpdNE

I said I can overclock my ram to 3000 because I can. I have it running at 2133 Mhz, that doesn't mean it's not capable of more because my kit is actually rated to 3000.