Crysis 3 Performance, Benchmarked On 16 Graphics Cards

Status
Not open for further replies.

will1220

Distinguished
Nov 9, 2009
52
0
18,640
1
Why would you include the top of the line amd, middle of the line intel (ivy bridge i5) and not the top of the line ivy bridge i7 3770k?????????
 

hero1

Honorable
May 9, 2012
841
0
11,060
29
Time to make an i7 rig and pass my current system to wife because Crysis demands. Nice review and the 13.2 driver from AMD has really improved frame variance for their cards. Keep it up red team so green team can do the same. The better the drivers the better our gaming experience. After all, we pay pretty penny looking for better experience. Cheers!
 

Immoral Medic

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2010
73
0
18,640
2
I completed this game in 4.5 hours. I gotta say, having great graphics does NOT make a good game. It's sad when all you have to attract customers is "Best Graphics in a Game Yet". BUYBUYBUY. Don't even get me started on the absolutely terrible multiplayer...
 

xpeh

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2011
341
0
18,790
1
The only thing this game has going for it are the graphics. I beat the game in under 6 hours. The story was simply tossed in the gutter. They should have stuck with fighting the Koreans instead of introducing Aliens.
 

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Moderator
toms, your method of monitoring frame times must be screwed up, the cards vary wildly and at some point the lowly gtx 650ti was showing an unbelievably good score, even better than the gtx 670. There is something wrong with your testing method. I have also noticed the same thing in previous benchmarks where you measured frame time, not consistent results. Please look into this.
 

JJ1217

Honorable
Jun 1, 2012
1,760
0
12,160
103
[citation][nom]xpeh[/nom]The only thing this game has going for it are the graphics. I beat the game in under 6 hours. The story was simply tossed in the gutter. They should have stuck with fighting the Koreans instead of introducing Aliens.[/citation]

While its no where near to Crysis 1, I don't understand the hate for C2/C3's campaign. I thought it was amazing, good fun, while crysis was just too serious. I loved jumping around in c2, sliding through hallways, spamming my shotgun.

I do think that C2 and C3 shouldn't be C2 and C3, if you know what I mean, like it should be called something different, not in the same Crysis franchise.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]toms, your method of monitoring frame times must be screwed up, the cards vary wildly and at some point the lowly gtx 650ti was showing an unbelievably good score, even better than the gtx 670. There is something wrong with your testing method. I have also noticed the same thing in previous benchmarks where you measured frame time, not consistent results. Please look into this.[/citation]

The method is fine, but the graphics load has a lot to do with the results. It's not cut and dry.

Were writing an article around it this month, it should explain a lot.
 

s3anister

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
679
0
19,060
37
Cool article but every time I see an "ultra-mega-(insert specific game here)-gpu-performance-showdown" type article I can't help but feel that they are always lacking in comparison to older cards. It'd be nice if there were at least a few last gen cards tossed in for reference. Not everyone decided to upgrade from their HD 6970s or GTX 580s.
 
there was something more into fx8350's 'higher' performance after all. proof that average fps don't tell the full story.
i hope crytek can fix this with an update.
i can totally see this game becoming a benchmark staple very soon. :D
 
The first graphics benching AA with GTX670???? Whats up with that?

How can the minimum FPS be 30FPS but the average is 24 FPS?

And its a little odd that the min FPS is so close across the the board... Explain?
 

JonnyDough

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2007
2,230
0
19,860
29
Just like Crysis 1 and 2, I still don't care. I play TF2, Skyrim, and any other game that isn't brand new because I refuse to pay $60 for a game that I can't return to the store and I don't have time to play all the titles out there I want to anyway. Anyone who has to jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon doesn't understand what "good gameplay" is.
 
[citation][nom]JonnyDough[/nom]Just like Crysis 1 and 2, I still don't care. I play TF2, Skyrim, and any other game that isn't brand new because I refuse to pay $60 for a game that I can't return to the store and I don't have time to play all the titles out there I want to anyway. Anyone who has to jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon doesn't understand what "good gameplay" is.[/citation]

Some people don't understand that peoples opinions/gameplay/genres are different.
 

lighter17

Honorable
Aug 14, 2012
209
0
10,710
22
...serious enthusiasts will want a Core i7. Crysis 3 appears to be one of those rare games optimized for multi-core processors, as evidenced by the six-core Sandy Bridge-E's strong result compared to quad-core Ivy Bridge.
You really can't draw that conclusion from the test you've done. In addition to more cores (and HT) the 3690X has a higher turbo speed, more cache and quad channel memory going for it. If the i7 you're referring to is the 3770K you should have used that in your test along with a similarly clocked i5-3570K. The performance advantage that the 3690X offers is hardly worth the massive price premium, even for enthusiasts.
 

Hazle

Distinguished
Oct 28, 2011
1,327
0
19,960
263
[citation][nom]mouse24[/nom]Wonder if theres tessellation under the ocean in this one to.[/citation]
waiting on the verdict for that one as well. no way no one's not gonna do this after all that report on C2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts