Maxing out Crysis 3?

[ambam]

What kind of GPU setup is required to run Crysis 3 on it's highest possible settings (including AA/AF) on 1920x1080? Someone told me that two GTX 680's in SLI are required for smooth framerates.

Crysis 3 has overtaken Metro 2033 as the ultimate GPU killer.

 

[DragonClaw]

Max Crysis 3 = Empty Pocket. 😛

For 30+ fps, one 680 should be enough though. I think. By the way, this game looks awesome even on Low Preset. It looks better than PS3.

 

[OwensJ480]

Here is my complete set up and I just ran FRAPS with Crysis 3 today. I have everything maxed out, although, I've turned Vsync off and AA at 1x. Should give you an idea of what it should take though. I would be willing to be 2x GTX 680's would be able to max everything with an average of 100fps.

My set up gets a low fps of around 40 with an average around 50-60. Extremely playable for me.

AMD FX-8320 8 core @3.5GHz
ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z mobo
16GB Patriot Division 2, Viper Extreme RAM @2400MHz (Far more thane enough for the game)
1x GTX 680
Seasonice Platinum 860w PSU

 

[HEXiT]

regardless of your card use fxaa for the least hit in performance.
i didnt know amd cards could use fxaa at such a low overhead till i ran it on crysis 3

 

[ambam]

According to benchmarks, a single GTX 680 runs Crysis 3 on fully maxed out with an average of 40+ fps with AA turned off, and ~30 fps with AA turned on. Although there can still be some slowdowns and lag spikes.

What about on 2560x1600?

 

[simon12]

Note no CPU can maintain 60+ solid and it loves AMD and hates dual core

 

[Megam]

XD btw, i'm running crysis 3 maxed out without AA, on a i5-3570k @4 GHz and 2 7850s, and it gives me a good 50 fps 😉

 

[ambam]

I can run Crysis 3 on all max settings with my two antiquated HD 5870's, but I get extremely low fps and the game is barely playable.

I'm not sure what my framerate is, but I'm guessing it's below 20.

 

[OwensJ480]

According to benchmarks, a single GTX 680 runs Crysis 3 on fully maxed out with an average of 40+ fps with AA turned off, and ~30 fps with AA turned on. Although there can still be some slowdowns and lag spikes.

What about on 2560x1600?

Be sure to check what they're running the card with. I'm sure you know, but games don't utalize only the GPU. Someone also posted on here that the game works very well with AMD processors. Idk if that's true, but my AMD FX-8120 increases performance alot. Like I said, with my rig I'm running 60fps with a low of 50 on a GTX 680 and I can't even tell when the frames drop. Although, that's with AA off. Not that it technically matters, but I'm even running my GTX 680 in a PCIe 2.0 land

 

[lostgamer_03]

Using an ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II I've done some benchmarking with Crysis 3. The average FPS at ultra settings with 4x SMAA on 1920x1080 resolution I scored an average of 45 FPS.
The GTX 670 is running at stock clocks. The CPU used is an i5-3570.

Even though the game is supposed to be heavily AMD favored it seems as if it isn't, AMD hardware doesn't stand out and outperform Nvidia GPUs or Intel CPUs.

Though we might see some driver updates that might do the trick, so AMD is ahead.

I did a little video in the beta, you might wanna check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1_zPKa-AU

 

[Stringjam]

I think as much as graphic quality has improved, the need to play at "max settings," especially depending on how "max" the developer lets you get, is less and less important.

If seems like PC gamers with high-end hardware immediately start yelling "poorly optimized" if they can't run games on max. Poorly optimized what? Because the developer didn't create the game to run specifically at 60+ on YOUR hardware?

That is a very uneducated response. In response, a developer scales back what they allow their engine to serve up as 'max settings' and suddenly everybody thinks it's great.

Then everybody is like "I can run this game on max - - what a great game engine!"

The fact is, the very best of our current hardware is not capable of rendering playable framerates for what high-end engines can deliver.

 

[simon12]

Does anyone know why 1 of my pictures has been replaced with "No deeplinking please"? or what deeplinking is? Or why the other one is still there?

 

[OwensJ480]

Using an ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II I've done some benchmarking with Crysis 3. The average FPS at ultra settings with 4x SMAA on 1920x1080 resolution I scored an average of 45 FPS.
The GTX 670 is running at stock clocks. The CPU used is an i5-3570.

Even though the game is supposed to be heavily AMD favored it seems as if it isn't, AMD hardware doesn't stand out and outperform Nvidia GPUs or Intel CPUs.

Though we might see some driver updates that might do the trick, so AMD is ahead.

From what I read is that the game favors AMD CPU's, without caring much for the GPU. My set up I'm running is a AMD FX-8150 and a GTX 680 with everything maxed out keeping 60fps most of the time with lows of 50fps. My set up seems to strengthen that statement since most benchmarks are showing a GTX 680 with much lower fps than that.

 

[lostgamer_03]

From what I read is that the game favors AMD CPU's, without caring much for the GPU. My set up I'm running is a AMD FX-8150 and a GTX 680 with everything maxed out keeping 60fps most of the time with lows of 50fps. My set up seems to strengthen that statement since most benchmarks are showing a GTX 680 with much lower fps than that.

It does seem as if it supports all 8-cores

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/galerie/2046280/#?a_id=1056578&g_id=-1&i_id=2047132

Though I don't see why you should have significant better FPS than I do. AMD FX 8350 has way higher clock rates than the AMD FX 8150.

Bulldozer is 15% slower than Vishera according to AMD.

If we do the math

AMD FX 8350 4.2 GHz and AMD FX 8150 3.6 GHz

difference in clock rates:

4.2 / 3.6 = 1,166666..

1,1666666 - 1 = 0,166666...

0,16666 * 100 = 16,6666%

That performance gap between the FX 8350 and the FX 8150 means that the average FPS will fall to:

1 - 0,16666 = 0,83334

58,6 * 0,8334 = 48,833723

So now we take 15% more from the average FPS, because of the old architecture

1 - 0,15 = 0,85

48,833724*0,85 = 41,5086654

Now, you do have a slightly better GPU than me, not by much though.

The average FPS of the i5-3570 in these tests were 50,5.

Sorry for this overkill response, I was just curious!

It doesn't seem if we have to rely on the numbers, that your CPU should make a big difference, it should perform worse acctually. It's only your GPU that i slightly better.

 

[ambam]

FRAPS tells me that on "high" settings with 1xMSAA i get 30-45 fps on average with my two HD 5870's.

With all of the settings jacked up as high as they can go, I get <20fps.

 

[lostgamer_03]

FRAPS tells me that on "high" settings with 1xMSAA i get 30-45 fps on average with my two HD 5870's.

With all of the settings jacked up as high as they can go, I get <20fps.

Crysis 3 sucks above 1 GB of VRAM, about 1,5 GB. That might be your bottleneck.

Fraps only give 1 number as average. So you might have done your benchmark wrong.

 

[Estacado]

i had something crazy with crysis 3 ....first time i played the game i couldn't play it but on medium settings and AA off , but after i played some missions i set the game on high and smaa x4 and got 50-60 fps wtf !!! my gpu is gtx 560

 

[Yozer34]

Just like Metro 2033.

I run it on Very High texture settings, with system spec at High, along with FXAA only and x16 AF... with my GTX 570 and i7-2600K. Not sure what the FPS is, but it's really smooth for the most part.
Game looks pretty good though, just wish it was more optimized like Crysis 2 was.

 

[Estacado]

can gtx 680 handle next gen games ?

 

[bwrlane]

Sure. GTX 680 is the fastest single GPU card out there at the moment. Games of any "gen" will be designed to suit the hardware out there. There is no way that next gen's mainstream cards will be faster than the GTX 680. It usually takes several generations for the fastest card of any generation to be too slow to handle modern games.

Of course, it depends what you mean by "handle". You can always reduce demands by turning down the settings. There's an argument that the GTX 680 can't even handle this gen's games. Personally, after buying my GTX 680 and expecting great things, I found the performance on max settings in modern games totally inadequate, so I bought another one. It's pretty good but you still get slowdowns.

 

[Estacado]

what about the upcoming gtx 700 series ? i think its for the next gen games

 

[bwrlane]

what about the upcoming gtx 700 series ? i think its for the next gen games

The GTX 680 won't be as fast as the fastest 700 card but will be far faster than the mainstream cards. Just like the GTX 580 today. It is perfectly adequate for today's games.

 

[Estacado]

the missing thing in the gtx 680 is the ROPs it has 32 but it should be at least 48 like gtx 580 and 570

 

[lostgamer_03]

The GTX 680 won't be as fast as the fastest 700 card but will be far faster than the mainstream cards. Just like the GTX 580 today. It is perfectly adequate for today's games.

GTX 580 is about as fast as GTX 660. So I wouldn't say it's faster than the mainstream cards.

 

[lostgamer_03]

the missing thing in the gtx 680 is the ROPs it has 32 but it should be at least 48 like gtx 580 and 570

GTX 580 is made on the GF110, the fermi architecture high-end GPU.

GTX 680 is made on the GK104, the kepler architecture mid-range GPU.

Geforce Titan is made on the GK110, the kepler architecture high-end GPU.

Titan also has 48 ROPS, so it's kinda obvious.. With xx110 you get 48 ROPS.