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.

 

[OwensJ480]

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.

Lol you can get as theoretical as you want. If the game was built better for AMD technologies then it was built better that way. You can have the most extreme hardware in the world and a game can be programmed to not utilize it properly. Doing the math all day wont give significantly accurate results. Anyways, I apologize about the above post, I'm actually running a AMD FX-8320 (3.5GHz), not that it matters much. Nearly the same speeds, has a boost of 4.0 though.

 

[OwensJ480]

can gtx 680 handle next gen games ?

If you would of read the above postings, you would see the GTX 680 works just fine.

 

[ambam]

Extremely little information is available about the GTX 7xx "Maxwell" Nvidia GPU's.

I seriously doubt that we will see double performance compared to the GTX 680.

 

[HEXiT]

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?

your linking to a page that allows linking but they would prefer it if you dont.
next time try clicking the image and opening it in its own link then link that.

 

[HEXiT]

Extremely little information is available about the GTX 7xx "Maxwell" Nvidia GPU's.

I seriously doubt that we will see double performance compared to the GTX 680.

the titan was supposed to be the direct replacement for the 680 but because yeilds are so low nvidia decided to hold off the genreal release of the 780 until they can refine the production and get better numbers off a wafer.
its likely the gtx 780 will either just match the titan and the 770 will come in under it by about 5% or both will beat it between 5 and 10% in november. but both should cost half the price of the current titan. if they dont then amd are gonna have a field day, as they know they can undercut on price or out perfom at the same price point.
yep amd are bringing out stronger cards than nivida at the same price point... the 7870 for instance obliterates the 660ti in a lot of games. and not by just 1 or 2 fps.
so what ever nvidia arrive with amd want to be ready with a lower price or higher performing at the same price card.

 

[reedy777]

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.

no iv got a 680 you get 20 fps max its a fairly steady 20 but it does drop to 15 at some points. there's one point in particular on the campain that kill it. i'm running with 2 7970's @1100 mhz at the moment generally 45~60 fps but droping to 30 at some parts. really think you'll struggle to feed your eyes 60 fps silk with anything less than 3 flagships or 2 titans

 

[reedy777]

for reference my performance mark for 3d mark 11 is 15200 with the 2 7970's @ 1100 mhz on 13.2 beta. so i reckon you'll need p score of around 18000 to be bathing in silk

 

[OwensJ480]

no iv got a 680 you get 20 fps max its a fairly steady 20 but it does drop to 15 at some points. there's one point in particular on the campain that kill it. i'm running with 2 7970's @1100 mhz at the moment generally 45~60 fps but droping to 30 at some parts. really think you'll struggle to feed your eyes 60 fps silk with anything less than 3 flagships or 2 titans

That's odd. With my GTX 680 I get an average of 60fps with a low of 50 of maxed settings.

 

[ambam]

the titan was supposed to be the direct replacement for the 680 but because yeilds are so low nvidia decided to hold off the genreal release of the 780 until they can refine the production and get better numbers off a wafer.
its likely the gtx 780 will either just match the titan and the 770 will come in under it by about 5% or both will beat it between 5 and 10% in november. but both should cost half the price of the current titan. if they dont then amd are gonna have a field day, as they know they can undercut on price or out perfom at the same price point.
yep amd are bringing out stronger cards than nivida at the same price point... the 7870 for instance obliterates the 660ti in a lot of games. and not by just 1 or 2 fps.
so what ever nvidia arrive with amd want to be ready with a lower price or higher performing at the same price card.

About how much faster is the Titan compared to the GTX 680?

 

[reedy777]

That's odd. With my GTX 680 I get an average of 60fps with a low of 50 of maxed settings.

your not playing on max settings

 

[meowmix44]

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.

I played Metro 2033 maxed out but it looked like a kid took a crayon and personally drew the game.

 

[cgner]

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.

lol cant exactly disagree there. Though I feel like "maxing out" a game is not always something I want to do. 2X AA is all I need for instance, motion blur is annoying, post processing effects blur everything out, and shadow quality is good anywhere above blobs. So yea its becoming less and less important to me to max out the game, but I do care about frames at MY setting.

 

[reedy777]

lol cant exactly disagree there. Though I feel like "maxing out" a game is not always something I want to do. 2X AA is all I need for instance, motion blur is annoying, post processing effects blur everything out, and shadow quality is good anywhere above blobs. So yea its becoming less and less important to me to max out the game, but I do care about frames at MY setting.

if just playing any old game is what your into. there's a consol for that.

but i feel that it is important to show support to ppl who strive to push things further.
otherwise we'll, end up with the same thing that happenned with the cod series. modernwarefare came out and it never got any better.

the truth is i downloaded black ops 2, i didn't play for more than 10 minutes it was that bad.

if your a man with a life, the time you allocate yourself to play games has to be worthwhile. same old same old just doesn't cut it.
not for me any way i'm too busy to be doing the same thing twice or however many cods there's been since activision ripped off the talent behind the first game and sold it out.

money over quality = profit that is until you've bleeched it and theres nothing left

you won't find me shepping that band wagon! SUPPORT NEXT LEVEL!!!

 

[ambam]

According to what I've read, two GTX 680's in SLI will run Crysis 3 on it's highest possible settings and get between 30-60 fps at all times.

 

[bigdaddydiesel]

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.

I would say so because I have two XFX 7870 Double D Black Editions overclocked and I am getting about 10-14 frames per second at the beginning of the game. Might have to get another XFX 7870 Double D Black Edition. 😉

 

[Daemon9994]

no iv got a 680 you get 20 fps max its a fairly steady 20 but it does drop to 15 at some points. there's one point in particular on the campain that kill it. i'm running with 2 7970's @1100 mhz at the moment generally 45~60 fps but droping to 30 at some parts. really think you'll struggle to feed your eyes 60 fps silk with anything less than 3 flagships or 2 titans

That's odd. With my GTX 680 I get an average of 60fps with a low of 50 of maxed settings.

What's Ur Computer Specs ?

 

[Emilvl2]

I got a ASUS GTX 680 Direct CU II oc 2gb Clocked @ 1200 via ASus Tweak and i manage to get 55-62 FPS on Very High Max settings 1920x1080 with SMAA x1 and Antisotrophic Filtering @ 16 X No lags and seems fluid ... but i wish it could go further like 70 or 80 but im quite happy with 55 - 62 Lolz and My CPU and Video card was working like a fckn horse Lolz with VCard Temp reaching 68C and the 1st time i see my GPU goes past 60% Utilization on a game LOlz

so i think a Single ASUS GTX 680 Irect CU II on max OC and 75% fan will run this game flawlessly on VERY HIGH Settings with good filtering and motion blur 😉

so you dont really need a titan or GTX 680 on SLI to run this game on high settings

 

[ambam]

I have the GTX 680 MSI Lightning, two of them in SLI.

My rig is being built for Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3.

BF4 is supposed to overtake Crysis 3 as the single most hardware-intensive PC game in history.

 

[Daemon9994]

I have the GTX 680 MSI Lightning, two of them in SLI.

My rig is being built for Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3.

BF4 is supposed to overtake Crysis 3 as the single most hardware-intensive PC game in history.

What aout an 670 SLI would that be good For BF4 ?

 

[ambam]

The BF4 gameplay demo was run on an HD 7990 Malta, which features two highly overclocked 7970 cores.

Certainly two overclocked GTX 680's in SLI would be as fast, if not faster than the AMD Malta.

 

[Daemon9994]

The BF4 gameplay demo was run on an HD 7990 Malta, which features two highly overclocked 7970 cores.

Certainly two overclocked GTX 680's in SLI would be as fast, if not faster than the AMD Malta.

Iam low on Budget building a new computer 1000-1400 $ ,
What's the best Setup ?

 

[HEXiT]

a gtx 780, intel 4770k 4-8 gigs of ram. more if your not just gaming. you should be able to build that for about 1100 depending on what extras you want to throw at it.

 

[Toesta]

So many conflicting opinions, so many uneducated guesses. I don't know how any of your PC's are setup in both hardware or software so i can't really make any assumptions of how good any particular game can run on your machines exactly.

One thing i can say though is that a lot of you people who might think you know what your doing with like 3 video cards (cough, sucked in, cough) you really need to learn a bit more about the way this hardware actually works before you go and waste money like that when i have a 700 dollar PC with ONE video card that can run crysis 3 better than that.

No I am not making this up, just informing those who are unaware that it is possible. I can tell that some people here may know what they're talking about. And by the way any more than 1 dedicated video card in your box just shows that you know nothing about PC architecture and are spending big to make up for it.

The guy at the computer shop doesn't tell me what to get, I tell him what i need. And before people go into the nitty gritty statitstics, i don't need to be convinced otherwise. You just need to convince yourselves. Honestly 3 video cards what a joke, I would use them in 3 PC's. I Wouldn't like to see your power bill. People like this have often no idea how these devices actually function and what they are actually capable of. I may be wrong about that particular person, but there's a lot more to PC building than CPU Mhz and GPU series numbers, FAR more.