Crysis 3 Video Card Performance and IQ Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,603
Crysis 3 Video Card Performance and IQ Review - We have a full-look at Crysis 3 with the new patch that just released. We take it through its paces on eight GPU configurations. We find out what's playable, how it performs apples-to-apples. We look at all the AA modes compared in performance and image quality, and we find out if this game is a step forward for PC gaming, or a step backward.
 
I wonder why TXAA sucks so bad in this game. It's been used in other games to great effect, but apparently here it looks blurry and has a massive performance hit. Maybe drivers/patches can help it? Dunno.
 
wow - when I got my 680gtx - I was really happy that I could finally crank up my games to full resolution with all of the eye candy maxed out (2560x1600). Now I guess I need to look for a 2nd card to SLI.
 
Yikes... 7950 is really getting thrashed here. It's strange that the 7970 GHZ is on par with the 680 while the 7950 Boost gets completely demolished by the 670. I hope performance will improve significantly with future drivers.
 
...the original Crysis was a revolution in graphics at the time, and Crysis 3 just feels like it is a small leap frog jump graphics-wise.
<snip>​
We want to see developers to continue to push the PC platform forward and go all out giving us the best visual quality experience possible. Crysis 3 is in this category just like Crysis 1...
Click to expand...
Hmmm...
 
Damn, this game makes some nice shadows. I agree with the article though, Crysis 3 - while probably the best-looking game right now, just isn't such a huge leap over the first game. I actually just bought Far Cry 3, and compared even to the single player demo of the original Crysis, it's not all that different-looking.
 
Top notch review guys, good job.

I played the original Crysis the other day and was surprised how dated it looked/felt.
 
And all this time I've been using SMAA 4x. I see no difference between SMAA 2x vs 4x from those comparison shots. Might as well use 2x and gain a few FPS like the author suggests.
 
If game's all became static, and graphics never exceeded DX9, there would be no need to buy new video cards and things would become very stagnant.
Click to expand...

Consoles and other fixed-hardware gaming devices will continue to push the industry forward, just not as quickly as PC gamers would like ;)

It's like a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Should GPUs improve in anticipation of new games, or should new games be coded in anticipation of new hardware? Consoles essentially do the former, with new hardware being finalized/released before any existing software is coded for it. I'd say Crysis does the latter, as did old-school PC games. Good times...
 
oshia86 said:
Top notch review guys, good job.

I played the original Crysis the other day and was surprised how dated it looked/felt.
Click to expand...

I re-installed it when I got my 680 GTX last year and was blown away. Still looks better than most games I've played recently. Diffrent' strokes I guess.
 
You can inject SMAA using SweetFX into any 32-bit DirectX game on Windows!

It's amazing for old titles that don't natively support AA!
 
Brent/Kyle,

I have a 7950, so I'm curious - why do you think it is suffering from driver issues, versus just being underpowered?
 
Kyle and Brent:
Thanks for the info, a lot to digest here.

Would love to know if anyone has tried high AA settings @ 1080p with 2 660s in SLI.
 
badpool said:
It's like a chicken-or-the-egg problem. Should GPUs improve in anticipation of new games, or should new games be coded in anticipation of new hardware? Consoles essentially do the former, with new hardware being finalized/released before any existing software is coded for it. I'd say Crysis does the latter, as did old-school PC games. Good times...
Click to expand...

IMO, it's a balance. If you make the game too intensive, it's unlikely that people are going to wait years for hardware to catch up just to play the game again. By then, they will likely have played through the game on lower settings and moved on. For instance, I have zero desire to play through Crysis again, although now I could probably turn the graphics up more than back when I played through it.

On the other hand, the onslaught of mediocre graphics from console ports is discouraging, as well. From what I can see, Crysis 3 is a good balance where the graphics are top-notch, but you can pretty much max the game out with a standard (1920x1080) resolution on high-end hardware. Medium-end hardware can turn down some settings, and higher resolution folks can go SLI/CFX.
 
badpool said:
I re-installed it when I got my 680 GTX last year and was blown away. Still looks better than most games I've played recently. Diffrent' strokes I guess.
Click to expand...

I did only play a few minutes worth. I also forgot that I was playing with all of the weapons unlocked and invincible. It's fun to just run at a humvee and blast it with the nuke.
 
hellokeith said:
Brent/Kyle,

I have a 7950, so I'm curious - why do you think it is suffering from driver issues, versus just being underpowered?
Click to expand...

I wonder if it is due to the low core clock of 925 on the 7950?
It would be interesting to see if the performance dramatically jumps if you overclock the core to 1050.
 
BatJoe said:
And all this time I've been using SMAA 4x. I see no difference between SMAA 2x vs 4x from those comparison shots. Might as well use 2x and gain a few FPS like the author suggests.
Click to expand...

I see a difference and I like 4xSMAA better, but I can't use it with SLI. :(
I guess it comes down to the monitor you're using to see a difference.
 
A couple of things I would have liked to see expanded on in this review were screenshots of differences between shadows at high vs medium since the review talked about a performance increase at medium. The other is the review mentions no performance difference between the low and very high texture setting, states it could be a bug but then shows no screenshots between low and very high to see what the deal is. Kind of left one hanging on those two things.
 
WorldExclusive said:
I see a difference and I like 4xSMAA better, but I can't use it with SLI. :(
I guess it comes down to the monitor you're using to see a difference.
Click to expand...

You must have great eyes. And you probably would have to have AMAZING eyes to notice the difference in motion.
 
BatJoe said:
You must have great eyes. And you probably would have to have AMAZING eyes to notice the difference in motion.
Click to expand...

Not in motion, but on the last level, in the open water area between the AA objectives, I see a difference.
Maybe it's not as noticeable on the jungle levels.
 
Great article! Been waiting on this one. I'm glad to see you need a GTX680 or 7970 to play at max settings at 1920x1080. Always nice to see a new game come out that actually justifies spending $400 on a video card.
 
I guess this should put an end to all the people falsely saying that a single high-end card could handle any game on any single monitor resolution.
 
I'll admit I was quite disappointed in how this game runs on my 7950 which came bundled with the game. You'd think if it was in a bundle it would be able to run it maxed out, but not even close really.
 
elite.mafia said:
I'll admit I was quite disappointed in how this game runs on my 7950 which came bundled with the game. You'd think if it was in a bundle it would be able to run it maxed out, but not even close really.
Click to expand...

Why would that thought even cross your mind?
 
Thanks for the review guys.well worth the wait #counton[H] :)

Looks like i need crossfire:eek:
 
elite.mafia said:
I'll admit I was quite disappointed in how this game runs on my 7950 which came bundled with the game. You'd think if it was in a bundle it would be able to run it maxed out, but not even close really.
Click to expand...

I find that the 7950 runs it pretty decent actually @ 2560x1600. FXAA, 16xAF, Very High textures, Medium motion Blur, Lens Flare On, High all other settings. Trick is you need to OC to see solid frame rates. Not maxxed out, but still pretty decent settings.

Performed test at stock 900/5000 and at OC of 1150/7000. Safties Off level from start scene for several minutes following similar path.

Stock:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
45963, 1116936, 24, 56, 41.151

OC:
Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
53371, 972401, 33, 77, 54.885
 
Nuby1Canuby said:
I wonder if it is due to the low core clock of 925 on the 7950? It would be interesting to see if the performance dramatically jumps if you overclock the core to 1050.
Click to expand...

it could be drivers. powertune throttling could also not be allowing the HD 7950 boost to run at 925 mhz consistently. But AMD does have its work cut out.

to give an example the HIS HD 7950 iceq x2 boost runs at 950 mhz max boost consistently and is close to HD 7970(925 Mhz). a proper BIOS implementation with powertune allowing the chip to run at max boost clocks consistently is important.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/his_radeon_7950_x_iceq_review,18.html

you can see the HIS HD 7950 iceq x2 boost (25 fps) is 14% faster than HD 7950 boost edition (22 fps) . 25 mhz higher boost clocks won't give 14% higher fps. the regular HD 7950 boost rarely runs at 925 mhz consistently with power control at 0%.
 
My GTX 560 Ti is really starting to show its age with this title.

At maximum settings (save for shadows on high) with 2x SMAA and 2x AF, 1600x900/1680x1050 are unplayable. But setting a custom resolution of either 1540x867 or 1483x834 will be very playable and smooth, depending on how strenuous a given scene is. Even with GPU upscaling to 1920x1080 at these resolutions the game is still absolutely breathtaking in places. Figured I'd share my results for those who still own older cards.

Time to start saving for a 660Ti, it seems. Great review as always, guys. :)
 
Last edited:
spintroniX said:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but why no results for the Titan?
Click to expand...

We had 8 card configurations compared in this evaluation, quite a lot of evaluation for one article which took a great deal of time. I will be doing a TITAN follow-up article, and Crysis 3 will be included in that article, so if you want to see how TITAN can do in this game, stay tuned for that article.
 
Brent_Justice said:
We had 8 card configurations compared in this evaluation, quite a lot of evaluation for one article which took a great deal of time. I will be doing a TITAN follow-up article, and Crysis 3 will be included in that article, so if you want to see how TITAN can do in this game, stay tuned for that article.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I look forward to it.

Great review, as always :)
 
I'm not gonna lie, I prefer the pseudo-cinematic blur of TXAA.

Not many will agree with me, but after switching back and forth many times to make sure my brain wasn't playing tricks, I think the TXAA shots definitely have more of a CGI look to them than the "THIS IS VIDEOGAME!" hyper-sharpness of the other AA modes.
 
Excellent article. Thank you. Now I'm pretty much convinced I won't replace my GTX 580s until the 7 series Nvidia cards, or whatever high end GPU AMD releases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top