^^ did you just ask a question and answer it yourself?
It would help if you listed what CPU you have.
And you need to understand these tests are just "averages" and is in controlled sections in which could perform higher or lower compared to what you will experience.
Um, sure. Is that at 1080p or 1920x1200 with all settings Very High and at TXAA 4X? You'd be lucky to get 25fps.
no I mean in fb2 games even at 4xmsaa, jaggies disappear as whole and looks pristine...but in cry3,even with 8xmsaa annoying jaggies still remains while cutting fps more than half...the game graphics is bit buggy and the 1st level is the most bugged one.
Is TXAA any good? Or is it garbage like FXAA which makes things blurry in my opinion
AMD cards do perform slightly better. As shown in this more detailed benchmark here
Why are the results so different?
I actually enjoyed it. Perhaps it's because I like the Predator Bow and doing nothing but stealth kills. Although I would still say Far Cry 3 was still more fun. Imagine if Crysis 3 was an actual open world game like Far Cry 3 but with the Nano Suit and Predator Bow.
Well TXAA isn't a post-processing effect like FXAA is. It's actual Anti-Aliasing. Although the performance hit is similar to 4xMSAA I think.
As for FXAA, the only games I've noticed that it blurs everything is Skyrim and BF3. Otherwise the Nvidia Control Panel version is pretty subtle.
I just guess my expectations was so hard after the hype of the game returning to the freedom like the first game. x)
I agree the game would benefits more if it was more open world like Far Cry 3
"To deliver hyper-realistic experiences, no other PC game demands more from the graphics processor than 'Crysis 3,'" said Cevat Yerli,
CEO and president, Crytek. "By choosing AMD Radeon graphics, gamers
experience 'Crysis 3' in stunning visual clarity, even when settings are
cranked to the max .The launch of 'Crysis 3' is just the beginning of
an exciting relationship with AMD and its Gaming Evolved program, which
will help fuel development of future CryEngine™ titles. Together, AMD
and Crytek will help redefine the PC gaming industry."
when settings are cranked to max amd cards are faster than nvi for giving best image quality with less perf hit as nvi card cant cope with high msaa due to lower bus bit and memory than amd cards....here's benchmark as amd cards are faster even when setting are cranked to max with 4xmsaa/8xmsaa-
Just from the limited cpu testing done here it appears apparent that this game is also very hard on the cpu and would also like to see the results of your suggestions.
I'm currently running 2x sli'ed gtx460's 2gb models @920Mhz which together give performance somewhere between a stock 670 and 680......but I'm hoping my 2700k @5.5Ghz will help to push performance a little higher than has been demonstrated in this review as cpu limitation does appear to be a considerable factor.
I have 6850 Direct Cu edition and I'm playing on 40+ fps without aa all setting except post precessing and shadows on max those two are at medium...was expecting much better use of dx11 with this game original crysis blew me away this was a bit meh honestly...
Playing at 1920x1080
That issue is caused by VSync. Crysis 3 w/ VSync drops frames to the lowest 0 number. Meaning if you're running at 46FPS it'll drop you to 40FPS, if you're at 39FPS it'll drop you to 30FPS. This is why it seems like a CPU limitation because your GPU isn't pumping out as many frames as it can. Disable VSync and your GPU shoots to 100% the whole way through.
This is true, people need to target their settings to have a solid 60fps, or target to have 30fps. The in between stuff is too jittery.
Also some people should note that MP isn't as graphically taxing as SP. With everything maxed on Very High and FXAA, I get 55-60fps pretty easy. But on the same settings in SP, it's more like 40-55.
Oh and I have an i7-2600k 4.4Ghz and GTX 680 running 1211/3420
My 955BE@4GHz and 6850 are really struggling with Crysis 3.
I've had to turn it right down to minimum to get a playable fps.
It really is an incredibly beautiful game. It's utterly stunning.
I dont get why they still sell this CPU (x4), it was the king of value a few years back but now it struggles. As for your 6850, 1GB of VRAM isnt enough to play at high resolutions.
I built my computer 2 years ago. It was great back then, but it struggles with today's games. I'm building a 3570K/7970 computer soon. It will be a nice step up from my current setup.
Im playing on very high, no AA, with C2Q 8300, 4gb, and GTX460 768mb OC , resolution 1440x900. With old 310.90 drivers it was full oaf stuttering , with new 314 whql it is fluid and newer below 35fps. Game is perfect optimized with few bugs and better than Crysis 1 and 2.
My i5-3570k OC'd to 4.33 GHz and Dual 7970s OD'd to 1125/1525 MHz is getting 45-65 fps at 1080 resolution at MAX settings (MSAAx8).
Wow, that's pretty impressive with just 768mb of vram.....I've just ordered this game so haven't played with my set up yet, I'm running 2X gtx 460's 2gb models @920mhz and a 2700k @5.5Ghz res of 19200x1200...that's about 1.7x the pixels your pushing. My cpu's more than adequate but my graphics is getting a little weak now...but having seen your figures I'm now confident I should get playable results.
I like to play at max settings to get the full visuals and drop or turn off AA and use FXAA and or lower the resolution if required.
Currently playing Farcry3 on ultra settings at 1920x1200 AA off, Fxaa on, and getting solid smooth 50-60fps....figuring if Crysis3 is playable for me I'll be able to hold my graphics upgrade off till next year and Maxwell at 20nm.
Why on earth are they using catalyst 12.2 beta 6 ?!?!?! catalyst 13.1 is out! if you are going to use the current nvidia video drivers, why on earth are you using 1 year old amd drivers? so nvidia biased....
wait, my bad. its 13.2....stupid brain. please ignore this......
Just tried with multi-GPU SMAAx2 and gained 25-30 fps, and I think it looks a little better too with better smoothing on vegetation and cables. Getting 65-95 fps now, time to turn vsync back on...
Answer to the 920 @ 4ghz question. It's ultra settings maxed all at 1080p. Don't even know anyone who uses 1200 res monitors.