Crysis 3 Tested, Benchmarked

By on February 28, 2013, 1:59 AM

The original Crysis raised the bar for PC gaming graphics in 2007 with stunningly detailed visuals that crippled even the fastest of rigs. Looking back at our first Crysis performance article, which was based on the game's demo, the fastest GPU available at the time (the GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB) struggled to average 30fps when running at 1920x1200 with high quality settings on DirectX 10.

Fast-forward to this day and Crytek has given us another opportunity to hammer some hardware with the arrival of Crysis 3. Like the second title, the third installment has been built with CryEngine 3, though that doesn't mean you should expect lousy PC features, as the engine has been updated with improved dynamic cloth and vegetation, better lighting and shadows, and plenty more.

Plus, PC gamers won't have to wait for graphical extras. Crysis 3 launched with high-resolution textures, DX11 support and plenty of customization options that set it apart from the diluted consoles builds. The result looks incredible and we get the feeling this will prove to be the game that folks who are heavily invested in multi-GPU setups have been waiting for. Here's hoping we aren't woefully disappointed.

Read the complete article.




User Comments: 62

Got something to say? Post a comment
LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

I think that this is the first game that justifies me getting a second 670 for myself. Curse you, o mighty CryEngine 3.

Alpha Gamer Alpha Gamer said:

Yeah, I'm surely not playing this game with my current setup.

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Bit disappointed with AMD's performance, let's hope for a quick driver updatae!

Guest said:

Yeah pretty pedestrian from AMD, they seriously need to get cracking on their drivers. This review doesn't even take into account their poor frame latency which may degrade performance even further.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

As for me... I'll wait till the game hits basement bargain. I have no intention whatsoever of spending serious dough on upgrades for a single (not so hot) game.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

Holy waaaaaaaaahh. This game looks straight up sexy. Now I'm debating whether to buy three identical 1080p monitors (my current one is too expensive to buy two more) or stick with my 1920x1200 and get a second 680. I def can't afford both.

1 person liked this | ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

Btw, excellent benchmark review Steven!

Guest said:

CPU benchmarks on Medium only? Come on, you guys said yourselves that the LOD and draw distance was too low on Medium, and those are the two most CPU-intensive parts. At least test the CPUs on high settings, if not Very High. Test at a lower resolution to avoid GPU-bound results.

Souvs Souvs said:

Bf3 plays best on amd cards which has better graphics than crysis 3....screenies below

Guest said:

The numbers throughout the review look low to me, Ive seen lots of other benches that suggest different results. Also it is all 16:10 --- we could use a nice 1080p column to those figures. :)

I've seen on youtube a video of a guy running 1080p at very high quality but no AA, and he gets in the mid 40s fps with a GTX 460 --- that's an old gpu, it only pushes ~900 gflop/s (compared to 2.5 tflop/s for an overclocked 660TI).

FXAA only uses ~2% overhead because it smooths edges on the final 2d output rather than true AA.. to me, I actually prefer it to MSAAx2 and think it is about the same as MSAAx4. MSAAx8 is going to ruin your graphics performance, even MSAAx4 halves the fps.

Guest said:

What? No i5-3570k or i5-2500k listed? I would have guessed those are the two most popular cpus out there!

Ray Marden Ray Marden said:

This setup isn't ideal for everybody, but the game runs great on CF 7950 OC (Gigabyte model.) It cost $600.00, but the current promotion gets you free copies of Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider. As I was buying these anyway, I tell myself these cards "only" cost $500.00. I sold off my old card for a $100.00 as well, further reducing the total cost.

I have not been experiencing the notorious micro-stutters and performance is terrific (2600K @ 5GHZ.) I have only crashed once, post-patch, and yesterday's beta drivers supposedly fix a crash due to the patch...

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Bf3 plays best on amd cards which has better graphics than crysis 3....screenies below

I dunno, I see the benches and everything but I have a friend who has duel 6950 I believe and he actually sold them for Nvidia 670's as Battlefield refused to stop stuttering or crashing, he has an x58 setup, 920, 8GB RAM and 900watt PSU.

Once he got the Nvidia's it stopped, incidentally, I know a few people who had trouble with crossfire setups and Battlefield, its strange though because as single cards, your right, ATI's play battlefield just as well if not better?

Guess it must be driver issues, he did update the drivers, in fact he completely re-installed windows xD

Guest said:

Your CPU section is insufficient, and I haven't experienced any problems, whatsoever, running this game at 1080p, Very High, FXAA using two 670s in SLI (which are enough to maintain 60fps at these settings at all points in the game that aren't CPU-limited, which unfortunately is a good chunk of the game), on 314.07. Rerun your CPU tests at the lowest possible resolution, and display the differences between meduium and very high at 1080p...dropping to medium drops fps from 45 to 30 in some sections of the game, where CPU-limiting is clearly the case (GPU utilization at ~50% and fps below 60 equals CPU limiting). Additionally, I've not seen CPU utlization over 70%; not sure as though this game makes the best use of quads, either.

JC713 JC713 said:

Bit disappointed with AMD's performance, let's hope for a quick driver updatae!

Even with the beta driver it still gets hammered by nVidia. Yeah, hopefully the WHQL version will bring better performance

DKRON said:

Did I miss something because in beta I was playing on high comfortably with my 7870 crossfireX, was sitting on about 75 the hole time

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Settings, resolution, sp vs mp, and final product textures.

JC713 JC713 said:

Bf3 plays best on amd cards which has better graphics than crysis 3....screenies below

that is your opinion.

What? No i5-3570k or i5-2500k listed? I would have guessed those are the two most popular cpus out there!

TechSpot never includes them. They should though. I am curious about the 3570K @ 4.5 GHZ

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

I'd wager that number is within 1-2 fps of the 3770K @ 4.5 as is the 2600K @ 4.5

siiix siiix said:

Really lol , I guess you have not seen crysis1 and 2, this one blows compared to the 2 and that blows compared to 1... whats the point even of good grafix if 90% plays in the dark... worst crysis yet

Guest said:

I've got a 920 at 4ghz and a gtx 480 o/c'd and it bends this game over and spanks it silly. It seems that if you have a high enough bandwidth graphics card a really good cpu clock speed is more important.

JC713 JC713 said:

I've got a 920 at 4ghz and a gtx 480 o/c'd and it bends this game over and spanks it silly. It seems that if you have a high enough bandwidth graphics card a really good cpu clock speed is more important.

what settings?

JC713 JC713 said:

I'd wager that number is within 1-2 fps of the 3770K @ 4.5 as is the 2600K @ 4.5

I bet so.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

"Assuming you clear that hurdle, you'll likely want dual GTX 680s or HD 7970 GHz Editions to play on very high at 1920x1200 or more."

But...but...but people told me multi-GPU setups @ 19x10 is stupid! You HAVE to have a resolution of 25x14 or higher!!! :|

+1

Their have been quite a few games @ 19x10 that have brought single GPU flagships to their knees over the years that could benefit from another card. If one card could always do the job at all single monitor resolutions, we wouldn't have had multi-gpu technology years before multi-monitor gaming setups came out.

DKRON said:

^^ did you just ask a question and answer it yourself?

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Your CPU section is insufficient, and I haven't experienced any problems, whatsoever, running this game at 1080p, Very High, FXAA using two 670s in SLI (which are enough to maintain 60fps at these settings at all points in the game that aren't CPU-limited, which unfortunately is a good chunk of the game), on 314.07. Rerun your CPU tests at the lowest possible resolution, and display the differences between meduium and very high at 1080p...dropping to medium drops fps from 45 to 30 in some sections of the game, where CPU-limiting is clearly the case (GPU utilization at ~50% and fps below 60 equals CPU limiting). Additionally, I've not seen CPU utlization over 70%; not sure as though this game makes the best use of quads, either.

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.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

I've got a 920 at 4ghz and a gtx 480 o/c'd and it bends this game over and spanks it silly. It seems that if you have a high enough bandwidth graphics card a really good cpu clock speed is more important.

Um, sure. Is that at 1080p or 1920x1200 with all settings Very High and at TXAA 4X? You'd be lucky to get 25fps.

Souvs Souvs said:

that is your opinion.
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.

JC713 JC713 said:

Um, sure. Is that at 1080p or 1920x1200 with all settings Very High and at TXAA 4X? You'd be lucky to get 25fps.

Is TXAA any good? Or is it garbage like FXAA which makes things blurry in my opinion

xneocea xneocea said:

Bit disappointed with AMD's performance, let's hope for a quick driver updatae!

AMD cards do perform slightly better. As shown in this more detailed benchmark here

[link]

Guest said:

Why are the results so different?

[link]

[link]

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Graphically yes, but gameplay wise its a fairly short mediocre shooter.

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.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Is TXAA any good? Or is it garbage like FXAA which makes things blurry in my opinion

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.

xneocea xneocea said:

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.

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

Souvs Souvs said:

"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-

[link]

[link]

technogiant said:

Your CPU section is insufficient, and I haven't experienced any problems, whatsoever, running this game at 1080p, Very High, FXAA using two 670s in SLI (which are enough to maintain 60fps at these settings at all points in the game that aren't CPU-limited, which unfortunately is a good chunk of the game), on 314.07. Rerun your CPU tests at the lowest possible resolution, and display the differences between meduium and very high at 1080p...dropping to medium drops fps from 45 to 30 in some sections of the game, where CPU-limiting is clearly the case (GPU utilization at ~50% and fps below 60 equals CPU limiting). Additionally, I've not seen CPU utlization over 70%; not sure as though this game makes the best use of quads, either.

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.

Mytholygy Mytholygy said:

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

theBest11778 theBest11778 said:

Your CPU section is insufficient, and I haven't experienced any problems, whatsoever, running this game at 1080p, Very High, FXAA using two 670s in SLI (which are enough to maintain 60fps at these settings at all points in the game that aren't CPU-limited, which unfortunately is a good chunk of the game), on 314.07. Rerun your CPU tests at the lowest possible resolution, and display the differences between meduium and very high at 1080p...dropping to medium drops fps from 45 to 30 in some sections of the game, where CPU-limiting is clearly the case (GPU utilization at ~50% and fps below 60 equals CPU limiting). Additionally, I've not seen CPU utlization over 70%; not sure as though this game makes the best use of quads, either.

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.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

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

PC nerd PC nerd said:

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.

JC713 JC713 said:

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.

1 person liked this | PC nerd PC nerd said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

CorvusCorax said:

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).

technogiant said:

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.

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.

TheinsanegamerN TheinsanegamerN said:

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....

TheinsanegamerN TheinsanegamerN said:

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......

CorvusCorax said:

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).

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...

Guest said:

Answer to the 920 @ 4ghz question. It's ultra settings maxed all at 1080p. Don't even know anyone who uses 1200 res monitors.

EXCellR8 EXCellR8, The Conservative, said:

Definitely disappointed with this "should-have-been-crysis-2-dlc" sequel, but it did keep me entertained for a little while and looked terrific of course.

Single non-OC 7970 ran it alright in Eyefinity using med-high settings, but there were definitely some performance hits... notably while driving the buggy in the mud/water while there was a lot of crossfire and enemy activity. Dynamic lighting and effects seem to bog it down a little too but it was plenty playable.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.