Features - Crysis 3 performance on high-end GeForce and Radeon GPUs

[HEXUS]

Is it really a system killer?

Read more.

[Rob_B]

The question is always the same though...a system killer because of amazing graphics or a result of an unoptomized game?

[Steve]

Will it play on my NVIDIA Ion system?






... nah I'm just messin' with ya!

[raven1001]

Why would you want to upgrade to play what is a great looking game with a short and rather mediocre single player? You play it once and you're done with it, then move on to the next generic FPS.

[krazy_olie]

At medium settings it should be much less taxing and probably quite playable.

[Obscurity]

I don't even think its fair to decree crysis 3 a particularly impressive game in the graphics department. I don't deny, they are nice looking, but nothing particularly impressive. The graphics of games like Far Cry 3, Witcher 2, and even Battlefields 3, all look better, and their engines are far more efficient, despite doing more work. The Crysis 3 engine is appalling as far as efficiency goes.

[ajones]

Why do some of the graphs indicate you are using 7970 GHz editions in XFire, but the initial summary page is showing regular 7970s in XF?

Don't think I'd ever upgrade a system for a specific game again. Last time was Everquest (1) and that was just when they upgraded to DX8.

[crossy]

Interesting article, but the bit that caught my eye was:

The reason, as you'll see on the next page, is that even these monster graphics setups aren't able to run very high quality settings smoothly.

So you're saying that an £800 graphics card can't handle the top end setting of this game? It makes me wonder if the core game engine is either damn near photorealistic at VHQ or is it just horribly coded?

Oh, and since I'm a 1080p gamer then - based on the benchmarks - it'd be fine on a 7970. And Scan had two XFX's and a Gigabyte respin of those for <£300. In fact the only thing (apart from finding £300) that's putting me off is that my old mobo is PCIe 2 not 3.0, so perhaps that'd be a limiting factor.

Just reading the comments above and it kind of looks like Crysis 3 is worth avoiding - particularly raven1001's comment about a "short and rather mediocre single player"

Will it play on my NVIDIA Ion system?

You never know - personally I've never been a big fan of my game graphics resembling an xkcd cartoon.

[snootyjim]

Just reading the comments above and it kind of looks like Crysis 3 is worth avoiding - particularly raven1001's comment about a "short and rather mediocre single player"

I don't know whether that's a review of the game, or just expectations based on its predecessors. Certainly that's my expectation, having played Crysis 1 and Warhead. Very pretty, but gameplay not all that special and nothing much ever happens.

[Biscuit]

Interesting article, but the bit that caught my eye was:

So you're saying that an £800 graphics card can't handle the top end setting of this game? It makes me wonder if the core game engine is either damn near photorealistic at VHQ or is it just horribly coded?

First one was horribly coded, second one (and im guessing this one) was just a typical console port. It improved after patching IIRC.

Oh, and since I'm a 1080p gamer then - based on the benchmarks - it'd be fine on a 7970. And Scan had two XFX's and a Gigabyte respin of those for <£300. In fact the only thing (apart from finding £300) that's putting me off is that my old mobo is PCIe 2 not 3.0, so perhaps that'd be a limiting factor.

I doubt PCI-E2.0 would be much of a limiting factor, especially with anything medium range:




Source

It would be you're CPU that would hold you back i reckon, even then i dont think it would be too bad.

Just reading the comments above and it kind of looks like Crysis 3 is worth avoiding - particularly raven1001's comment about a "short and rather mediocre single player"

Although perhaps a little short, i have thoroughly enjoyed all of the previous crysis games, so im gunna give it a go!

[Meowdance]

I bought Crysis 3 and what it does to my computer is really weird.

I'm no tech expert so I haven't OC'd my GTX670 up until now because everything plays mega smooth at 1080p, except Crysis 3. I've been playing Far Cry 3 alot and it looks beautiful. The 670 gets warm but never struggles to stay above 40FPS with everything maxed. Crysis 3 on High settings runs fine most of the time but still struggles in intense scenes (explosions and the like) and on Very High it's usually below 30FPS. I even decided to OC my GPU with Afterburner a little bit but there wasn't really any noticeable gain through that.

So I messed with the settings then proceeded to play the game for a while. Whilst it seemed like it should be stressing out my system to play such a resource hungry game, my Graphics Card didn't really get much hotter than idle and the fans never span up once. What's up with that?

I know, I'm a total noob and shouldn't base my ideas of system stress purely on temperature, but it is a little weird right? I know it's meant to be a 'system killer' but I can't get my head around the way my computer reacts to the game. I feel like I should be able to jam everything on max and play away like I do with every other game ever, but instead I'm playing on reduced settings and still get FPS drops in certain situations. But my computer isn't trying. I don't get it.

[AndyM95]

My GTX 680 feels emasculated

[Bagpuss]

a system killer because of amazing graphics or a result of an unoptomized game?

Given how long the engine has had to mature by now, you really have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this.

[Jingee]

It's like the original Crysis all over again...

[Badbonji]

Surprised that Nvidia cards scale better with multiple cards here than AMD, majority of cases the latter is true (Nvidia scales 80.7% on average with AMD at 71.0% on averaged across all resolutions).

[Percy1983]

Seems I will be able to play this at an acceptable level.