Read more.Is it really a system killer?
Read more.Is it really a system killer?
The question is always the same though...a system killer because of amazing graphics or a result of an unoptomized game?
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.
At medium settings it should be much less taxing and probably quite playable.
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.
Current specs:
CPU: Intel i5 3570k Overclocked @ 4.6Ghz GPU: MSI Twin Frozr 7850 @ 1000Mhz Cooler: Arctic Cooling Freezer 13 RAM: 16Gb Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA Z77X-D3H
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.
Corsair Air 540, Asus Prime X570-Pro, Win 10 Pro, AMD R9 3900X, Corsair HX 750, EVGA 1080 Ti, 2x Corsair 2TB MP600, 2x 2TB WD20EZRX, 4x8GB Corsair Dominator, custom watercooled (single loop, 2 rads)
Corsair 550D, Asus X470-Prime Pro, Win 10 Pro, AMD R7 2700, Corsair RM750i, Asus GTX780 Poseidon, 2x Sammy 500GB 970 EVO, 2x 2TB Seagate Barracuda, 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance, custom watercooled (single loop, 2 rads)
Synology DS918+ w/ 2xWDC Green 3TB + 2x Seagate Barracuda 6TB, N2200 w/ 2xSammy 1.5TB
backup:
Corsair 500R, Gigabyte GA-Z97MX Gaming 5, Win 10 Pro, i5 4690, Corsair HX750i, Sapphire Fury X, 256GB Sammy SM951 M.2 (System), WD SE16 640GB, 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance, Corsair H100i
Tarinder (25-02-2013)
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?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.
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"
You never know - personally I've never been a big fan of my game graphics resembling an xkcd cartoon.
First one was horribly coded, second one (and im guessing this one) was just a typical console port. It improved after patching IIRC.
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.
Although perhaps a little short, i have thoroughly enjoyed all of the previous crysis games, so im gunna give it a go!
crossy (26-02-2013)
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.
My GTX 680 feels emasculated
It's like the original Crysis all over again...
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).
Seems I will be able to play this at an acceptable level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)