Crysis 3 Alpha (Multi-player testing) CPU and GPU Preliminary Performance - GameGPU

[Olikan]

Originally Posted by boxleitnerb

The trailers look 1000x better than what is in the alpha.

Trailers/tech demos, love to cherry pick high detailed scenes

[aaksheytalwar]

Comparing 2 6970s to one 7970 ghz isn't too wise. Sure, I would take the 7970 ghz anyday. However, that doesn't mean it is a real upgrade. If you have 2 6900s then you should consider 2 7900s. That is always the case.

[skipsneeky2]

Nice to see a game that maxed out at 1080p is gonna choke at 30fps with the best gpus period,makes the purchase of my gtx670 for my 1440x900 monitor actually not look to bad,its more then likely still gonna run maybe 45fps average,maybe 50 at vhq?

The freaking medium quality benchmarks in the cpu results are using a gtx690 and its just playable,wow.

[Durvelle27]

Originally Posted by aaksheytalwar

Comparing 2 6970s to one 7970 ghz isn't too wise. Sure, I would take the 7970 ghz anyday. However, that doesn't mean it is a real upgrade. If you have 2 6900s then you should consider 2 7900s. That is always the case.

2x HD 6970's vs HD 7970 GHZ

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/515?vs=618

[Grooveriding]

I have the alpha, needless to say, it is not impressive looking currently. More so when you consider how badly it performs. Maxed out I get about 15-20FPS... It looks just like Crysis 2 (not that great).

Will post some screens. It is an alpha confined to multiplayer, so hopefully the full game delivers. Still is onerous that it looks not all that great and performs just horribly. For context, BF3 looks a hell of a lot better than this game does currently.

[Keysplayr]

It's only the Alpha folks, don't get too dissappointed. I'm sure optimizations have to be made.

[MTDEW]

Originally Posted by aaksheytalwar

Comparing 2 6970s to one 7970 ghz isn't too wise. Sure, I would take the 7970 ghz anyday. However, that doesn't mean it is a real upgrade. If you have 2 6900s then you should consider 2 7900s. That is always the case.

Actually, that is my point also. (so we're seeing it the same way)
Until a single card can kick the crap outta my two cards, Im not upgrading.
When new titles are released, waiting for x-fire drivers sucks.
That's why i'll never buy a dual gpu card, since you can never turn x-fire/sli off if needed.

Hopefully Keys is right and there are more optimizations to be done and performance will really improve for the beta.

I was another one who was also under the impression that this was going to be a Nvidia TWIMTBP optimized title.
But it does look like AMD is doing a good job with it so far.
Except for the current lack of x-fire support of course.

[boxleitnerb]

Of course you can turn of CF/SLI even on dual gpu cards.

[Insomniator]

I don't care if performance improves, I just hope the game looks better than Crysis 2 (which isn't the case right now).

I want to see another jump in graphics like crysis 1, even if it takes me 3 years to get a GPU that can play it!

BTW performance didn't seem that terrible on my GTX560ti 448.

[Lepton87]

Originally Posted by MTDEW

Actually, that is my point also. (so we're seeing it the same way)
Until a single card can kick the crap outta my two cards, Im not upgrading.
When new titles are released, waiting for x-fire drivers sucks.
.

My sentiments exactly except I have 4 GPUs, I'm in for a long wait it seems.

[MTDEW]

Originally Posted by boxleitnerb

Of course you can turn of CF/SLI even on dual gpu cards.

I mean literally remove one card from the equasion.
Ive seen microstutters in multi card configs that could only be cured by totally removing a card, when just disabling it in CP doesn't fix the issue.
Cant remember if it was sli or x-fire though, ive had so many throughout the yrs. (i think they were 7800GTs)

All i know is, i remember it drove me nuts!
Even if i disabled the x-fire/sli i got worse performance on a single GPU until i physically removed one card.
Anyway, nobody cares about my personal vid card preferences anyway.

So, back OT.
I'm disappointed to read some first hand experience with the game that its not that visually stunning and doesn't even match BF3's visuals.
The vids i've seen made it look terrific.
So are we looking at another one of those deals where the preview footage isn't going to accurately reflect the in-game visuals.

I'm sure Nvidia's performance will greatly improve since this is a big release.
Hopefully we'll see some next gen GPU's early next year that will offer great performance at max settings.
I haven't been reading enough to know any ETAs for new Nvidia or AMD hardware.

[SlowSpyder]

Originally Posted by Spjut

Ouch, this and the BF3 CPU test really show that AMD's lineup is aging fast(still playable enough though)

I think it shows more how even a midrange CPU is usually enough for a cutting edge game, GPU is generally your limiting factor. I have a Thuban a hair over 4GHz, their stock 1100T can do 50FPS, so I should expect at least that. But at VHQ settings, 1080P my 7970 is well under 30FPS.

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Originally Posted by blastingcap

Just because a game runs like crap doesn't mean it looks good. Like Grand Theft Auto's horrific performance on PCs.

For Crysis 3: If you turn down the settings to get 95% of the image quality, do you double your framerate? If so, that just means the max settings are resource hogs.

Most super high end games are like that these days, true enough, but often it's just an AA downgrade that is enough to get you much more acceptable performance. I also wonder if Crytek is over doing the tessellation again a la Crysis 2. Considering the 7770 is beating the 5850, it certainly looks so.

I was playing Crysis 2 last night, and it's amazing how frivolous some of the "ultra" settings are in reference to the "extreme" when they are hardly noticeable and at a huge hit to the framerate. Frivolous graphics settings are not what I prefer PC games, when that fillrate could've gone into something more noticeable.

[AdamK47]

The game seems to do well with hex cores.

[BD231]

Thank god I didn't buy a 7970/680. Likely this game will be like the original crysis, pointlessly taxing on hardware.

[CryHavoc]

Originally Posted by toyota

sorry but I do not believe that. my E8500 even at 3.8 was pegged in that game even a notch below max settings. and my oced gtx560 se is almost as fast as your 6870 and in no way shape or form is Crysis 2 fully playable on max DX11 settings and high res texture pack at 1920x1080. even my oced gtx570 would drop into the 30s in many spots on those settings.

I can video it and show you if you'd like.

I've installed both update packs, have the lastest updates to the game, run it on HIGH graphics settings at 1920x1080 and its completely playable for me.

I'm not saying I'm getting 60fps, but I'm sure not getting any stuttering.

[Magic Carpet]

Originally Posted by CryHavoc

I can video it and show you if you'd like.

I've installed both update packs, have the lastest updates to the game, run it on HIGH graphics settings at 1920x1080 and its completely playable for me.

I'm not saying I'm getting 60fps, but I'm sure not getting any stuttering.

You only run the HIGH settings, that explains everything

[tviceman]

I thought graphics of Crysis 2 were top-of-the-line once it got the DX11 features and high resolution texture pack. That said, the game itself was 3 steps backwards from Crysis and Warhead. The suit functions were integrated better, but the setup, story, and linear corridor disguised as broken highways and landscape made this game significantly inferior to the previous Crysis games. I will not be getting Crysis 3 unless it is more like the original and Warhead.

[DrBoss]

I will keep my fingers cross this game is the step forward (graphically) that the original Crysis was... but i have my doubts.

I also hope Crysis 3 gets back to the semi-open world of Crysis 1 instead of the defined corridors of Crysis 2.

[CryHavoc]

Originally Posted by Magic Carpet

You only run the HIGH settings, that explains everything

exactly...and even at that setting, its just eye candy.

However, HIGH settings on Crysis 3 on my older setup.... Fuggetaboutit

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally Posted by NUSNA_Moebius

Most games are like that these days.

Fixed

Seriously, every game nowadays feels a lot like 3dmark, with pointless "Ultra" modes

And then we have crap like Ambient Occlusion which does nothing but cut your framerate in half... Yeah yeah, you can notice the difference if you stare at screenshots side by side, but while playing? Good luck with that

Nowadays I dont even care about the numbers reviews give us other than to compare cards, obviously... I mean, I dont look at reviews as an idea of what kind of performance I can expect because I know Ill be able to play the game twice as fast just by turning off one stupid option like AO

Generally though anything that has to do with shadows ends up being the main resource hog... Turn shadows down, max everything else, profit

Bet youll be able to play Crysis 3 just fine with 99% of the full graphics on any card above 7850 just by being smart

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by BD231

Thank god I didn't buy a 7970/680. Likely this game will be like the original crysis, pointlessly taxing on hardware.

Crysis 1 was the best looking PC game when it launched, and remained so for years to come. It was finally challenged first by Metro 2033, later by BF3/Witcher 2. Until this day it remains easily in the top 10 best looking PC games. It was not properly optimized for multi-core CPUs, but its graphics were a generational leap forward at the time.

Crysis 3 from various videos on youtube and screenshots looks like the graphics barely improved from Crysis 2 but the performance of this game took a massive dive. From videos/screenshots, it's difficult to see why there is such a huge performance drop as the graphics are not a generational leap at all, not even compared to Crysis 1. So far I am not seeing amazing graphics that warrant 41 fps at 1080P on a GTX690 at vhq. In screenshots, even between Low and Very high quality, I cannot tell the difference. You can definitely tell the difference between Low and Very High in Crysis 1 / Warhead.

The other thing is it still has that washed out, motion blur galore, muddy look of Crysis 2 in those youtube videos. At this pace, I don't think Crytek will match what they did for the PC industry with the original game. Of course as this is still Alpha, I am going to wait for the final game but so far I am not impressed. Hard to imagine that they could improve graphics significantly from now until the game's launch in February 2013.

[blackened23]

Originally Posted by DrBoss

I will keep my fingers cross this game is the step forward (graphically) that the original Crysis was... but i have my doubts.

I also hope Crysis 3 gets back to the semi-open world of Crysis 1 instead of the defined corridors of Crysis 2.

I just want the game to be as good as crysis 1 or warhead, I don't care so much about the graphics being miles ahead of crysis 2.

Crysis 2 was just a weak game in comparison to C1 or WH, I hope they go back to making good games - and not linear corridor shooters AKA crysis 2.

[TechBoyJK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmy0jhexvdw&feature=plcp

Full match playthrough.

720p - Low Settings with HD textures.
AMD Phenon II 965 w 1GB 560.

[SPBHM]

Originally Posted by TechBoyJK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmy0jhexvdw&feature=plcp

Full match playthrough.

720p - Low Settings with HD textures.
AMD Phenon II 965 w 1GB 560.

this videos doesn't add much, you can't really tell how it's performing when there is no clear way to know the framerate, and when the PC is also performing the video recording