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

[RussianSensation]

Cevat Yerli has vowed to melt your PC with Crysis 3. So how far along is he with his goal to make your $2,000 high-end gaming PC cry? Let's find out!

Drivers used:
Nvidia GeForce/ION Driver Release 306.97
AMD Catalyst 12.11

GPU Benchmarks - High Quality



GPU Benchmarks - Very High Quality



GPU VRAM Usage



CPU Benchmarks - Crysis 3 loves IPC and quad-core CPUs. The difference between Core i3 and i5/i7 is dramatic.

Source

Takeaways:
- No single-GPU can get 30 fps minimum at 1680x1050 very high quality
- GTX690 can't even get 30 fps average at 2560x1600 at VHQ. Even if GTX780 is 50% faster than GTX680, it will barely make a dent in Crysis 3 at 1600P unless major optimizations take place before release. Melting PCs near you? Yup.
- SLI profiles are already working correctly, CF is missing for now.
- The game looks surprisingly good on Low with High Resolution textures enabled
- In-game art and graphics are still in the Alpha stage. No information on PhysX at this point. This game could get even more intensive by the time it launches if PhysX is added.

Hopefully the graphics quality and gameplay will be worth this level of GPU melting. Also, as this is Alpha, there are bound to be improvements as we have seen happen after Guild Wars 2 Beta testing. Still, this looks like a very CPU and GPU demanding game.

[mazeroth]

<--- cries

[notty22]

Exactly what PC supremacists want ! Subscribed.

[HeXen]

[QUOTE=RussianSensation;34199096]
No information on PhysX at this point. This game could get even more intensive by the time it launches if PhysX is added.

QUOTE]

What happened to "Cryphysics"? I thought it was pretty good in the first Crysis. Is PhysX really better? Havoc seems to do fine on CPU, my experience from PhysX is a GPU bound game doesn't run as well as it could.

[SickBeast]

Wow, that's quite a performance advantage for AMD in that game.

[atticus14]

Kinda of exciting (beautiful games) and terrifying ($$$) haha. Hopefully the performance cost will be worth it but if Star Citizen is any indication I think we are heading in a good direction.

[0___________0]

Maybe it's just the 6770m I'm using, but even on high settings I thought the in-game footage that Crytek has released looked much better.

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by HeXen

What happened to "Cryphysics"? I thought it was pretty good in the first Crysis. Is PhysX really better? Havoc seems to do fine on CPU, my experience from PhysX is a GPU bound game doesn't run as well as it could.

I don't have any details if PhysX will be in the game or not. Given the current performance, it's already bringing GPUs to their knees. Add PhysX, and it'll be 5+ years before this thing is playable on a single-GPU. If they want to add millions of flying sparks and particles on screens, I wouldn't rule out PhysX per say. The game would be completely unplayable with it though with modern GPUs.

Originally Posted by SickBeast

Wow, that's quite a performance advantage for AMD in that game.

At VHQ, both the 7970GE and GTX680 seem unplayable to me. We've seen AMD turn out their performance in some games from Alpha/Beta stage as they worked closer with the developer. I wouldn't be surprised if NV nets a large performance increase once they optimize the game before the final release. At the same time when comparing 24 vs. 29 fps, I don't think "winning" means much.

Comparing Low vs. Very High, I am having a very hard time distinguishing the difference from this review. It's also hard to say what's causing the performance drop exactly. Are we looking at very high geometry/tessellation on rocks, walls and trees?

[3DVagabond]

Originally Posted by SickBeast

Wow, that's quite a performance advantage for AMD in that game.

Don't get too excited. There's still time to insert some GCN crippling feature.

[SPBHM]

this game probably have the highest CPU usage I've seen on my i3 2100,

[bfromcolo]

I had to wait 4 or 5 years before I had a system that could run the first one on high. Looks like deju vu all over again...

[N4g4rok]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

No single-GPU can get 30 fps minimum at 1680x1050 very high quality

Now they're just being dicks about it.

[VulgarDisplay]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

At VHQ, both the 7970GE and GTX680 seem unplayable to me. We've seen AMD turn out their performance in some games from Alpha/Beta stage as they worked closer with the developer. I wouldn't be surprised if NV nets a large performance increase once they optimize the game before the final release. At the same time when comparing 24 vs. 29 fps, I don't think "winning" means much.

Wasn't there news recently that all EA titles were going to be gaming evolved moving forward? Perhaps that only applied to Frostbite 2 games. I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look for the article at work.

[SPBHM]

I don't know, but I got my key from AMD Gaming Evolved to test the game.

[RussianSensation]

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplay

Wasn't there new recently that all EA titles were going to be gaming evolved moving forward? Perhaps that only applied to Frostbite 2 games. I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look for the article at work.

I must have missed that article. I never recall reading that. For example, I don't think EA's recently released NFS:MW is an AMD Gaming Evolved title. It does run slightly faster on AMD GPUs though. I was under the impression that Crysis 3 is a TWIMTPB title, unless this now changed? Based on preliminary performance, I don't think it'll matter much here. GameGPU only got 45 fps at 1680x1050 on a GTX690 at very high quality. We are going to need next generation GPUs for this game unless drivers improve performance 200-300%.

[VulgarDisplay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zE6xurZyYc4

I think this is where that idea came from. I guess it technically doesn't say that all EA games are now Gaming Evolved. It just says that AMD is now working with EA on all games to improve their performance.

[Bobisuruncle54]

Being an Alpha, isn't it a bit early to be running all the high end bells and whistles? I thought that typically wasn't done until a game reaches beta?

[Spjut]

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

[3DVagabond]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

I must have missed that article. I never recall reading that. For example, I don't think EA's recently released NFS:MW is an AMD Gaming Evolved title. It does run slightly faster on AMD GPUs though.

It's not really faster. If you look at the 6970 vs 580, the 580 is ~12% faster at 2560*1600. The 7900's are just the faster cards.

[Durvelle27]

wish they had cpu performance for the new FX Vishera chips

[RussianSensation]

I am just excited there might be a game that will push PC graphics to the limit again right before the launch of Xbox next and Orbis/PS4. Crysis 3 and Metro Last Light should be good for pushing PC gaming.

Originally Posted by Durvelle27

wish they had cpu performance for the new FX Vishera chips

I don't think it'll matter that much. The performance gap between 8150 and Intel's high-end chips is enormous. Vishera is what 12-13% faster than 8150 overall? That's not enough to catch up even to a Core i5.

[hyrule4927]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

CPU Benchmarks - Crysis 3 loves IPC and quad-core CPUs. The difference between Core i3 and i5/i7 is dramatic.

I definitely noticed this. I usually run Folding@Home on 6 threads even while gaming, but I have to pause the folding or else I get massive stuttering in the alpha. Probably the first game where I've observed this.

- The game looks surprisingly good on Low with High Resolution textures enabled

Definitely visually impressive, and I look that it still looks nice on lower end systems, but higher visual settings (as of now) don't really blow my mind like I was hoping. This may have been partially due to higher pixel density on a 17" laptop versus a 24" monitor, but I didn't really notice much of a loss of image quality between 1080p on high settings on my desktop and 1080p with minimum settings on my laptop.

[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.

[SPBHM]

Originally Posted by RussianSensation

I don't think it'll matter that much. The performance gap between 8150 and Intel's high-end chips is enormous. Vishera is what 12-13% faster than 8150 overall? That's not enough to catch up even to a Core i5.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-...rma-ii-oa.html

Crysis 2 have over 20% gain for the 8350

[Elfear]

I can verify that Crossfire isn't working yet. Tried to play a couple nights ago at 1600p maxed settings and it was pretty bad. Felt like averages in the 20's and dips to the low double digits. Hopefully AMD will get things working soon as this game really needs it.