Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2012, 06:15 PM   #1
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,465
Default Crysis 3 Alpha (Multi-player testing) CPU and GPU Preliminary Performance - GameGPU

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.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 11-05-2012 at 08:18 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 06:57 PM   #2
mazeroth
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,712
Default

<--- cries
__________________
i5 2500k, PNY GTX 770, Shimian 27" IPS 2560x1440

http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=47880
mazeroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:08 PM   #3
notty22
Diamond Member
 
notty22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Beantown
Posts: 3,309
Default

Exactly what PC supremacists want ! Subscribed.
__________________
i5 4670K@4100mhz, 32GB Kingston 1600,H50
MSI GTX 970 gaming
240gb SSD, Win 8.1
Let's make sure history never forgets... the name... 'Enterprise'. Picard out.
notty22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:08 PM   #4
HeXen
Diamond Member
 
HeXen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,936
Default

[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.
__________________
Some words that more American's need to learn so as not to become a burden onto others nor ones self.

"Moderation" "Self discipline" "Willpower" "Responsibility" "Think ahead" "Independent"
HeXen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:14 PM   #5
SickBeast
Lifer
 
SickBeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,194
Default

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

SickBeast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:15 PM   #6
atticus14
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 106
Default

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.
atticus14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:27 PM   #7
0___________0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 284
Default

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.
0___________0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:29 PM   #8
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeXen View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickBeast View Post
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?
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 11-05-2012 at 07:32 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:30 PM   #9
3DVagabond
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 8,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SickBeast View Post
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.
3DVagabond is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:30 PM   #10
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,430
Default

this game probably have the highest CPU usage I've seen on my i3 2100,
SPBHM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:32 PM   #11
bfromcolo
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 40
Default

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...
bfromcolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:35 PM   #12
N4g4rok
Senior Member
 
N4g4rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northwest Arkansas, USA
Posts: 285
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
No single-GPU can get 30 fps minimum at 1680x1050 very high quality
Now they're just being dicks about it.
__________________
Primary: Hades
> AMD Phenom II X4 970 @ 3.9 Ghz + Antec Kuhler 620
> ASUS M4A79XTD EVO
> XFX Radeon R7950 Black Edition
> 128GB Samsung 830 SSD + 2TB Hitachi Deskstar HDD
> 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 RAM @ 1600 Mhz
> NZXT Hades Case

Home Server: Charon
> AMD Sempron 145 @ 2.8 Ghz + Stock cooler
> GigaByte GA-M68MT-S2
> 2TB Seagate Barracuda Green HDD + 2TB Samsung Spinpoint HDD
> 4GB Crucial DDR3 RAM @ 1333
> NZXT Hush Case

Last edited by N4g4rok; 11-05-2012 at 07:39 PM.
N4g4rok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:37 PM   #13
VulgarDisplay
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
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.

Last edited by VulgarDisplay; 11-05-2012 at 07:56 PM.
VulgarDisplay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:38 PM   #14
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,430
Default

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

Last edited by SPBHM; 11-05-2012 at 08:07 PM.
SPBHM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:56 PM   #15
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarDisplay View Post
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%.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 11-05-2012 at 08:10 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:06 PM   #16
VulgarDisplay
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,873
Default

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.
VulgarDisplay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:10 PM   #17
Bobisuruncle54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 299
Default

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?
Bobisuruncle54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:11 PM   #18
Spjut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 435
Default

Ouch, this and the BF3 CPU test really show that AMD's lineup is aging fast(still playable enough though)
Spjut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:12 PM   #19
3DVagabond
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 8,377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
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.
3DVagabond is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:13 PM   #20
Durvelle27
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 4,102
Default

wish they had cpu performance for the new FX Vishera chips
Durvelle27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:13 PM   #21
RussianSensation
Elite Member
 
RussianSensation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 14,465
Default

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durvelle27 View Post
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.
__________________
i5 2500k | Asus P8P67 Rev.3 | Sapphire Dual-X HD7970 1150/1800 1.174V CFX | G.Skill Sniper 8GB DDR3-1600 1.5V
SeaSonic Platinum 1000W | OCZ Vertex 3 120GB + HITACHI 7K1000.B 1TB | Windows 7
Westinghouse 37" 1080P | X-Fi Platinum | Logitech Z5300E 5.1

Last edited by RussianSensation; 11-05-2012 at 08:16 PM.
RussianSensation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 08:19 PM   #22
hyrule4927
Senior Member
 
hyrule4927's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post
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.

Quote:
- 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.
__________________
Desktop: i7 2600K @ 4.6GHz | Gigabyte Z68 UD3H-B3 | MSI Twin Frozr III HD7950 + 550 Ti (PhysX) | 16GB DDR3 1600 | M4 128GB SSD + 2TB HDD | Seasonic X750 PSU
ASUS G73SW-XA1: i7 2820QM | 12GB HyperX 1600 | Nvidia GTX460M | M4 128GB SSD + 750GB HDD

Last edited by hyrule4927; 11-05-2012 at 08:22 PM.
hyrule4927 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:31 PM   #23
blastingcap
Diamond Member
 
blastingcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,840
Default

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
We had to suffer polygonal boobs for a decade because of selfish corporate reasons.
Main: 3570K + R9 290 + 16GB 1866 + AsRock Extreme4 Z77 + Eyefinity 5760x1080 eIPS

Last edited by blastingcap; 11-05-2012 at 09:39 PM.
blastingcap is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:43 PM   #24
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianSensation View Post

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
SPBHM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:07 PM   #25
Elfear
VC&G Moderator
 
Elfear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,143
Default

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.
__________________
4770k@4.7Ghz | Maximus VI Hero | 2x290@1150/1450 | 16GB DDR3 | Custom H20
Elfear is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.