• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2 years on, an overlocked 980 can't get to 60 fps average on Crysis 3

M

Mondozei

Golden Member
Less than 9 weeks from now, Crysis 3 was released - a full two years ago. The game was and remains stunning, but even the lead developers are acknowleding that the game wasn't such a leap like the original Crysis was, which was just crazy for its time. Link
Still, I was looking through the EVGA Classified 980 review:

05.png


That is with 4x MSAA. And let's not even talk about 4K.

This is on the back of the fact that less than 1.5% of people have either 1440p or 4K monitors, according to the latest Steam Survey. And why would they? You still can't get an average 60 fps experience on the best card out there at a game that is about to turn two years old.

I'm glad that we're seeing higher resolutions in the monitor space, but if you want to play with the best GPU, to avoid the inevitable issues of SLI/Crossfire that (some) games have, 1080p looks like the way to go for quite some time to come. And whatever we'll see in 2015, it looks like 28 nm looks likely for Nvidia and a garbled 20 nm for AMD.

The era of 40% improvements per year in the GPU space seems to be over. And I just hope we don't end up where the CPUs are, especially if AMD finally goes down under the weight of Nvidia.
 
4XMSAA? That is incredibly intensive, a 980 or even 970 can go above 60 average in Crysis 3 without MSAA at 1920x1080: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/8, http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/8*

*only Bit Tech seems the only site that has done Crysis 3 at 1920x1080 without MSAA but they have dropped that resolution for some reason.

From image quality analysis SMAA T2X only takes a few FPS off at the most and brings good image quality. It seems some are too obsessed about MSAA, especially at the cost it brings to games with complex geometry. Some websites are have some fetish for always using MSAA (along with overclocked CPUs) when SMAA is good enough IMO without much sacrifice.
 
SMAA is just superior in C3, exactly on point from the above posts. Great AA without blurring for minimal performance loss, not much more you could ask for really.
 
So Crysis 3 can get 60 FPS at 1080p. Just not at the settings they chose in the review...

Misleading thread title is misleading...
 
maybe it's time to optimize games and focus on actually delivering an interesting gameplay 🙂

No offense but i couldn't care less about 1440p and 4k at this point
 
The bigger story is that in the 2 years since the release of Crysis 3 we haven't raised the bar in available graphics horsepower.
 
OP: What are you trying to tell me? That I can't dodge bullets at an average of 60 fps?

NVIDIA: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready for G-Sync, you won't have to.
 
I'm still surprised we are not seeing Crysis 1 benchmarks on hi res monitors. It still holds up as a good bench to measure performance of new cards.
 
james1701 said:
I'm still surprised we are not seeing Crysis 1 benchmarks on hi res monitors. It still holds up as a good bench to measure performance of new cards.
Click to expand...
well its also insanely cpu limited too though in some spots. only an oced Haswell cpu can stay above 60 fps the whole time.
 
toyota said:
well its also insanely cpu limited too though in some spots. only an oced Haswell cpu can stay above 60 fps the whole time.
Click to expand...

True, but the traditional flyover bench has always served me well for new upgrades and resolution tests.

I just wished they could have patched out some of the bugs, and someone would have done a carrier run to set a benchmark. That is most CPU bound section of the game I think. It would have been really good for testing purposes.
 
Mondozei said:
...
This is on the back of the fact that less than 1.5% of people have either 1440p or 4K monitors, according to the latest Steam Survey. And why would they? You still can't get an average 60 fps experience on the best card out there at a game that is about to turn two years old.

I'm glad that we're seeing higher resolutions in the monitor space, but if you want to play with the best GPU, to avoid the inevitable issues of SLI/Crossfire that (some) games have, 1080p looks like the way to go for quite some time to come. And whatever we'll see in 2015, it looks like 28 nm looks likely for Nvidia and a garbled 20 nm for AMD.

The era of 40% improvements per year in the GPU space seems to be over. And I just hope we don't end up where the CPUs are, especially if AMD finally goes down under the weight of Nvidia.
Click to expand...


I would imagine 50%+ of that 1.5% that have 1440p+ are sporting 27" iMacs.

I had a 2011 27"/1440p iMac with a 6770M / 512MB GPU, and I can tell you that screen looked better running most games with lower detail settings than the majority of 1080p PC monitors with full details. Some of that is quality of the screen, some is the resolution. You don't see that until you actually crank up a game on the iMac right next to a PC (which I had the ability to do).

Crysis isn't the only game out there, and many look spectacular at 1440p. There is also the point many posters have already made that 4xMSAA doesn't add much for the extra HP required.
 
I dont think anyone was able to reach 60 fps on crysis 1 some 5 years after release (8800gtx > 580gtx). So 2 years into c3 is not really unique.
 
amenx said:
I dont think anyone was able to reach 60 fps on crysis 1 some 5 years after release (8800gtx > 580gtx). So 2 years into c3 is not really unique.
Click to expand...

I sure as hell did. I just didn't max out the settings. 😉 I always laugh when people go on about not being able to reach X FPS, as if the game can't be played at lower settings than maxed out.
 
bystander36 said:
I sure as hell did. I just didn't max out the settings. 😉 I always laugh when people go on about not being able to reach X FPS, as if the game can't be played at lower settings than maxed out.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Never cared for the 'max out to the hilt or all is lost' philosophy. Also perfectly content with less than 60fps in many games. A lot of settings in games do not always bring very noticeable visual benefits between very high and ultra for example. So always found a lot of wiggle room in playing even the most demanding games at visually satisfying settings as well as not being bound by the 60 fps rule.
 
I've played the game all the way through at a constant 60 fps @ 2560x1440. It was a great experience uninterrupted by any sort of frame rate dips. All settings maxed out with MGPU SMAA.
 
Blame AMD for not releasing anything compelling enough to make Nvidia release GM200. They've been sitting on the Titan II/GTX 980Ti for a while now, it taped out a month after GM204 so provided yields are fine at 28nm they could've launched a chip 50% faster than the 780Ti by October. Forgot 60 fps at 1080p, we could be getting single card viable 4K performance right now if AMD was considerably more competitive against Nvidia besides just cutting into their margins with price cuts.

Same reason Intel is crawling at an ant's pace improving performance 2-3% a year. AMD is not making Intel push themselves more to maintain their position.
 
Last edited:
That is the problem these days. False advertising, false reviews, false numbers. Of course a $550 graphic card can't run even a 2 years old game at 60fps, let alone a newer game like Dragon Age 3 or others.

The performance for graphic cards hasn't changed one bit for the past 4 years!!!!! We've had the exact same performance for 4 years now. From the GTX Titan to the GTX 980 and from the AMD 7970 to 290x we've had the same exact performance for double or even triple the price.

I mean 780Ti cost $700 for half a year, all because it was 3-4fps faster than the 3 years old at that time Titan and the Titan was $1000 initially, with the GTX 780 being released at $600 initially.

We've been getting the same performance for more money over the past 4 years, we've not had ANY, ANY performance increase at all.
 
well using common sense and selecting SMAA will get you in the 80s for an average at 1080. thats not bad at all for a great looking game. and dropping to high will let mid range cards get 60 fps and still be better looking than pretty much any other game. heck the game looks great on medium and only those with bottom of line setups would have any trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top