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

[AdamK47]

Here are some screenshots of the alpha on my machine. SLI is not working. No idea how there are benches of it working on the 690, but neither the most recent WHQL or beta drivers from nvidia have functioning SLI in the alpha.

Like I said, the game does not look that great. Heavy use of some sort of film grain effect. It doesn't look bad either though of course. 20FPS using a single card on my system @ my resolution on the maximum very high settings. There is no function AA or AA selection, but the image does not appear aliased. It is blurry though, so I'm assuming they are using post-AA behind the scenes.

The physics effects are well done for the water and cloth. In some shots you may see some banners. Those ebb and flow and look better than the cloth does using nvidia's physx in BL2. So Crytek again did a good job with their own designed physics engine like they did in Crysis/Warhead.

Have you tried creating an SLI profile based off of the Crysis 3 executable?

 

[Grooveriding]

Have you tried creating an SLI profile based off of the Crysis 3 executable?

That's a good idea and I'll try it out later. I'd assume using the Crysis 2 SLI bits in nvidiainspector should work reasonably well as it's the same engine.

 

[Kristijonas]

To comment on the first post in this thread. I wish there was more info about the meaning of "high quality". Is it 32x antialiasing? Then I'm not surprised about the performance. Almost anything can be dramatically downgraded in performance with the right ammount of antialiasing.

 

[crimsondawn]

I doubt he cares.

I thought that would go without saying .

 

[JAG87]

lol Crytek.

For that kind of performance, one would think you'd see nearly ray traced quality images. Instead you get graphics that look like a turd in a toilet bowl.

Maybe I should go code a pong game that needs $1500 worth of GPU's to run at 10 fps and get EA to publish it.

I bet I'd make millions.

 

[moonbogg]

lol Crytek.

For that kind of performance, one would think you'd see nearly ray traced quality images. Instead you get graphics that look like a turd in a toilet bowl.

Maybe I should go code a pong game that needs $1500 worth of GPU's to run at 10 fps and get EA to publish it.

I bet I'd make millions.

If you could figure out a way to put something in the middle of the pong table that tries to jump up and knock the ball off course, that could make it challenging and fun. Better yet, a little creature could try to eat it while the ball is in flight. Perhaps a little creature like....well, like a tessellated toad! That would sell tons of copies.

EDIT: Based on the screenies, the game looks pretty good to me. Not sure if it should be lagging like that though...

 

[InfoTiger]

lol Crytek.

For that kind of performance, one would think you'd see nearly ray traced quality images. Instead you get graphics that look like a turd in a toilet bowl.

Maybe I should go code a pong game that needs $1500 worth of GPU's to run at 10 fps and get EA to publish it.

I bet I'd make millions.

I'd say Crytek did poor job in engineering of the game with current generation of high end GPU could not make out of 30. Not many crazy people would like spend thousands to just play the dam game.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I tried it and it's horrible performance wise bringing my 480sli to its knees. Laggy is an understatement when describing game play. I played a few rounds and decided that it was just too bad and went back to bf3.

 

[moonbogg]

I'd say Crytek did poor job in engineering of the game with current generation of high end GPU could not make out of 30. Not many crazy people would like spend thousands to just play the dam game.

They pulled that off once with the original Crysis, but i'm not sure they could do that again. The visuals on max settings have to justify the perf hit and need to offer people a unique level of graphics quality that we haven't experienced before.

 

[TechBoyJK]

I tried it and it's horrible performance wise bringing my 480sli to its knees. Laggy is an understatement when describing game play. I played a few rounds and decided that it was just too bad and went back to bf3.

wtf.. I have it on medium low and it looks great. Plays fine. I have been playing all week without a hitch. I maxed out my alpha lvl.

Forget about ultra quality. Just make it playable. It looks pretty damn good on low settings.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Wonder how well a gtx670 would handle this game at like 1440x900 maxed out?

Currently have found my evga gtx670 ftw can tank to the mid 50's still in BF3 at 1440x900,the crysis demo can still drop into the 50s easily at very high with no aa at the same resolution and if a gtx690 can tank as low as the 30s maxed out at 1680x1050 in this game,it can't be to much better at 1440x900.

This game must be a master piece or something if it can make a gtx690 tank so low at vhq 1680x1050,almost making me think a gtx670 at 1440x900 isn't as overkill as i once thought.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Those new gen consoles cant come soon enough... Games looking the same since 2007 is getting old

In terms of fps, it might sound weird but I think Rage is the best looking game out there, it just has this really awesome ambience to it... I cant wait to see what ID will do with Idtech 5 on Doom 4, I think it has tremendous potential

Still, I think artistic direction is way more important than technology, and why some games age much better than others

Thats the main reason I find Crytek games boring... Gameplay wise, its just your average sci fi shooter, and graphically it just lacks something... Its too "normal"

I think even Metro 2033 looks better, again because of awesome use of dark corridors and ambient lights, etc

 

[BoFox]

Those new gen consoles cant come soon enough... Games looking the same since 2007 is getting old

In terms of fps, it might sound weird but I think Rage is the best looking game out there, it just has this really awesome ambience to it... I cant wait to see what ID will do with Idtech 5 on Doom 4, I think it has tremendous potential

Still, I think artistic direction is way more important than technology, and why some games age much better than others

Thats the main reason I find Crytek games boring... Gameplay wise, its just your average sci fi shooter, and graphically it just lacks something... Its too "normal"

I think even Metro 2033 looks better, again because of awesome use of dark corridors and ambient lights, etc

Wow, that's a first about Rage!

 

[toyota]

Those new gen consoles cant come soon enough... Games looking the same since 2007 is getting old

In terms of fps, it might sound weird but I think Rage is the best looking game out there, it just has this really awesome ambience to it... I cant wait to see what ID will do with Idtech 5 on Doom 4, I think it has tremendous potential

Still, I think artistic direction is way more important than technology, and why some games age much better than others

Thats the main reason I find Crytek games boring... Gameplay wise, its just your average sci fi shooter, and graphically it just lacks something... Its too "normal"

I think even Metro 2033 looks better, again because of awesome use of dark corridors and ambient lights, etc

RAGE looks worse than almost any game from 2007. art direction really cannot make up for super low res textures and static everything. there were just so many times that I just looked at stuff in that game and thought wtf. Metro 2033 looks pretty good from any perspective though even on low settings.

 

[Jaydip]

Hey T at least rage has mega-textures

 

[FallErik]

Are these numbers still valid? If not?, then I'm a bit shocked.
This is my ingame settings = http://i.imgur.com/az03L.jpg
Fps here = http://i.imgur.com/9rl7E.jpg
I normaly get around 40-50 fps (sometimes drop to 30)
I got one ONE HD7970 OC
i5 2500k 4.8GHz
16GB 1600MHz Corsair Vengeance
ASRock Extreme4 Gen3
3TB HDD(7200RPM)
A-DATA SSD SX900 128GB

OS. Windows 8 Professional 64-bit

 

[monster88]

Are these numbers still valid? If not?, then I'm a bit shocked.
This is my ingame settings = http://i.imgur.com/az03L.jpg
Fps here = http://i.imgur.com/9rl7E.jpg
I normaly get around 40-50 fps (sometimes drop to 30)
I got one ONE HD7970 OC
i5 2500k 4.8GHz
16GB 1600MHz Corsair Vengeance
ASRock Extreme4 Gen3
3TB HDD(7200RPM)
A-DATA SSD SX900 128GB

OS. Windows 8 Professional 64-bit

they were never truly valid to begin with. the alpha code is bugged, confirmed by crytek.

my setup is nearly identical to yours except i have two 7970's, and i play with only one gpu enabled due to lack of dual gpu support.

i average exactly the same fps as well but at 1920x1200. if i play at 2560x1600 downsampled to 1200p, i average 30 fps and that is with everything at very high settings.

now for the people saying the game looks bad, i think you are all bonkers. perhaps the art style is a bit bland, but i find that the overall game looks better than any game i've seen in recent times.

i think i might post a few short game play clips highlighting some of the most impressive aspects of the engine, such as the particles system crytek is using, once the NDA lifts.

 

[RussianSensation]

That's a good idea and I'll try it out later. I'd assume using the Crysis 2 SLI bits in nvidiainspector should work reasonably well as it's the same engine.

From their review:

"We are using the Geforce SLI Profile Tool to add the Crysis 3 Alpha." They said they got SLI to work somehow but couldn't get CF working.

they were never truly valid to begin with. the alpha code is bugged, confirmed by crytek.

The test/benchmarks are NOT 100% representative of what the final game will be like but it still gives an idea of where the game is in terms of graphics and level of performance at this point in time from the release date. Right now, the graphics are not impressive given the level of performance OR the performance is too low given the level of graphics. This game is supposed to launch in February 2013. By now it should look spectacular and they should just be working on optimizations. Instead it runs like crap and doesn't look spectacular. How are they going to fix both of those things in just 4 months?

I agree with blackened23 that gameplay is more important but since Crytek now promised that they will push PCs to the max like Crysis 1 did, I thought it was interesting to see where Crysis 3 is in its development stage. Feel free to disagree but I am not the only one who thinks based on Grooveriding's screenshots that the game looks like Crysis 2 for the most part, something some members already alluded to here.

Maybe it's just me, but in all the videos and even Grooveriding's screenshots, I see so much blur outside of the center of the screen. It's really annoying and ruining the look of the game. Those screenshots were also taken while the character was still and the textures on the outer edges are still blurry.

When I look at Metro Last Light screenshots, I am even less impressed by Crysis 3 at this stage. Based on how Crysis 3 was supposed to wow us like Crysis 1 did, Crytek is going to need to do something spectacular in the graphics department in the next 4 months.

When I compare where Metro Last Light was in 2011, Crysis 3 does not look next generation to me, not even close. In Metro LL, you can see in the 3rd and 4th screenshot, the motion blur and depth of field effects do not ruin the sharpness of the entire image. In Crysis 3, the grainy/blurry AA (?) is making the game look like the gamer has a wrong prescription glasses on - at least from all the screenshots Groover posted. The game has that 'console' look of Crysis 2 I can't explain. The lighting in Crysis 3 is already looking flat. I don't know how they are going to fix that in just 4 months.

 

[Lonbjerg]

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.

Citation need...please put a specific example to the table and I think you will find that the only thing not working...is your understading of game-physics and different API's

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.

The PhysX API and APEX does all Cryphysics does...and then some.
People seems to think that PhysX is a bad, low-perfoming API...when infact it often the othe way around.

Do you have anything but fuzzy-warm-feelings to how PhysX would be a lesser/worse choice for the physics that Crysis games do?

(I will bet you don't have anything, but you will post a lot of smoke&mirrors to elude that fact.)

 

[TechBoyJK]

Eh, I played the C3 alpha, on medium/low settings and I was really impressed by it. Level design was nice. They obviously put a lot of thought into the map.

I think the graphical complaints are really more about art direction than anything else.

I'm hoping they pull through on their promise for larger maps with various weather types. I think that will really change things up.

This one alpha map was very dark and dreary.

 

[MrK6]

The PhysX API and APEX does all Cryphysics does...and then some.
People seems to think that PhysX is a bad, low-perfoming API...when infact it often the othe way around.

Do you have anything but fuzzy-warm-feelings to how PhysX would be a lesser/worse choice for the physics that Crysis games do?

(I will bet you don't have anything, but you will post a lot of smoke&mirrors to elude that fact.)

Where's your citation for the bolded? Maybe you should try referencing your own nonsense before attempting to call someone else out.

PhysX is free to use, sometimes profitable if NVIDIA dumps enough money into your game. Crytek opted out of this believing their physics engine was superior. But please, you must know more than the developers, post why PhysX would have been a better choice for Crysis 3.

 

[monster88]

Eh, I played the C3 alpha, on medium/low settings and I was really impressed by it. Level design was nice. They obviously put a lot of thought into the map.

agreed.

I think the graphical complaints are really more about art direction than anything else.

bingo.

to each his own....i suppose. i'm more impressed graphically speaking with crysis 3 than metro last light, but that's just me.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Where's your citation for the bolded? Maybe you should try referencing your own nonsense before attempting to call someone else out.

PhysX is free to use, sometimes profitable if NVIDIA dumps enough money into your game. Crytek opted out of this believing their physics engine was superior. But please, you must know more than the developers, post why PhysX would have been a better choice for Crysis 3.

You must have missed some posts...I didn't start the claim that PhysX was a bad API...people did...just in this thread.

I ask documentation for their claim....only religious people cling to reversal of evidence.

Hint:
Try toying with a physX SDK.
It's far from a slug.

And it can do stuff no other physics API can do.

Nice fallacy...but...really?