Crysis 3 on i7-930 + 7950?

DJFuji

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 1999
3,643
1
76
So Crysis 3 really illustrated today how a 2-3 year old setup (even with a few upgraded components) can't hack it with even medium settings. I couldn't believe that even with my new 7950, I still had to set settings to "low" @ 1080p.

Current setup:

i7-930 (stock cooler) + GA-X58A-UD3R
24gb G.Skill DDR3
Sapphire 7950 3gb
Intel X25-M 80GB SSD + Storage Drives
Dual Dell 2711's (2560x1440) + 28" HannsG 1080p
Win7 Ultimate

PC is used 95% of the time for massive multi-tasking with office/productivity apps (hence triple monitors + 24gb ram). 5% of the time used to play the 1 or 2 games I buy each year (e.g., far cry 3, crysis 3, COD, etc)

Overall, i'm pretty happy with general windows performance, though Crysis 3 wiped the floor with this rig. With everything stock (non OCed), i used medium settings (granted, at 2560 res) and Crysis loaded the first stage at 20-30fps. Terrific.

Playing around with settings, here's what I've found (keep in mind this is pre-OC):

Res: 2560
AA: 1xSMAA
Settings: Low
FPS: 30

Res: 1600x900
AA: 1xSMAA
Settings: Medium
FPS: 30

Res: 1080p
AA: 1xSMAA
Settings: Low
FPS: 60

I plan to overclock both CPU and GPU shortly, so that should boost things a bit, but i'd like to play Crysis 3 at medium or possibly even high settings with a decent frame rate. Preferably at 1080p or above.

I've seen a few youtube vids of guys running i5 3570 + 7950 at max settings 1080p and still getting 40+FPS. I assume this means i'm CPU limited.

Will a Core i5 3570K + Biostar TZ77B (~$315) yield a big difference relative to an O/Ced 930 + O/Ced 7950?

Also wondering if I'll notice any difference in general windows usage. The rig is pretty speedy overall as-is.

Also curious if anyone knows what kind of performance difference upgrading to a current-gen SSD (Samsung 840) would bring relative to my dinosaur X25M 80gb?
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,480
4,327
75
Crysis 3 [thread=2281274]is a very tough game[/thread]. Edit: [thread=2302952]The final version is even tougher than that![/thread] I could be wrong, but I suspect you're actually GPU limited, especially at 2560. The AA probably isn't helping either.

Since your framerates are multiples of 30, I think you have V-sync turned on. Turning it off might get you a better estimate of your actual performance, if possibly not better gameplay.

If you're gonna spend ~$300 on upgrades for this game, I'd suggest a second 7950 for crossfire. If you were going to spend $30 on upgrades, though, I'd start with an aftermarket CPU cooler.
 
Last edited:

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
Your card should be able to play at around 30fps with very high quality and 4x SMAA, using 1080p (don't bother with 2560, a single GPU can't do that). Overclocked to the max it might touch 40fps. Those would be very playable settings. The CPU might bottleneck you slightly, but that's not the main issue. You should run FRAPS to get averages during gameplay. I don't think your estimates of 30fps and 60fps are all that precise, and to find the optimal settings, you want to be precise. This one in particular can't be right:

Res: 1600x900
AA: 1xSMAA
Settings: Medium
FPS: 30
 
Last edited:

DJFuji

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 1999
3,643
1
76
Yeah i have vsync on. I'll turn it off and get avg frame rates on fraps. I played a bit last night at 1080p with all settings turned to low (except high detail) and 1x SMAA. Was pretty good overall. Stayed above 30 (closer to 60, actually) in most stages.

Medium settings seem to destroy frame rates though, even at 1600x900. I'll get more data and post here.

I probably won't go crossfire as i can't justify $600 for a gaming setup that I use only a few times a year. However, if a new cpu/mobo or even SSD will offer significant non-gaming improvements (in a general windows multitasking environment with occasional light photoshop/premiere use), i'd much rather spend the money there.
 

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
You won't get significant benefits from a new CPU, motherboard or SSD - you already have an SSD, and could potentially add another if you wanted, but it wouldn't do anything for gaming other than reduce load times. And before you upgrade anything, you should overclock your CPU - you could probably get at least a 25% increase in speed without touching voltage, although you probably want an aftermarket cooler for that.

Crysis 3 is the kind of game that might make you want to upgrade just to see if you can push maximum settings, but it really isn't a rational decision, since it's designed to be a game that won't be fully playable at max for years. You'll basically be chasing a ghost.

I played through Crysis 1 in 2007 at 25fps on an 8800gt. Only now, with a GTX670, can I really lock it at 60fps at max settings, but it's not like it changes the experience all that much.
 

Sleepingforest

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 2012
2,375
0
76
At lower resolutions (1080p for sure), just turn off v-sync. That's probably keeping you locked at 30 frames rather than the ~40 of Youtube recorders. If you wanted to make an upgrade, I would wait for Haswell and the next generation of CPUs, as Crossfire and SLI are annoyingly glitchy and stuttery compared to single cards. For the best performance for your money, wait for both Nvidia and AMD to release cards so you can take advantage of their price warfare.
 

Durvelle27

Diamond Member
Jun 3, 2012
4,102
0
0
yes your i7 is somewhat slower in Crysis 3 but its more a GPU bottleneck than anything especially for that res. I would set it to 1080p with either 2x SMAA or no AA


0nikcab.jpg


sqc6vrw.jpg


333ocwc.jpg



Edit: I will also suggest adding a second HD 7950 and crossfiring to get good performance at 2560 res
 

mfenn

Elite Member
Jan 17, 2010
22,400
5
71
www.mfenn.com
You have 3 options as I see it:

1. Keep everything the same an just play at lower resolution and details.

2. Pop another 7950 into your machine for ~$300 and play on high with OK framerates.

3. Upgrade to an i7 3770K + mobo + 32GB of RAM (so that you don't go backwards in terms of general usage performance) + another 6950 for ~$900 to play at 2560.

All three are viable options, it just depends on how much money you want to spend.
 

Sleepingforest

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 2012
2,375
0
76
You have 3 options as I see it:

1. Keep everything the same an just play at lower resolution and details.

2. Pop another 7950 into your machine for ~$300 and play on high with OK framerates.

3. Upgrade to an i7 3770K + mobo + 32GB of RAM (so that you don't go backwards in terms of general usage performance) + another 6950 for ~$900 to play at 2560.

All three are viable options, it just depends on how much money you want to spend.

Option 4: wait for the AMD 8XXX series. The top end will probably cost ~$600 (and be appreciably stronger than a 7950) until the Nvidia rival is revealed-- after both sides release, it'll probably settle around $400. If you sell the old card for around $200, that's $200-400 out of pocket.
 

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
Option 4: wait for the AMD 8XXX series. The top end will probably cost ~$600 (and be appreciably stronger than a 7950) until the Nvidia rival is revealed-- after both sides release, it'll probably settle around $400. If you sell the old card for around $200, that's $200-400 out of pocket.

This, unfortunately, is not particularly helpful advice, as it's already well known that...

An amd card faster Than 7970 ghz will release in 2014.
 

Sleepingforest

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 2012
2,375
0
76
Oh yeah, that's right. AMD isn't giving us a new line until 2014... well, that's a bit long to be waiting. No option 4 then.
 

mfenn

Elite Member
Jan 17, 2010
22,400
5
71
www.mfenn.com
Option 4: wait for the AMD 8XXX series. The top end will probably cost ~$600 (and be appreciably stronger than a 7950) until the Nvidia rival is revealed-- after both sides release, it'll probably settle around $400. If you sell the old card for around $200, that's $200-400 out of pocket.

That's not going to happen until 2014.

EDIT: Should have read a few more posts down.
 

DJFuji

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 1999
3,643
1
76
Weird, I'm on last stage and i'm on medium settings, 2x SMAA, and averaging 50+ fps @ 1080p. Maybe the first stage is really resource intensive? Still need to o/c and test out as well.

What do you guys recommend for HSFs for overclocking the i7 930? Keng6 recommended the coolermaster hyper 212 evo. Any other recommendations? The last HSF i bought was the thermalright ultra 120 extreme from way back in the day.
 

Steltek

Diamond Member
Mar 29, 2001
3,295
1,040
136
Weird, I'm on last stage and i'm on medium settings, 2x SMAA, and averaging 50+ fps @ 1080p. Maybe the first stage is really resource intensive? Still need to o/c and test out as well.

What do you guys recommend for HSFs for overclocking the i7 930? Keng6 recommended the coolermaster hyper 212 evo. Any other recommendations? The last HSF i bought was the thermalright ultra 120 extreme from way back in the day.

The Hyper212 Evo is very good for the price. It comes with one fan, but includes brackets to allow you to add a 2nd fan (though you'll need to pick up a PWM "Y" cable if you add a PWM fan and want to plug both fans into the CPU fan header).

If you can fit it in your case and on your motherboard, the Noctua NH-D14 is also very nice and cools great -- it might be the best air cooler out there as far as I am concerned. It is also a lot more expensive than the Hyper 212 Evo.
 

mfenn

Elite Member
Jan 17, 2010
22,400
5
71
www.mfenn.com
Weird, I'm on last stage and i'm on medium settings, 2x SMAA, and averaging 50+ fps @ 1080p. Maybe the first stage is really resource intensive? Still need to o/c and test out as well.

Maybe they front-loaded all the really intense (read: expensive to make) assets? I'll bet a lot of people play the first level, say "damn, that looks good," and never touch it again.

As for HSFs, Steltek's recommendations are good. Also check out the Phanteks PH-TC12DX for a cooler in between those two in price and performance.
 

DJFuji

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 1999
3,643
1
76
Thanks for all the advice, guys. Picked up the 212 evo. The particle effects with the rain and everything definitely makes the first stage more resource intensive.

Also, just discovered my CPU is maxing out to tjmax when i'm playing so I'm sure that's screwing the frame rates. The 212 evo along with overclocking CPU/GPU should make everything run smoother.
 

Vectronic

Senior member
Jan 9, 2013
489
0
0
Also, just discovered my CPU is maxing out to tjmax when i'm playing so I'm sure that's screwing the frame rates.
It's gotta be... I just played/finished Crysis 3 earlier today, 3570K @ 4.5, and a measly little 7750 @ 800/1125... and I was averaging 26FPS @ 1920x1080, "high" textures, SMAA 1x, V-Sync on, the rest medium settings.

That said, glad I didn't buy the game...lol