Crysis 3 - Return of real PC Anti-Aliasing (MSAA)

[f1sherman]

If I had to pick one though, it wouldn't be Crysis 3. It suffers from the same low view distance, low-resolution textures and lack of sharpness that Crysis 2 did. consoles were taken into account. I'd pick the Battlefield 3 shot out of all them, or maybe the Warhead shot.

BF3

Warhead

Crysis 3

Ground inspectors! Knock yourselves out

 

[Silverforce11]

SMAA looks really good and suprised MSAA hammers perf so much, Crysis 3 isnt using deferred rendering right?

Edit: Guess it is deferred.. otherwise wouldnt have this huge perf loss. Also, BF3 in a lot of places look stunning. Moreso in 64 player action. But its true graphics have stagnated as minor IQ gains often come at huge perf loss. ie. HBAO or HDAO etc. Hardly noticeable.

 

[f1sherman]

http://www.game-debate.com/news/?ne...and Intel HD 4000 Onboard Graphics Benchmarks

 

[RussianSensation]

Yeah, same old Crytek. What can you do about it

That's supposed to be impressive after more than 6 years since Crysis 1 launched?

Star Wars 1313 has way better real-time graphics than what I've seen from Crysis 3 and it's going to be playable on $400-450 Xbox 720/PS4 without much effort. You can link 5-6 screenshots with high resolution textures but if the game doesn't look next generation in motion, it doesn't wow like a next gen game should. I guess people have different expectations of next generation graphics. To me Crysis 3 looks like a high-res version of Crysis 2, but not a next generation DX11 game, especially not given its performance level on $800 HD7970 CF / GTX680 SLI setups.

 

[Grooveriding]

BF3



Warhead




Crysis 3



Ground inspectors! Knock yourselves out

While I appreciate the effort... taking the time to find a small portion of the entire images to try and prove whatever it is you want to prove is not working out for you when the totality of what is presented is what matters.

SMAA looks really good and suprised MSAA hammers perf so much, Crysis 3 isnt using deferred rendering right?

Edit: Guess it is deferred.. otherwise wouldnt have this huge perf loss. Also, BF3 in a lot of places look stunning. Moreso in 64 player action. But its true graphics have stagnated as minor IQ gains often come at huge perf loss. ie. HBAO or HDAO etc. Hardly noticeable.

Grabbing some of those shots I was surprised just how good Battlefield 3 can look, particularly in the single player campaign, where they can get away with more intensive visuals compared to multiplayer.

I have to give it to DICE, Frostbite 2 is the best engine going visually and performance wise it actually runs really well.

 

[f1sherman]

Diminishing returns guys. It's a pretty common thing around us.
That is, once technology involved matures enough.

Are cinema/movie fans, audiophiles or gun crazies also complaining about incrementally slower progress of their toys?

Yes, progress has become slower, but it's there. Else NV/AMD/Intel would be out of business.

Granted though, higher resolutions(Apple) have been huge driving force when it comes to GPU upgrades for the last several years.

 

[RussianSensation]

There are arguments to be made between small differences from one to another and where one may be better than the other, but overall we've gone nowhere; image quality wise, or performance wise.

Gaming visuals have gone stagnant since 2007.

Excellent post. It's about looking at graphical progress in the context of time and comparing the next game that leaps forward to everything that came before it. Far Cry came out in 2004 and blew everything away. Then Crysis came out in 2007 and blew Far Cry away and every other game. The leaps made by Far Cry 1 or Crysis 1 were monumental and just 3 years apart.

Crysis 1 is a 2007 game (!) and Crysis Warhead a 2008 game. Compared to those games, Crysis 3, a 2013 game, should blow them completely out of the water and yet it looks just marginally better. The kicker: to get those marginally better graphics you need GTX670 SLI or faster at 1080P, a $700 setup.

While I appreciate the effort... taking the time to find a small portion of the entire images to try and prove whatever it is you want to prove is not working out for you when the totality of what is presented is what matters.

I couldn't have said it better. It's about how the game looks as an overall package. After the amount of hype Crytek created about CryEngine 3.4 stating they are 3-4 years ahead of Epic Games and UE4 is just catching up to what Crytek has been able to do 3 years ago, what we get is a game that has worse graphics than even UE3.5 Samaritan Demo, nevermind a true UE4 game.

Diminishing returns guys. It's a pretty common thing around us.
That is, once technology involved matures enough.

Yes it's understandable that diminishing returns will kick in but Samaritan UE demo, Agni's Philosophy Square Enix demo, and in-game footage of games like Star Wars 1313 all show that the next level of graphics is at the fingertips of developers. Crysis 3's graphics don't look next generation that will set the standard for 3-4 years like Crysis 1 did. When Crysis 1 came out, it was the best looking game for years.

Crysis 3 - Very High Quality:

Crysis 3 - Lowest Quality settings:

Other than slightly sharper textures on the "Reserve a Parking Spot" sign and some minor areas, I can barely tell the difference in the overall quality of graphics. Crysis 1/Warhead on Low looked much worse, while Crysis 1/Warhead on Enthusiast/highest settings looked substantially better. It wasn't about upgrading to a next gen $500 GPU just to enable SMAA/MSAA but about improving the overall level of details/graphics. We looked forward to the next generation $500-600 GPUs because it was the difference between going from Low/Medium settings to High/Very High. That was a big deal because you could really see the difference.

 

[f1sherman]

After the amount of hype Crytek created about CryEngine saying they are 3-4 years ahead of UE4 in graphics, what we get is a game that has worse graphics than even UE3.5 Samaritan Demo, nevermind a true UE4 game.

uhh... Samaritan is a tech demonstrator, and perhaps the most impressive thing out there... rivaled only by 2-3 demos/unfinished projects

at this point, Crysis 3 is a multiplayer... beta

 

[Spjut]

Other than slightly sharper textures on the "Reserve a Parking Spot" sign and some minor areas, I can barely tell the difference in the overall quality of graphics. Crysis 1/Warhead on Low looked much worse, while Crysis 1/Warhead on Enthusiast/highest settings looked substantially better. It wasn't about upgrading to a next gen $500 GPU just to enable SMAA/MSAA but about improving the overall level of details/graphics. We looked forward to the next generation $500-600 GPUs because it was the difference between going from Low/Medium settings to High/Very High. That was a big deal because you could really see the difference.

Can't say I'm blown away by the difference either. Perhaps single player will look a little better though, it's not so unusual for multiplayer to be a bit toned down. Don't see why it's a DX11 only game on PC either, especially considering that there's a 360 and PS3 version that's DX9-ish.

I think we are in for the "real deal" once the next-gen consoles have arrived though. Even if games work on DX11 hw only, they will still currently need to scale down to work on a GTS 450. With the rumoured 7850-level GPU in the PS4, the mid- and high-end GPUs will probably be put to better use.

I'd like to see some CPU benchmarks. Benchmarks done for the alpha version indicated it scaled well to six core CPUs.

 

[SirPauly]

Hey, I thought The Top Secret Tessellated Toad Tech was impressive! Nice to see CryTek has a sense of humor.

 

[Grooveriding]

Can't say I'm blown away by the difference either. Perhaps single player will look a little better though, it's not so unusual for multiplayer to be a bit toned down. Don't see why it's a DX11 only game on PC either, especially considering that there's a 360 and PS3 version that's DX9-ish.

I think we are in for the "real deal" once the next-gen consoles have arrived though. Even if games work on DX11 hw only, they will still currently need to scale down to work on a GTS 450. With the rumoured 7850-level GPU in the PS4, the mid- and high-end GPUs will probably be put to better use.

I'd like to see some CPU benchmarks. Benchmarks done for the alpha version indicated it scaled well to six core CPUs.

 

[PowerK]

Gaming visuals have gone stagnant since 2007.

Not surprising to be honest since gaming industry's focus has been on consoles rather than desktop PCs. And many game companies focus on mobile these days.

 

[SirPauly]

Good news from AMD -- latest beta offers up to 50 percent increase with MSAA in Crysis 3

http://www.rage3d.com/index.php?cat=75#newsid33998171

 

[PowerK]

Good news from AMD -- latest beta offers up to 50 percent increase with MSAA in Crysis 3

http://www.rage3d.com/index.php?cat=75#newsid33998171

Wow. That's impressive. (Hi Pauly)

 

[monster88]

ok, so after reading a few posts in here regarding "low -res textures" and C3/C2 supposedly looking worse than C1 (which i found humoring) i just couldn't contain myself any longer and had to reinstall c1/warhead on my rig. below are some screens i just took of C1, COMPLETELY maxed out and modded, CCC TOD, reli config, rygel's "HD" textures. slicers HD foliage, chickens "HD" rocks etc. downsampled 272x1700 to 1920x1200, 8xMSAA. textures are definitely NOT one of c1's high points......

as you can see, there are some really, REALLY, TERRIBLE looking textures in this game. in fact, outside of the foliage (after slicers HD foliage mod), much of the textures in this game are generally pretty horrible. quite frankly, i'm getting tired of this seeming crysis 1 fanboy cult which continues to fervently defend and laud crysis 1 as the reigning graphical champion. it's not, and i think it's really time to move on from that sentiment. do i think it's still great looking in certain areas? absolutely. but it can also look very underwhelming as well, and in A LOT of areas, too.

to me, whether modded or unmodded, the game simply looks/ "feels" like a 6 year old game, which obviously, is what it is.

in no way, shape or form, does this game look better than crysis 2 dx11 with maldo hd textures, or even crysis 3 for that matter.

*waits patiently for the inevitable moron who will accuse me of cherry picking locations and of "not running the game on max settings"* :whiste:

 

[monster88]

Then, Crysis 2 (2011) :

hmmm..strange. that picture looks blurry/compressed to hell. here are some crysis 2 warhead 2 mod screens which look better and do the mod better justice, imo.

Gaming visuals have gone stagnant since 2007.

i wouldn't exactly say stagnant....

crysis 2 maldo hd 2012

crysis 1 2007

 

[Jaydip]

I wholeheartedly agree with you.In fact some (most?) of the indoor textures were pretty atrocious in C1. I think people are really confusing between "art" and graphics here.

 

[Grooveriding]

-snip-

*waits patiently for the inevitable moron who will accuse me of cherry picking locations and of "not running the game on max settings"* :whiste:

Not worth trying to discuss this with you with a comment like this that translates to 'don't attempt a retort because I don't want to hear one so I'll pre label a retort as coming from a moron....' Seems like you're already aware that the point you attempted to make was on shaky ground and laid out the why already...

As I said ...

There are arguments to be made between small differences from one to another and where one may be better than the other, but overall we've gone nowhere; image quality wise, or performance wise.

Gaming visuals have gone stagnant since 2007.

 

[litwicki22]

Before i download i want to ask something.

How much fps i will be have on V.HIGH with FXAA on my max res1440x900, on Gtx 680?

Gameplay will be smooth? Or maybe turn up AA if i wil be using 1440x900? Please help. Thx


( i have a weak LCD )



cpu : 3770k
8gb ram

 

[Pottuvoi]

Before i download i want to ask something.

How much fps i will be have on V.HIGH with FXAA on my max res1440x900, on Gtx 680?

Gameplay will be smooth? Or maybe turn up AA if i wil be using 1440x900? Please help. Thx


( i have a weak LCD )



cpu : 3770k
8gb ram

~60fps, may get slightly lower now and then, but overall very smooth.
There is certainly room for better AA settings.

 

[monster88]

Not worth trying to discuss this with you with a comment like this that translates to 'don't attempt a retort because I don't want to hear one so I'll pre label a retort as coming from a moron....' Seems like you're already aware that the point you attempted to make was on shaky ground and laid out the why already...

As I said ...

doesn't seem like my comment even applied to you, so why did you bother addressing it?

you've entirely misunderstood the comment, btw.

your "translation" is way off the mark.

Seems like you're already aware that the point you attempted to make was on shaky ground and laid out the why already

lol......wut

"shaky", in what way? the point i intended to convey was that claims of crysis 1 looking better than c2/c3 are demonstrably false. i provided high quality screen shots of the games showcasing texture fidelity to highlight that.

 

[litwicki22]

~60fps, may get slightly lower now and then, but overall very smooth.
There is certainly room for better AA settings.

What you prefer AA for good performance on 1440x900?

FXAA, TXAA?

 

[DiogoDX]

Good news from AMD -- latest beta offers up to 50 percent increase with MSAA in Crysis 3

http://www.rage3d.com/index.php?cat=75#newsid33998171

Test:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysi...ysis-3-Beta-Test-Catalyst-132-Beta-4-1046819/

 

[RussianSensation]

Looks like Cats 13.2 beta 4 helped a lot. HD7850 is nearly as fast as an HD6970, while an 800mhz HD7950 is approaching HD6990:

Performance is still in the low 40s at VHQ + 4xMSAA though:

Here is a 1.18GB download of a 1920x1080 4-min clip of the game, running on an i7 2700K @ 4.7 GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, GTX 680 SLI

 

[monster88]

the MSAA provided in the c3 beta seems to have poor coverage on things like rails, fences, and geometry in the distance. i have the game set to 8xMSAA and there is still tons of aliasing on the aforementioned areas. seems like a bad AA algorithm or poor implementation.

on a side-note, the new 13.2 beta 4 driver has really upped performance levels. has anyone done any benches with the new driver to see how it performs against nvidia? from the preliminary test results, it would appear that the 7970 is performing better than the 680 now.

edit:

RussianSensation just posted some benches. 7970GE/680 seem to perform about evenly now in the beta with 4xmsaa.