Crysis 3 VGA Graphics Benchmark performance review

i fix!


@wenimin. Hold out and wait for 7xx series, or pick up a gtx680 4gb.

 

Who cares? Crappy performance across the board. It is funny to hear people talking about wanting to upgrade for C3 though. Do you upgrade your card for 3dMark? Crytek releases a point and click interactive (I use the term loosely here) benchmark with brain-dead ai that lasts all of 7 hours (again, I'm being generous) and people with SLI and crossfire setups are crying on each others shoulders ready to dish out hundreds more in addition to the $60+ that they just spent. Crytek, AMD, and Nvidia must be laughing their collective arses off. It actually is quite brilliant entertainment. But don't worry, Maldo will probably come along and mod the game to look better and run great, even on DLD's "magical" 470. :wanker:

 

313.95 aren't the latest drivers. The newer ones give a performance increase in Crysis 3 specifically, granted it's only 5% but still. Plus it's two different tests, Hilbert is using FXAA vs 4xMSAA on that review, obviously it's going to be different numbers and that could potentially offset values between cards differently, but I mean wtf are you supposed to do, show every single possible combination of AA/AF/etc and dozens of cards? I can just as easily say that using 4xMSAA is advantageous for AMD and thus that site is bias.

But yeah go away.

 

Nice review, thanks Hilbert. But is the 7950 a ghz edition (1000mhz) or just the boost edition (925mhz)? Didnt know there was a 7950ghz ed.

 

Unfortunately it seems much of the extra processing power for the higher quality settings goes into non-perceptible visuals.

An oversimplified analogy:
You have two numbers multiplied together. At low settings, the numbers are to 1 decimal places. On medium settings, it is to 4 decimal places. On high, it is to 9 decimal places, and on very high is is to 15 decimal places.

'Very high values'
4.485763298539084
2.390483453945839

'High' values
4.485763299
2.390483454

'Medium' values
4.4858
2.3905

'Low' values
4.5
2.4

So, for the very high, high, medium, and low values you end up with:
Low = 10.8
Medium = 10.7233
High = 10.723142945
Very high = 10.723142943475189

So, although 'very high' has more precision, by the time you get to all the decimal places the difference become inperceivable. Of course, there are millions of these calculations going on, many of which may be interacting, but overall you cannot really see the difference. The other thing is that many of these high precision calculations may be done on thing that you would not see a difference with regardless of whether it were the precision of medium or very high, so it just ends up crippling the performance. Instead of improving visuals at the source there is much post-processing done to dress it up.

Now (excuse the sexist connotation here).
If you have two women, one is a '4', and the other is a '7'. I mean a proper '4' and a proper '7', some people go around calling 7's a 10 it kind of takes the meaning away from it!

Anyways, with a little bit of work an makeup, you can make the 7 look like a 9, but to make a 4 look as close to 9 as possible you really have to spend a lot more time and money to bump her score up, and she may only end up a 7 in the end. Post-processing is like the make-up, you are dressing the 4 up to make it look better, just with higher settings you end up with a higher end result, but at the end of the day, the fact remains is, she's still a 4, and you spend all that time and effort when you could have started with a 7 or higher in the first place.

The visuals in Crysis, and any other game, is analogous to this. As Maldo proved with Crysis 2, he bumped that girl's base score up, and the end result is worth it! There should be a greater difference between the low and very high settings, visually, in Crysis 3. It seems they spent a lot of time covering up blemishes and applying makeup to areas under the dress (where you won't see, unless maybe if you're drunk in which case covering them won't make a difference), instead of applying it her face and perking up her breasts.

Let's just hope that with future patches, they remove the unnecessary work underneath the dress which will save time (increase performance).

 

Great mini review HH.
I've played under an hour so far and found a tweak posted by DarrenSimmons to be well worth trying.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4535260&postcount=1857

With my GTX580 clocked by about +20%, running max settings, no AA, vsync on, I havent seen max GPU use yet.
(313.95 driver)
It has hugged 60fps the whole time.
Its early in the game though so perhaps I'll eat my words

ps the game looks awesome!!

You managed 2 whole posts since joining before you started to troll.
Then you did 2 consecutive trolls in the same thread.
One post not enough for you, feel bigger now?
Take a serious look at yourself before criticising others, you're not even a good forum member lol.

fyi, I havent seen anything that makes me believe they favour NVidia.
y u feel so inferior?

 

1080p.
I'll recheck my full settings in a minute.
I think I disabled motion blur.

Yep, everything on ultra, motion blur disabled, vsync on.

 

So you're here because... ?

For someone so nitpicky, you failed to notice:
1) they have clocked some of AMDs gfx cards to 1GHz and shown how they will perform.
Hardly the action of an NVidia shill.

2) they havent stated that any of the cards are the GHz "edition", you're the only one that did that.
Look at all the performance charts, not one of the cards are labelled, they are reference clocks or running at the specified speed.

Again before criticising, look at what you are doing.
There are quite a few decent words to describe you, but I wont stoop to your level.
I will grin a bit though


If you dont like this forum or the review, start/write your own.
See how you get on

 

Not that I'm taking sides with that troll but:



clearly states "GHz"

Good stuff from Guru3D as always though, keep them trolls out.

 

It doesnt say GHz "edition".
The cards are not specific models, there are no brands either.
Those clocked to 1GHz are labelled GHz.

 

Poor Hilbert needs some rest folks, the Titan has been covered from every angle, Crysis 3 was promoted from day one with all the stellar reveal vids, and now this, our own Crysis 3 gpu reference guide.
I'm glad it's the weekend Hilbert, i'm taking tonight off, credit card bill not due till next month anyways so whatevah!!
We love you, big Fella, ..and await your lara croft gpu benchy article when time is right!!!

 

Well we know there is a 7970ghz edition, so we must assume the one here is that. But never heard of a 7950 ghz model before, just the boost edition. So is the 7950 here clocked to 1ghz? If so, it is not a representative 7950.

 

hilbert please include radeon hd 7870 xt (tahiti le). if you can now, please do. thank you.

 

Boost sounds a little ghey when you say it back a few times, GHz makes sense, i always understood the 7970 GHz you had was a GHz edition and the 7950 GHz was like a MSI 670 'Power' edition.

 

I take it back, was a bit premature, fps has dropped to 40s.

edit:
but it seems its a CPU limit, the gfx card wasnt maxed.
Damn 4.5GHz not enough!

 

Those numbers sound about right.