Solved

Future proof system

I'm wondering if this build will be able to run Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 at 1080p on ultra or at least very high settings:

i5 4670k (will overclock to 4.2ghz)
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 680 2GB DDR5
8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz RAM
Kingston 60GB SSD
Asus Z87-K socket 1150 mobo
Seagate 1TB HDD
Certain Peripherals

I'm in a £900 budget, I was also wondering whether to get a gtx 770 OR a gtx 680 + SSD, thanks!
7 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about future proof system
  1. Best answer
    680 + SSD is the better option. And yeah, that will run those games on ultra no problem. Hope this helps :D
  2. When the game comes out someone might be able to tell but until then its all guesswork, so yeah that will get you eleventy million frames per nanosecond easily.
  3. We can only speculate that BF4 will use a relatively (compared to Crysis) less demanding Engine again while providing a great gaming experience. If this is the case, a 770 or 680 will suffice.

    Crysis on the other hand, will bring anything to its knees. It brought my two 680s down into the 30s and my 780s to the 40s. That's with very high settings and AA maxed. This game seems to either have a lot going on that you don't pay attention to while gaming (ie swaying grasses) or it's just an inefficient graphics engine compared to those used by other games. Whatever you get, Crysis 3 is going to give it a challenge.
  4. ubercake said:
    We can only speculate that BF4 will use a relatively (compared to Crysis) less demanding Engine again while providing a great gaming experience. If this is the case, a 770 or 680 will suffice.

    Crysis on the other hand, will bring anything to its knees. It brought my two 680s down into the 30s and my 780s to the 40s. That's with very high settings and AA maxed. This game seems to either have a lot going on that you don't pay attention to while gaming (ie swaying grasses) or it's just an inefficient graphics engine compared to those used by other games. Whatever you get, Crysis 3 is going to give it a challenge.


    That's interesting, because I have Crysis 2 and when I set VSync off I get 120fps average and I only have a GTX 660, although having said that I only have a monitor capable of 1280x768 at the moment which means games are easier to run. Does the transition to 1920x1080 really affect performance that much?
  5. Of course it does, way more pixels to push around! :lol:
  6. Havoc2510 said:
    ubercake said:
    We can only speculate that BF4 will use a relatively (compared to Crysis) less demanding Engine again while providing a great gaming experience. If this is the case, a 770 or 680 will suffice.

    Crysis on the other hand, will bring anything to its knees. It brought my two 680s down into the 30s and my 780s to the 40s. That's with very high settings and AA maxed. This game seems to either have a lot going on that you don't pay attention to while gaming (ie swaying grasses) or it's just an inefficient graphics engine compared to those used by other games. Whatever you get, Crysis 3 is going to give it a challenge.


    That's interesting, because I have Crysis 2 and when I set VSync off I get 120fps average and I only have a GTX 660, although having said that I only have a monitor capable of 1280x768 at the moment which means games are easier to run. Does the transition to 1920x1080 really affect performance that much?


    Crysis 2 was definitely less demanding.
  7. Havoc2510 said:
    680 + SSD is the better option. And yeah, that will run those games on ultra no problem. Hope this helps :D

    Hope this helps too:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-6.html

    For consistent performance, you most definitely need to concern yourself with minimum framerates. When I was talking about the game bringing the framerates down, I was talking about minimums. The review shows a single 680 dropping to 30 fps. This is real.
Ask a new question

Read More

Battlefield Intel Homebuilt Gaming SSD Nvidia Graphics GPUs Graphics Cards