Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Crysis 3 vs Battlefield 4

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 14, 2013 7:07:35 PM

Which is more stressing on your graphics card(s)? Crysis 3 or Battlefield 4?

I have two GTX 680's in SLI and I get 35-50 fps with Crysis 3 fully maxed out. The Battlefield 4 beta runs at around the same speed.

More about : crysis battlefield

a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2013 7:20:05 PM

BF4 is still in beta, so I imagine that optimizations will come slowly after it's full release. I do know that if you are near that building when it falls and all that smoke and dust rolls out on Ultra settings, you are going to see a huge dip in FPS.

Also I think BF4 has more moving objects/map area and that probably strains the CPU more than Crysis 3.

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
October 14, 2013 7:54:41 PM
Share

ambam said:
Which is more stressing on your graphics card(s)? Crysis 3 or Battlefield 4?

I have two GTX 680's in SLI and I get 35-50 fps with Crysis 3 fully maxed out. The Battlefield 4 beta runs at around the same speed.


I'd say it's Crysis 3 which is more GPU intensive. Battlefield 4 actually isn't that demanding on your GPU. Most people say it is due to how it's making mince meat out of their systems, but that's actually because BF4 was designed for Windows 8 and not so much for Windows 7, and most people are still on Win 7. It's a pretty massive difference in performance. Benchmarks using the exact same GPU, CPU, and drivers with the same settings differ as much as 18 fps in Windows 8's favor.

These benchmarks for BF4 are on a rig running Windows 7. You can basically say that your benchmark would be the GTX 690 (which is, in fact, a two way GTX 680 SLI as I'm sure you know):




These benchmarks consist of the same CPU and drivers as were in the previous benchmark, but with a Windows 8 OS:




As you can see, Windows 8 has a huge advantage over Windows 7 for BF4, and as the previous poster said, BF4 is still in Beta. There'll be some level of optimization as time progresses, not to mention better drivers will come out to handle it. Crysis 3, on the other hand just wrecks you regardless of OS, and it'll continue to do so.
Related resources
October 14, 2013 10:13:29 PM

Is 2GB of VRAM not enough for BF4 on Ultra/1920x1080?

Doesn't your graphics cards start using your system memory if your GPU runs out of VRAM?
a b U Graphics card
October 15, 2013 3:58:41 AM

At 1080p, max settings and 7950 crossfire @ 1000MHz, I get 50-60fps in Crysis 3 (2xsmaa) and 60-80fps in BF4 (2xmsaa). However BF4 is immensely demanding on the CPU. With my I5-3570k clocked at 4.5GHz, all 4 cores are near 100%, even with no other players! If I use the I5 at stock clocks, the frame rate drops quite a bit, so it's limited by the CPU and not the GPUs.
October 16, 2013 5:50:55 PM

The CryEngine 3 is very poor in terms of efficiency, which is why it requires brute force to run smoothly.
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2013 6:02:13 PM

Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 are very stressful for the CPU as well. When the building collapses, and physics kick in, people with poor CPU's lag. And chat gets flooded-annoying. But the beta ended. Crysis 3 when I played it, it seems CPU heavy, I had everything maxed out and was getting an average of 45FPS on a 3gb 660ti and 8120 at 4.6gHz. (1080p)
BF4 since it was in Beta, I will not say it takes less than Crysis 3 since more will be available in the Retail version, but in beta was not as stressful. ~55FPS, however when the building collapsed, I got an average of 40FPS when everything was covered in debris and ash.

Edit:I'm running Win8 Pro 64bit -BF4 ran much more smoothly on 8 than previous versions from what others were saying. (People who upgraded said they boosted 10+ FPS, how true is it? I saw no evidence, so I can't tell you.
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2013 6:27:06 PM

ps Crysis 3 takes 40-60% CPU @ 3.4GHz vs BF4 takes 100% @ 4.5GHz with no players, even 100% @ 4.7GHz.(I5-3570k) IF you have the GPUs to handle the frame rate. If it's GPU limited, then CPU usage will drop.
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2013 6:36:24 PM

leeb2013 said:
ps Crysis 3 takes 40-60% CPU @ 3.4GHz vs BF4 takes 100% @ 4.5GHz with no players, even 100% @ 4.7GHz.(I5-3570k) IF you have the GPUs to handle the frame rate. If it's GPU limited, then CPU usage will drop.


Sre you running AMD cards with PhysX?
Because I didn't have 100% usage on my CPU ever in BF4, went to 50% on average.-I think peaked around 75%, don't recall. Running nVidia with PhysX by GPU. Just curious.
Ah I see you have an i5 quad core. Where I'm running an 8 core. And if you run PhysX, you can only run on CPU-since you have an AMD GPU, and PhysX is very demanding from the CPU, especially in BF4, where theres all that smoke after the building falls.
October 16, 2013 7:25:03 PM

Jake Wenta said:
leeb2013 said:
ps Crysis 3 takes 40-60% CPU @ 3.4GHz vs BF4 takes 100% @ 4.5GHz with no players, even 100% @ 4.7GHz.(I5-3570k) IF you have the GPUs to handle the frame rate. If it's GPU limited, then CPU usage will drop.


Sre you running AMD cards with PhysX?
Because I didn't have 100% usage on my CPU ever in BF4, went to 50% on average.-I think peaked around 75%, don't recall. Running nVidia with PhysX by GPU. Just curious.
Ah I see you have an i5 quad core. Where I'm running an 8 core. And if you run PhysX, you can only run on CPU-since you have an AMD GPU, and PhysX is very demanding from the CPU, especially in BF4, where theres all that smoke after the building falls.


I was not aware that battlefield 4 is compatible with Nvidia PhysX.
a b U Graphics card
October 16, 2013 8:03:38 PM

ambam said:
Jake Wenta said:
leeb2013 said:
ps Crysis 3 takes 40-60% CPU @ 3.4GHz vs BF4 takes 100% @ 4.5GHz with no players, even 100% @ 4.7GHz.(I5-3570k) IF you have the GPUs to handle the frame rate. If it's GPU limited, then CPU usage will drop.


Sre you running AMD cards with PhysX?
Because I didn't have 100% usage on my CPU ever in BF4, went to 50% on average.-I think peaked around 75%, don't recall. Running nVidia with PhysX by GPU. Just curious.
Ah I see you have an i5 quad core. Where I'm running an 8 core. And if you run PhysX, you can only run on CPU-since you have an AMD GPU, and PhysX is very demanding from the CPU, especially in BF4, where theres all that smoke after the building falls.


I was not aware that battlefield 4 is compatible with Nvidia PhysX.


I thought it was :??:  now I have to look into it, I know they're working with AMD. But I thought PhysX affected gaming regardless-as long as you had the driver.
Now I have some research to do.
October 20, 2013 5:34:30 PM

PhysX in BF4 would take a HUGE load off the CPU and significantly improve performance.
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2013 9:33:23 PM

ambam said:
PhysX in BF4 would take a HUGE load off the CPU and significantly improve performance.



Not at all. The game has to have phsyx feature available for you to use it. Amd has partnered with EA hence wise phsyx will have no effect on the game or gameplay wether u have a phsyx enabled card or not
a b U Graphics card
October 20, 2013 9:36:12 PM

Moderator please close this. The above has been mentioned already-and the beta is over. (And the OP was answered)
a c 243 U Graphics card
October 20, 2013 10:40:56 PM

5 days is not exactly a necro posting and the OP is still posting. Also no best answer has been selected. If the thread was 5 months old that would be different.
October 20, 2013 11:50:06 PM

from my experience, by the end of the beta bf4 was flying. i didnt actually bother testing it, but i mustve been getting around 60fps with no stuttering, ultra settings 1920x1080. crysis 3 chugs along in the 40s.

i was getting nice, smooth performance with windows 7 once i udpated my gpu driver, but it definitely improved some with a (long time coming) clean install win 8.1. how much was the clean install & how much the OS i couldnt say.
October 20, 2013 11:57:02 PM

I did a clean install of Windows 7, and was achieving 30-ish FPS on Ultra. Clean install of Windows 8.1 (RTM version) got me to low 50s and high 60s.

This, on a GTX 760.
October 21, 2013 12:41:22 AM

hrm. i think i was getting 50s+ with win 7 (gtx 780) once the stuttering issue was fixed w/ the beta driver. i guesstimated 5-10 fps, max, increase with 8.1.

that result is pretty shocking, provided you had the necessary dx 11.1 files; iirc those were bizarrely tucked away in internet explorer 10.
October 21, 2013 1:42:47 AM

One of the possible explanations is that the game was patched inbetween my Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 tests, which is quite possible. I also noticed that all stuttering disappeared when I changed, which makes me think that there was a patch.
a b U Graphics card
October 24, 2013 5:36:29 PM

Jake Wenta said:
leeb2013 said:
ps Crysis 3 takes 40-60% CPU @ 3.4GHz vs BF4 takes 100% @ 4.5GHz with no players, even 100% @ 4.7GHz.(I5-3570k) IF you have the GPUs to handle the frame rate. If it's GPU limited, then CPU usage will drop.


Sre you running AMD cards with PhysX?
Because I didn't have 100% usage on my CPU ever in BF4, went to 50% on average.-I think peaked around 75%, don't recall. Running nVidia with PhysX by GPU. Just curious.
Ah I see you have an i5 quad core. Where I'm running an 8 core. And if you run PhysX, you can only run on CPU-since you have an AMD GPU, and PhysX is very demanding from the CPU, especially in BF4, where theres all that smoke after the building falls.


I didn't see any option regarding PhysX, too late to check now! I'll wait until it comes out and see what people say regarding CPU usage.
Actually, I like the look of Arma III.
a b U Graphics card
October 24, 2013 5:44:59 PM

leeb2013 said:
Jake Wenta said:
leeb2013 said:
ps Crysis 3 takes 40-60% CPU @ 3.4GHz vs BF4 takes 100% @ 4.5GHz with no players, even 100% @ 4.7GHz.(I5-3570k) IF you have the GPUs to handle the frame rate. If it's GPU limited, then CPU usage will drop.


Sre you running AMD cards with PhysX?
Because I didn't have 100% usage on my CPU ever in BF4, went to 50% on average.-I think peaked around 75%, don't recall. Running nVidia with PhysX by GPU. Just curious.
Ah I see you have an i5 quad core. Where I'm running an 8 core. And if you run PhysX, you can only run on CPU-since you have an AMD GPU, and PhysX is very demanding from the CPU, especially in BF4, where theres all that smoke after the building falls.


I didn't see any option regarding PhysX, too late to check now! I'll wait until it comes out and see what people say regarding CPU usage.
Actually, I like the look of Arma III.


They are working with AMD and mantle, so they will not have it. Unlike Metro which worked with nVidia. Most game developers will look to work with AMD now since they're the power in the Next Gen consoles. Chances of PhysX in games is very slim now-but not impossible. Mantle is what they're focusing on.
April 11, 2014 9:25:44 AM

well if you play bf4 at its 200 resolution scale it is more demanding.by default the game's resolution scale is set to 100 and most people just change their settings to ultra and start playing without bothering the resolution scale
!