Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

People lying about Crysis 3 benchmarks

Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 31, 2013 5:24:52 PM

My living room pc that i use for gaming has the following
HD7770
msi h61 mobo
8gb ddr3
pentium g860

When i play crysis 3 on medium settings@1080p i get 30 fps but it drops into 20's a bit. On low i get 45 fps.

I expected results like this as my system is nowhere near high, but was just to replace my console. But i look on the crysis forums and other people with 7770's claim to get high with like 60 fps. I even see videos with people playing crysis 3 on high and "saying" there using the 7770.

My question:
Anybody else with similar specs wanna share there FPS results from the Beta?

P.S
even at 45 fps the game does not feel smooth. everyother game i have the runs at 45 fps feels nice and smooth >.>. should i expect better optimizations from the official release? i don't really wanna but it if it runs like shi*t.
January 31, 2013 6:58:15 PM

The reason why people are getting higher frame rates is because of their Processor, The Pentium G860 would cause a massive bottleneck on your graphics card, you would need to get a better processor in order to get the highest possible FPS.

Just in case you dont know what i mean by bottleneck, it is a term used when GPUs are proccessing data much faster than what your processor can handle, meaning that you are losing FPS along the way through this problem. No one would really notice it unless playing an incredibly high end game.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 31, 2013 7:05:37 PM

devastator39 said:
The reason why people are getting higher frame rates is because of their Processor, The Pentium G860 would cause a massive bottleneck on your graphics card, you would need to get a better processor in order to get the highest possible FPS.

Just in case you dont know what i mean by bottleneck, it is a term used when GPUs are proccessing data much faster than what your processor can handle, meaning that you are losing FPS along the way through this problem. No one would really notice it unless playing an incredibly high end game.

Are you NUTS? the G860 was part of toms $500 builder marathon build. Its the same thing as an i3, but without hyperthreading. Seriously dude, i hate when people just see pentium and don't do any kind of research. The G860 doesn't even bottleneck the 7850.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 7:21:06 PM

blake1243 said:
Are you NUTS? the G860 was part of toms $500 builder marathon build. Its the same thing as an i3, but without hyperthreading. Seriously dude, i hate when people just see pentium and don't do any kind of research. The G860 doesn't even bottleneck the 7850.

cpu usage for 2min gameplay
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/cpuusaget.jpg/
my cpu is at stock clock!
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 7:38:26 PM

I am not saying its a beast cpu, just saying there is no way it will bottleneck a 7770.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 7:46:00 PM

i agree with you.. in 90% of games the g860 is perfect but some games are very cpu intensive.. i dont know for crysis 3 but as it seems from my experience this game loves more cores! check your cpu/gpu usage while you are gaming and tell us! I am very curious about the cpu usage!
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:03:11 PM

sorry guys, i dont wanna cause an argument. I built a G860 pentium rig for a friend a week or so back, and it didnt run battlefield 3 well. Its always the first assumption thats all. However, Crysis 3 is a very cpu intensive game (at the fact it does make my AMD FX 8320 run hot), so in a sense your cpu will be your problem.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:05:13 PM

Actually i don't know why but Tom's hardware seems to overrate the Intel Pentiums.
When they came out, i remember that their gaming performance was similar to that of Athlon X3's, which is far below Core i3's and Phenom II X4's.
And those people aren't lying. I was getting around 40 FPS (minimum details with HD textures on) on Crysis 3 Alpha MP and keep in mind that i'm using a HD 5770 which is quite a lot slower than a HD 7770.
Still my processor isn;t exactly what i consider powerfull.It's a lowly AMD quad.
Bottom line is you are heavily bottlenecked by that Pentium.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:05:38 PM

Something does confuse me though if you have a dual core proccessor how come you have 8 threads???
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:07:29 PM

Kamen_BG said:
Actually i don't know why but Tom's hardware seems to overrate the Intel Pentiums.
When they came out, i remember that their gaming performance was similar to that of Athlon X3's, which is far below Core i3's and Phenom II X4's.
And those people aren't lying. I was getting around 40 FPS (minimum details with HD textures on) on Crysis 3 Alpha MP and keep in mind that i'm using a HD 5770 which is quite a lot slower than a HD 7770.
Still my processor isn;t exactly what i consider powerfull.It's a lowly AMD quad.
Bottom line is you are heavily bottlenecked by that Pentium.


Dont underrate your system, its pretty decent if it can do that framerate in crysis 3 alpha (when it really wasnt optimised). Plus the 5770 is a brilliant card.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:09:27 PM

devastator39 said:
Something does confuse me though if you have a dual core proccessor how come you have 8 threads???

all desktop i7s are quadcore!
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:10:41 PM

antonisrsx said:
all desktop i7s are quadcore!


My Bad, just realised it wasn't blakes rig.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:11:52 PM

There core per core performance is miles ahead of athlon's due to the sandy architecture. I run BF3 just fine lol. Also, i downloaded the 13.2 beta drivers from amd and i get about 20 more fps. the similar priced phenom might have been a better buy, but it will pay off when i throw a $179 i5 3470 in it.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:15:20 PM

I agree that my PC is pretty good. It is yet to see a game it can't play, but according to most benchmarks his PC should outperform mine by a large margin.

And also take a look at this picture.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/stories/Test_GPU/Action/Crysis...
The Phenom II X4 940 gets twice the FPS of the Phenom II X2.
Following the same logic, he should be getting 15% less than a half of the 2500K's FPS, which should is less than 40.
This more than proves that he is experiancing a CPU bottleneck.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:18:48 PM

I guess some multiplayer games struggle on dual cores. I guess the benchmarks show the pentiums doing good because single player games generally don't use as many cores as say, bf3 64 man server. After the update i get 50-60 fps on low, 30-35 on medium. in games like BF3 30+ seemed very playable to me, why does 40+ on crysis 3 just seem jittery.... well, maybe its just me. The screen doesn't tear or anything it just seems like the screen bounces. Maybe its just the environment. It feels smooth and bouncy at the same time. And btw if it is a cpu bottleneck, this is the FIRST game i have gotten bottlenecked in. Its pretty snappy, and outperforms the phenom in games that only use 2 cores.
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:18:49 PM

Yes... it will pay off if you add a Core i5 in, but is it really worth spending 180$ more?
It seems that the games you play can utilise a lot of cores, so why not go for a Quad in the first place?
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:21:39 PM

Kamen_BG said:
Yes... it will pay off if you add a Core i5 in, but is it really worth spending 180$ more?
It seems that the games you play can utilise a lot of cores, so why not go for a Quad in the first place?

The pentium is only $60. Id love to use it in another build (HTPC or something). When i was building, i got loads of recommendations for the pentium over the phenom... lol. I don't even know if i should pre-order crysis 3 or just use that money towards an i5 :lol: 
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:40:59 PM

Also keep in mind i was playing at 1080p. i don't mind 720p if it will run smoother. The whole point the this build was the replace my console in the living room. So 1080p with low/medium in crysis 3 is far better then it will be on the consoles :) 
m
0
l
January 31, 2013 8:46:10 PM

Well then your PC will more than get the job done.
It will always provide better graphics, frame rate and higher resolutions than a current generation console. No doubt about that.
m
0
l
February 1, 2013 1:21:44 AM

UPDATE:

I don't think its my computer for the most part. Because i just turned on the high preset and it still gives me 30 fps. I turned on afterburner, and when i play on high i get 100% gpu usage... but on medium i get 70% gpu usage and the same fps. on very high preset i get 20-25 fps. The performance on this game is just really weird. I think a few more patches and it should be fixed :) .
m
0
l
February 1, 2013 1:51:25 AM

Update: after switching to high preset as AMD recommends on there site i am now on a solid 35-50 fps (no aa). I guess running really low settings puts all the stress on the CPU. I shouldn't have underestimated the 7770 by just setting it on low as soon as the game booted up lol. Tommorow i will use the fraps benchmark tool and get min max and average for every preset and aa. So people with similar specs (core 2 duo, or pentium g) with a 7770, 6850 will possibly get. Good night! I have found the game alot more enjoyable without the fps just jumping so much :) . GPU usage is now 100 with the high preset.
m
0
l
February 1, 2013 10:57:48 AM

Fraps i really wouldnt recommend for benchmarking, you lose FPS using it.
m
0
l
February 1, 2013 12:03:29 PM

Try Msi Afterburner for fps measurement
Moto
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 12:13:37 AM

Update:

High benchmark:

min: 22 fps
max: 46 fps
avg: 34.8 fps

I will do medium and low soon.

P.S
Crysis 3 seems to only bottleneck my sandy dual core on lower settings. I think this is the same reason they benchmark CPU's at low resolutions, because the lower the settings/resolution the more load it puts on the CPU.
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 6:05:49 AM

So in short, we should upgrade our dual cores before 19th/22nd? To get 50+ fps.
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 7:07:30 AM

Turn Vsync off.. screen tearing is not actually all that bad in this game & gained me some nice FPS though i'm one of those that has Vsync off in most games just because I want the best possible input response. cant stand slight delay even if i'm running a steady 60fps.

my system

Phenom II x4 965 3.8ghz
7850 2gb @ 1050/1200

with Vsync High settings = 30-40fps avg
Without Vsync High settings = 50-60fps avg.

tho i run Low just for 60fps+ :D 
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 7:46:23 AM

**So in short, we should upgrade our dual cores before 19th/22nd? To get 50+ fps**
Looks like, and maxing available Gpu ram is always useful :p 
Moto
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 2:51:21 PM

CPU bottlenecking is completely dependent on the game - not the GPU. I had a terrible time running Crysis 2 DX11 on my old dual-core, but DX9 ran fine. Upgraded to an i3, and Crysis 2 DX11 and Crysis 3 Beta run smoothly. You definitely want the ability to run at least 4 threads if you're playing current games: check the stutters on the Pentium in this review: http://techreport.com/review/23662/amd-a10-5800k-and-a8...
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 6:28:56 PM

blake1243 said:
My living room pc that i use for gaming has the following
HD7770
msi h61 mobo
8gb ddr3
pentium g860

When i play crysis 3 on medium settings@1080p i get 30 fps but it drops into 20's a bit. On low i get 45 fps.

I expected results like this as my system is nowhere near high, but was just to replace my console. But i look on the crysis forums and other people with 7770's claim to get high with like 60 fps. I even see videos with people playing crysis 3 on high and "saying" there using the 7770.

My question:
Anybody else with similar specs wanna share there FPS results from the Beta?

P.S
even at 45 fps the game does not feel smooth. everyother game i have the runs at 45 fps feels nice and smooth >.>. should i expect better optimizations from the official release? i don't really wanna but it if it runs like shi*t.


well there is a guy in another thread with a core 2 duo saying he gets 60fps constant, i would say there are people that BS about the FPS they get. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/390892-33-dont-reciev... < this guy here for example is claiming rediculous figures on a c2d e800, which is a low end cpu, much worse than yours. I think if you have a bottleneck anywhere its more likely the 7770, not the cpu. I would check with msi afterbuner that its clock speed is coming out of idle.
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 6:48:28 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
well there is a guy in another thread with a core 2 duo saying he gets 60fps constant, i would say there are people that BS about the FPS they get. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/390892-33-dont-reciev... < this guy here for example is claiming rediculous figures on a c2d e800, which is a low end cpu, much worse than yours. I think if you have a bottleneck anywhere its more likely the 7770, not the cpu. I would check with msi afterbuner that its clock speed is coming out of idle.

Well i think i fixed it anyways. The bottleneck seems to be on low settings (more load on CPU). But 35 fps on average seems about right on high for a 7770. The 7870 is ALOT better so he might actually get 60 fps. It also seems that when i have a lower ping the fps seems more stable (obviously lol).
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 6:51:54 PM

Update:
I think TheAterix is pulling a fast one, because he claims 70fps in bf3 64 man multiplayer on the socket 775 pentium...
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 6:55:26 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
well there is a guy in another thread with a core 2 duo saying he gets 60fps constant, i would say there are people that BS about the FPS they get. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/390892-33-dont-reciev... < this guy here for example is claiming rediculous figures on a c2d e800, which is a low end cpu, much worse than yours. I think if you have a bottleneck anywhere its more likely the 7770, not the cpu. I would check with msi afterbuner that its clock speed is coming out of idle.

They're actually pretty close in games. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/56?vs=404&i=50.4... The Pentium is maybe 10-15% better.
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 7:40:29 PM

13.2 + CAP 2
m
0
l
February 2, 2013 8:07:54 PM

blake1243 said:
The guy said he is using a e800 pentium. I don't know how socket 775 pentiums compare to socket 775 c2d.

Oh - read that E8400 for some reason.
m
0
l
February 3, 2013 12:24:08 PM

make sure v sync is off.. when on it caps it to 30fps...
m
0
l
February 3, 2013 3:41:28 PM

While people would say this is not a CPU bottleneck, I say otherwise! Anyways you can make sure if it is a CPU bottleneck or not by checking the FPS at high res and then try to play the game at low res like 800x600.

The GPU would get better performance at low resolution (obviously) but if it is a CPU bottleneck, it would give same framerate, as even so the resolution is less, the CPU will have to calculate the same amount of data and would be at the same nearly the same load at High resolution gaming!
m
0
l
February 3, 2013 10:59:04 PM

On my 2600K@4.2GHz with Gigabyte Windforce 3X GTX 670 OC I get stuck at 30FPS with Vsnync on
m
0
l
February 4, 2013 6:10:47 AM

Read the answer above the post above yours if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread, it kinda picks up on your issue :) 
Moto
m
0
l
February 5, 2013 12:32:48 AM

Motopsychojdn said:
Read the answer above the post above yours if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread, it kinda picks up on your issue :) 
Moto

No buddy read my moto :whistle: 
m
0
l
February 21, 2013 5:12:05 PM

I did not really trust that very early Russian Crysis 3 benchmark myself...

It look quite different to this more recent one someone linked to me earlier:
(Translated from German, from a site I am also not familiar with but trust more, maybe wrongly)

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=...

provides some Very different results on CPU scaling!
(lower res and running Titan)

Going to have to wait for some trusted sites and see where things level out at.

m
0
l
February 23, 2013 1:05:41 AM

This game is CPU bound, at least in open areas. I have an i5-2400, and when I got to the New York area my CPU usage was at 100% on all cores, and my GeForce 680 was at 50%. My framerate was around 30.

Definitely a poorly optimized game, just like Crysis 1 and 2. Hopefully it will be patched. Until then I won't play it, as it's causing my CPU too much stress.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 1:05:49 AM

This game is CPU bound, at least in open areas. I have an i5-2400, and when I got to the New York area my CPU usage was at 100% on all cores, and my GeForce 680 was at 50%. My framerate was around 30.

Definitely a poorly optimized game, just like Crysis 1 and 2. Hopefully it will be patched. Until then I won't play it, as it's causing my CPU too much stress.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 4:38:46 AM

It is a quad core optimized game, so it makes sense that your dual core would have trouble with it. The 7770 paired with a quad core i5/i7 can do what the benchmarks say.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 5:08:53 AM

it will actually use more than 4 threads. yes its quad optimized but if you have ht it will use it.
seems to give a little more performance if you use an amd 8350. i get 50 average on 8 threads and 45 on 4 cores HT off.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 5:21:39 AM

Interesting. I can't remember if I have HT on or off.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 7:29:10 AM

AMD FX 6300 and amd 6850 I can run high with no AA and get 50 to 90 fps on average with v sync off i do notice some freezing at times which I am not sure what happens My cpu usage is around 50 to 80% not sure on gpu memory is 60 to 70% on DDR3 4 gigs. Also running windows 8.
m
0
l
February 23, 2013 8:57:38 AM

975BE at 3.6GHz and two 6950 2Gb cards at 810/1250 I'm getting 50 Fps avg in singleplayer and its using 75% on both cards
All maxed with Vsync off and no motion blur, Msaa on lowest setting, I could cheerfully drop settings and still be pleased with the pretties onscreen
I really want Mal to hit us with a res/texture pack soon though hehe, really make the rig cry :p 
Moto
m
0
l
February 26, 2013 6:20:31 PM

jrpatton said:
This game is CPU bound, at least in open areas. I have an i5-2400, and when I got to the New York area my CPU usage was at 100% on all cores, and my GeForce 680 was at 50%. My framerate was around 30.

Definitely a poorly optimized game, just like Crysis 1 and 2. Hopefully it will be patched. Until then I won't play it, as it's causing my CPU too much stress.


The game is not poorly CPU optimized, just the opposite; it will use as many integer cores as you can throw at it. The problem is, you and many others read the reviews showing that Intel chips had higher instructions per clock than AMD CPUs, and that most games up until a couple of years ago were poorly threaded, so you bought Intel. All of those sites said you were better off with Intel so long as the games were poorly threaded, and anybody (like me) who pointed out that better multi-threading optimizations were imminent were shouted down and called AMD fanboys. Yet the warning signs were in those few highly multi-threaded benchmarks that were available which showed the Vishera-based FX-8350 beating a 3770K, like this:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-a...

This was the omen, plain for all to see, that those who bought Intel ignored, arguing that they didn't want to wait because they might 'grow old and die' waiting for better optimized software.

Well my friend, the chickens have come home to roost. The same basic optimizations that propelled the FX-8350 past even the 3770K in that 7Zip benchmark are now showing up in all of the latest graphically intensive games (Crysis 3, Battlefield 3, Far Cry 3), which have been highly optimized for multicore processors. AMD Vishera 6 and 8 core CPUs now provide more performance with these engines than a dual core+hyperthreading CPU like the i3, or even non-hyperthreading Intel quad cores like the i5 3570K:

Read this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-fr...

You bet against the very optimizations we're now seeing, and you bet wrong. The fact that all three of the next gen consoles will be coming with an AMD 8 core CPU only reinforces this. To make matter worse for those of you who only have dual-core or quad core CPUs with no hyperthreading, AMD has started to seriously focus resources to accelerate this process of optimizing software across the board to even more efficiently make use of their multi-core CPUs:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2250848/amd-lo...

So it's time for you to either drop an (overpriced) 3770K into your system to get more threads, or go AMD, and have a platform that'll provide the integer cores these new games crave, and be drop-in compatible with Steamroller near the end of this year.

And in this case, I ENJOY saying 'I told you so.'

But seriously, good luck!
m
0
l
!