Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Maxing out Crysis 3?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 24, 2013 2:56:36 AM

What kind of GPU setup is required to run Crysis 3 on it's highest possible settings (including AA/AF) on 1920x1080? Someone told me that two GTX 680's in SLI are required for smooth framerates.

Crysis 3 has overtaken Metro 2033 as the ultimate GPU killer.

More about : maxing crysis

February 24, 2013 4:21:31 AM

Max Crysis 3 = Empty Pocket. :p 

For 30+ fps, one 680 should be enough though. I think. By the way, this game looks awesome even on Low Preset. It looks better than PS3.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 4:30:53 AM

Here is my complete set up and I just ran FRAPS with Crysis 3 today. I have everything maxed out, although, I've turned Vsync off and AA at 1x. Should give you an idea of what it should take though. I would be willing to be 2x GTX 680's would be able to max everything with an average of 100fps.

My set up gets a low fps of around 40 with an average around 50-60. Extremely playable for me.

AMD FX-8320 8 core @3.5GHz
ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z mobo
16GB Patriot Division 2, Viper Extreme RAM @2400MHz (Far more thane enough for the game)
1x GTX 680
Seasonice Platinum 860w PSU
m
0
l
Related resources
February 24, 2013 5:40:27 AM

regardless of your card use fxaa for the least hit in performance.
i didnt know amd cards could use fxaa at such a low overhead till i ran it on crysis 3

m
0
l
February 24, 2013 5:47:06 AM

According to benchmarks, a single GTX 680 runs Crysis 3 on fully maxed out with an average of 40+ fps with AA turned off, and ~30 fps with AA turned on. Although there can still be some slowdowns and lag spikes.

What about on 2560x1600?
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 6:56:59 AM


Note no CPU can maintain 60+ solid and it loves AMD and hates dual core
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 12:27:20 PM



XD btw, i'm running crysis 3 maxed out without AA, on a i5-3570k @4 GHz and 2 7850s, and it gives me a good 50 fps ;) 
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 2:46:40 PM

I can run Crysis 3 on all max settings with my two antiquated HD 5870's, but I get extremely low fps and the game is barely playable.

I'm not sure what my framerate is, but I'm guessing it's below 20.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 3:20:15 PM

ambam said:
According to benchmarks, a single GTX 680 runs Crysis 3 on fully maxed out with an average of 40+ fps with AA turned off, and ~30 fps with AA turned on. Although there can still be some slowdowns and lag spikes.

What about on 2560x1600?


Be sure to check what they're running the card with. I'm sure you know, but games don't utalize only the GPU. Someone also posted on here that the game works very well with AMD processors. Idk if that's true, but my AMD FX-8120 increases performance alot. Like I said, with my rig I'm running 60fps with a low of 50 on a GTX 680 and I can't even tell when the frames drop. Although, that's with AA off. Not that it technically matters, but I'm even running my GTX 680 in a PCIe 2.0 land :) 
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 3:41:50 PM

Using an ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II I've done some benchmarking with Crysis 3. The average FPS at ultra settings with 4x SMAA on 1920x1080 resolution I scored an average of 45 FPS.
The GTX 670 is running at stock clocks. The CPU used is an i5-3570.

Even though the game is supposed to be heavily AMD favored it seems as if it isn't, AMD hardware doesn't stand out and outperform Nvidia GPUs or Intel CPUs.

Though we might see some driver updates that might do the trick, so AMD is ahead. :) 

I did a little video in the beta, you might wanna check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1_zPKa-AU
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 3:49:58 PM

I think as much as graphic quality has improved, the need to play at "max settings," especially depending on how "max" the developer lets you get, is less and less important.

If seems like PC gamers with high-end hardware immediately start yelling "poorly optimized" if they can't run games on max. Poorly optimized what? Because the developer didn't create the game to run specifically at 60+ on YOUR hardware?

That is a very uneducated response. In response, a developer scales back what they allow their engine to serve up as 'max settings' and suddenly everybody thinks it's great.

Then everybody is like "I can run this game on max - - what a great game engine!" :sarcastic: 

The fact is, the very best of our current hardware is not capable of rendering playable framerates for what high-end engines can deliver.

m
0
l
February 24, 2013 4:34:50 PM

Does anyone know why 1 of my pictures has been replaced with "No deeplinking please"? or what deeplinking is? Or why the other one is still there?
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 6:27:33 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
Using an ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II I've done some benchmarking with Crysis 3. The average FPS at ultra settings with 4x SMAA on 1920x1080 resolution I scored an average of 45 FPS.
The GTX 670 is running at stock clocks. The CPU used is an i5-3570.

Even though the game is supposed to be heavily AMD favored it seems as if it isn't, AMD hardware doesn't stand out and outperform Nvidia GPUs or Intel CPUs.

Though we might see some driver updates that might do the trick, so AMD is ahead. :) 


From what I read is that the game favors AMD CPU's, without caring much for the GPU. My set up I'm running is a AMD FX-8150 and a GTX 680 with everything maxed out keeping 60fps most of the time with lows of 50fps. My set up seems to strengthen that statement since most benchmarks are showing a GTX 680 with much lower fps than that.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 6:56:20 PM

OwensJ480 said:
From what I read is that the game favors AMD CPU's, without caring much for the GPU. My set up I'm running is a AMD FX-8150 and a GTX 680 with everything maxed out keeping 60fps most of the time with lows of 50fps. My set up seems to strengthen that statement since most benchmarks are showing a GTX 680 with much lower fps than that.


It does seem as if it supports all 8-cores

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/...

Though I don't see why you should have significant better FPS than I do. AMD FX 8350 has way higher clock rates than the AMD FX 8150.

Bulldozer is 15% slower than Vishera according to AMD.

If we do the math

AMD FX 8350 4.2 GHz and AMD FX 8150 3.6 GHz

difference in clock rates:

4.2 / 3.6 = 1,166666..

1,1666666 - 1 = 0,166666...

0,16666 * 100 = 16,6666%

That performance gap between the FX 8350 and the FX 8150 means that the average FPS will fall to:

1 - 0,16666 = 0,83334

58,6 * 0,8334 = 48,833723

So now we take 15% more from the average FPS, because of the old architecture

1 - 0,15 = 0,85

48,833724*0,85 = 41,5086654

Now, you do have a slightly better GPU than me, not by much though.

The average FPS of the i5-3570 in these tests were 50,5.

Sorry for this overkill response, I was just curious!

It doesn't seem if we have to rely on the numbers, that your CPU should make a big difference, it should perform worse acctually. It's only your GPU that i slightly better. :) 
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 7:04:30 PM

FRAPS tells me that on "high" settings with 1xMSAA i get 30-45 fps on average with my two HD 5870's.

With all of the settings jacked up as high as they can go, I get <20fps.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 7:09:42 PM

ambam said:
FRAPS tells me that on "high" settings with 1xMSAA i get 30-45 fps on average with my two HD 5870's.

With all of the settings jacked up as high as they can go, I get <20fps.


Crysis 3 sucks above 1 GB of VRAM, about 1,5 GB. That might be your bottleneck.

Fraps only give 1 number as average. So you might have done your benchmark wrong.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 7:47:52 PM

i had something crazy with crysis 3 ....first time i played the game i couldn't play it but on medium settings and AA off , but after i played some missions i set the game on high and smaa x4 and got 50-60 fps wtf !!! my gpu is gtx 560
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 8:04:25 PM

Just like Metro 2033.

I run it on Very High texture settings, with system spec at High, along with FXAA only and x16 AF... with my GTX 570 and i7-2600K. Not sure what the FPS is, but it's really smooth for the most part.
Game looks pretty good though, just wish it was more optimized like Crysis 2 was.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 8:12:51 PM

can gtx 680 handle next gen games ?
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 8:47:32 PM

Sure. GTX 680 is the fastest single GPU card out there at the moment. Games of any "gen" will be designed to suit the hardware out there. There is no way that next gen's mainstream cards will be faster than the GTX 680. It usually takes several generations for the fastest card of any generation to be too slow to handle modern games.

Of course, it depends what you mean by "handle". You can always reduce demands by turning down the settings. There's an argument that the GTX 680 can't even handle this gen's games. Personally, after buying my GTX 680 and expecting great things, I found the performance on max settings in modern games totally inadequate, so I bought another one. It's pretty good but you still get slowdowns.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 8:54:53 PM

what about the upcoming gtx 700 series ? i think its for the next gen games
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 8:58:04 PM

Estacado said:
what about the upcoming gtx 700 series ? i think its for the next gen games


The GTX 680 won't be as fast as the fastest 700 card but will be far faster than the mainstream cards. Just like the GTX 580 today. It is perfectly adequate for today's games.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 9:06:40 PM

the missing thing in the gtx 680 is the ROPs it has 32 but it should be at least 48 like gtx 580 and 570
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 9:14:35 PM

bwrlane said:
The GTX 680 won't be as fast as the fastest 700 card but will be far faster than the mainstream cards. Just like the GTX 580 today. It is perfectly adequate for today's games.


GTX 580 is about as fast as GTX 660. So I wouldn't say it's faster than the mainstream cards.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 9:19:32 PM

Estacado said:
the missing thing in the gtx 680 is the ROPs it has 32 but it should be at least 48 like gtx 580 and 570


GTX 580 is made on the GF110, the fermi architecture high-end GPU.

GTX 680 is made on the GK104, the kepler architecture mid-range GPU.

Geforce Titan is made on the GK110, the kepler architecture high-end GPU.

Titan also has 48 ROPS, so it's kinda obvious.. With xx110 you get 48 ROPS.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 10:01:42 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
It does seem as if it supports all 8-cores

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/...

Though I don't see why you should have significant better FPS than I do. AMD FX 8350 has way higher clock rates than the AMD FX 8150.

Bulldozer is 15% slower than Vishera according to AMD.

If we do the math

AMD FX 8350 4.2 GHz and AMD FX 8150 3.6 GHz

difference in clock rates:

4.2 / 3.6 = 1,166666..

1,1666666 - 1 = 0,166666...

0,16666 * 100 = 16,6666%

That performance gap between the FX 8350 and the FX 8150 means that the average FPS will fall to:

1 - 0,16666 = 0,83334

58,6 * 0,8334 = 48,833723

So now we take 15% more from the average FPS, because of the old architecture

1 - 0,15 = 0,85

48,833724*0,85 = 41,5086654

Now, you do have a slightly better GPU than me, not by much though.

The average FPS of the i5-3570 in these tests were 50,5.

Sorry for this overkill response, I was just curious!

It doesn't seem if we have to rely on the numbers, that your CPU should make a big difference, it should perform worse acctually. It's only your GPU that i slightly better. :) 


Lol you can get as theoretical as you want. If the game was built better for AMD technologies then it was built better that way. You can have the most extreme hardware in the world and a game can be programmed to not utilize it properly. Doing the math all day wont give significantly accurate results. Anyways, I apologize about the above post, I'm actually running a AMD FX-8320 (3.5GHz), not that it matters much. Nearly the same speeds, has a boost of 4.0 though.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 10:05:26 PM

Estacado said:
can gtx 680 handle next gen games ?


If you would of read the above postings, you would see the GTX 680 works just fine.
m
0
l
February 24, 2013 11:28:21 PM

Extremely little information is available about the GTX 7xx "Maxwell" Nvidia GPU's.

I seriously doubt that we will see double performance compared to the GTX 680.
m
0
l
February 25, 2013 3:31:19 AM

simon12 said:
Does anyone know why 1 of my pictures has been replaced with "No deeplinking please"? or what deeplinking is? Or why the other one is still there?

your linking to a page that allows linking but they would prefer it if you dont.
next time try clicking the image and opening it in its own link then link that.
m
0
l
February 25, 2013 3:40:22 AM

ambam said:
Extremely little information is available about the GTX 7xx "Maxwell" Nvidia GPU's.

I seriously doubt that we will see double performance compared to the GTX 680.
the titan was supposed to be the direct replacement for the 680 but because yeilds are so low nvidia decided to hold off the genreal release of the 780 until they can refine the production and get better numbers off a wafer.
its likely the gtx 780 will either just match the titan and the 770 will come in under it by about 5% or both will beat it between 5 and 10% in november. but both should cost half the price of the current titan. if they dont then amd are gonna have a field day, as they know they can undercut on price or out perfom at the same price point.
yep amd are bringing out stronger cards than nivida at the same price point... the 7870 for instance obliterates the 660ti in a lot of games. and not by just 1 or 2 fps.
so what ever nvidia arrive with amd want to be ready with a lower price or higher performing at the same price card.
m
0
l
February 27, 2013 1:56:55 PM

DragonClaw said:
Max Crysis 3 = Empty Pocket. :p 

For 30+ fps, one 680 should be enough though. I think. By the way, this game looks awesome even on Low Preset. It looks better than PS3.

no iv got a 680 you get 20 fps max its a fairly steady 20 but it does drop to 15 at some points. there's one point in particular on the campain that kill it. i'm running with 2 7970's @1100 mhz at the moment generally 45~60 fps but droping to 30 at some parts. really think you'll struggle to feed your eyes 60 fps silk with anything less than 3 flagships or 2 titans
m
0
l
February 27, 2013 2:10:35 PM

for reference my performance mark for 3d mark 11 is 15200 with the 2 7970's @ 1100 mhz on 13.2 beta. so i reckon you'll need p score of around 18000 to be bathing in silk
m
0
l
February 27, 2013 4:06:54 PM

reedy777 said:
no iv got a 680 you get 20 fps max its a fairly steady 20 but it does drop to 15 at some points. there's one point in particular on the campain that kill it. i'm running with 2 7970's @1100 mhz at the moment generally 45~60 fps but droping to 30 at some parts. really think you'll struggle to feed your eyes 60 fps silk with anything less than 3 flagships or 2 titans


That's odd. With my GTX 680 I get an average of 60fps with a low of 50 of maxed settings.
m
0
l
February 27, 2013 4:44:04 PM

HEXiT said:
the titan was supposed to be the direct replacement for the 680 but because yeilds are so low nvidia decided to hold off the genreal release of the 780 until they can refine the production and get better numbers off a wafer.
its likely the gtx 780 will either just match the titan and the 770 will come in under it by about 5% or both will beat it between 5 and 10% in november. but both should cost half the price of the current titan. if they dont then amd are gonna have a field day, as they know they can undercut on price or out perfom at the same price point.
yep amd are bringing out stronger cards than nivida at the same price point... the 7870 for instance obliterates the 660ti in a lot of games. and not by just 1 or 2 fps.
so what ever nvidia arrive with amd want to be ready with a lower price or higher performing at the same price card.


About how much faster is the Titan compared to the GTX 680?
m
0
l
February 27, 2013 8:11:23 PM

OwensJ480 said:
That's odd. With my GTX 680 I get an average of 60fps with a low of 50 of maxed settings.

your not playing on max settings
m
0
l
February 28, 2013 12:14:21 AM

Yozer34 said:
Just like Metro 2033.

I run it on Very High texture settings, with system spec at High, along with FXAA only and x16 AF... with my GTX 570 and i7-2600K. Not sure what the FPS is, but it's really smooth for the most part.
Game looks pretty good though, just wish it was more optimized like Crysis 2 was.

I played Metro 2033 maxed out but it looked like a kid took a crayon and personally drew the game.
m
0
l
February 28, 2013 1:38:47 AM

Stringjam said:
I think as much as graphic quality has improved, the need to play at "max settings," especially depending on how "max" the developer lets you get, is less and less important.

If seems like PC gamers with high-end hardware immediately start yelling "poorly optimized" if they can't run games on max. Poorly optimized what? Because the developer didn't create the game to run specifically at 60+ on YOUR hardware?

That is a very uneducated response. In response, a developer scales back what they allow their engine to serve up as 'max settings' and suddenly everybody thinks it's great.

Then everybody is like "I can run this game on max - - what a great game engine!" :sarcastic: 

The fact is, the very best of our current hardware is not capable of rendering playable framerates for what high-end engines can deliver.



lol cant exactly disagree there. Though I feel like "maxing out" a game is not always something I want to do. 2X AA is all I need for instance, motion blur is annoying, post processing effects blur everything out, and shadow quality is good anywhere above blobs. So yea its becoming less and less important to me to max out the game, but I do care about frames at MY setting.
m
0
l
February 28, 2013 10:58:55 AM

cgner said:
lol cant exactly disagree there. Though I feel like "maxing out" a game is not always something I want to do. 2X AA is all I need for instance, motion blur is annoying, post processing effects blur everything out, and shadow quality is good anywhere above blobs. So yea its becoming less and less important to me to max out the game, but I do care about frames at MY setting.


if just playing any old game is what your into. there's a consol for that.

but i feel that it is important to show support to ppl who strive to push things further.
otherwise we'll, end up with the same thing that happenned with the cod series. modernwarefare came out and it never got any better.

the truth is i downloaded black ops 2, i didn't play for more than 10 minutes it was that bad.

if your a man with a life, the time you allocate yourself to play games has to be worthwhile. same old same old just doesn't cut it.
not for me any way i'm too busy to be doing the same thing twice or however many cods there's been since activision ripped off the talent behind the first game and sold it out.

money over quality = profit that is until you've bleeched it and theres nothing left

you won't find me shepping that band wagon! SUPPORT NEXT LEVEL!!!
m
0
l
March 1, 2013 2:56:36 AM

According to what I've read, two GTX 680's in SLI will run Crysis 3 on it's highest possible settings and get between 30-60 fps at all times.
m
0
l
April 23, 2013 4:29:34 PM

ambam said:
What kind of GPU setup is required to run Crysis 3 on it's highest possible settings (including AA/AF) on 1920x1080? Someone told me that two GTX 680's in SLI are required for smooth framerates.

Crysis 3 has overtaken Metro 2033 as the ultimate GPU killer.


I would say so because I have two XFX 7870 Double D Black Editions overclocked and I am getting about 10-14 frames per second at the beginning of the game. Might have to get another XFX 7870 Double D Black Edition. ;) 
m
0
l
April 26, 2013 11:54:26 AM

OwensJ480 said:
reedy777 said:
no iv got a 680 you get 20 fps max its a fairly steady 20 but it does drop to 15 at some points. there's one point in particular on the campain that kill it. i'm running with 2 7970's @1100 mhz at the moment generally 45~60 fps but droping to 30 at some parts. really think you'll struggle to feed your eyes 60 fps silk with anything less than 3 flagships or 2 titans


That's odd. With my GTX 680 I get an average of 60fps with a low of 50 of maxed settings.


What's Ur Computer Specs ?

m
0
l

Best solution

April 27, 2013 6:58:53 PM

I got a ASUS GTX 680 Direct CU II oc 2gb Clocked @ 1200 via ASus Tweak and i manage to get 55-62 FPS on Very High Max settings 1920x1080 with SMAA x1 and Antisotrophic Filtering @ 16 X :)  No lags and seems fluid ... but i wish it could go further like 70 or 80 but im quite happy with 55 - 62 :)  Lolz and My CPU and Video card was working like a fckn horse Lolz with VCard Temp reaching 68C and the 1st time i see my GPU goes past 60% Utilization on a game LOlz












so i think a Single ASUS GTX 680 Irect CU II on max OC and 75% fan will run this game flawlessly on VERY HIGH Settings with good filtering and motion blur ;) 

so you dont really need a titan or GTX 680 on SLI to run this game on high settings
Share
April 28, 2013 7:22:49 AM

I have the GTX 680 MSI Lightning, two of them in SLI.

My rig is being built for Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3.

BF4 is supposed to overtake Crysis 3 as the single most hardware-intensive PC game in history.
m
0
l
April 28, 2013 2:58:07 PM

ambam said:
I have the GTX 680 MSI Lightning, two of them in SLI.

My rig is being built for Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3.

BF4 is supposed to overtake Crysis 3 as the single most hardware-intensive PC game in history.

What aout an 670 SLI would that be good For BF4 ?
m
0
l
April 28, 2013 4:04:27 PM

The BF4 gameplay demo was run on an HD 7990 Malta, which features two highly overclocked 7970 cores.

Certainly two overclocked GTX 680's in SLI would be as fast, if not faster than the AMD Malta.
m
0
l
April 29, 2013 4:45:35 AM

ambam said:
The BF4 gameplay demo was run on an HD 7990 Malta, which features two highly overclocked 7970 cores.

Certainly two overclocked GTX 680's in SLI would be as fast, if not faster than the AMD Malta.

Iam low on Budget building a new computer 1000-1400 $ ,
What's the best Setup ?
m
0
l
June 3, 2013 2:31:07 AM

a gtx 780, intel 4770k 4-8 gigs of ram. more if your not just gaming. you should be able to build that for about 1100 depending on what extras you want to throw at it.

m
0
l
August 15, 2013 7:52:06 PM

So many conflicting opinions, so many uneducated guesses. I don't know how any of your PC's are setup in both hardware or software so i can't really make any assumptions of how good any particular game can run on your machines exactly.

One thing i can say though is that a lot of you people who might think you know what your doing with like 3 video cards (cough, sucked in, cough) you really need to learn a bit more about the way this hardware actually works before you go and waste money like that when i have a 700 dollar PC with ONE video card that can run crysis 3 better than that.

No I am not making this up, just informing those who are unaware that it is possible. I can tell that some people here may know what they're talking about. And by the way any more than 1 dedicated video card in your box just shows that you know nothing about PC architecture and are spending big to make up for it.

The guy at the computer shop doesn't tell me what to get, I tell him what i need. And before people go into the nitty gritty statitstics, i don't need to be convinced otherwise. You just need to convince yourselves. Honestly 3 video cards what a joke, I would use them in 3 PC's. I Wouldn't like to see your power bill. People like this have often no idea how these devices actually function and what they are actually capable of. I may be wrong about that particular person, but there's a lot more to PC building than CPU Mhz and GPU series numbers, FAR more.
m
0
l
!