Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FPS in Far Cry 3, Crysis 3, CODII, Metro 2033 and Borderlands 2

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Crysis
  • FPS
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 16, 2013 7:26:03 PM

I have an EVGA GTX 660 Ti overclocked to about 1150Mhz w/+308 on the memory. And I was wondering how other graphics cards performed with the same settings I am using. I game on a 1920x1080 screen just like almost everyone else. Here are the highest settings I'll use on each of the games I listed and the FPS I get.

Far Cry 3- Ultra Preset(Everything's on Ultra)SSAO, Extreme Pholiage Rendering, 2x MSAA- 50-60FPS, 55 FPS average
Crysis 3- High Settings(Everything's on High not Very High)Motion Blur Medium, Lens Flares On, 2xSMAA 45-60FPS, 50-55FPS average
CODII Zombies- Ultra High Detail, 4X TXAA, Everything ON and on HIGH 110-140FPS
Metro 2033-Medium Setting 16x AF, 4x MSAA 35-50 FPS, 40-45 FPS average
Borderlands 2- Highest Detail Settings, 16x AF, FXAA On, PhysX High, Everything ON and on HIGH 60-100FPS, 80FPS average

I just wondering what other people have gotten with there graphics cards at these settings or other settings on these really popular games. Just to compare the 660Ti with other 660Ti's and other graphics cards. Hopefully someone will share. I'm really curious if I'm getting good FPS for these games for the setup that I have. Yeah Metro 2033 really takes it to me even on Normal settings. I can turn it on High but if I use the MSAA I can only get 30 FPS and I need MSAA for this game.

More about : fps cry crysis codii metro 2033 borderlands

March 17, 2013 4:31:29 AM

Well I have a 7970 and I run FC3 at ~50fps on Ultra with HBAO and 4xAA.
March 17, 2013 12:52:45 PM

Yeah if I go up to 4x AA my card goes down between 30-45FPS because of my 192bit memory subsystem. When I go too high on AA my GPU usage goes way down because the memorys taxed and I guess it just doesn't use the GPU if the memory's taxed.
Related resources
March 17, 2013 12:55:52 PM

I could use 8xAA but at 25-30fps, it's really not worth it. I can barely notice a difference. Why nVidia decided to limit the bandwidth is beyond me.
March 17, 2013 12:57:31 PM

Everytime I make posts like this it seems nobody's as interested in this as I am. I guess I could read some Tom's Hardware reviews. But I'd rather know how the rest of the world run's these games.
March 17, 2013 1:05:42 PM

Yeah I think they decided to limit the bandwidth because the 660Ti has 1344 cuda cores. Just like the 670ftw and it costs nearly 400$. So if they would have left the 256bit memory then it would perform the same as the 670ftw.

And to be honest, I much rather have 1344 cores and a 192bit memory that can run really high quality settings but lower MSAA than have say 1166 cores with 256bit memory than can't produce as high of a quality but can handle high MSAA.

To me, I don't see who would ever need more than 2-4x MSAA. I don't find it makes a difference after 4x. And if you look at the benchmarks on Tom's, they find that with the 660 Ti, if you go past 4x AA then the performance of the 660Ti drops to a HD 7850 level. But like I say, I'll never go past 2x MSAA most of the time, because I don't find it makes as much of a difference as image quality and shadows say.
March 17, 2013 1:30:43 PM

Before I post my results, keep in mind I'm running these games at full resolution on a 1920x1200 monitor with a mobile graphics card.

Borderlands 2- Medium Detail Settings, 2x AF, FXAA On, PhysX Low, Everything else OFF. 25-40FPS, 32FPS average.

CODII Zombies- Ultra High Detail, 2X MSAA, Everything else OFF except FXAA. 30-50FPS, 43FPS average.

I haven't tried Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 and I don't even want to try. I'm 75% sure my computer could run Far Cry at the minimal settings at a lower resolution, but still, why would you play a game if you cant even play with your max resolution?
March 17, 2013 5:41:06 PM

Decent results for a GT 630m at 1980x1200. I'm sure you could run Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 at their absolute minumum setting while getting 25-30FPS with reletively low frame times. I'm sure it'd be playable.

I also have a laptop with an i7 3610qm and a Nvidia GT650m and I can run Far Cry 3 on Medium settings with 2x MSAA and I'll get 25-35FPS, 30 average. And I can run Crysis 3 with Medium Detail settings/Low Shadows with 2xSMAA, Low Motion Blur, Lens Flares on, and I'll get 25-35FPS, 30FPS average.
a c 217 U Graphics card
March 17, 2013 5:48:57 PM

I'm currently playing FC3 at max settings and 4x MSAA (Who needs more? Can you see more?), and I get about 80 average FPS. However, I just switch to 3D Vision with a fix from Helix Mod. I have the same settings, but using DX9 instead (his mods only work on DX9). In 3D Vision, I believe I'm getting 60 FPS, but I just switched over, and my FPS monitor doesn't work with Helix Mod. I have to use Fraps, which I will later.
a b U Graphics card
March 17, 2013 6:20:06 PM

For Metro 2033, are you playing with DoF enabled? Even for adaptive it's terribly unoptimized performance-wise on all systems across the board.
March 18, 2013 7:53:26 PM

Am I playing with Depth of Field? I didn't know they had an option for that. The only options I see is detail:Very High, High, Normal ect., MSAA, AF, and I think that's about it. I'm not sure though. But yeah I get terrible FPS. And the game doesn't even look that good graphics wise. It must be just poorly optimized. I gotta play on the Normal setting if I wanna use 4x MSAA and 16x AF. And it doesn't look right without those. So I rather do that than play on High without MSAA or 16x AF.
March 18, 2013 7:55:03 PM

bystander said:
I'm currently playing FC3 at max settings and 4x MSAA (Who needs more? Can you see more?), and I get about 80 average FPS. However, I just switch to 3D Vision with a fix from Helix Mod. I have the same settings, but using DX9 instead (his mods only work on DX9). In 3D Vision, I believe I'm getting 60 FPS, but I just switched over, and my FPS monitor doesn't work with Helix Mod. I have to use Fraps, which I will later.


I'm very impressed by your FPS. I didn't think a 680 would be that good. I was thinking a 680 could get 80FPS with Ultra settings with 2x AA but not with 4x. Wow, impressive.

a c 217 U Graphics card
March 18, 2013 9:11:28 PM

ericjohn004 said:
bystander said:
I'm currently playing FC3 at max settings and 4x MSAA (Who needs more? Can you see more?), and I get about 80 average FPS. However, I just switch to 3D Vision with a fix from Helix Mod. I have the same settings, but using DX9 instead (his mods only work on DX9). In 3D Vision, I believe I'm getting 60 FPS, but I just switched over, and my FPS monitor doesn't work with Helix Mod. I have to use Fraps, which I will later.


I'm very impressed by your FPS. I didn't think a 680 would be that good. I was thinking a 680 could get 80FPS with Ultra settings with 2x AA but not with 4x. Wow, impressive.



I have a pair, in SLI, but I'm sure they are being bottlenecked a bit by my CPU, but 3D Vision is what I focus on.

a b U Graphics card
March 19, 2013 5:48:22 AM

ericjohn004 said:
Am I playing with Depth of Field? I didn't know they had an option for that. The only options I see is detail:Very High, High, Normal ect., MSAA, AF, and I think that's about it. I'm not sure though. But yeah I get terrible FPS. And the game doesn't even look that good graphics wise. It must be just poorly optimized. I gotta play on the Normal setting if I wanna use 4x MSAA and 16x AF. And it doesn't look right without those. So I rather do that than play on High without MSAA or 16x AF.


Switch to DX9 which will turn DoF and tesselation off, then switch back to DX11 and the game should display both options properly. You may need to restart the game. If that does not work, you can look under the game dir or User\Appdata\Local\4A Games\Metro2033\ for the config file which should have a line that reads something like 'bEnableDepthOfField 1'. Setting it to '0' instead of '1' would do the trick as well.

It's been over a year since I played around with the config so honestly I can't really remember any of this stuff very well so just do a quick search online. The game itself isn't terribly optimized for the most part. Just that the adaptive DoF is... If you don't believe me, try running the benchmark tool which is located in the same directory as the game executable, first with DoF enabled and then disabled. Compare results.

March 19, 2013 1:46:51 PM

hizodge said:
ericjohn004 said:
Am I playing with Depth of Field? I didn't know they had an option for that. The only options I see is detail:Very High, High, Normal ect., MSAA, AF, and I think that's about it. I'm not sure though. But yeah I get terrible FPS. And the game doesn't even look that good graphics wise. It must be just poorly optimized. I gotta play on the Normal setting if I wanna use 4x MSAA and 16x AF. And it doesn't look right without those. So I rather do that than play on High without MSAA or 16x AF.


Switch to DX9 which will turn DoF and tesselation off, then switch back to DX11 and the game should display both options properly. You may need to restart the game. If that does not work, you can look under the game dir or User\Appdata\Local\4A Games\Metro2033\ for the config file which should have a line that reads something like 'bEnableDepthOfField 1'. Setting it to '0' instead of '1' would do the trick as well.

It's been over a year since I played around with the config so honestly I can't really remember any of this stuff very well so just do a quick search online. The game itself isn't terribly optimized for the most part. Just that the adaptive DoF is... If you don't believe me, try running the benchmark tool which is located in the same directory as the game executable, first with DoF enabled and then disabled. Compare results.



This is good news maybe now I'll be able to play with 60FPS. Thanks. I'll try that.

July 1, 2013 9:43:07 AM

I'm getting between 28 and 45 fps on fc3 at 1366x768. I'm on a Lenovo y400 with the gt750m. Maxed out settings and 4x msaa :)  It's a surprisingly good mobile card. Most of the time, fps sticks around 35-38.
July 1, 2013 9:45:53 AM

But metro 2033 just kills my system, even at 768p. I suppose it's because of horrible code optimisation. The guys at 4A used to be part of GSC, which made the STALKER series and we all know how buggy and unoptimised those games were....even though they're bloody amazing. (hehe...the only two games I have that I can't max out without lag are metro 2033 and stalker clear sky. This when far cry 3 maxes out :p  )
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2013 12:48:02 PM

Arjun Krishna Lal said:
But metro 2033 just kills my system, even at 768p. I suppose it's because of horrible code optimisation. The guys at 4A used to be part of GSC, which made the STALKER series and we all know how buggy and unoptimised those games were....even though they're bloody amazing. (hehe...the only two games I have that I can't max out without lag are metro 2033 and stalker clear sky. This when far cry 3 maxes out :p  )


Even mentioning Metro 2033 and the word "optimized" in the same paragraph is a grammatical error. Even if not in the same sentence! LOL

I could chime in with my GTX 770 frame rates but.. I don't play Crysis 3.. and I use VSync so I have no idea what my real average frame rate is. LOL

July 1, 2013 1:21:24 PM

Im running 2 XFX Radeon R7770 Extreme OC in crossfire and have Farcry 3 completely maxed out at 60 FPS steady. Crysis 3 Is all on Ultra at the highest resolution and gets 53 FPS average. COD BO 2 gets me 60 steady fully maxed out in single player. Ive never played Borderlands, but I can play Metro 2033 maxed out at 55 FPS. I havent met a game I couldn't dominate yet.

I got all FPS from FRAPS during gameplay.
January 23, 2014 10:36:16 AM

will i haven't played crysis 3
but here is my crysis 2 fps 1920 x 1080 all on high i get about 45 fps average
i have ati 5750 and athlon x2 250 4gb ram
!