Crysis 3 Performance, Benchmarked On 16 Graphics Cards

Low-Detail Benchmarks

Crysis 3 is a predominantly GPU-bound title that requires a DirectX 11-capable card to even launch. So, we weren't able to test boards as entry-level as Nvidia's GeForce 210. Based on what we were able to benchmark though, we can safely assure you that it wouldn't have offered playable performance anyway.

For the following baseline benchmarks, we selected the Low detail preset, Medium textures, and 4x AF. Motion Blur and Lens Flares were disabled, as was Antialiasing.

The Radeon HD 6450 and 6670 DDR3 are unplayable, while a modest GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 falls just under our 30 FPS minimum frame rate target. Everything else we're testing appear platform-limited, judging by the similar minimum and average frame rates in our sequence. This isn't bad, considering that Crysis 3 is still pretty impressive-looking at its lowest detail settings.

When we look at frame rates over time, we see a temporary drop in performance affecting our minimum frame rate number at the end of our benchmark. The funny thing is that there's nothing particularly interesting happening during the test to make this happen (no room full of bad guys or massive explosions). So, the reason for that drop is unclear.

The consecutive frame variance appears high, but only the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 hits 20 ms, and it's unplayable due to low frame rates anyway.

Now, we'll turn the resolution up to 1920x1080:

The GeForce GT 630 is no longer able to provide playable performance. Now, it takes a Radeon HD 7700- and GeForce GTX 650-class card to maintain at least 30 FPS (although there's a bit more spread between the average frame rates).

We see the same strange dip at the end of our test in the frame rate over time chart. The impact is less dramatic though, since only a couple of the cards we're testing push much past 30 FPS anyway.

Most of the frame rate variance is lower at 1920x1080 than it is at 1280x720. Only the GeForce GT 630 and Radeons 6450 and 6670 DDR3 encounter relatively high variance. But because their frame rates are so low, that's an irrelevant point.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
139 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • s3anister
    Cool article but every time I see an "ultra-mega-(insert specific game here)-gpu-performance-showdown" type article I can't help but feel that they are always lacking in comparison to older cards. It'd be nice if there were at least a few last gen cards tossed in for reference. Not everyone decided to upgrade from their HD 6970s or GTX 580s.
    39
  • stickmansam
    Still feel that the game is unduly harsh for what it displays

    Also hope AMD comes out with better drivers soon
    37
  • Immoral Medic
    I completed this game in 4.5 hours. I gotta say, having great graphics does NOT make a good game. It's sad when all you have to attract customers is "Best Graphics in a Game Yet". BUYBUYBUY. Don't even get me started on the absolutely terrible multiplayer...
    34
  • Other Comments
  • will1220
    Why would you include the top of the line amd, middle of the line intel (ivy bridge i5) and not the top of the line ivy bridge i7 3770k?????????
    14
  • stickmansam
    Still feel that the game is unduly harsh for what it displays

    Also hope AMD comes out with better drivers soon
    37
  • johnsonjohnson
    Right on time. I kinda suspect the i3-3220 performance from Techspot was unusual..
    8
  • rawrrr151
    I thought i3 3220 was IB, not SB?
    17
  • hero1
    Time to make an i7 rig and pass my current system to wife because Crysis demands. Nice review and the 13.2 driver from AMD has really improved frame variance for their cards. Keep it up red team so green team can do the same. The better the drivers the better our gaming experience. After all, we pay pretty penny looking for better experience. Cheers!
    5
  • DryCreamer
    I have a hand ful of benchmarks I ran when I upgraded to from the i3 3220 to the i7 3770K and I DEFINITELY noticed a jump in the minimum frame rates:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/395367-33-crysis-benchmark-560ti

    Dry
    9
  • Immoral Medic
    I completed this game in 4.5 hours. I gotta say, having great graphics does NOT make a good game. It's sad when all you have to attract customers is "Best Graphics in a Game Yet". BUYBUYBUY. Don't even get me started on the absolutely terrible multiplayer...
    34
  • aussiejunior
    Wheres the gtx 680?
    1
  • xpeh
    The only thing this game has going for it are the graphics. I beat the game in under 6 hours. The story was simply tossed in the gutter. They should have stuck with fighting the Koreans instead of introducing Aliens.
    16
  • iam2thecrowe
    toms, your method of monitoring frame times must be screwed up, the cards vary wildly and at some point the lowly gtx 650ti was showing an unbelievably good score, even better than the gtx 670. There is something wrong with your testing method. I have also noticed the same thing in previous benchmarks where you measured frame time, not consistent results. Please look into this.
    22
  • JJ1217
    xpehThe only thing this game has going for it are the graphics. I beat the game in under 6 hours. The story was simply tossed in the gutter. They should have stuck with fighting the Koreans instead of introducing Aliens.


    While its no where near to Crysis 1, I don't understand the hate for C2/C3's campaign. I thought it was amazing, good fun, while crysis was just too serious. I loved jumping around in c2, sliding through hallways, spamming my shotgun.

    I do think that C2 and C3 shouldn't be C2 and C3, if you know what I mean, like it should be called something different, not in the same Crysis franchise.
    3
  • mouse24
    Wonder if theres tessellation under the ocean in this one to.
    17
  • cleeve
    iam2thecrowetoms, your method of monitoring frame times must be screwed up, the cards vary wildly and at some point the lowly gtx 650ti was showing an unbelievably good score, even better than the gtx 670. There is something wrong with your testing method. I have also noticed the same thing in previous benchmarks where you measured frame time, not consistent results. Please look into this.


    The method is fine, but the graphics load has a lot to do with the results. It's not cut and dry.

    Were writing an article around it this month, it should explain a lot.
    -5
  • cleeve
    aussiejuniorWheres the gtx 680?


    In the high detail and triple-monitor benchmarks
    5
  • s3anister
    Cool article but every time I see an "ultra-mega-(insert specific game here)-gpu-performance-showdown" type article I can't help but feel that they are always lacking in comparison to older cards. It'd be nice if there were at least a few last gen cards tossed in for reference. Not everyone decided to upgrade from their HD 6970s or GTX 580s.
    39
  • de5_Roy
    there was something more into fx8350's 'higher' performance after all. proof that average fps don't tell the full story.
    i hope crytek can fix this with an update.
    i can totally see this game becoming a benchmark staple very soon. :D
    10
  • Novuake
    The first graphics benching AA with GTX670???? Whats up with that?

    How can the minimum FPS be 30FPS but the average is 24 FPS?

    And its a little odd that the min FPS is so close across the the board... Explain?
    11
  • slomo4sho
    I wanted to see if the hd 7870 or a 2gb 7850 would be able to support 5760x1080 on low settings.
    6
  • JonnyDough
    Just like Crysis 1 and 2, I still don't care. I play TF2, Skyrim, and any other game that isn't brand new because I refuse to pay $60 for a game that I can't return to the store and I don't have time to play all the titles out there I want to anyway. Anyone who has to jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon doesn't understand what "good gameplay" is.
    -20
  • mouse24
    JonnyDoughJust like Crysis 1 and 2, I still don't care. I play TF2, Skyrim, and any other game that isn't brand new because I refuse to pay $60 for a game that I can't return to the store and I don't have time to play all the titles out there I want to anyway. Anyone who has to jump on the latest and greatest bandwagon doesn't understand what "good gameplay" is.


    Some people don't understand that peoples opinions/gameplay/genres are different.
    20