Crysis 3 Performance, Benchmarked On 16 Graphics Cards

Very High-Detail Benchmarks

With the less demanding settings behind us, we're cranking up the graphics quality to its highest level using the Very High preset. 

Because it's simply not possible to run the most demanding MSAA settings using Very High details, we're sticking to 2x SMAA. We're also limiting the Motion Blur option to Medium for two reasons: it exacts a high demand, and we're not really interested in seeing more blur than than Medium gives us.

Based on the average and minimum frame rates, all of these cards (and combinations of cards) appear able to handle this preset at 1920x1080. With that said, even though the data indicates otherwise, several options are choppy.

Frame rate over time shows us how at least 30 FPS is maintained through most of our benchmark.

The frame time variance chart is indicative of the choppiness we were experiencing. The GeForce GTX 660 Ti, in particular, seemed to struggle.

Unfortunately, our dual-card and dual-GPU readings can't be considered as accurate as the single-GPU results due to the tools at our disposal, so we can't speak objectively about those numbers. Interestingly, the GeForce GTX Titan and 680 demonstrate higher variance results, despite their single GPUs.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
139 comments
    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