Crysis 3 Performance, Benchmarked On 16 Graphics Cards

CPU Benchmarks

After testing all of our graphics cards using a stock Core i7-3960X, with its six cores and Hyper-Threading technology enabled, we swapped in a range of lower-end processors and platforms to compare. 

The Sandy Bridge-E-based Core i7 easily beats the Ivy Bridge-based Core i5-3550 and Vishera-based FX-8350, which both achieve about 50 FPS, on average. Unfortunately for AMD, its CPU dips to 21 FPS, while the Core i5 maintains at least 31 FPS.

As for the Core i3, Pentium, Phenom II X4, and quad-core A8 APU, none maintains more than a 20 FPS minimum frame rate at the High detail preset.

Thinking that this might have been an avoidable bottleneck caused by our detail settings, we dropped the preset to Low and re-tested the Phenom II X4 and Core i3-3220. Even then, we didn't see minimums any higher than 25 FPS. The issue wasn't fixed in the recent 1.2 patch, either.

Our benchmark sequence does have that taxing bottleneck at the end of the run. But no matter how you process the data, processor performance is going to be an important consideration in Crysis 3. We can't recommend anything less than a Core i5 to gamers building a PC capable of handling this game, and serious enthusiasts will want a Core i7. Crysis 3 appears to be one of those rare games optimized for multi-core processors, as evidenced by the six-core Sandy Bridge-E's strong result compared to quad-core Ivy Bridge.

Having said that, AMD's FX-8350 provides serviceable Crysis 3 game play. Despite the frame rate valley we experienced in our benchmark run, this CPU achieves smoother performance on average. Perhaps this is something Crytek will be able to address through a future update.

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