Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Very High-Detail Benchmarks

Crysis 3 Performance, Benchmarked On 16 Graphics Cards
By

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.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 8 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    mi1ez , 5 March 2013 19:23
    All I can see in those image comparisons is the GIF artefacts. Is there not a better way?
  • 1 Hide
    sam_p_lay , 5 March 2013 21:29
    mi1ezAll I can see in those image comparisons is the GIF artefacts. Is there not a better way?


    +1. Low/Med/High (or whatever) rollovers to switch between PNGs would be nice. Good to give the user the ability to switch between what they want at their own pace instead of waiting for their frame to come back around.
  • 2 Hide
    marshallbradley , 5 March 2013 21:35
    According to the last graph on the first page, at 8x MSAA the Min FPS is higher than the average FPS. Eh??
  • 0 Hide
    bemused_fred , 6 March 2013 00:22
    I can see this game appearing in a lot of benchmarking suites.....
  • 0 Hide
    woodscrews , 12 March 2013 09:43
    interesting, would have been nice if you benched the hardware on med settings too, and maybe tested the latest AM3 athlon x4 seeing how its exelent value at the low end right now
  • 0 Hide
    chriss000 , 13 March 2013 22:51
    There arent many who would shell out for a big system upgrade to play this game.
    It looks nice but not 200 quids worth.
  • 0 Hide
    doveman , 14 March 2013 11:36
    My TV only really supports 1280x720 so I'm playing at that with V.High Textures, 4xMSAA, 16xAF and most settings at V.High or High except Particles and Shadows I think as they were crippling my fps from 60 to 30 but now it's mostly at 60fps, with some occasional dips no lower than about 45fps.

    I'm only running a Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.6ghz.
  • 0 Hide
    chriss000 , 14 March 2013 16:33
    Yes Doveman, how reiivant are 1080p benchmarks when more than half of all games pc's
    are hooked up to cheap monitors or bedroom size tv's?
    My donated lcd only runs at 1020x768 ! Looks ok to my old low deff peepers tho.