Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

CPU Benchmarks

Crysis 3 Performance, Benchmarked On 16 Graphics Cards
By

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.

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.