Crysis 3 performance

humbug · 3 Mar 2013 at 23:27

I made a silly mistake, i had vSync on

My CPU is not actually bottlenecking me at all... HA! stupid me :rolleyes:

So... the same settings as you Tonester0011, everything maxed / 1x SMAA @ 1080P.

Same place...

27.4 FPS and 98% GPU usage (7870) you have a 7970 and got 43 FPS.

The same again, only this time with everything set to High.

38.6 FPS.

My previous screen shot i did again with vSync off.

everything maxed / 2x SMAA.

30.1 FPS. (it States there 86% GPU, its actually 98%, MSI AB was slow in picking up the numbers, i only noticed that after i look once out side the game, the settings menu shows the same FPS and 98% for reference)

everything high / 2x SMAA

46.4

So this game is actually playable @ All very high, and my CPU does not bottleneck the game. hurray...

@wolvers, your 35 FPS vs my 30 FPS, what GPU is that?

Tonester0011 · 3 Mar 2013 at 23:37

That's pretty decent Humbug

The 10 mins i played, i turned the settings down to high and AA off, just like the last Crysis it just doesn't feel smooth for me at <100fps.

When i get to the third mission i'll redo your shots using your settings though!

yashiro · 3 Mar 2013 at 23:44

I cringe when people call 30fps playable.

humbug · 3 Mar 2013 at 23:45

Tonester0011 said:
That's pretty decent Humbug
The 10 mins i played, i turned the settings down to high and AA off, just like the last Crysis it just doesn't feel smooth for me at <100fps.

When i get to the third mission i'll redo your shots using your settings though!

I'm finding it quite smooth, do you have HT on with your CPU? i don't think you need it and it can cause microstutter.

It is pretty decent, thanks, i'm shocked actually that a lowley 7870 is capable of playing this with maxed GFX settings, provided you stay away from any AA it runs along just fine on all very high.

Its just the screen tearing that i hate, if you turn vSync on at all very high for some reason it looks it to 20 FPS, when in fact it will do 30+.

gilljoy · 4 Mar 2013 at 00:02

I get okish performance with my setup. Running pretty much at very high with AA off, Filtering down to 1x and shadows and water at medium.

Around 20 - 40 FPS depending on the area, I am running a stock i7 930 and a single 7970 ghz edition though. Worth overclocking them both?

humbug · 4 Mar 2013 at 00:04

gilljoy said:
I get okish performance with my setup. Running pretty much at very high with AA off, Filtering down to 1x and shadows and water at medium.

Around 20 - 40 FPS depending on the area, I am running a stock i7 930 and a single 7970 ghz edition though. Worth overclocking them both?

20 - 40 FPS? turn vSync off.

gilljoy · 4 Mar 2013 at 00:05

Yup 20 - 40 fps, and yup vsync is off.

Actually must check if i'm forcing it through radeon pro. Yup just checked definitely off

Tonester0011 · 4 Mar 2013 at 00:10

humbug said:
I'm finding it quite smooth, do you have HT on with your CPU? i don't think you need it and it can cause microstutter.

It is pretty decent, thanks, i'm shocked actually that a lowley 7870 is capable of playing this with maxed GFX settings, provided you stay away from any AA it runs along just fine on all very high.

Its just the screen tearing that i hate, if you turn vSync on at all very high for some reason it looks it to 20 FPS, when in fact it will do 30+.

HT is enabled and from what i saw it's being used, 60% CPU usage when 100+ FPS. All 8 threads have activity anyway

I never touch VSync, i also never get screen tear

120hz is pretty decent

Gregster · 4 Mar 2013 at 00:30

If ever you needed a reason to go triple screen

And the game looks even better in motion. I am pulling around 45fps with everything maxed and 4XTXAA and it plays reasonably smooth.

humbug · 4 Mar 2013 at 00:34

Tonester0011 said:
HT is enabled and from what i saw it's being used, 60% CPU usage when 100+ FPS. All 8 threads have activity anyway

I never touch VSync, i also never get screen tear 120hz is pretty decent

Nice

i'm just really picky about that, as soon as i see it i go BLAAARRRR.....

I might set up RadeonPro again and try Adaptive vSync.

Tonester0011 · 4 Mar 2013 at 00:53

Thought i would add to this thread

My friends computer.
965 @stock
5850 @stock

V-high settings (the ones i used)
http://www.abload.de/img/crysis32013-03-0401-157kzp.png

All set to low
http://www.abload.de/img/crysis32013-03-0401-27jz1u.png

humbug · 4 Mar 2013 at 01:00

Tonester0011 said:
Thought i would add to this thread

My friends computer.
965 @stock
5850 @stock

V-high settings (the ones i used)
http://www.abload.de/img/crysis32013-03-0401-157kzp.png

All set to low
http://www.abload.de/img/crysis32013-03-0401-27jz1u.png

5 FPS???? wow, just wow. with respect to your friend, thats pathetic.

He needs to upgrade, a GTX 660 / 7850 and an FX-6300 is not to expensive and will get him good solid performance.

Tonester0011 · 4 Mar 2013 at 01:03

humbug said:
5 FPS???? wow, just wow. with respect to your friend, thats pathetic.

He needs to upgrade, a GTX 660 / 7850 and an FX-6300 is not to expensive and will get him good solid performance.

He wants an upgrade, but the games he plays he doesn't...if that makes sense?

I keep telling him to overclock the CPU and GPU, but he wont :confused:

humbug · 4 Mar 2013 at 01:12

Tonester0011 said:
He wants an upgrade, but the games he plays he doesn't...if that makes sense?

I keep telling him to overclock the CPU and GPU, but he wont

No, none of that makes sense, lol.

The cost, yes, i don't know what Motherboard he has, if its an AM3+ socket an FX-6300 will drop right in, thats £100 + ~£150 for the GPU, its a pretty decent all rounder, unless all he plays nothing but WoW and PS2, in which case he is better off with that unbeatable all round the i5, but that will cost him a lot more money.

Overclocking that 5850, it seems. is not going to make much difference, even at low settings its unplayable @ 15 FPS.

The CPU is probable not 'to' bad, but with it only having 4 cores and running at stock it not great either, certainly a lot slower than an x6 / i5 / FX-6300.

If he wants to play this game he has some thinking to do.

killswitch73 · 4 Mar 2013 at 03:58

humbug said:
No, none of that makes sense, lol.

The cost, yes, i don't know what Motherboard he has, if its an AM3+ socket an FX-6300 will drop right in, thats £100 + ~£150 for the GPU, its a pretty decent all rounder, unless all he plays nothing but WoW and PS2, in which case he is better off with that unbeatable all round the i5, but that will cost him a lot more money.

Overclocking that 5850, it seems. is not going to make much difference, even at low settings its unplayable @ 15 FPS.

The CPU is probable not 'to' bad, but with it only having 4 cores and running at stock it not great either, certainly a lot slower than an x6 / i5 / FX-6300.

If he wants to play this game he has some thinking to do.

it will be cheaper for him to play it on a Xbox360

and he will then get 30fps.

oweneades · 4 Mar 2013 at 08:44

oweneades said:
Clock the nuts off of it and turn the settings down.

Just started playing it on my HD7970 / Eyefinity setup and it generally plays quite well at medium settings / high textures (25-45fps).

High is a no go with fps dropping into the high teens.

I am downloading the latest beta drivers to see if anything improves (currently on 12.11 beta something or other - I lost count after 4).

I also have some headroom left in the 7970 as I haven't really pushed this card at all - came clocked at 1050/5700 out of the box.

New drivers and clocks of ~ 1250/6800 should see around 30-55 at the same settings as above.

Quick update on my previous post:

Driver 13.2 Beta 7 improved my framerates a decent amount. I am now nning "high" settings with shadows & post processing on medium at the same framerates as pure medium settings on the 12.11 Beta 4 drivers (25-45fps).

Next up will be clocking the nuts off of the card to bring the minimums up to 30ish.

TBH with the Afterburner OSD switched off I am finding the game perfectly playable.

On a side note I have found - in a moment of button mashing panic - that the volume controls work on my keyboard. In the middle of a fire fight and needing to switch to my secondary weapon I managed to mute the sound

.

As a matter of curiosity I attempted to play the game on my laptop hooked up to our TV. (Laptop - i7 2670QM / GT635m 144sp @ 775/1550/2100).

At 1366x768 medium settings it is perfectly playable, although attempting to play it with a controller just left me frustrated.

gilljoy · 4 Mar 2013 at 09:15

Quick question as I said I get Okish fps with my i7 930 and 7970, 20 - 40 depending on settings. Would over clocking the cpu improve it much?

old gamer · 4 Mar 2013 at 09:26

gilljoy, im on a i7 920 @3.8ghz with a 7970, not installed the game yet but will let you know what frame rates im getting soon as

oweneades · 4 Mar 2013 at 09:27

gilljoy said:
Quick question as I said I get Okish fps with my i7 930 and 7970, 20 - 40 depending on settings. Would over clocking the cpu improve it much?

Best way to find out is give it a go.

Crysis 3 seems to hit the CPU quite hard so logic would dictate you should see an improvement although there are a lot of factors involved (resolution, settings etc).

DK06CTR · 4 Mar 2013 at 09:37

gilljoy said:
I get okish performance with my setup. Running pretty much at very high with AA off, Filtering down to 1x and shadows and water at medium.

Around 20 - 40 FPS depending on the area, I am running a stock i7 930 and a single 7970 ghz edition though. Worth overclocking them both?

That performance is way off, i have a i7 930 clocked at 4ghz and a 7970 lightning with 1150 core and memory 1650mhz and all very high and 2x smaa and i get an average of anywere between 40-60 fps with occasional dip to high 30's.

You need to get that cpu and gpu clocked up you are loosing loads of performance as it is at the moment. Also i use dynamic vsync in radeon pro on this and it is smooth with no tearing.