Is Crysis 3 too demanding?
- Thread starter DrToffnar
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
I can run it at 40-60fps @2560x1440 with mods and most settings on high
That must look phenomenal
Spent so much over the years on my eyefinity set up and all I want now is a higher res monitor! 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,540
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Probably got the same duff tessellation Crysis 2 has, if it does, then yes, that's poorly optimized, unless of course you call invisible tessellation efficient?
a lot of games are too demanding to justify the graphics in my opinion.
a lot of games are too demanding to justify the graphics in my opinion.
Yup, posted this twice but people seem to be ignoring that....
And also posted what martini said.
If a patch by crytek comes out and fixes/improves the performance drastically then we know for sure that it was not optimised as well as what it could have been.
Game has great graphics, but ground breaking and the best there is without a doubt? IMO no, think crysis 2 with the maldo mod and other games like crysis 1 (with mods) look better still.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,540
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I fear for gaming when I hear people rave about Crysis 3 and the like the way that they do.
Need to wait for two separate things to happen before we can truly see how demanding it is. Firstly, first game patch, to see if it includes some large speed boosts for fast systems. Secondly, graphics card drivers that mature and optimise for the game itself. There has been tonnes of games now that ran like utter turd when they first came out, yet was solved in no time at all with driver releases and game patches. Look at BFBC2 as a prime example, with 5x00 series AMD cards getting some enormous optimisations to seriously improve not just the FPS, but even the level load rate...
This is what happens when you play these games as soon as they are released.
If you want to play them straight away you will get this situation more often than not.
Things will improve as drivers and patches are released but consider waiting a few months for it to be better optimised.
Soe people are just to eager and should wait a bit longer.
If you want to play them straight away you will get this situation more often than not.
Things will improve as drivers and patches are released but consider waiting a few months for it to be better optimised.
Soe people are just to eager and should wait a bit longer.
Can't see it being an issue, as long as it's a good PSU. 670s don't take all that much juice being 28nm. I ran two GTX260s and a 30% OC on my i2500k on a Corsair HX620W with no bother.
Demanding? Yes! Too demanding? We cried out for it, they gave us it.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...gen-consoles-to-match-the-power-of-gaming-pcs
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...gen-consoles-to-match-the-power-of-gaming-pcs
Yep, great to see power use of components dropping so much. My previous 4ghz 920 with oc'd sli gtx 470's was pulling 630w when playing bf3.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,540
- Location
- Dormanstown.
It's not that it's too demanding, it's why it's too demanding, and that isn't because it's ground breaking to the same extent Crysis was when that came out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
No its not as ground breaking as the original Crysis but I think your hating on it for no real reason. I think it plays fine and I'm running on high settings. It really is a lovely looking game and quite a lot of fun.
Meh, I don't think that's the right attitude to have at all. If the game isn't ready for release then it shouldn't be released at all, surely? Then again, it's not like it's a major issue...
Mods aside, How does the vanilla game look compared to the others?
There is no point saying it doesn't look that great if you are using mods on top of the other games already. Cause surely when mods come out for this one then that'll look great too?
Last edited:
Compared to vanilla crysis 2 (with dx 11 and high res. texture pack), not a huge amount better imo, some parts are better, but others parts are just the same.
Compared to vanilla crysis 1, again some parts are better and other parts aren't as good.
Also think far cry 3 is very good.
As people have said though, you can't really compare 2 completely different environments. Don't get me wrong, crysis 3 graphics are excellent but not to the same extent that some people are making it out to be.
Compared to vanilla crysis 1, again some parts are better and other parts aren't as good.
Also think far cry 3 is very good.
As people have said though, you can't really compare 2 completely different environments. Don't get me wrong, crysis 3 graphics are excellent but not to the same extent that some people are making it out to be.
Last edited:
Thats fair enough. I've never played Crysis 1 through on a decent computer but my laptop runs Crysis 2 pretty nicely on highest settings. Albeit my laptop only does 1600x900 but it did look nice!
Just done the first part on Crysis 3 on medium settings 4x aa/af & it looks about the same, If not a bit more shiny! I think it'll turn into a choppy mess if I try it on the highest. So I don't really know what it looks like
Last edited:
Yeah I found that with crysis 1 if you didn't play with everything set to at least the second highest option, the game was nowhere as impressive looking.
The biggest performance killers for me with crysis 3 are the AA (got it set to SMAA low x1) and shadows (got it set to medium) and the texture pack (set to high), have turned everything to max just to see what some parts are like, unfortunately doing that cripples performance though
The biggest performance killers for me with crysis 3 are the AA (got it set to SMAA low x1) and shadows (got it set to medium) and the texture pack (set to high), have turned everything to max just to see what some parts are like, unfortunately doing that cripples performance though