Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[GameGPU] Crysis 3 Final - GPU & CPU scaling

82K views 363 replies 135 participants last post by  Flamingo 
#1 ·
Crysis 3 Benched @GameGPU.RU
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-test-gpu.html
  • Crysis 3 Memory Usage - Up to 1200MB
  • Video Ram up to 2GB for Ultra setting @ 2560x1600 4x MSAA
CAT 13.2 beta 6 vs Nvidia 314.07

Crysis 3 GPU @ 1920x1080 SMAA 4X


Crysis 3 GPU @ 2560x1600 SMAA 4X


CPU-Scaling @ Very High Quality with No AA


Intel Core Load %


AMD Core Load %

Quote:
AMD has a very good multi-core performance, which is significantly higher than that of processors Intel. This explains the very good results relative to its CPU opponent [Google Translate]
added PCGH (PC Games Hardware) Crysis 3 Benchmarks:

[CPU] Crysis 3 in the CPU test (includes Ivy Bridge)

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Test-CPU-Benchmark-1056578/

[GPU] Crysis 3 benchmark test (Medium to Very High settings)

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis-3-PC-235317/Tests/Crysis-3-Benchmark-Test-Grafikkarten-1056218/
 
See less See more
7
#3 ·
Good to see that AMD on top of the CPU charts (ignoring the $$$$ 6-core intels).
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kand View Post

Why aren't there any 3570K and 3770K's in those charts?
Probably because they're only a hair faster than a 2500k or 2600k.

On-topic: AMD CPU scaling is a definite win here! It's good to see the FX CPU's finally being put to work.
thumb.gif
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

Probably because they're only a hair faster than a 2500k or 2600k.

On-topic: AMD CPU scaling is a definite win here! It's good to see the FX CPU's finally being put to work.
thumb.gif
It's still peculiar for them to completely leave Ivy Bridge out. Because seeing as that, the FX CPUs are also "just a hair" faster than Sandy Bridge. Why not leave that out too?
 
#9 ·
So it looks like 6-Core optimized.
 
#10 ·
That thing is just demolishing the graphics cards. Even a 690 only averaging 65 frames... I was anticipating such a monster of a card to average at least 75-80. Crysis 3 should look pretty freaking amazing.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

Probably because they're only a hair faster than a 2500k or 2600k.

On-topic: AMD CPU scaling is a definite win here! It's good to see the FX CPU's finally being put to work.
thumb.gif
I think its very odd actually. Ivy will generally game better than most of the 2011 cpu's. Also why are they testing on the old chipset. This just seems like a waste.
 
#12 ·
Interesting - doesn't seem to use HT much on the intel side, wonder if they'll patch it in. Regardless, nice to see someone code to allow the FX to flex it's multi-core muscle a bit - a FX-8350 @ 4.5-5ghz should be rather quick in this title - easily competing in the 3930k realm at a quarter of the price. Of course, that doesn't factor in an oc on the 3930k but for the cost difference it's a fair assessment.

Bought Crysis 3 today as well and installing now - got lucky and bought the last hard copy available at my local gamestop - ended up getting a hunter edition though it wasn't preordered by me
thumb.gif
 
#14 ·
Crysis coming correct again and leaving GPU's huddled in the corner sucking their thumbs! I guess Cevat Yerli was right afterall...
 
#15 ·
I remember telling people asking for CPU advice, get a FX-8350 it will smash a 3570K when these heavy hitter games come out, most of wich are 6+ core optimized......Those that listened congrats.
thumb.gif


I am stunned though I would have never thought I would see my little FX-6300 beating a sandy bridge 2500k CPU. $130 FTW
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
#16 ·
Looks like my CPU is doing well...
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreekG View Post

So what would the 3970X at 4.0 do,?
Seeing as the AMD are at 4.0, Intel at 3.5
Not much. Chart shows FX-6300 at 3.5GHz beating a 2500k at 3.5GHz, so I think the game just prefers more cores.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimaggio1103 View Post

Not much. Chart shows FX-6300 at 3.5GHz beating a 2500k at 3.5GHz, so I think the game just prefers more cores.
2500K @ 3.3GHz.
 
#23 ·
Can't wait to get this game but I'm playing through C2 again real quick before I get it...
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

2500K @ 3.3GHz.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 2500k boost to 3.7GHz?
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

2500K @ 3.3GHz.
Still stock for stock, and not considering the fx can usually clock higher. I think with next gen on the horizon and amd running all hardware on those amd is going to pick up fast. Add 15-30% for steam roller and it looks like it can surpass the 3930, at least in crysis 3.

So when it comes down to it, if someone is looking to play crysis 3 and building a rig I am recommending the fx chips.Price performance is nutter with the 6300 in this game.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

2500K @ 3.3GHz.
My bad I messed up by 200MHz......lol

Either way still a win for AMD considering a FX-6300 costs how much less? And a 8350 just demolishes it........and its still for cheaper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwnzilla61 View Post

Still stock for stock, and not considering the fx can usually clock higher. I think with next gen on the horizon and amd running all hardware on those amd is going to pick up fast. Add 15-30% for steam roller and it looks like it can surpass the 3930, at least in crysis 3.

So when it comes down to it, if someone is looking to play crysis 3 and building a rig I am recommending the fx chips.Price performance is nutter with the 6300 in this game.
Yup and other games will follow suite Im willing to bet. I called this one months ago. Plus, as you said add steamroller, and the fact all consoles are now AMD 8 cores. I made the right choice sticking with my AM3+ platform
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top