Crysis 3

Still one of our most punishing benchmarks 3 years later, Crysis 3 needs no introduction. Crytek’s DX11 masterpiece, Crysis 3’s Very High settings still punish even the best of video cards, never mind the rest. Along with its high performance requirements, Crysis 3 is a rather balanced game in terms of power consumption and vendor optimizations. As a result it can give us a good look at how our video cards stack up on average, and later on in this article how power consumption plays out.

Crysis 3 - 3840x2160 - Very High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality + FXAA

This being the first cycle we’ve used the Very High settings, it’s humorous to see a $700 video card getting 35fps on a 3 year old game. Very High settings give Crysis 3 a level of visual quality many games still can’t match, but the tradeoff is that it obliterates most video cards. We’re probably still 3-4 years out from a video card that can run at 4K with 4x MSAA at 60fps, never mind accomplishing that without the MSAA.

The GTX 1080 does however at least get the distinction of being the one and only card to crack 30fps at 4K. Though 30fps is not suggested for Crysis, it can legitimately claim to be the only card that can even handle the game at 4K with a playable framerate at this time. Otherwise if we turn down the resolution, the GTX 1080 is now the only card to crack 60fps at 1440p. Very close to that mark though is the GTX 1070, which at 58.1fps is a small overclock away from 60fps.

Looking at the generational comparisons, GTX 1080 and GTX 1070 lead by a bit less than usual, at 62% and 51% respectively. The GTX 1080/1070 gap on the other hand is pretty typical, with the GTX 1080 leading by 27% at 4K, 23% at 1440p, and 21% at 1080p.

Battlefield 4 The Witcher 3
Comments Locked

200 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ninhalem - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    There's 32 freaking pages in this review. Maybe people have other jobs instead of writing all day long. Did you ever think of that?

    I'll take quality and a long publishing time over crap and rushing out the door.
  • Stuka87 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    Thanks for the extremely in depth review Ryan!
  • cknobman - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    I cannot help feel just a bit underwhelmed.

    Of course these Nvidia cards kick some major butt in games that have always favored Nvidia but I noticed that in games not specifically coded to take advantage of Nvidia and furthermore games with DX12 that these cards performance advantage is minimal at best vs an old Fury X with half the video RAM.

    Then when you take into account Vulcan API and newer DX12 games (which can be found elsewhere) you see that the prices for these cards is a tad ridiculous and the performance advantage starts to melt away.

    I am waiting for AMD to release their next "big gun" before I make a purchase decision.
    I'm rocking a 4k monitor right now and 60fps at that resolution is my target.
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    1080 is close to being that 4K60 card, but can't quite cut it. I'm waiting for "Big Vega" vs 1080Ti before dropping any money.
  • lefty2 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    Great review - one of the few that highlights the fact the Pascal async compute is only half as good as AMD's version. Async compute is a key feature for increasing performance in DX12 and Vulkan and that's going to allow the RX 480 to perform well against the GTX 1060
  • Daniel Egger - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    "... why the memory controller organization of GP104 is 8x32b instead of 4x64b like GM204"

    Sounds like it's the other way around.
  • Ryan Smith - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    No, that's correct. 8 32bit wide controllers rather than 4 64bit wide controllers.

    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10325/GeForce_GTX...

    http://images.anandtech.com/doci/8526/GeForce_GTX_...
  • DominionSeraph - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    >It has taken about 2 years longer than we’d normally see

    ... for a review of a flagship card to come out
  • sgeocla - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    The old Maxwell was so optimized it was always full and didn't even need Async Compute. The new Pascal is so much more optimized that it even has time to create the "holes" in execution (not counting the ones in your pocket) that were "missing" in the old architecture to be able to benefit for Async Compute. Expect Volta to create even more holes (with hardware support) for Async Compute to fill.
  • tipoo - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link

    That's demonstrably untrue.

    http://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/a-closer-l...

    Plenty of holes that could have been filled in Maxwell.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now