Crysis 3

With Crysis 3, Crytek has gone back to trying to kill computers, taking back the “most punishing game” title in our benchmark suite. Only in a handful of setups can we even run Crysis 3 at its highest (Very High) settings, and the situation isn't too much better for entry-level GPUs at its lowest quality setting. In any case Crysis 1 was an excellent template for the kind of performance required to drive games for the next few years, and Crysis 3 looks to be much the same for 2013.

Crysis 3

All of these GPUs need to run at low quality settings to get decent frame rates, but Iris Pro is actually the first Intel integrated solution that can break 30 fps here. Only AMD's desktop Trinity can claim the same. NVIDIA holds a 30% advantage, one that shrinks to 10% on the GT 640. Given the only difference between those two parts is memory bandwidth, I wonder if Crystalwell might need to run at a higher frequency here.

Crysis 3

Crysis 3

Battlefield 3 Crysis Warhead
POST A COMMENT

174 Comments

View All Comments

  • kyuu - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    It's probably habit coming from eluding censoring. Reply
  • maba - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    To be fair, there is only one data point (GFXBenchmark 2.7 T-Rex HD - 4X MSAA) where the 47W cTDP configuration is more than 40% slower than the tested GT 650M (rMBP15 90W).
    Actually we have the following [min, max, avg, median] for 47W (55W):
    games: 61%, 106%, 78%, 75% (62%, 112%, 82%, 76%)
    synth.: 55%, 122%, 95%, 94% (59%, 131%, 102%, 100%)
    compute: 85%, 514%, 205%, 153% (86%, 522%, 210%, 159%)
    overall: 55%, 514%, 101%, 85% (59%, 522%, 106%, 92%)
    So typically around 75% for games with a considerably lower TDP - not that bad.
    I do not know whether Intel claimed equal or better performance given a specific TDP or not. With the given 47W (55W) compared to a 650M it would indeed be a false claim.
    But my point is, that with at least ~60% performance and typically ~75% it is admittedly much closer than you stated.
    Reply
  • whyso - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    Note your average 650m is clocked lower than the 650m reviewed here. Reply
  • lmcd - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    If I recall correctly, the rMBP 650m was clocked as high as or slightly higher than the 660m (which was really confusing at the time). Reply
  • JarredWalton - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    Correct. GT 650M by default is usually 835MHz + Boost, with 4GHz RAM. The GTX 660M is 875MHz + Boost with 4GHz RAM. So the rMBP15 is a best-case for GT 650M. However, it's not usually a ton faster than the regular GT 650M -- benchmarks for the UX51VZ are available here:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/814
    Reply
  • tipoo - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    I think any extra power just went to the rMBP scaling operations. Reply
  • DickGumshoe - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    Do you know if the scaling algorithms are handled by the CPU or the GPU on the rMBP?

    The big thing I am wondering is that if Apple releases a higher-end model with the MQ CPU's, would the HD 4600 be enough to eliminate the UI lag currently present on the rMBP's HD 4000?

    If it's done on the GPU, then having the HQ CPU's might actually get *better* UI performance than the MQ CPU's for the rMPB.
    Reply
  • lmcd - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    No, because these benchmarks would change the default resolution, which as I understand is something the panel would compensate for?

    Wait, aren't these typically done while the laptop screen is off and an external display is used?
    Reply
  • whyso - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    You got this wrong. 650m is 735/1000 + boost to 850/1000. 660m is 835/1250 boost to 950/1250. Reply
  • jasonelmore - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    worst mistake intel made was that demo with DIRT when it was side by side with a 650m laptop. That set people's expectations. and it falls short in the reviews and people are dogging it. If they would have just kept quite people would be praising them up and down right now. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now