Crysis 3

Still one of our most punishing benchmarks, Crysis 3 needs no introduction. With Crysis 3, Crytek has gone back to trying to kill computers and still holds “most punishing shooter” title in our benchmark suite. Only in a handful of setups can we even run Crysis 3 at its highest (Very High) settings, and that’s still without AA. 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 - 2560x1440 - High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - Medium Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 is another game that somewhat favors NVIDIA, though not to the extent of other games. At 2560 we’re looking at performance that’s closer to the GTX 760 than it is the GTX 770, which is rather befitting of the 280X’s $300 status, putting it almost exactly where we’d expect it given the price.

Meanwhile checking in again on our factory overclocked Asus 280X, we have another case where the performance improvement is outpacing the boost and memory clock overclocks, this time coming in at 9%. It’s scenarios like these that make Asus’s $10 premium such a bargain for the performance.

Crysis 3 - Delta Percentages

Once again, FCAT tells us that our delta percentages are well within tolerance.

Battlefield 3 Crysis: Warhead
Comments Locked

151 Comments

View All Comments

  • Drumsticks - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link

    I'm glad you managed to screw up and then point out every single one of your perceived faults with Anandtech and blame it all on them. That was impressive.

    By the way, you could have read even the title.
  • rtsurfer - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link

    +1
    Perfectly summarized.
  • jasonelmore - Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - link

    the title doesnt scream rebadge, and typically flagships are launched first, then the sister cards a few weeks later.
  • Etern205 - Monday, October 14, 2013 - link

    R8-280x is a rebadged HD7970GE, if they're based on the new architecture like the R9-290x then we won't be reading reviews on it until AMD lifts the NDA.
  • rezztd - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link

    Why can't they just use simple naming schemes? I've found AMD's names confusing and generally harder to remember than those from NVIDIA.
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link

    Huh, for a long time I thought AMD's names were logical and ultra-simple, and it was NVIDIA who had the silly names with all their extra letters on the end.

    However, now the tables are clearly turning, and AMD's naming is terrible.
  • HisDivineOrder - Wednesday, October 9, 2013 - link

    I find the RX 2xx/2xxX naming scheme to be really horrible imo. I have a feeling they did the shift as much to confuse and misdirect away from the fact they did a refresh as to begin a new naming policy because it doesn't really help the consumer.
  • alwayssts - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link

    I'm just waiting for the XFX info/overclocking page to load...

    I think if they made their 280x similar to their 37th (only slight hyperbole) revision of the original 7970, that could be a rad product. The current version is 9.3 inches (for tiny cases/htpcs) but purposely very limited in overclocking capabilities...it also sells for around $300 +- $20. If they took that design and were allowed an upped/unlocked voltage/clock spec (with perhaps voltage tuning), that could be a sweet (and tiny) 1080p gaming part compared to anything else that size/price.
  • Slomo4shO - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link

    And I was looking forward to determining the overclock potential of this card...
  • zeock9 - Tuesday, October 8, 2013 - link

    So there hardly isn't a performance gain over the 7970GE, perhaps less than 5% if that,
    and they didn't even bother to include the new TrueAudio or Never Settle bundle.

    What's the effing point of this 'new' card when 7970GE can already be had for the same price?

    Shame on you AMD.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now