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 the “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 2015.

Crysis 3 - 3840x2160 - High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 3840x2160 - Low Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 2560x1440 - High Quality + FXAA

Under Crysis 3 the R9 Fury once again has the lead, though there is a clear amount of variation in that lead depending on the resolution. At 4K it’s 14% or so, but at 1440p it’s just 5%. This is consistent with the general trend for AMD and NVIDIA cards, which is that AMD sees better performance scaling at higher resolutions, and is a big part of the reason why AMD is pushing 4K for the R9 Fury X and R9 Fury. Still, based on absolute performance, the R9 Fury’s performance probably makes it better suited for 1440p.

Meanwhile the R9 Fury cards once again consistently trail the R9 Fury X by no more than 7%. Crysis 3 is generally more sensitive to changes in shader throughput, so it’s interesting to see that the performance gap is as narrow as it is here. These kinds of results imply that the R9 Fury X’s last 512 stream processors aren’t being put to very good use, since most of the performance difference can be accounted for in the clockspeed difference.

Battlefield 4 Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
Comments Locked

288 Comments

View All Comments

  • FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    i'VE ALREADY SEEN A DOZEN REFUSE TO BUY FURY BECAUSE OF IT.

    They have a 4k TV, they say, that requires the hdmi 2.0...

    SO ALL YOUR PATHETIC EXCUSES MEAN EXACTLY NOTHING. THOSE WITH 4K READY SCREENS ARE BAILING TO NVIDIA ONLY !

    YOU DENYING REALITY WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE FOR AMD.

    They can screw off longer with enough pinheads blabbering bs.
  • FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    It's such a massive failure, and so big a fat obtuse lie, it's embarrassing to even bring up, spoiling the party that is fun if you pretend and fantasize enough, and ignore just how evil amd is.

    hdmi 2.0 - nope ! way to go what a great 4k gaming card ! 4gb ram - suddenly that is more than enough and future proof !

    ROFL - ONLY AMD FANBOYS
  • dave1231 - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link

    That's with HBM? Lol.
  • medi03 - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link

    With all respect, 300 vs 360 watt at load and 72 vs 75 watt idle doesn't deserve "consumes MUCH more power", Ryan, and that even if it wasn't a faster card.
  • Socius - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link

    For total system power draw? Yeah it does....because the power usage gap percentage is lessened by the addition of the system power usage (minus the cards) in the total figure. So if the numbers were 240W vs 300W, for example, that's 25% more power usage. And that's with a 20-30W reduction in power usage by using HBM. So it shows how inefficient the GPU design actually is, even when asking it with HBM power reduction and the addition of total system power draw instead of calculating it by card.
  • mdriftmeyer - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link

    Personally, I have an RM 1000W Corsair Power Supply. Sorry, but if you're using < 850W supply units I suggest you buck up and upgrade.
  • Socius - Sunday, July 12, 2015 - link

    I think you replied to the wrong person here. I have 2 PSUs in my PC. A 6-rail 1600W unit and a single rail 1250W unit.
  • Peichen - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link

    The fail that’s AMD’s Fury series makes my MSI Gaming 4G GTX980 looks even better. I only paid $430 for it and it gets to 1490/1504 boosted at stock voltage. Essentially it means I got a card as fast as Fury OC at $100+ cheaper, uses far less power and in my system for months earlier.

    I am very glad I went Nvidia after 5 year with AMD/ATI graphics and didn’t wait months for Fiji.
  • FlushedBubblyJock - Thursday, July 16, 2015 - link

    There we have it, and it's still the better deal. It's STILL THE BETTER DEAL AND IT'S AVAILABLE.

    But we're supposed to believe amd is cheap and faster... and just as good in everything else...

    I seriously can't think of a single thing amd isn't behind on.
  • MobiusPizza - Saturday, July 11, 2015 - link

    "The R9 Fury will be launching with an MSRP of $549, $100 below the R9 Fury X. This price puts the R9 Fury up against much different completion* than its older sibling; "

    It's competition not completion

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now