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

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - High Quality + FXAA

As with Battlefield 4, the R9 Nano solidly secures its place relative to the Fury lineup, delivering 90-95% of the performance of the R9 Fury X and R9 Fury respectively. This pushes the card’s performance below 60fps even at 3840x2160 low quality, but it’s more than enough for 2560x1440.

However once we do reach 2560, we find that the R9 Nano is now tied with the GTX 980 at just over 65fps. As we mentioned on the last page the GTX 980 is the biggest threat to the R9 Nano from an efficiency standpoint, and this is why. Limiting our scope to just mini cards however finds the R9 Nano comfortably ahead of the GTX 970 Mini.

Meanwhile Crysis 3 is a great example of why AMD is poking at themselves by comparing the R9 Nano to the GTX 290X. The card is little more than half the length of AMD’s former flagship and yet delivers 22% better performance while drawing much less power (more on that later). In doing so AMD is clearly picking a low point to make their gains look better, but at the same time it shows that yes, AMD can in fact improve over R9 290X on performance, power, and noise all at the same time.

Battlefield 4 Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
Comments Locked

284 Comments

View All Comments

  • zodiacfml - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link

    Yawnn.. It's not bad till you get to the price. Fury X now has better value as you get watercooling.
  • paravorheim - Saturday, September 12, 2015 - link

    "Meanwhile Fury X’s massive power headroom has been significantly curtailed, from a TBP of 275W (and in practice a cap much higher than that) to a much harder TBP limit of 175W for the R9 Nano."

    You say TBP here, is that supposed to be "TDP"? I saw it in a few other places as well.
  • SunnyNW - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link

    TBP (Thermal Board Power) vs TDP (Thermal Design Power)
  • The0ne - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link

    Bin parts for power and cooling efficiency instead of a good design isn't something to rave about. It should be something to write off of because, lets faced it, nothing is different from the previous designs.
  • medi03 - Monday, September 14, 2015 - link

    Yeah, "previous designs". Like 290x that beat that day Titan at a fraction of price.
  • Gnomer87 - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    While an improvement in the efficiency segment, this card still loses out to Nvidias alternatives, most notably the older 980. The 980 performs only marginally worse, while having a smaller price tag.

    It's still a walkover, if I were to replace my hd 7950b today, it'd still be nvidia. This is a problem, if AMD doesn't get their shit together, they're going bankrupt.

    And that means monopoly.
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    Is there a 980 in this form factor? If not, then it doesn't lose because there is an AMD card that outperforms the 980 for less money as far as I know.
  • IlllI - Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - link

    love the nano, can't justify the price. up until now i thought it was going to be $499. the Fury X i can justify the price b/c you can look at it as having a $100 liquid cooler included. but for the nano to be the same price as the Fury X.. I just can't.
  • gw74 - Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - link

    AMD_Roy twitter account has been deleted!
  • JonnyDough - Tuesday, September 22, 2015 - link

    Wow, lots of crap in the comment's section. I'll post my own. Smaller is better. The trend of hotter, louder, heavier, and more energy guzzling cards was terrible. Not only did it KILL some of my PCI-E slots after awhile from the sheer weight of the card, but most of the old hot running cards are now dead and don't work. It's nice to see a nano card that can fit in an ITX case comfortably. Here's to LAN parties of the future, and more room on/under desks!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now