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 - 2560x1440 - Very High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality + FXAA


Battlefield 4 The Witcher 3


View All Comments

  • ddriver - Wednesday, April 19, 2017 - link

    Not as amazing as trying to make it sound like an achievement. Wake up Dorothy, every review site got a launch day review on the 580 adoy.... Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    Actually, they're usually still being finished as the embargo lifts. :D Nowadays it's such a short time from the hardware arriving to the review deadline. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    Aye. Let's just say that Easter was not a holiday around here. Reply
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, April 19, 2017 - link

    :( Reply
  • VoraciousGorak - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    It's like a reverse Intel. Every 1% increase in performance brings with it a 2% increase in power draw. Based on these tests, this refresh brought out - at best - an 8% performance increase, with typical gains in the 0-3% range, over a GPU that's been out almost a year. These gains are even worse than the Hawaii refresh, and that refresh saw prices drop by twenty percent, not ten dollars.

    Still waiting on the AMD GPU that will get me to upgrade from my R9 290....
  • VoraciousGorak - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    I mean, I guess we get an improvement on the stock cooler (I think? Thank god if so), which was probably needed with the 25W typical use power draw increase, likely enough to overwhelm the quiet-mode on the old stock cooler.

    Also WTB comment edit feature.
  • bill.rookard - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    That would be Vega.

    I will say it's good to see that the power consumption of the cards is down to a reasonable level (even with the increase in the 500 series) so that those wanting more performance can crossfire a pair without turning their computer case into the equivalent of a blast furnace.

    Still - the problem is that most of these results with the 580 still puts them behind the GTX 1060 and the pricing is still pretty close. Given a choice between a $240ish RX580 and a $240ish GTX 1060, I'd have to still take the 1060. It's quiet, cooler, and faster.

    Of course, if the rumors are to be believed, Vega should finally get AMD back in the high end, and Vega can't hit soon enough...
  • Meteor2 - Wednesday, April 19, 2017 - link

    It's all about Vega at this point. Launching as high-end this year, the RX500 series will be replayed by Vega cards next year. Of course, Nvidia should be on Volta by that point, but the Vega-Volta efficiency gap should be much smaller than the Polaris-Pascal gap. Pascal probably represents the last of the low-hanging efficiency fruit, which AMD will be picking with Vega. Reply
  • Mugur - Thursday, April 20, 2017 - link

    You think? From the review, I gather that it's the other way around: RX580 was cooler and quieter that the FR GTX1060 in all the tests. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 - link

    Those noise levels though. Damn! Nice work AMD. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now