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 - 2560x1440 - High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - High Quality + FXAA

Not unlike Battlefield 4, Crysis 3 sees the R9 380X struggle to keep ahead of the GTX 960, and for that matter even the R9 380. In this case the additional shading and texturing resources just don’t do much for the card; it’s being bottlenecked elsewhere by other resources such as ROPs or geometry, as evidenced by the fact that the performance gain from overclock on the ASUS card is greater than the difference between the R9 380 and R9 380X. Unfortunately this also means that at 1080p even the ASUS card falls just short of the GTX 960.

Battlefield 4 Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
Comments Locked

101 Comments

View All Comments

  • CaedenV - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    My guess is that these cards are factory OC'd, which means that they would need to be underclocked to run an apples-to-apples comparison at true 'stock' settings.
  • Zeus Hai - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Can anyone confirm that AMD's Frame Limiter still doesn't work on Windows 10?
  • nathanddrews - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    That's news to me.

    Just for you, I tested it using my i3-2100/HD7750/W10 test mule. VSync globally disabled in CCC, VSync disabled in Dota 2, Frame Target set to 60fps. Steam overlay shows 60fps and I see no signs of tearing or stuttering. To my knowledge, it never stopped working.
  • Zeus Hai - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Hmm.., it should have some tearing because it doesnt really sync with the monitor anyway, mate. Can you set it to 65, 70, 75? Mine doesnt work in LoL, I set it to 60, but it always fires up over 150fps+
  • Dirk_Funk - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    LoL does have its own fps limiter, so perhaps that's causing a mix-up in the software. Also, LoL might be running in fake fullscreen mode whereas the catalyst fps limiter specifies it will "Reduce power consumption by running full-screen applications at reduced frame rates." I'm gonna go try a round of LoL now because you have me curious.
  • Asomething - Tuesday, November 24, 2015 - link

    Mine does, was just benching my new 290x and forgot to turn it off so my results were skewed by the 75fps frame cap i set.
  • nirolf - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    There's "ASUS R9 Fury OC" mentioned in the first table in the Overclocking section.
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Thanks.
  • Shadowmaster625 - Monday, November 23, 2015 - link

    Tonga is an epic disaster. It is less than 10% more efficient than tahiti in terms of performance per watt, and in terms of performance per transistor (fps per mm^2) it apeears to be actually worse. Meanwhile, Nvidia releases maxwell which outperformas kepler on both these metrics not by some paltry 10% or less, but by a very wide margin.
  • CiccioB - Tuesday, November 24, 2015 - link

    All the GCN architecture is a disaster.
    With TeraScale architecture AMD could fight with smaller dies and less W for a bit less performance.
    With GCN AMD has to compete using larger and power hungry dies that have brought it to go in red also in the graphics division, while with older TeraScale it at least could be at least on par.
    GCN is an architecture not up with that of the competition.
    DP64 presence is not the problem, as AMD has kept on reducing it influence over every GCN step (starting from 1/4FP and ending to 1/24FP) with no real results under the power consumption term. They probably could just spare few mm^2 on the die, but they are too way back with memory compression (I can't really believe they never thought about that) and their bus are way too big, expensive and power hungry.
    All the architecture is a fail. And DX12 is not going to solve anything, as if they ever raise their performances of 10% over the competition, they are still way back in efficiency both in terms of W and die size.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now