Crysis 3

Our final benchmark in our suite needs no introduction. With Crysis 3, Crytek has gone back to trying to kill computers, taking back the “most punishing game” 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 driver games for the next few years, and Crysis 3 looks to be much the same for 2013.

Crysis 3 - 5760x1200 - High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 2560x1440 - High Quality + FXAA

Crysis 3 - 1920x1080 - Very High Quality + FXAA

If the concept of karma exists for GPUs, then it would seem to be in full force here. While AMD has an easy time pulling ahead of NVIDIA’s cards in Crysis 1, in Crysis 3 it’s almost exactly the opposite. At both 1920 and 2560 the 7990 trails the GT 690 by around 10%, only to finally pull even at 5760 thanks to AMD’s better multi-monitor handling.

Meanwhile it’s interesting to note just how much rendering performance it takes to feed the beast that is Crysis 3. With everything turned up short of anti-aliasing, the mighty 7990 is the bare minimum needed to clear 60fps at 1920, and Very High quality is out of the question at 2560 and higher. It will probably be another year or two before we have a single cards that can smoothly play Crysis 3 at its highest settings; in the meantime it will take multiple high-end cards to make that happen.

Bioshock Infinite Synthetics
POST A COMMENT

91 Comments

View All Comments

  • Plattypus - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    There's a typo on the Specification Comparison chart, you put 7970 instead of 7990 for the first one.

    Great review!
    Reply
  • deestinct - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link

    There is no typo. It IS 7970 CF. CF stands for CrossFire, which means two 7970s. Therefore the comparison makes sense Reply
  • deestinct - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link

    Ah sorry ignore my previous comment....i misunderstood what you said Reply
  • just4U - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    One thing that bother's me about this and Nvidia's offering. You sort of "hope" (expect.. would be better..) that these types of cards would bring something more to the table besides just a dual stack of their top end card. Higher clocks, better memory.. something. Reply
  • jeffkibuule - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    Power savings compared to 2 cards in SLI/CrossFire. Ability to fit in a smaller chassis. Use of the best binned chips possible. But yeah, it really is for the 1%. Reply
  • mr_tawan - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    Single card also means no need for SLI/Cross Fire mainboard (which save money a bit). Reply
  • Rookierookie - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    I don't know if you are spending $999 on your graphics card that saving money is really an issue. You are not likely to be using a low-end motherboard, and many of the high end motherboards support SLI/Crossfire anyway. Reply
  • just4U - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    The power draw appears to be (in my opinion) partially due to the lower speeds. The cards are for a select crowd but I don't see the draw. There should bring something new to the table which would help to entice buyers. Reply
  • Ktracho - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    There is a fair amount of variability in power consumption from one chip to another. Always choosing two chips that are on the low power side makes a significant difference compared to two chips chosen at random, because in the latter case, the design has to account for the worst case - two chips that are on the high power side. Reply
  • stren - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - link

    5 real monitor outputs and SFF is what it's about for those with unlimited cash, otherwise you'd be better off with mulitple lightnings or matrix cards. Until they support 2D lightboost then I'll be sticking with Nvidia. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now