Can it run Crysis 3?

Crysis 3 Performance - Analysis

Looking at our performance graphs, it’s clear that Crysis 3 is a game that favours Nvidia’s, rather than AMD’s current crop of cards, despite AMD's association with the game. While the GTX Titan and GTX 690 are obviously in a class apart from the rest of the chasing pack (as you’d expect from cards costing upwards of £800), at 1,920 x 1,080 with 0x AA both the GTX 680 2GB and GTX 670 2GB are able to outperform the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition. A minimum frame rate of 45fps for the GTX 680 and 41fps for the GTX 670 are perfectly playable, despite the game running at its most demanding detail preset, although the HD 7970’s average frame rate of 48fps is ahead of the GTX 670, albeit fractionally.


What’s also surprising here is that further down the product stack, the GTX 660 2GB, a card which typically runs head-to-head with the HD 7870 2GB, produces a minimum frame rate of 32fps, 5fps (18 per cent) more than the HD 7870 2GB in the same test. Meanwhile the HD 7850 brings up the rear, but is commendable for offering such a solid degree of performance despite its £130 price tag. Dial this down to high detail and, as we saw with our preset comparison, you can expect a 30 per cent improvement in frame rate.

Scaling up to 2,560 x 1,600 and despite the engine using more than 2GB of GDDR5 at this resolution, the GTX 680 2GB shows no signs of relinquishing its lead to the HD 7970 3GB. In Fact we tested performance at this resolution using low, medium, high and very high textures and found zero difference in performance on both the GTX 680 2GB and HD 7970 GHz Edition.

The 680’s minimum frame rate of 29fps here is pushing the limits of playable however, with the HD 7970 3GB just 1fps behind on average frame rate, but 3fps behind on minimum frame rate. Further down the running order the GTX 660 2GB and HD 7870 2GB are neck and neck.

At the performance destroying resolution of 5,760 x 1,080, both the GTX 680 2GB and HD 7970 3GB GHz Edition are neck and neck with minimum frame rates of 17fps each. The GTX 670 is less convincing here with a HD 7950 3GB matching minimum frame rate of 14fps, while the chasing pack are somewhat predictably struggle under the triple-screen load.

Conclusion

Those disappointed by Crysis 2’s lack of hardware demand at launch can feel thoroughly vindicated by Crysis 3. It’s ready from the get-go to challenge even the biggest GPUs, with the fact that, at very high settings, even this generation’s top cards (excluding GTX 690 and Titan) can’t produce a steady 60fps, even at 1,920 x 1,080.

Dial up the resolution to 2,560 x 1,600 and even the £800 monsters struggle if you’re unwilling to drop the detail. Turn on AA and things get even more challenging, although the fact that SMAA 2x has a minimal impact on performance makes it well worth switching on if you’re mid play-through.

Throughout our testing Nvidia’s GPUs looked to hold an edge over AMD’s competition, but this is balanced by AMD’s typically lower prices. The HD 7970 3GB GHz Edition’s minimum frame rate at 1,920 x 1,080 might be 13 per cent lower than the GTX 680’s, but they’re typically 10-15 per cent cheaper too. This backs up the assumption that, for this generation of cards, there really isn’t what you can specifically call a bad, or poor-value card until you reach the bloated sub £150 market.

Regardless of where you sit on the GPU food-chain though, one thing is for certain: “Can it play Crysis?” still means something when it comes to GPU performance. Whether you enjoy the game or not, Crytek’s pushing of performance boundaries is a great sign for the PC market. More of the same please game developers!