Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    GTX 680 SLI and Crysis 3

    Max setting every thing on high and my FPS is 44-50 and lowest is 20 ! , i'm using 1080p monitor 120hz, now my question is i'm thinking to upgrade to 2560x1440 monitor, what my FPS would be at this resolution

  2. #2
    Even less :P
    Intel i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz | MSI Z77 Mpower | Noctua NH-D14 | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB 1600MHz
    Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce 3X @ 1372/7604MHz | Corsair Force GT 120GB | Silverstone Fortress FT02 | Corsair VX450

  3. #3
    The Lightbringer Toffie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,761
    10-15 fps I guess? Why are your FPS so low? Put MSAA 2X.
    Steam Big Picture Mode - 4570 - GA-H87N - MSI R9-290 - 120 GB Samsung 840 EVO
    Corsair 250D - Philips 55 LED TV - Corsair RM 550 - Corsair Vengeance Pro 8GB

    4770K - EVGA 780 Ti SC- Corsair 350D - V700 - Gryphon Z87
    Corsair Vengeance Pro 8GB - Samsung 840 250GB - H60

  4. #4
    (1920*1080)/(2560*1440)*50fps = 28fps
    Does this make any sense? I'd guess that would be a lower limit for your previous 50fps.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by reckoner04 View Post
    (1920*1080)/(2560*1440)*50fps = 28fps
    Does this make any sense? I'd guess that would be a lower limit for your previous 50fps.
    Technically you can compare the amount of pixels in each resolution but it doesn't scale linearly so at best you get a somewhat accurate estimate.
    Intel i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz | MSI Z77 Mpower | Noctua NH-D14 | Corsair Vengeance LP White 1.35V 8GB 1600MHz
    Gigabyte GTX 670 OC Windforce 3X @ 1372/7604MHz | Corsair Force GT 120GB | Silverstone Fortress FT02 | Corsair VX450

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by n0cturnal View Post
    Technically you can compare the amount of pixels in each resolution but it doesn't scale linearly so at best you get a somewhat accurate estimate.
    I thought so, but am I right in my assumption that the result would be a lower limit (fps will be higher than that)?

  7. #7
    Nvidia drivers are severely behind in crysis 3 atm, the removal of PhysX and adoption of AMD saw that change happen. So wait for newer drivers b4 thinking it'll be that bad.

  8. #8
    Question is why you are playing on a 120hz screen when you cant evne reach 60mhz (fps) refresh...

  9. #9
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperKW View Post
    Max setting every thing on high and my FPS is 44-50 and lowest is 20 ! , i'm using 1080p monitor 120hz, now my question is i'm thinking to upgrade to 2560x1440 monitor, what my FPS would be at this resolution
    I get the same framerate as you on a single 670. Crysis3's images are high resolution and especially with MSAA you get serious bandwidth bottlenecking.
    Upgrading to an even higher resolution will cripple your framerate. Just go with lower AA, maybe overclock the memory a bit.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by danki1337 View Post
    Question is why you are playing on a 120hz screen when you cant evne reach 60mhz (fps) refresh...
    I don't know mister asshat... maybe just MAYBE some people don't play 1 single game in their entire life... SLI 680 will play almost everything on 120FPS but not Crysis 3.

  11. #11
    Remember Crysis 1? At the time it was the ultimate PC check. Then came Crysis 2 and it went easier on the PC, it was't so demanding. Crysis 3 has arrived and has once again become the ultimate gaming check. It's demanding, especially in Ultra High texture resolution with TXAA or equivalent. Don't expect to be able to run it on the max with a single GPU. The High and Ultra High settings are effectively reserved for top end multi-GPU systems and the GTX TITAN will enjoy a workout running this game and 2 or 3-way TITAN will enjoy a workout over SLI/Surround multi-screen.

    Imo, this is the way PC gaming should be as has been in the past. Maximum settings are reserved for top end systems / enthusiasts who want the ultimate graphics and are prepared to pay the price for it. And why not, it's a hobby for many people and that's one of the motivating factors.

  12. #12


    Should give you the rough idea of what to expect. No idea why they listed 690 as 0.1, very possible that the FPS would be very low but there is no explanation other than a comment that 690 didn't make it at all.

    Read the full article in Norwegian http://www.hardware.no/artikler/vi-t...sis-3/117195/5

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-03 at 03:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zatie12 View Post
    Imo, this is the way PC gaming should be as has been in the past. Maximum settings are reserved for top end systems / enthusiasts who want the ultimate graphics and are prepared to pay the price for it. And why not, it's a hobby for many people and that's one of the motivating factors.
    As much as some people would like this to be true, it simply cannot. Most games of today will have a hard time maxing out with 60/120FPS with high end builds. But that is usually just because there are some easy effects you can turn on that are extremely demanding on the system, yet barely increases the experience. Which is why Hitman, Sniper elite V2 and some other new releases seem to be challenging high-end systems at absolute max settings.

    Don't expect other developers to deliberately set out to humiliate even the most extreme system as Crytek is doing.
    Last edited by MMKing; 2013-03-03 at 01:59 PM.

  13. #13
    Brewmaster Majesticii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by MMKing View Post
    No idea why they listed 690 as 0.1, very possible that the FPS would be very low but there is no explanation other than a comment that 690 didn't make it at all.
    256bit controller or vram exceeded most likely. Seeing as 1080 txaa2x already hits 1900mb.

  14. #14
    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by danki1337 View Post
    Question is why you are playing on a 120hz screen when you cant evne reach 60mhz (fps) refresh...
    its only Crysis 3 that cant reach 120fps but other games are 100+fps
    Last edited by SuperKW; 2013-03-03 at 02:25 PM.

  15. #15
    The Lightbringer Bigbazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    3,265
    If you turned your AA settings down the game wouldn't really look any worse but it would have way higher fps. I have everything on very high with the second AA setting, one of the lowest. I can't see any jaggies and the game looks great running between 45-62fps ish, a single GTX670.

    Crysis 3 isn't that much of a computer eater if you don't go crazy with the graphical settings and to be honest it still looks amazing even on low settings, the differences in quality are subtle and you pay a high price in FPS for those subtle differences.
    I7 2600k @4.5ghz : 16GB DDR3 : GTX670 : Firestudio : Naga : G27

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by MMKing View Post
    As much as some people would like this to be true, it simply cannot.
    What you're saying makes no sense. That's like making games deliberately less demanding so that people with lower end systems don't get unhappy for not being able to run them on "High". Imo, for any game there should always be a setting that challenges a given spec of current generation hardware ranging from low-end to ultra high-end.

    As far as Sniper Elite / Hitman go, that might be driver related or the games not taking advantage of SLI/Crossfire. I haven't played either so can't comment.

  17. #17
    Legendary! Asmekiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybe over there
    Posts
    6,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Zatie12 View Post
    Imo, this is the way PC gaming should be as has been in the past. Maximum settings are reserved for top end systems / enthusiasts who want the ultimate graphics and are prepared to pay the price for it. And why not, it's a hobby for many people and that's one of the motivating factors.
    Force supersampling through the drivers and see your fps cripple.

    OP, turn down AA to SMAAx2 or MSAAx2, that should really help with the fps.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Majesticii View Post
    I get the same framerate as you on a single 670. Crysis3's images are high resolution and especially with MSAA you get serious bandwidth bottlenecking.
    Upgrading to an even higher resolution will cripple your framerate. Just go with lower AA, maybe overclock the memory a bit.
    A memory controller bottlenecking a GPU means that the GPU will never reach 99% as load. I get easily a constant 99% load gpu usage in Crysis 3 + 8x MSAA. I haven't tried to run at stock settings for the VRAM but I'm having luck to have a 680 running at 7.6GHz which is really useful for games such as Crysis 3.

    @Op Uhm you have 2 680's in SLI and you maintain to get 40 fps with 8x MSAA? I get in MP's around 30-35fps with a single 680 @ 8x aa?

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    A memory controller bottlenecking a GPU means that the GPU will never reach 99% as load. I get easily a constant 99% load gpu usage in Crysis 3 + 8x MSAA. I haven't tried to run at stock settings for the VRAM but I'm having luck to have a 680 running at 7.6GHz which is really useful for games such as Crysis 3.

    @Op Uhm you have 2 680's in SLI and you maintain to get 40 fps with 8x MSAA? I get in MP's around 30-35fps with a single 680 @ 8x aa?
    i just lowered MSAA to 4x and my FPS around 65-68 now

  20. #20
    Legendary! Holo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    In the Shadows
    Posts
    6,288
    What the hell? My duo 670's do nearly 100fps anywhere but the Singleplayer starting bridge..

    8x AA and everything completely maxed out, too :/

    i5-3570k @ 4.4GHz|8GB DDR3 1600MHz|EVGA GTX 670 FTW x2 SLI|Samsung 830 128GB SSD

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •