There's supposed to be a day one patch I think. Maybe it'll help.
I hope
There's supposed to be a day one patch I think. Maybe it'll help.
This game looks good, but it doesn't look good enough for this kind of performance on pretty high-end hardware.
Which beta drivers are you using?You should get more than that? I am using the 13.2 beta drivers with a 6990, and I am hitting with max settings.
no AA
2xsmaa
8x MSAA
That's cool there's an official standard for "looking good enough" that's been established. Where can I read more about it?
Not to imply that opinions should be taken as fact, but would you care to name a game that looks better than Crysis 3?This game looks good, but it doesn't look good enough for this kind of performance on pretty high-end hardware.
Not to imply that opinions should be taken as fact, but would you care to name a game that looks better than Crysis 3?
As far as I'm concerned this is hands down the best looking game I've ever played and, given that it's been completely playable through 5 hours of campaign thus far, the performance is definitely acceptable.
Not to imply that opinions should be taken as fact, but would you care to name a game that looks better than Crysis 3?
Your snark is appreciated and all, but seriously, look at the benchmarks and the problems with general framerate stability people are having. I'm having a hard time believing that all of the performance issues people are having stem from the game simply being ~from the future~.
Using a next gen game is cheatingStar Wars 1313.
Much of the reason Crysis 3 has terrible performance is because the highest settings have a huge performance cost with almost no visual benefit. Something like SSDO vs SSAO for example.
It's not really Crytek's fault since they can't change actual geometry between the console and PC versions, where performance cost would actually make a major visual difference.
So do people see a substantial improvement in the visuals from Crysis 2? From the screens I've seen it seems that it's at about the same level but the areas are larger.
Which beta drivers are you using?
Also, I'm using vsync and the game does run at 60 fps a lot of the time, I just meant that it has dipped to the mid 30s on a few occasions.
There are so many variables at play, trying to wrap it all up in a general statement like that makes it seem like you think you know something Crytek doesn't about their own game.
Absolutely not, but they do have a history of weird/counterproductive optimization decisions with the Crysis series. Remember Crysis 2's tessellation problems?
The latest ones, 13.2 version 5. I have vsync off and I am playing at 1080p as well.
geometry is different in the PC version, at least it was int the MP (check trees etc.)It's not really Crytek's fault since they can't change actual geometry between the console and PC versions, where performance cost would actually make a major visual difference.
Absolutely not, but they do have a history of weird/counterproductive optimization decisions with the Crysis series. Remember Crysis 2's tessellation problems?
AMD users I highly recommend you upgrade to the latest beta drivers 13.2, I'm getting amazing performance out of it, 2500k, dual 6950s 1GB, 50-60 outside/70-80 fps inside. Also turn v-sync off, it caps rates at 30 for some reason.
New Catalyst 13.2 Beta 6 drivers for amd just released for those of you who care. http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=375110
There's no need to turn off V-sync. Just download Rivatuner and force triple buffering through D3DOverrider. This way, you get the benefits of V-sync without the downside of locking the framerate to 30 when it drops slightly below 60 FPS.
nah I rather not. I don't want to fuck my rig so I'll just leave it as it is, but thanks!
lol what?
Personally? I thought Crysis 2 looked kind of shoddy (especially the textures). Now, if you are comparing MaLdo's HD mod texture pack, then yeah, it comes close to Crysis 3.
But comparing stock Crysis 2 to Crysis 3, I don't think they are that similar (graphic wise). I see a big improvement.
I totally agree with this. You can absolutely see a huge difference in quality from vanilla C2 to vanilla C3.
Also, the fact that each level is also substantially larger than any level in C2 is also quite a feat.
Other than the textures, the biggest leap is probably in characters. While the animation could still use some work (LA Noire still remains the benchmark for expressive faces), it can look astounding at points.
Also, the move to more natural environments mixed in with the urban landscape is also super interesting. I feel like it's easier to hit realism using buildings and manmade materials but to get the level of detail they did in some of the overgrown areas really made my jaw drop.
lol what?
Star Wars 1313.
Much of the reason Crysis 3 has terrible performance is because the highest settings have a huge performance cost with almost no visual benefit. Something like SSDO vs SSAO for example.
I agree that Crysis 3 likely won't have the looks/performance ratio of next gen games, but given what we're used to it makes perfect sense.
Really dumb question. But if it's an issue with it being a 32 bit, that means that it's not able to use as much memory as it could.
Does that mean it limits VRAM usage?
If that's the case, really wouldn't help my situation - because I'm bumping up against 2gb of VRAM when playing at 1600p. Unless I'm misunderstanding how this works. (with 32 bit exe) I do remember the issue with Skyrim. I guess I just didn't understand it entirely.
Coding to the metal, specialized parts, & developing for a closed system.Ridiculous statement. The highest end powerful PC cards right now are at least a generation ahead of the next-gen consoles (i.e. powerwise and feature set-wise). How can you possibly think that gaming companies can extract out even higher res textures, even higher tessallation, even better AO, better global illumination, etc.. etc.. at the same graphics settings on a console that has inferior hardware?
You guys are just hating on it not playing well on your setup..
-M
Irrational fear of installing applications.
Not to imply that opinions should be taken as fact, but would you care to name a game that looks better than Crysis 3?
As far as I'm concerned this is hands down the best looking game I've ever played and, given that it's been completely playable through 5 hours of campaign thus far, the performance is definitely acceptable.
I hope the new Metro doesn't run like C3. I think Metro Last Light wins in the visual dept compared to C3
I've got a 680 to, is yours reference design or overclocked?my gtx 680 is at max settings with smaa 2x 1080p is getting 40-60fps.
2560 x 1440p im getting a solid 30 fps.
my gtx 680 is at max settings with smaa 2x 1080p is getting 40-60fps.
2560 x 1440p im getting a solid 30 fps.
Guys, wait until Next gen console port are being released on PC, YOU WILL NOT have 60FPS on current PC hardware (today) at 1080p. The best right now is probably going to make it barely to 30 FPS.
The only reason that we are getting monster resolution and FPS is because of the 8 years old hardware of console, never been seen before (usually 4-5 years.. cycle)
Well, SW1313 runs even worse than Cry3 and Watch Dogs is from the company that gave us the PC port of Assassin's Creed 3, so I'm not optimistic.Crysis 3 is currently an unoptimized mess it would seem. The visuals are amazing, but they do not justify the poor framerates. This looks to be another Metro 2033 until an update is issued.
No need to be a doomsayer, this is not what we have in store for at least a couple of years.
Well, SW1313 runs even worse than Cry3
Coding to the metal, specialized parts, & developing for a closed system.
PC games wont really advance until consoles advance.
Also, how are current PC cards right now a generation ahead of the cards in next-gen consoles, in terms of feature set?