Graphic Card performance Problems...

[Eric4753]

Hello,

I recently purchased a copy of Crysis 3 and ran the game on my new pc. I knew my pc could handle the game easily so I put all the setting to the max. My fraps were a steady 12 - 15. So I turned off the anti-aliasing and my performance rose to 30. 30 is fine ,but why did my performance drop so badly? My pc should be able to keep up with this game without breaking a sweat... Any suggestions?

Keep in mind:
I have the latest driver update
I have a Radeon 7970 3-gb. (my pc specs are in my signature.)

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Spesh]

Crysis 3 is a GPU killer. In order to play the game with max settings at decent resolution, you will need at least two top end cards with 4Gb Vram or more.

A single 7970 is not up to the task as you have found from your experience.

 

[Darren]

Yeah Crysis 3 is equivalent to what the original Crysis was 6 years ago. It KILLS your performance even on super high end hardware. You're operating fine, just the game is killer.

 

[Eric4753]

So should I get a second 7970?

 

[Darren]

If you feel you can afford to spend several hundred dollars for some more frames in one game then yeah sure. Why not?

But you'd need a new PSU too. And that's a lot of money for one game... in my opinion at least.

 

[G80FTW]

Yeah Crysis 3 is equivalent to what the original Crysis was 6 years ago. It KILLS your performance even on super high end hardware. You're operating fine, just the game is killer.

I dont think a 7970 should be getting 12fps.... My 680 averages 45fps, and I know a 7970 is just as fast if not faster. So no, he is not operating just fine.

EDIT: Here is a link of some comparison benchmarks I found:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/03/15/crysis-3-performance-analysis/3

Showing that at very high settings 1080p and no AA you should be averaging 48fps, not 30. Its not a "killer" on high end hardware.

 

[Spesh]

I dont think a 7970 should be getting 12fps.... My 680 averages 45fps, and I know a 7970 is just as fast if not faster. So no, he is not operating just fine.

EDIT: Here is a link of some comparison benchmarks I found:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/03/15/crysis-3-performance-analysis/3

Showing that at very high settings 1080p and no AA you should be averaging 48fps, not 30. Its not a "killer" on high end hardware.

The irony is that the article that you have linked to clearly states in the conclusion that Crysis 3 is a high end GPU slayer.

A game like Crysis requires at least a constant 50-60fps to be considered smooth.

 

[Darren]

What's the resolution that you're playing at?

 

[G80FTW]

The irony is that the article that you have linked to clearly states in the conclusion that Crysis 3 is a high end GPU slayer.

A game like Crysis requires at least a constant 50-60fps to be considered smooth.

Says who? I wouldnt say averaging 45-50fps is a GPU slayer at all. The difference between 45fps and 50fps is nothing. And I can easily maintain a steady 50 without AA. Its certainly not a GPU slayer with high end GPUs and you dont need 2 680s/7970s to run the game max with playable framerates.

Its nothing like the first Crysis in terms of pushing existing hardware. With the original Crysis, single top end GPUs struggled to get above 30fps maxed.

The bottom line here, is his system is not performing like it should with this game.

 

[Spesh]

60FPS is widely regarded as the number to achieve for smooth gameplay in FPS games (hence the reason the bit-tech article you linked to mentioned it).....


"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."


The game looks horrible without AA. Of course you can reach playable framerates if you start turning features off, but this defeats the whole purpose. The performance that the OP has specified is inline with what I would expect to see, given his hardware.

 

[G80FTW]

60FPS is widely regarded as the number to achieve for smooth gameplay in FPS games (hence the reason the bit-tech article you linked to mentioned it).

The game looks horrible without AA. Of course you can reach playable framerates if you start turning features off, but this defeats the whole purpose. The performance that he has specified is inline with what I would expect to see, given his hardware.

Minimum playable fps is debatable from person to person, 30fps has always been the minimum across the board for games to be considered "playable" though. Im not sure where or when this 60fps fad came about, but you certainly do not need a constant 60fps to play a game. You dont even need a constant 30fps. What you need, is just a constant fps period. You would be surprised how smooth a game can be at a consistent 30fps as opposed to a game that jumps from 45 to 30fps. The game that is a consistent 30 will look smoother, because it is playing smoother and consistent. For example, your console games will play at a constant 30fps. You dont hear all those COD fanboys crying because they cant play at 30fps and want 60fps.

Also, you said 50-60fps is what it needs to be playable in your opinion. So tell me, can you see the difference between 45fps (my average fps with AA and max settings at 1080p) and 50fps? I would venture to say no. I dont need to turn ANY features off to maintain playable framerates, and neither should he.

It does not matter what YOU expect to see from his hardware, because the link I provided, whether it says its a gpu slayer or not, has his graphics card getting 18fps more at the same settings. Thats a dramatic difference.

 

[Spesh]

60fps has been the benchmark for quite a while now in FPS games.

Taken from Techspot....

Well, we have good news and bad news: Crysis 3's visuals have far exceeded our expectations, but you won't be able to enjoy them on max without investing in some serious hardware. For starters, you'll definitely want a quad-core processor, preferably a recent Core i5/i7 or the FX-8350. Assuming you clear that hurdle, you'll likely want dual GTX 680s or HD 7970 GHz Editions to play on very high at 1920x1200 or more.

In other words, you'll need at least $800 worth of graphics crunching prowess in your chassis if you want to experience Crysis 3 at its finest. If you can't foot that bill, you may be stuck with medium quality, which still requires at least a GTX 680/670 or the HD 7970 GHz Edition for 60fps at 1920x1200, though you can get by with something more affordable like the HD 7870 if you're comfortable with the low 40s.



I am actually a long standing member on the bit-tech forums, where extensive performance testing in Crysis 3 has taken place. When I said that his results are what I would expect to see based on his hardware config, I was merely talking from what seems to be the norm over there, with other people using the same hardware.

 

[G80FTW]

60fps has been the benchmark for quite a while now in FPS games.

Taken from Techspot....

Well, we have good news and bad news: Crysis 3's visuals have far exceeded our expectations, but you won't be able to enjoy them on max without investing in some serious hardware. For starters, you'll definitely want a quad-core processor, preferably a recent Core i5/i7 or the FX-8350. Assuming you clear that hurdle, you'll likely want dual GTX 680s or HD 7970 GHz Editions to play on very high at 1920x1200 or more.

In other words, you'll need at least $800 worth of graphics crunching prowess in your chassis if you want to experience Crysis 3 at its finest. If you can't foot that bill, you may be stuck with medium quality, which still requires at least a GTX 680/670 or the HD 7970 GHz Edition for 60fps at 1920x1200, though you can get by with something more affordable like the HD 7870 if you're comfortable with the low 40s.



I am actually a long standing member on the bit-tech forums, where extensive performance testing in Crysis 3 has taken place. When I said that his results are what I would expect to see based on his hardware config, I was merely talking from what seems to be the norm over there, with other people using the same hardware.

I find it VERY hard to believe that a 7970 is +50% slower in Crysis 3 than a 680.

I cant believe what you quoted. They seriously suggest investing an extra $600 or so for an extra 10fps that you wont even notice? Complete bs. And even then, Im certain I can maintain 60fps at medium settings if I can get 45fps at very high settings. These people do not appear to know what they are talking about. And to say Crysis 3 far exceeding their expectations? They obviously didnt watch the Crysis 3 trailer, which featured more graphical features than they released the game with making the game look WORSE than they advertised it as.

Which still doesnt change the fact that his system is performing worse than it should. Alot worse. You might think him getting nearly 20fps less than he should is ok, but I dont. And Im sure he doesnt either.

 

[Spesh]

They didn't suggest for people to go out and buy anything. They just stated what is required if you want to be able to play the game to its full potential.

Turn on a bit of AA and watch your framerate turn to dust.

 

[G80FTW]

They didn't suggest for people to go out and buy anything. They just stated what is required if you want to be able to play the game to its full potential.

Turn on a bit of AA and watch your framerate turn to dust.

I just stated, and it was even listed in the link I posted, I manage 45fps just fine with AA. If you cant play a game at 40+fps than Im sorry that you feel the need to invest $600 for 20 more fps. But I think the majority of people can play just fine at 40+fps.

Also, we are still talking about a 66% performance difference between his 7970 and the 680. There is obviously a problem, whether you think so or not. 62% from where he should be. Is that not a dramatic difference to you?

 

[Eric4753]

I just want to note that I got a guy from a computer shop to build it for me.I checked yesterday to see of the graphic's card was lose or anything. The two screws that hold it in place at the top were gone so i put two of those in there ,but I obviously that won't affect the performance at all so I don't know what to do..

 

[G80FTW]

I just want to note that I got a guy from a computer shop to build it for me.I checked yesterday to see of the graphic's card was lose or anything. The two screws that hold it in place at the top were gone so i put two of those in there ,but I obviously that won't affect the performance at all so I don't know what to do..

I dont know either man. Your setup looks better than mine, so you should be seeing at LEAST 40fps+ max with AA @ 1080p.

But the screws to hold it up are indeed important, if it sags down too low it can cause a short and fry your board and card. Iv had it happen, ruined a $400 motherboard too. It was a sad day.

 

[Eric4753]

Well how can I make sure they are in place then?

 

[G80FTW]

Well how can I make sure they are in place then?

Didnt you say you put them in?

 

[Eric4753]

No a guy I know that works at a computer shop put the computer together. I was double check his work when I realized he forgot to add 2 screws into the place that hold it position. so I put them in