Game runs smooth for me, 0 stutter, 4K Max Settings with DLSS Quality
First map
18-10-2021, 15:53:21 Crysis3Remastered.exe benchmark completed, 20514 frames rendered in 293.235 s
Average framerate : 69.9 FPS
Minimum framerate : 54.2 FPS
Maximum framerate : 83.7 FPS
1% low framerate : 55.1 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 52.2 FPS
Man, you have fastest card currently on the market , You managed to achieve 60-70 FPS with AI upscaling .
Now , can you imagine how it runs on "bit" slower hardware ? 🙂
@kanenas AMD doesn't support DLSS, which crysis remastered has, therefore, no AMD
"We use DLSS"...
When you have the original + HD texture update (from EA or the mod one) + Shader mod, it work BETTER, FASTER, and look astonishing more cute than the "Remastered" version with the wrong use of DLSS.
Using RT, DLSS or even SSR is nice ONLY when it bring something on screen.
On other hands it's a studio who have done nothing exiting since Crysis (the 1st one)...
Man, you have fastest card currently on the market , You managed to achieve 60-70 FPS with AI upscaling .
Now , can you imagine how it runs on "bit" slower hardware ? 🙂
back then the original Crysis ran like 30FPS with my HD4890, which was the fastest single GPU for Crysis
You don't need to upgrade your PC. Just play the old versions which graphics quality is not bad.
This^^ The games still look good, even the first one, and there are plenty of mods to make it even look better. No point in paying for this "remake"...
@kanenas AMD doesn't support DLSS, which crysis remastered has, therefore, no AMD
neither does 1060 or 1660Ti so no excuse
Crytek just plain refused to acknowledge that amd exists lol
not that amd should really care.this remaster will be forgotten before I can finish this sentence.
mikeysg:
It seems Crytek doesn't need support from AMD CPU and GPU users, hence, they can kiss my behind!
Gosh i wanted to replay the game but i only have a 5800x and a RX 6800 so i sadly do not meet the minimum requirements guess i'll have to pass /s
Crysis 2 (at least) plays decent without RTX enabled. ~140 fps on average at 1440p very high settings on my 6800xt, so you can replay it without problem.
back then the original Crysis ran like 30FPS with my HD4890, which was the fastest single GPU for Crysis
The thing is the industry has moved on now, back then 30-50fps was acceptable heck before that time 15-30fps was acceptable. But these days people have become accustomed too high frame rates and refresh rates with 360Hz+ screens.
Also Crysis is old, sure it looks good even today, but this isn't 2007 anymore and there are tons of great looking games that both look and perform much better than Crysis. A remaster should fix issues that the old games had and one of their main problems was performance and their performance on modern hardware. Crytek have barely touched these issues and instead added in features (RT) that make virtually no difference to IQ but instead helps cripple the performance once again. Crytek had the chance to bring the games up to a modern standard, with great visuals, modern features, and moving on from the meme "can it run crysis" and giving people a great experience in terms of performance.
Instead they chose to do the minimal amount of work, slap in some of the worst RT I have ever seen, and charge people too much for their "work".
The thing is the industry has moved on now, back then 30-50fps was acceptable heck before that time 15-30fps was acceptable. But these days people have become accustomed too high frame rates and refresh rates with 360Hz+ screens.
Also Crysis is old, sure it looks good even today, but this isn't 2007 anymore and there are tons of great looking games that both look and perform much better than Crysis. A remaster should fix issues that the old games had and one of their main problems was performance and their performance on modern hardware. Crytek have barely touched these issues and instead added in features (RT) that make virtually no difference to IQ but instead helps cripple the performance once again. Crytek had the chance to bring the games up to a modern standard, with great visuals, modern features, and moving on from the meme "can it run crysis" and giving people a great experience in terms of performance.
Instead they chose to do the minimal amount of work, slap in some of the worst RT I have ever seen, and charge people too much for their "work".
Crysis 2 and 3 remastered cost less than 10usd each for me, not sure how is that "charge people too much". I haven't played the original Crysis 2+3 so these Remastered are quite welcomed.
Having "Ultra Settings" that cripple performance for minor visual gain is not that uncommon (RDR2 is the best example), you can just turn them down or find optimized settings for maximum Visual/FPS. That's the whole point of PC gaming, finding the best options that are suitable to your PC.
RT is the same, you might not notice it but others might find it worth the performance sacrifice, for me I have sufficient FPS either way so I'm playing with RT ON, since it is the best representation of the game.
back then the original Crysis ran like 30FPS with my HD4890, which was the fastest single GPU for Crysis
Different time different situation .
Crysis was much ahead of its time back then no game was even close, graphics were authentic, even now they don't look bad.
Remaster is even more silly when you show orginal performance and graphics and compare performance of best gpu back then and 3090rtx
Crysis 2 (at least) plays decent without RTX enabled. ~140 fps on average at 1440p very high settings on my 6800xt, so you can replay it without problem.
I suspect RT used is optimized for nVidia, much like how Tessellation was overly done back then so that AMD cards sucked at it. Not gonna support such a company...
First crysis run like a crap on everything and it is proven that multithreading is not even a thing on it it evens runs slow on modern systems compared to how it should be running. BUT it will never take away from my mind the moment we installed it on a friends 8800gt and we cranked the settings wlmost to ma it was choppy and bellow 24fps i believe but our jaw smacked the floor the second we saw the graphics , the only time i was wowed so hard was back on 1996 seeing ridge racer on PlayStation on a friends house my first ever experience with ps made my beloved mega drive II (sega genesis for our usa friends 😛) look like a fossil ,
I am afraid that i will never experience the amount of wow again over graphics and that makes me kinda sad 😛
Different time different situation .
Crysis was much ahead of its time back then no game was even close, graphics were authentic, even now they don't look bad.
Remaster is even more silly when you show orginal performance and graphics and compare performance of best gpu back then and 3090rtx
Crysis 1 Remastered was heavily CPU bottlenecked but 2+3 Remastered are much better
Here is my benchmark @4K without RT/DLSS/AA
19-10-2021, 17:51:54 Crysis3Remastered.exe benchmark completed, 16280 frames rendered in 148.515 s
Average framerate : 109.6 FPS
Minimum framerate : 87.8 FPS
Maximum framerate : 145.5 FPS
1% low framerate : 74.9 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 68.4 FPS
Given that the GTX1070 only does ~28FPS with the original Crysis 3, C3 Remastered does scale really well with additional GPU horsepower (3090 is only 3.3x faster than GTX1070 with rasterization perf)
mikeysg:
I suspect RT used is optimized for nVidia, much like how Tessellation was overly done back then so that AMD cards sucked at it. Not gonna support such a company...
By optimized for Nvidia you mean the RT Reflections is full-res instead of 1/4 res? because the results with RT do look similar to CP2077 with only RT Reflections
Game runs smooth for me, 0 stutter, 4K Max Settings with DLSS Quality
First map
18-10-2021, 15:53:21 Crysis3Remastered.exe benchmark completed, 20514 frames rendered in 293.235 s
Average framerate : 69.9 FPS
Minimum framerate : 54.2 FPS
Maximum framerate : 83.7 FPS
1% low framerate : 55.1 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 52.2 FPS
You seem content that an 8 year old game only gives you 70fps at 4K/max settings with DLSS on a 3090 which should render the game at 66% the original resolution meaning ~2560x1440.
You seem content that an 8 year old game only gives you 70fps at 4K/max settings with DLSS on a 3090 which should render the game at 66% the original resolution meaning ~2560x1440.
Huh, I get ~110FPS @4K without RT/DLSS, which I don't even need to play this game.
So if a game offer a higher visual fidelity mode that cost FPS, that is a bad thing?
How about games that purposefully lock you out of a higher fidelity mode when you have much more capable GPU down the line?
BTW I couldn't care less if DLSS were using 720p to upscale 4K if the final image look comparable to 4K Native
By optimized for Nvidia you mean the RT Reflections is full-res instead of 1/4 res? because the results with RT do look similar to CP2077 with only RT Reflections