G73JH - Crysis 3 performance

It is here! The game I was waiting for quite eagerly. So I set the graphics settings to medium, turn off AA. Fail. So I changed settings to low and disabled all I could. The game is barely playable, which seems just a little bit odd since I could play Crysis 2 on pretty decent settings and while I expected that I will have to go easier on Crysis 3, I still can't believe there is such a gap in performance requirements. Or... I have just reinstalled my Windows 7. Could there be a problem with that or is it just the power hungry game?

My details:

Crysis - 1920x1080, everything on low, AA disabled, blur disabled
G73jh - stock, repasted, latest bios and vbios, 5870m, i7 720, fullhd
Windows - 7 x64, CCC 13.1 (GPU @ 760Mhz), DirectX updated

Many thanks!

 

Yea, I have the same problem too. Except I have the G73JW version. Pretty much same specs, except with an nvidia graphics card. Turned everything on low inlcuding the textures, and still only got like 28 fps average. Don't understand it.

 

It's a very power hungry game!

 

Download newest catalyst drivers for ati version 13.2 beta.I'm able to play at medium settings

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

the game uses directx11 what do you expect

btw i have played it at combination of high, veryhigh and some options on low and small amount of antialiasing (can't remember which but i think i have lowered the shadows and one more option)
resolution 1600x900 and 790/1090 clocks
it was playable at around 30 frames but on some places it reduced the frames but overall playable

 

Well an overclocked 680M is happy at high and struggles at very high so from there you can judge where yours should sit.

 

OP's performance seems about right. I'd forget about 1080p and bump down the resolution to 900p if you want playability. Remember, Crysis 3's minimum requirements call for a Geforce GTS 450 or Radeon 5770, both of which are faster than the Mobility 5870 in the G73Jh. The Mobility 5870 is just a desktop 5770 substantially underclocked to 700/1000 instead of 850/1200 so it should be about 20% slower.

I tried a little of the MP open beta before I sold my G73Jh and I was barely averaging 30 FPS at 900p and lowest possible settings. Crysis 3 is a system killer and is even giving high-end desktops a hard time, to say nothing of 3-year-old laptops.

 

Despite having owned an Asus for quite a while now I don't know how this works on them but on most Sagers if you drop the resolution from native to something else you'll normally end up with the same or lower FPS than just running the native because the cards are optimized for the laptops native resolution. Obviously if you drop it low enough your FPS will go back up but I don't know if 1600x900 non native is going to be enough of a difference.

 

Not true; lowering the resolution will always improve performance in GPU-limited situations. The only scenario I can think of where this might not hold is if there is a severe CPU bottleneck and increasing the resolution shifts the load back to the GPU. And there is no such thing as graphics cards being optimized for certain resolutions; they'll just run faster or slower depending on their capabilities. 1920x1080 is 44% more pixels than 1600x900 and I could always feel the difference in the demanding games such as BF3. Sometimes it meant the difference between a competitive and non-competitive FPS for online play. Luckily, my G73Jh had a 900p panel and I didn't have to worry about the blurriness inherent in running a non-native resolution.