I just can't help to say but Crysis2 still looks incredible, 2 years later, and yet you can still see as awesome as it is Crysis 3 is still more detailed (who'd have thought it possible lol)


Click here for Full size 1920x1080


Click here for Full size 1920x1080

Are both shots at the same detail settings? Same hardware? Same PC?

One thing that I have noticed is that Crysis 3 *is* largely clearer at the same settings than Crysis 2, and I don't even HAVE a high-end DX11 GPU - in fact, I have a *hooptie* DX11 GPU - AMD's HD5450. (The Frankencard. A notebook GPU in discrete clothes.) Normally more suitable for HTPC/SFF usage than gaming. However, thanks pretty much entirely to the 1.9/DX11 patch series for Crysis 2, I started to actually get an idea of what DX11 support can bring to shooters. It's not JUST the large textures, but how ALL textures - regardless of size - are processed. Even pixel processing differs between DX9 and DX9c - and diverges yet again with DX11. However, taking advantage of it requires game support, OS support, and (last but not least) GPU support. Such support is NOT equal across all GPUs - even from within the same company (nVidia, ATI, or even Intel's integrated-on-CPU GPUs) - that is how they differentiate partly, after all. Some of the DX11 feature support in the HD5450 is not present in other HD5xxx GPUs from AMD - I have no idea why it's not, but it's not. However, there is some rather odd feature differences among nV's GPUs of the same family (look at Fermi from top to bottom, or even Kepler - are all the features implemented the same way across each GPU family? Are there or are there not some features present in the lower end that the high end lacks?). Such difference can indeed lead to rude surprises, especially when developers make surprise choices - I mean, who EVER would have thought that Civilization V would be a greater GPU punisher than Starcraft II Wings of Liberty?

Thought Crysis 3 looked hands down better than Crysis 2 - not even close in some respects. The lighting has received a massive upgrade since Crysis 2.

Are both shots at the same detail settings? Same hardware? Same PC?
Yup, same everything, both games had graphic settings maxed out from the same PC (ultra for C2 and it's equivalent in C3 Very High)
Phenom IIx6 1090T @3.2
GTX 560TI 2GB x2 in SLI
16GB DDR3 Ram
W7 64bit
(C3 avg's 45FPS with these settings but very stable, its absolutely playable. C2 runs flawlessly at 70-80FPS in ULTRA)
One thing that I have noticed is that Crysis 3 *is* largely clearer at the same settings than Crysis 2, and I don't even HAVE a high-end DX11 GPU - in fact, I have a *hooptie* DX11 GPU - AMD's HD5450. (The Frankencard. A notebook GPU in discrete clothes.) Normally more suitable for HTPC/SFF usage than gaming. However, thanks pretty much entirely to the 1.9/DX11 patch series for Crysis 2, I started to actually get an idea of what DX11 support can bring to shooters. It's not JUST the large textures, but how ALL textures - regardless of size - are processed. Even pixel processing differs between DX9 and DX9c - and diverges yet again with DX11. However, taking advantage of it requires game support, OS support, and (last but not least) GPU support. Such support is NOT equal across all GPUs - even from within the same company (nVidia, ATI, or even Intel's integrated-on-CPU GPUs) - that is how they differentiate partly, after all. Some of the DX11 feature support in the HD5450 is not present in other HD5xxx GPUs from AMD - I have no idea why it's not, but it's not. However, there is some rather odd feature differences among nV's GPUs of the same family (look at Fermi from top to bottom, or even Kepler - are all the features implemented the same way across each GPU family? Are there or are there not some features present in the lower end that the high end lacks?). Such difference can indeed lead to rude surprises, especially when developers make surprise choices - I mean, who EVER would have thought that Civilization V would be a greater GPU punisher than Starcraft II Wings of Liberty?
LoL very true, well said My favorite attribute of DX11 is tesselation and shadows. What a huge difference in the feel of the game those settings make

Are both shots at the same detail settings? Same hardware? Same PC?
Yup, same everything, both games had graphic settings maxed out from the same PC (ultra for C2 and it's equivalent in C3 Very High)
Phenom IIx6 1090T @3.2
GTX 560TI 2GB x2 in SLI
16GB DDR3 Ram
W7 64bit
(C3 avg's 45FPS with these settings but very stable, its absolutely playable. C2 runs flawlessly at 70-80FPS in ULTRA)
One thing that I have noticed is that Crysis 3 *is* largely clearer at the same settings than Crysis 2, and I don't even HAVE a high-end DX11 GPU - in fact, I have a *hooptie* DX11 GPU - AMD's HD5450. (The Frankencard. A notebook GPU in discrete clothes.) Normally more suitable for HTPC/SFF usage than gaming. However, thanks pretty much entirely to the 1.9/DX11 patch series for Crysis 2, I started to actually get an idea of what DX11 support can bring to shooters. It's not JUST the large textures, but how ALL textures - regardless of size - are processed. Even pixel processing differs between DX9 and DX9c - and diverges yet again with DX11. However, taking advantage of it requires game support, OS support, and (last but not least) GPU support. Such support is NOT equal across all GPUs - even from within the same company (nVidia, ATI, or even Intel's integrated-on-CPU GPUs) - that is how they differentiate partly, after all. Some of the DX11 feature support in the HD5450 is not present in other HD5xxx GPUs from AMD - I have no idea why it's not, but it's not. However, there is some rather odd feature differences among nV's GPUs of the same family (look at Fermi from top to bottom, or even Kepler - are all the features implemented the same way across each GPU family? Are there or are there not some features present in the lower end that the high end lacks?). Such difference can indeed lead to rude surprises, especially when developers make surprise choices - I mean, who EVER would have thought that Civilization V would be a greater GPU punisher than Starcraft II Wings of Liberty?
LoL very true, well said My favorite attribute of DX11 is tesselation and shadows. What a huge difference in the feel of the game those settings make

Yup. And while the HD5450 doesn't take big advantage of shows, it does take SOME advantage of them - and of tessellation, too. (What folks seem to not realize is that tessellation is not a big memory pig - nowhere near as much as shadows; not EVERY DX11 feature is piggish in terms of memory.)

Crysis 2 did tessellation much better. Crysis 3 overall is better, but lacks in the tessellation...

Yup. And while the HD5450 doesn't take big advantage of shows, it does take SOME advantage of them - and of tessellation, too. (What folks seem to not realize is that tessellation is not a big memory pig - nowhere near as much as shadows; not EVERY DX11 feature is piggish in terms of memory.)
Yeah the shadows are massive resource hogs, Ive seen that setting make FPS plummet. Well for me when those are set to low in C3 I go from 45FPS to the high 70's
Crysis 2 did tessellation much better. Crysis 3 overall is better, but lacks in the tessellation...
You think? I'm going to have another look. I'm guessing C2 seems like it had alot more piles of rubble/bricks everywhere to really showcase that where C3 is a lot of vegetaion/foliage and rusted textures