To this day, I've only seen Tom's Hardware use it in place of the original Crysis, and no other review site has done so. IMO, it goes to say that it will probably need a lot more polish than it has now. If they can't rework textures, do DX11 correctly, or let users set options for graphics, I can say that it is pretty much pointless to benchmark it without knowing what kind of effects and settings you're using besides preset settings, which is pointless. Part of them being able to take creditability again in the graphics department will have to come from their end to promise a completed game with patches and fixes so that it can run better, although that will still not erase the PR disaster of a state the game was released in.

So what do you guys think?

Uhhhh, no!. This game is way to optimized to squeeze the GPU to it's max...at least not the way Crysis 1 does...Also it's weird calling the legandary Crysis, Crysis 1

Nope, it needs to be much much more detailed and advanced to be benchmarking worthy.

If my grandma can run this at 60+ FPS on her laptop, then what is there to bench?

Wait for the dx11 patch and ask this question again

Wait for the dx11 patch and ask this question again

I'd say wait for the editor and some real maps instead.......the reason it's running so well is because all the maps are small, they all have very little if NO terrain at all. There's a reason we can't fly the choppers yet...lol cause there's nothing beond the backdrop buildings. The original crysis you could run all the way across the map, Crysis 2 you just hit a portal to the other side of the backdrop onto anoter "set" as I would call it...lol

No the real test is going to be on a fully terrained and filled map.

The best game for benchmarking is Stalker Clear Sky simply because it's so unoptimized