Where's Metro 2033??? It's definitely more demanding than FarCry 3 and Crysis for my rig, to the point of un-playable half the time with everything maxed @ 1920x1200.
Speaking of FarCry 3.... I am currently re-playing it right now... and I have to wonder what exact settings were used for the article....
cause I SHOULD be getting noticeably lower frame rates since I'm running my i7-3930k CPU at a paltry 3.3GHz, and my GTX-660 Ti @ ~1175MHz core (current WHQL drivers) & running it at 1920x1200
or 2.3MP vs 2.07MP in the article, yet, assuming that Fraps is correct in it's benchmarking....
2014-02-07 15:01:53 - farcry3_d3d11
Frames: 15756 - Time: 300000ms - Avg: 52.520 - Min: 14 - Max: 66
2014-02-07 16:08:01 - farcry3_d3d11
Frames: 15253 - Time: 300000ms - Avg: 50.843 - Min: 12 - Max: 72
2014-02-07 16:15:29 - farcry3_d3d11
Frames: 14690 - Time: 300000ms - Avg: 48.967 - Min: 13 - Max: 77
2014-02-07 16:20:45 - farcry3_d3d11
Frames: 15561 - Time: 300000ms - Avg: 51.870 - Min: 16 - Max: 77
2014-02-07 16:34:44 - farcry3_d3d11
Frames: 16753 - Time: 300000ms - Avg: 55.843 - Min: 17 - Max: 77
Those minimum frame rates are during the graphically demanding explosions they mentioned, and I'm still well above their quoted frame rate of 41fps at 52fps average over those 5 benchmark runs, all on different missions including 2 camp captures (first & third). Also, I played Crysis about a year ago when I got this GTX-660 Ti & I'm pretty sure I got 60+fps rates there too....
Considering not only the lower CPU speed, and lower end GPU, but also my higher resolution... seems something is off with the article...
Here are my in-game settings:
Sorry about image quality, for some reason, when I tried to do screen shots, they just came out a solid black page, so I had to use my phone.
[off to look for Crysis CD]