Conclusion and Driver Comparison between Forceware 169.01 and 169.09
Crysis impressively demonstrates the kind of 3D power the next generation of games will require. Not a single card in our field is able to achieve the Full-HD resolution of 1920x1200 at the maximum detail level – and don’t even think about turning on FSAA. Since Oblivion, another game that made 3D hardware choke when it was released, looks very good on current hardware, we can look forward to having the power of a Geforce 9 or 10 at our disposal. That should let us play the game smoothly in all its detailed glory on a 24” display.
In order for Crysis to look good, it has to be played at a graphics setting of at least Medium. We’ll say right here that you may as well forget about the Low preset – at that point, even the original Far Cry looks better. The game really begins to shine starting with the High setting. We strongly discourage you from switching down to Medium or even low at a high resolution to achieve better frame rates. Better to go with a lower resolution and higher details and graphics quality.
Performance wise, ATI’s 2900 XT wins out over the Geforce 8800 GTS 320. In many resolutions, the ATI chip is faster, offering around 22% more performance. However, the Radeon 2900 XT doesn’t stand a chance against the newer 8800 GT, which enjoys an overall performance advantage of 27%.
Like few other benchmarks, Crysis sorts the graphics cards into their classes. While the 8800 GT can compete with the GTX version and sometimes even the Ultra in other benchmarks, Crysis puts it in its place. If you’ve recently been asking yourself if you paid too much for your GTX or Ultra card in the face of the GT’s recent release, this game will show you that your investment into more stream processors and higher memory bandwidth were very worthwhile after all.
The comparison between the GPU and CPU load shows us how much the game depends on a powerful processor as well. Without a dual-core processor, things look grim if the graphics card needs more power and the CPU is tied up calculating physics effects. The low performance of the midrange cards based on the Geforce 8600 and Radeon 2600 is especially evident. We purposely did not test any models based on the Radeon 2400 and 2600 Pro or the Geforce 8400 and 8500, since the 8600 GT and the 2600 XT were already barely capable of running at low resolutions using the Medium preset. While a little tuning can go a long way, cranking up the quality settings all the way reduces the game to a slide show. A very good looking one, mind you, but a slide show nonetheless. If we take the Geforce 8800 Ultra as a reference point and consider its performance as 100 %, then the Geforce 8600 GT only achieves 22% of its overall performance.
This should be outstanding news to ATI/AMD, Intel and Nvidia alike, as Crysis should bring them some respectable business from gamers upgrading their systems in the hope of improving performance. Basically, anyone who wants to play this game at high resolutions with full detail levels needs a very good system. After all, those triple-SLI, Crossfire-X and quad-core CPU configurations need to be put to good use, right? That reminds us – whatever happened to those neat dedicated physics acceleration cards that were meant to revolutionize games and unburden the CPU?
The last chart shows the cumulative performance of each card, consisting of the performance values in all tested resolutions in each of the presets Lo, Medium, High, and Very High.
| Card Name | FPS | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| 8800 Ultra (768 MB) OC | 1378.7 | 100 |
| 8800 GTX (768 MB) | 1245.9 | 90.4 |
| 8800 GT (512 MB) OC | 1025.0 | 74.3 |
| 2900 XT (512 MB) | 807.8 | 58.6 |
| 8800 GTS (320 MB) OC | 662.3 | 48 |
| 8600 GTS (512 MB) OC | 534.7 | 38.8 |
| 8600 GTS (512 MB) | 486.5 | 35.3 |
| 2600 XT (512 MB) | 399.0 | 28.9 |
| 8600 GT (256 MB) OC | 308.5 | 22.4 |
Driver Comparison between Forceware 169.01 and 169.09
In response to suggestions by several of our readers, we are also providing results for the most commonly used display resolutions, again without AF or FSAA. Additionally, we are comparing the two driver versions Forceware 169.01 and 169.09.
| Card Name | 1280 x 1024 no AF, no FSAA High Quality | 1680 x 1050 no AF, no FSAA High Quality | 1920 x 1200 no AF, no FSAA High Quality | 1280 x 1024 no AF, no FSAA Very High |
| 8800 Ultra (768 MB) OC 169.09 | 37.6 | 29.1 | 24.7 | 21.7 |
| 8800 Ultra (768 MB) OC 169.01 | 40.6 | 31.3 | 26.6 | 22.8 |
| 8800 GTX (768 MB) 169.09 | 33.7 | 25.7 | 21.8 | 19.2 |
| 8800 GTX (768 MB) 169.01 | 36.3 | 27.7 | 23.5 | 20.2 |
| 8800 GT (512 MB) OC 169.09 | 33.4 | 24.8 | 20.7 | 18.6 |
| 8800 GT (512 MB) OC 169.01 | 35.6 | 26.9 | 22.4 | 19.5 |
| 8800 GTS (320 MB) OC 169.09 | 16.8 | 11.7 | 8.5 | 10.3 |
| 8800 GTS (320 MB) OC 169.01 | 18.2 | 13.8 | 10.1 | 11.7 |
| HD 2900 XT (512 MB) 7.10 | 22.8 | 17.9 | 15.2 | 14.3 |
| HD 3850 (256 MB) 8.43.1 | 19.8 | 10.6 | 9.9 | 11.3 |
| Card Name | Overall Performance in FPS | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| 8800 Ultra (768 MB) OC 169.01 | 121.3 | 100 |
| 8800 Ultra (768 MB) OC 169.09 | 113.1 | 93.2 |
| 8800 GTX (768 MB) 169.01 | 107.7 | 88.8 |
| 8800 GT (512 MB) OC 169.01 | 104.4 | 86.1 |
| 8800 GTX (768 MB) 169.09 | 100.4 | 82.8 |
| 8800 GT (512 MB) OC 169.09 | 97.5 | 80.4 |
| HD 2900 XT (512 MB) 7.10 | 70.2 | 57.9 |
| 8800 GTS (320 MB) OC 169.01 | 53.8 | 44.4 |
| HD 3850 (256 MB) 8.43.1 | 51.6 | 42.5 |
| 8800 GTS (320 MB) OC 169.09 | 47.3 | 39.0 |
- Gaming,
- Graphics,
- Graphics_Cards ,
- Geforce_8800GT ,
- Crysis ,
- DX10
Latest Miscellaneous News
- 24/05 – Galaxy S III Breaks Pre-order Records with UK Vendors
- 24/05 – Traffic to UK Pirate Party Website Skyrockets After TPB Block
- 23/05 – Google CEO Larry Page Wears Project Glass to London Event
- 23/05 – UK Gets New Child-friendly Mobile Network, Bemilo
- 22/05 – Waterstones Embracing Amazon and Its Kindle
Latest Miscellaneous reviews
- 23/05 – Act Of Valor: Bandito Brothers' Jacob Rosenberg,...
- 16/04 – The Complete iPad 3 Review: Retina Display, A5X, 4G LTE, And...
- 12/04 – The Windows Phone 7.5 Review, A Month-Long Experience
- 05/04 – Killer Wireless-N 1103 Review: Can Qualcomm Take On Centrino?
- 28/02 – Mobile World Congress 2012: Nokia, Asus, Intel, Samsung, And LG
Surely 40fps and above is required for any decent level of gameplay - most arcade games run towards 60fps and that is also a level that Xbox 360 / PS3 games aim at.
Also since when is HD 1920x1200? Surely its 1920x1080 (hence 1080p).
I would say 24fps should be playable, TV looks pretty smooth at 24
lol u rekon ps3 or xbox gets 60 fps in anything. around 30 fps is playable in most crysis playes very very well at lower fps's though. and 1920x1200 if full hd on a monitor due to 16:10 aspect ratio
lol u rekon ps3 or xbox gets 60 fps in anything. around 30 fps is playable in most crysis playes very very well at lower fps's though. and 1920x1200 if full hd on a monitor due to 16:10 aspect ratio
Hi all fraggers,
Very useful breakdown of the game. Nice to finally see minimum framerates. Ideally would prefer to see to see graphs of framerate and less of those pointless low res. videos (they all look the same as they are such low res. and highly compressed)!!
So clearly I need a 1TB 9900 GPU... Perhaps I will wait to get the game till one exists!!
Thanks for a great review!!
Bob
I doubt it'll be the nine series with a TB of memory.....
Hi spud,
You're right I think (unless there is a big memory breakthrough in the next 3-6 months!!) I meant the Nvidia 19x10^3 GTX Ultra with real-time 3D HDR ray tracing support :-) :-)
I might settle for a 1+Gb card though (heh, heh).
I would lauf if Nvidia releases a 9800 model!!
Bob
I have a widescreen TV/monitor max res 1360 by 768, a resolution not included here. Can anyone tell me what is the max quality I could probably play at this res keeping the frame rate above 25 fps, basing it on the test settings in the article?
Hi joneb,
1024 x 768 = 786,432 pixels
1360 x 768 = 1,044,480 pixels
1280 x 1024 = 1,310,720 pixels
So roughly you will get half way between the 1024 x 768 FPS and 1280 x 1024 FPS for your GPU I guess...
Although the relationship is not linear I suppose... You will certainly get at least the 1280 x 1024 FPS for your GPU
Bob
Tom im dissappointed. Very thorough, but why benchamrk with 4xAA? Only the gtx and ultra seem to be able to deal with it. Most gamers wont have any on as they dont have the super cards to cope with it! This is one game where AA is out of the question for 95% of people at pretty much any resolution, so why benchmark with it?
Exhaustive test, but testing with aa instantly chops 30% of performance, and nothing but the ultra has power to spare at this time.
I too am dissapointed with the review benchmarking above 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8xAF.
I am now trying to work out what I will get using an 8800GT 512MB at 1366x768 with no AA, no AF by working out the middle ground between 1024x768 with no AA AF and 1280x1024 with 4xAA, 8xAF.
Thanks BobWya but the difference between both settings is massive theres no way I can work it out and if I have to go with the 1280x1024 setting Im getting a PS3 or an X-Box for gaming I think no matter how I love rpgs/mmorpgs.
I totally agree with spoonboy: why include 4xAA in the tests if only the Ultra comes near to being able to run it!? Pointless. If you want a great guide to getting the most quality and FPS out of Crysis with the least hardware then check this out: http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html
Also, where are the SLI benchmarks? Don't tell me you can't enable SLI in the demo because you can. Two 8800GTS 320MB cards in SLI work VERY well with Crysis
joneb
You would interpolate between the 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 1200 figures (both without AA and AF). Why would use figures with AA and AF if you aren't using them!!
As for consoles can they push out more than 30 FPS at HDR? I bet not!! The GPU in the consoles aren't that powerful right (X1900XTX equivalent in the XBox 360 - isn't it?)
Don't forget that Crysis is falling in lull between PC GPU generations!! You know like the 8800GTX was last big card release and that was like November 2006!! Its about time therefore for Nvidia to release a new series!! Hows about a shiny new 9900 Series in time for Santa's Christmas stockings in 2008!!
While ATI sit with their finger up their ass. Since they haven't done anything big since the X1900XT(X) series (when they last had the performance crown). Heck I'm still using a X1950 Pro (512Mb) - it's still an OK card (can play the Crysis demo at 1600x1200 @ medium settings)
Bob
I used the 1280X1024 benchmark info with 4xAA and 8XAF because they dont give any benchmark info at that resolution without the AA and AF. So its all I have to work with.
I am with spoonboy on this article...
As I have played the demo and know I can just about get 30 FPS on medium @1600x1200 I didn't really look at the charts in detail. Just noted that the FPS numbers were mostly completely unplayable or just barely - how does that help anyone??
What the hell!! Why are THG putting on high AA AND high AF settings on the higher resolutions... Have you guys lost the plot or what?? Most people like joneb will want to know whether they can play the game at all never mind putting the eye candy on!!
You are looking at the next gen. Nvidia card before you can pull a stunt like that!!
I can't even put on any AA on in Doom 3 yet (1600x1200 @Ultra) without my framerate dropping below 60!! I have upgraded to a W/C 512Mb X1950 Pro OC @607/708!! So for a game like Crysis which is a GPU killer AA & AF won't be an option!! With the 8800 Ultra folks will want the native resolution (TFT's), then the FPS, then the quality and the AA/AF eye candy last!! I know I would!!
Bob
lmao...full HD is 1920x1080 (16:9), not 1920x1200 (16:10). i run Crysis with amd64x2 4800+ (939) 2x7600gt(256mb)SLI and it's very playable on my 32" hdtv @ 1280x720.
Wakey, wakey Frazy
This thread has been dead for over a month and the article refers to the Crysis demo!! All the stuff about 1920x1080 being HD has already been said...
Go back to sleep...
Bob