/ Sign-up

Shadows and Particle Effects

Crysis – The Ultimate Graphics Card Performance Shootout

In the Low quality setting, shadows are deactivated. There are no apparent differences between the shadow contours at the Medium and High settings.

Crysis DX10 GraphicsCrysis DX10 Graphics

Crysis DX10 GraphicsCrysis DX10 Graphics

A magnesium torch serves as a marker on the beach. The flickering light, the spraying sparks and the smoke are all tied to the torch’s position. You can even pick it up and throw it through the air. The light is calculated in real-time, creating eerie shadow patterns on bushes and palm trees. The torch also continues to burn under water, creating little eddies of rising air bubbles.

Crysis - DirectX10 Torch Low
Crysis - DirectX10 Torch Medium
Crysis - DirectX10 Torch High
Crysis - DirectX10 Torch Very High

Display all 17 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -1 Hide
    david__t , 29 November 2007 17:30
    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).
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 29 November 2007 17:34
    I would say 24fps should be playable, TV looks pretty smooth at 24
  • 0 Hide
    ZedZEE , 29 November 2007 17:55
    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
  • 0 Hide
    ZedZEE , 29 November 2007 17:55
    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
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 30 November 2007 01:13
    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!!

  • 0 Hide
    spuddyt , 30 November 2007 03:06
    I doubt it'll be the nine series with a TB of memory..... :p 
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 30 November 2007 03:28
    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!!


  • 0 Hide
    joneb , 30 November 2007 04:44
    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?
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 30 November 2007 08:29
    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

  • 0 Hide
    spoonboy , 30 November 2007 16:08
    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. :( 
  • 0 Hide
    joneb , 30 November 2007 20:55
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    tstebbens , 30 November 2007 22:35
    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:

    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 :) 
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 1 December 2007 04:00

    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)


  • 0 Hide
    joneb , 1 December 2007 08:27
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 1 December 2007 18:27
    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!!

  • -1 Hide
    Frazy , 15 January 2008 08:54
    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.
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 15 January 2008 13:43
    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...