- Improved overall rendering performance (DX9 and DX10)

This means that people without 8800 series cards can get playable framerates, and that two years from now it will be playable on high quality?

its playable on high quality effortlessly by any 8800 series card. You don't need 100fps to play single player :/

Meant very high, but only playable on 8800 series up to 1152x864 IMO on high.

yar, I played on high with a few of very high's settings turned on and 1024x768 was good for 40ish and 1280x960 was 30ish. I just chose 10x7 since I played the game on Delta and thought that was supposed to be hard and I would need the FPS. Crysis needed a harder difficulty. Farcry was actually tough on it's worst difficulty. Crysis was a cake walk mostly.

I have 8800GTS.

Full Very High settings were not acceptable even at 1024x768 at times. Probably fine for just walking around taking SS but not for actually playing. But I prefer more FPS than your average crysis player. The devs goal seemed to be 25-30 frames with their target systems.

It's not all bad: frames go up 10-30 online without even touching a setting just because the graphics are lighter online and physics are disabled for just about everything. At medium 8800 owners will see 100+.

Which btw if you happen to turn on crysis motion blur while over 100fps on a CRT with 120hz+ You eyes will melt it feels so excellently fluid. Anyways I still turn that off online for obvious reasons.

Get about 45-50fps on average with high in 1152x864 with high quality, runs about 35-40 fps in 1280x960 on average, but when you zoom in the framerate dips well below 30 on a overclocked 8800GTS. Got maybe 30 average in 1024x768 on medium with X1950pro and lowering shadows to low was only thing that really helped, which ruined any athmosphere the game had. They are selling crysis almost 40% discounted in stores right now. Think they got the message that making a game that needs a top of the line GFX to run smooth even in normal resolutions is not a good idea.

Can't stand Vista because of important functions beeing burried under 2-3 times the menus they are in XP and the performance. Might give the 64bit version a go once servicepack 1 comes out. Downloaded the disc a couple of months ago and got the key sent on email, but haven't tested it yet. Only tried 32bit buisiness edition, but will need 2 more gb of ram to run vista smooth. Q3 was running at 100% CPU with FPS drops on a C2D @2.8ghz which is unacceptable IMO. So haven't tested DX10 version yet.

But I prefer more FPS than your average crysis player

Me too. After playing so much multiplayer at low res and super fps, I cringe when my Bioshock at 1280x1024 max quality 16xAA/AF drops below 50 fps :P I wonder how Crysis will run on my rig. Which 8800GTS do you have? (320/640 or the new 512 which is better than both of them?)

My rig is an E6550, 2GB 800Mhz RAM, 8800GT OC 512mb. I'm guessing I'd get about 30-40 fps on High Quality 1280x1024 but from what I've heard from friends, even that is really smooth compared to most other games at similar framerates.

640

I think this one is still probably best if I want to play on 2048x1536. It makes good screenshots anyways but 16fps max is sucky.

The problem with the new 512mb version (G92) is memory bandwith, which is about the same the old 640MB. That is pretty much the only reason a 8800GTX can keep up when FSAA is off, and in some games beat the 8800GTS 512mb. I've seen tests with 8800GT with 1GB, and it only made a difference in 1 or 2 games in extreme resolutions. The G92 chip is an absolute beast, and afaik all GT and GTS cards can be overclocked 10% or more with proper cooling. Too bad they went with 256bit memory interface to save money.

Max Fillrate, memory bandwith and shaderpower:
8800GTS 640mb : 24 Giga texels 64GB/s 345.6 GigaFlops
8800GTS 512mb (G92) : 41.6 Giga texels 62GB/s 624 GigaFlops
8800GTX: 36.8Giga texels 86.4GB/s 518GigaFlops
8800Ultra: 39.2 Giga texels 103.7GB/s 576GigaFlops


The new 8800GTS should have been named 8900GTS cause that is where it's performance lies, and it's only competition is 8800GTX/Ultra. The 8800GT is about 10% slower and the most overclocked editions (700/2000) perform almost as well as a 8800GTS on stock speed. Overclocking the 8800GT which comes with stock cooler that has a 60mm fan is not a good idea IMO though since it will run at more than 90 degrees unless you speed up the fan. The GTS runs about 10 degrees cooler.

well, I'll bet you anything the 9XXX series cards will be higher bandwidth g92's.
These are being dumbed down intentionally. I've currently got the evga 8800gt sc overclocked to ssc speeds, but I'm not comfortable having the fan spin so fast constantly, so I'm doing the 'step-up' program and getting the g92 GTS. I know it's not overall worth it price/performance-wise, but I'll be more comfortable with my overclock, and probably even go a little higher.
I'm at 705/ 1675/ 2000 atm. I'm aiming for similar speeds with the gts.

The better cooler was the reason for getting the GTS. Clocked it to 700/1700/2060, without even pushing it. Could prob go atleast 40mhz more on all three, but not worth risking the card. Have you considered an after market cooler? Would cost you less than you'll lose on selling the 8800GT. Zalman VF-1000 Costs a bit, but doesn't make a lot of noise on low speed, and even then it cools much better than stock cooler on max speed.

Knew the 9800 series was comming and would be faster, but at the same time I hate vista so DX10 won't be used and 8800GTS is plenty fast for DX9 games. Also didn't feel like waiting another 4-5 months for the cards to be in stock. It's only in high res with FSAA that the memory bandwith becomes an issue, but I usually prefer low or no FSAA and very high FPS which makes the 8800GTS a good choice.

Well, with evga, I won't be out anything but shipping for the GT. With a registered at purchase evga product, you have 90days to exchange it for something of higher value for full price paid, no matter where you bought it. (as long as you have proof of purchase date)

If you want to take some really nice screenshots, you can try these commands:

e_screenshot_width = 4096
e_screenshot_height = 2160
e_screenshot_quality = 100
e_screenshot_file_format = jpg

That's digital cinema(4K) resolution :)

Oh and it's smooth because crysis has just such DAMN good motion blur. I absolutely have hated mb in every game I have played before it, including UT3, and many racing games. Motion blur just was causing small input lag and reducing image quality alot.

Crysis MB does it's thing without adding hardly any input lag, and at a moderate FPS drop. But most of the time if your video card is from the 8 series it will feel smoother after you turn MB on than before.

In fact I think alot of people playing on medium not getting the high quality post processing notice their framerate alot more than a comparable 8800 user getting the same framerate just playing with high quality.

Full scene motion blur probably will never cut it for competition in a PC game, (consoles don't have an ability to choose). It's problem is it eats fps and creates uncertainty of where exactly your opponent is when there is alot of relative motion happening. So it would make flick shots harder ect.

A sort of partial motion blur that blurred the scenery and level if you moved fast relative to it, but NOT items of importance like enemy players would be pretty good to have if frames were not at risk of being slowed. It'd allow you to get a more consistent sense of speed in a game across different Fov settings and improve the feeling of smoothness.

Just reinstalled Crysis and applied the new patch. Unfortunatly all my save games are gone so don't have scopes in SP yet which was where my problems kicked in, but tried binoculars and they worked fine. However it was playable in 1280x960 with all settings on high now in first level with FPS mostly staying between 37 and 45 in parts with lots of vegetation. Running 8800GTS 512mb 700/2060mhz. Seems to be quite an improvement over version 1.0 in the framerate department.

does this patch affect both single- and multiplayer?

@ 1920 x 1080 w/custom very high config, I only get maybe 3-5 more fps than before.

Intel Quadcore Q6600/ SLI 8800GTX-Superclocked/4GB ram

Pretty big disapointment imo.

but thats like 50% performance increase!

haha

[+]

woohoo!

oder PS3.

mmmmh Copypasta!

i installed crysis on my older computer. its running a celeron D (3.33 ghz), 1.5 gigs of ram and an 8600 GT that i havnt even overclocked yet and i get very playable framerates on all high settings with a resolution of 10x7 with only a few sound glitches. the graphics are glassy smooth. so you dont need an 8800.

i get to play crysis on saturday!

then whine about it on sunday :DDD

wow, I'll get even BETTER performance now!!

(has spent far more money than I want to admit on my computer)