Crysis Warhead performance WORSE!?

Kidfinger said:
Thats it...Post a screen shot of a rig that wasnt even endorsed by Crytek to run the game :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Take another look at that pic. It clearly states "Crytek built its own machine...". Crytek provided those specs to PC Gamer and stated it would achieve the performance which was talked about earlier.
 
Draax said:
:confused:
crysiszf2.jpg

"...capable of running the game silky smooth, with all the bells and whistles turned on" This with an 8600GT.
Click to expand...

Wait, where did you see this? this looks like a magazine that fucked up, not whay Crytech stated.
 
Lol, to some of the people in this thread.....lol indeed.

Anyway, the game is still cool, and I got it to play decently by adjusting some settings, which is really all I wanted.

When I max out everything and just stand there, it does look really amazing though.

Hopefully the aliens don't ruin it much. That is where I got a tad put off with the last crysis.
 
I don't know what kind of frames I'm pulling but I'm definitely running the game smooth on enthusiast. I'm going check my framerate tonight, but I'm enjoying the game.
 
JohnnyH24 said:
...6850 w8800GTS (640mb).

Running very smoothly at 1280x1024 mainstream settings. Haven't tried experimenting yet, as I am happy it is finally running.
Click to expand...

Wanted to followup to say Warhead is happily running @1680x1050, with a mix of enthusiast/gamer settings. Much better perfomance than Crysis which ran at 1280x1024 medium on this rig.
 
Urgh, getting good performance out of my rig is hard as well. I suspect this is coded against ATI.

Intel QX9650 3.6Ghz | ATI 4870 512MB | 4GB DDR2 1200 | 2 x Raptor 150GB | Auzentech X-FI
 
Intelman said:
Urgh, getting good performance out of my rig is hard as well. I suspect this is coded against ATI.

Intel QX9650 3.6Ghz | ATI 4870 512MB | 4GB DDR2 1200 | 2 x Raptor 150GB | Auzentech X-FI
Click to expand...

LOL, it's not coded against ATI. Stop being retarded. I runs like crap on my GTX 260 too :)
 
Good to see Crysis Warhead is a GPU killer still. I just wouldn't be the same if it wasn't.

That shiny new GTX 260 still crap at games... makes you want to upgrade again doesn't it?
 
Timbowens said:
Lol, to some of the people in this thread.....lol indeed.

Anyway, the game is still cool, and I got it to play decently by adjusting some settings, which is really all I wanted.

When I max out everything and just stand there, it does look really amazing though.

Hopefully the aliens don't ruin it much. That is where I got a tad put off with the last crysis.
Click to expand...

Dude!!...don't you get it. I used to be able to run Crysis @16x10 with everything maxed out with an avg of 50fps. (4850 xfire).

Now I am running @16x10 on gamer and I am getting 17fps MAX. Choppy as hell. They did something right before and didn't apply it to Warhead? I am quite pissed!!!!
 
I was going to sit this one out and wait for the dust to settle but I read the IGN review and was excited when the reviewer stated that he was getting great performance using Enthusiast settings on all the machines he tested. Well, my rig received a swift kick in the ass when the FMV intro ended and the gameplay began, it was Crysis all over again. The game was choppy as hell and not fun at all. I lowered the resolution from 1920x1200 to 1360xsomething and it was still hitchy. I can play every other game full settings no problem and very smoothly, even Crysis felt better running high settings. Crysis Warhead was a stutterfest. I'll play with the settings tonight but man am I dissapointed.
 
Draax said:
Take another look at that pic. It clearly states "Crytek built its own machine...". Crytek provided those specs to PC Gamer and stated it would achieve the performance which was talked about earlier.
Click to expand...


I could give a shit what that pic says. Its NOT from Crytek. I LINKED to the Crytek page and press release that CLEARLY STATES you need a 9800GT :rolleyes: If that is from PC Gamer, then they either made a typo or just went with some bogus info and dint actually research what Crysis released for actual specs. Just google Warhead Specs and you will see. Sheez people.

For everyone running anything less than that, the game will be choppy. Crytek NEVER claimed it would run good on anything less than a 9800.
 
Apparently the whole "it's optimized to run better" promotion was all bunk just to get more sales. People fell for it hook, line and sinker.
 
F.E.A.R. said:
What about all those review sites. Where they all paid off?
Click to expand...

A person has to wonder... :(

I was a little stoked, too, to see if Warhead would live up to the performance hype. I'm glad I cancelled my pre-order on Steam and didn't make it to Wal-Mart. Time for the old "wait and see" approach. Again.

EDIT: On a side note, you KNOW that the [H] boys will do a full performance review. ;)
 
Probably not paid off but just overly excited about it. It's probably more placebo effect than anything else.
 
All the reviews I've read say the game runs great on average hardware. This thread says otherwise. I haven't tried the game yet but I'm pretty sure all you guys are on the money regarding poor performance.

I smell something very fishy, Crytek knew game sales were affected by the high system requirements so they must have gone on the charm offensive, paid a few people off for exclusive reviews or blown a few people! ;)

I wonder if the later reviews will be less hyperbolish? The Gamespot review isn't in yet...
 
I played it quite a bit last night and was not impressed with the performance. I'd say maybe 10-15% faster than Crysis at 1920x1200 max settings with no AA. And that's a stretch.

It looks and feels cartoony as hell too for some reason. Kind of a disappointment. The cut scenes are movies now and not rendered scripts. Kinda of ghey too.
 
spicey said:
I haven't got access at work, what's the score? Lemme guess - 9.0?
Click to expand...

lol - Good guess, sir. They also rave about it's improved performance. :rolleyes:

"But if for some reason you worry that this stand-alone companion to the ultragorgeous first-person shooter will bring your PC to its knees, you should know that it's highly scalable and ran smoothly on a number of machines during our testing."

"As mentioned before, the game looks better than Crysis, and it runs better too. A test machine that struggled a bit to run the original at high settings ran Warhead smoothly with the same settings."
 
Well I really hope this turns out to be a winner of a game for all the gamers out there. But as I said before, they refused to update/patch Crysis anymore, so I am refusing to buy the game. They are basically just saying "Eff the customer, we don't have the time or don't care to get them what they deserve for spending their hard earned cash on us. We just need some more money from another game, screw them."

I wouldn't look for them to patch this either.:rolleyes:

From other post's it's apparent that it may run better because the graphics suck. There's your optimization, thanks for your $30, move along please.(Crysis).
 
I would just stay far, far away from this game.

Totally not worth the headache.
 
cannondale06 said:
sorry I quoted the wrong person. :eek:

I hope you dont run all your games at that res with those cards in SLI. you would get the same and in many cases better performance at a higher res in most games.
Click to expand...

I only have a 19" LCD. :( I might have to hook the PC up to my 52A650 Sammy LCD.
 
I'm running on a 8800GTX 1920x1200 and playing it on gamer w/o aa I would get 14-17 fps, but changing it to mainstream I would get about 25ish. Kinda disappointing, but then again i'm having problems with this stupid computer.
 
kadozer said:
All the people so angry over a video game going in every thread to let the world know reminds me of this
Click to expand...

Haha nice one. I'm not angry at all, especially considering I was planning on sitting this one out because of what Crytek pulled last time.


I am just amazed that an idiot like me can KNOW that they would pull this exact song and dance to get people psyched about the game, but thousands of people were duped' by the whole thing.

I mean, Flipper could have figured that they were going to say it had better performance. No one would buy the game with excitement if they didn't expect to be able to have a better visual experience and actually be able to max the game out.:rolleyes:
 
cannondale06 said:
5-10fps is pretty big with a card like the 4670 so I see no reason to complain there. other than that it appears the Warhead runs worse on ATI cards. I think I may just get an 8800gt or 9600gt instead of the cheaper 4670 I was planning on getting. I really hate to reward Nvidia though for what seems to be butchering of ATI on this game. I would like to hear from more ATI users first though.
Click to expand...

I found the problem. This may or may not be the solution for other people having issues, but for me, Cool n' Quiet was interfering with this game. I turned up the minimum processor state to 100% and my FPS is much more stable now. With all settings at Gamer (1280x960) I average around 25 FPS on the ice levels... no more dips down to 10FPS. I brought some settings like shadow quality down to Mainsteam to stay around 30 though.
 
From what i got reading threads around different crysis forums, it seems running nvidia drivers 175.19 and running the game in DX9 mode helps performance a lot. I'll be trying both when i get home today.
 
can u tweak the graphics like with crysis messing with the cvgroups of whatever that is? or is there any graphics tweaks out there for dl? How is it running for any one who has a 4870?? i ran crysis with the natural graphics tweak mod at 16x12 with 2xaa got between 15-35 ish usually staying round 22-26.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top