Crysis Warhead perf

R

rampantandroid

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,962
Please don't turn this into a mammoth thread that takes 5 years to read through...

On my system:

Q6600 @ stock
eVGA 680i
eVGA GTX280 @ 621 core
4 GB DDR2-800
Creative X-Fi

Running Enthusiast, 1680x1050, 2xAA

I get around 20 FPS in Warhead, depending on where I am. After I beat the final boss, I'm down to 12-13 FPS at the container (before the final video plays)...when I'm in the plane where I get the special gun, I'm at 30 or so...etc. Using DX9 or DX10 seems to have no difference.....

I'm running the 177.92 betas off the NV site, all default settings in the panel (texture filtering set to quality) aside from my GTX280's fan being at 80% duty cycle.

Game settings are: Enthusiast, 2xAA - even turning off AA doesn't help much. Is this just XP vs Vista, as some people seem to think? Bad drivers? What - because its getting REALLY annoying. Does the fact that this is the Steam version have ANYTHING to do with it?

Thanks.
 
rampantandroid said:
Please don't turn this into a mammoth thread that takes 5 years to read through...

On my system:

Q6600 @ stock
eVGA 680i
eVGA GTX280 @ 621 core
4 GB DDR2-800
Creative X-Fi

Running Enthusiast, 1680x1050, 2xAA

I get around 20 FPS in Warhead, depending on where I am. After I beat the final boss, I'm down to 12-13 FPS at the container (before the final video plays)...when I'm in the plane where I get the special gun, I'm at 30 or so...etc. Using DX9 or DX10 seems to have no difference.....

I'm running the 177.92 betas off the NV site, all default settings in the panel (texture filtering set to quality) aside from my GTX280's fan being at 80% duty cycle.

Game settings are: Enthusiast, 2xAA - even turning off AA doesn't help much. Is this just XP vs Vista, as some people seem to think? Bad drivers? What - because its getting REALLY annoying.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Get a custom config.
 
I actually got about 15 FPS higher by raising the resolution and including 4xaa.
 
List drivers people, please.

xp3nd4bl3 - you're on SLI, so your perf doesn't apply to me, really. I'm on a single card.
 
Additionally, for shits and giggles, I put Warhead on 16xQ AA....no perf hit, still tons of jaggies. Is AA not working in Warhead? I dropped down the 177.41 drivers, moving back up to 177.92.
 
Another addendum: The game uses nearly 800MB more in DX9 mode for a very slight perf increase over DX10 mode. Any idea what is up with memory usage?
 
Einhanderkiller said:
DX10 is more efficient with memory usage?
Click to expand...

Nearly 1 GB more efficient? I wish.

And 16xQ AA still doesn't work, across 3 different drivers: 2 betas and the current official. Whether I pick 2xAA or 16xQ AA, it won't work. And the latest beta off guru3d - 177.98 - made my framerate even worse.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CONFIRM PERF WITH A SINGLE GTX280, DX10?
 
Man you guys are stupid, why on earth would you want to run the game at that kind of res? Enthus gaming is best to set the res at your screens native res or lower if you get lag. If your experiencing 10-15FPS drop down your resolution and you'll get 35-45FPS. But you can leave the quality settings on high to enjoy that GFX Beauty of any latest game:D
 
Matthew Kane said:
Man you guys are stupid, why on earth would you want to run the game at that kind of res? Enthus gaming is best to set the res at your screens native res or lower if you get lag. If your experiencing 10-15FPS drop down your resolution and you'll get 35-45FPS. But you can leave the quality settings on high to enjoy that GFX Beauty of any latest game:D
Click to expand...

Except people are claiming 40 FPS at 1920x1200....hence the thread. I'm not stupid, I know how to deal with game settings, but I'd like to see how people are getting that screen res with a decent framerate.

Furthermore, can someone reply to my question on AA in this game?
 
you know the funny thing is about this game.. the performance is horrid.. yet the higher you go the worse the game looks.. it just feel like the game was rushed to be released before thanksgiving.. personally prefer playing the game set at gamer settings then i do on enthusiast settings.. but thats just me.. all set on gamer and blur effect turned off.. i avg about 25fps with my 8800GT at 760/1850/1000@1920x1200..

btw AA and AF do not work in warhead.. tested both out.. seems there will be a lot of updates coming out for this version.. or they will dump it like they did with the first crysis and claim they are coming out with a better game..

warhead feels like a step backwards visually..

and einhanderkiller is correct the game is less memory intensive in dx10 then it is in dx9.. all settings at enthusiast the game uses 1.1gb of ram in dx9 in dx10 it uses between 800-900mb. all settings at gamer it uses 800-900 mb of ram dx9 and about 700 dx10.. so that is one thing they did right i guess you could say..

also all you 4870/x2 owners.. the game still doesnt scale correctly.. so that will probably be another update as well.. it still has the same problems the original crysis had with the crossfire/sli support..

i originally downloaded crysis.. and thought it was worth buying and i did buy it.. i downloaded warhead.. just to see if the game was really worth buying.. but i dont think im going to be buying this game.. probably wont even keep the downloaded version installed much longer..

rampantandroid with my 8800GT 760/1850/1000 i can hold 40fps easy with settings at mainstream.. this games shader intensive still.. you dont even have to change memory speeds or gpu speeds.. just changing the shader clock you will gain 10+ fps..

hopefully this long rant answered a few of the questions in here about performance..
 
There are known performance issues running DX10, use DX9 to see how fast you can get, compare later.
If that doesnt help enough, dont use AA.
If that isnt enough, reduce the quality settings.
 
This is the reason why I am skipping this generations graphics cards. Maybe the new ATI card can play Crysis @ Very High & Warhead @ Enthusiast at fast levels.
 
CptFalcon said:
This is the reason why I am skipping this generations graphics cards. Maybe the new ATI card can play Crysis @ Very High & Warhead @ Enthusiast at fast levels.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.
The faster the card, the faster the CPU needed to drive it.
 
rampantandroid said:
Nearly 1 GB more efficient? I wish.
Click to expand...

Wish granted. In Crysis DX10 mode the game averaged between 750-800MB total and that includes the precache, not aggressive streaming like Warhead uses.

DX9, by comparison, would use approximately 1200MB on load and continue inflating to around 1600MB (pretty much every MB it can allocate on a 2GB system).

And 16xQ AA still doesn't work, across 3 different drivers: 2 betas and the current official. Whether I pick 2xAA or 16xQ AA, it won't work.
Click to expand...

DX10 Enthusiast enables CE2's built-in 'Edge AA' which prevents normal AA from being forced on.

Make an autoexec.cfg in the Warhead root directory and paste this in:

con_restricted = 0
r_UseEdgeAA = 0

And the latest beta off guru3d - 177.98 - made my framerate even worse.

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE CONFIRM PERF WITH A SINGLE GTX280, DX10?
Click to expand...

I had FPS problems until I did a clean sweep of my vanilla 177.92 and replaced with XG 177.92.

If you want to squeeze a few more FPS out, adding this line to the config will do that by reducing the shadow dithering load without an appreciable drop in softness:

r_ShadowJittering = 0.8
 
FPS seems normal for running at all Enthusiast. Probably if you overclocked the Q6600 you would get a nice boost. At stock I think it's holding back the GTX280.
 
socK said:
Don't use DX10, it's broken as shit in Warhead.
Click to expand...
It's strange, but the first session of Warhead running in DX10 mode worked perfectly. Then I went back the next day and started to get the stupid blue overlay when getting shot.

DX9 isn't perfect either. Keeping open the objectives/map while moving sometimes causes the game to bomb and close on both ATI and nvidia. Warhead really needs a patch.
 
I'm getting about 35fps on my rig with all settings to "gamer" at 12x10. Personally I would be very suspicious of anyone claiming 40+fps with "enthusiest" settings at 19x10 or 19x12 on a single GPU setup.
 
Hmm, so is Crysis Warhead actually optimized better than the original Crysis? I'm hopefully going to buy my Crysis Warhead via steam tomorrow.
 
nope if anythg it's harder than the original,must say i'm struggling with my setup all has been fine but have just got to hovercraft seen and it's so stuttery i had to go to no aa and gamer level quality....and it's not perfect...This game is a performance joke
 
Runs worse on my system as well, averaging about 16 FPS with enthusiast settings under DX9 at 1560x1050. This is on an 8800GTX / QX6700 combo running Vista 64. I also can't run the game for more than five or so minutes without my card becoming an artifiacting mess and the game shutting down.

Needless to say, I'm less than impressed.
 
Have switched back to 177.92Betas and left setting at game quality and all seems smooth and stable.

Must say i proberbly could jsut about get away with enthusiast setting but to be honest I think gamer looks better???!!!!

Loafer87gt: what drivers you running

p.s aint heard of the resolution before???
 
Is it just me or do bigger versions of DirectX seem to be less effcient? I get lag viewing 2d menus in some games - admitedly on a low end machine...but they're menus!!
 
DX10 has been shown to be more efficient....but it seems that Crytek isn't using it right.

I guess my numbers are normal. I'm VERY curious about people playing this game at 19x12 on a GTX260 (as one reviewer claimed)...
 
This game is a shitty mess for me. Constant 3-10 second pauses and my drives are going apeshit constantly and this with 4gb of memory on vista ultimate. Frame rate is good when it isn't pausing but the stuttering makes it unplayable. I emailed steam and told them i want a patch or a refund. I called it when I said crytek would fuck this up and sure as hell they did. This game is in worse shape at release than crysis was when it was first released. Crysis runs fantastic on my box now but warhead, forget about it.
 
Who is running this with a gtx 280 and does it run smoothly and is it stable? How are nvidia's drivers these days, especially with the gtx series?
 
rampantandroid said:
Except people are claiming 40 FPS at 1920x1200....hence the thread. I'm not stupid, I know how to deal with game settings, but I'd like to see how people are getting that screen res with a decent framerate.
Click to expand...

40FPS is not smooth gameplay....getting average 40FPS means you get alot of lag when your firing a weapon or running through a heavy terrain area with lots of objects and details around it...this means a drop from 40 to like 10 or less...and I have experienced it alot with my 9800GT.....other then that....do you guys care more about the detail then the gameplay??Sorry I am curious to know as I don't game at that res and xtreme detail...although I've been a heavy fps veteran since Doom 1993 starting with the 1st Quake ever which required the Voodoo's back then??!
 
Crysis felt pretty good with 30fps, so does Warhead, I guess they employ special effect to make action appear fluid enough (motion blur or something)
 
I'm averaging 35-40 fps and have never dropped to 10fps no matter what the circumstances. In fact, firing my weapon doesn't yield in any performance drops. We're not talking about a 40fps average by staring into a wall, we're talking an average of 40 while actually playing the game. When I do get FPS drops, it drops to mid-high 20's. Never gets to the teens, and certainly does not get less than that and into single digits as you're suggesting. A drop to 10fps would be VERY noticable and I don't think those claiming smooth gameplay would be making that claim if it dropped that low.
 
RamonGTP said:
I'm averaging 35-40 fps and have never dropped to 10fps no matter what the circumstances. In fact, firing my weapon doesn't yield in any performance drops. We're not talking about a 40fps average by staring into a wall, we're talking an average of 40 while actually playing the game. When I do get FPS drops, it drops to mid-high 20's. Never gets to the teens, and certainly does not get less than that and into single digits as you're suggesting. A drop to 10fps would be VERY noticable and I don't think those claiming smooth gameplay would be making that claim if it dropped that low.
Click to expand...

Just asking, judging by your sig how are you able to get 35-40FPS average when your running everything up on high settings? Unless your not
 
I'm running all "gamer" settings which is one step below "Enthusiest" (the highest setting) no AA and I'm just on a 19" so only 12x10 resolution. The game has actually been running rather well for me. There was one time that it was a slide show right after loading the game, for whatever reason, but as soon as I hit the "esc" button to go to the main menu and went back to the game it was back to normal.
 
Slaxerz said:
Hmm, so is Crysis Warhead actually optimized better than the original Crysis? I'm hopefully going to buy my Crysis Warhead via steam tomorrow.
Click to expand...

No, they both run like shit when you try to put max settings, so you'll be disappointed there. There isn't any "optimization", none there I know off.

And when I run the game at Enthusiast settings without AA, I get an average FPS of 15-20 at 1680x1050 which is horrible on a 4870x2.

30-50 on Gamer settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top