Crysis Warhead performance WORSE!?

I'm not here to knock Vista but it seems that everyone that's moaning and groaning about performance issues with Warhead is running Vista. I'm running it on Windows XP with an 8800GT and can run it smoothly with everything turned to enthusiast. It seems to me this is an issue between it and Vista.

Just my 2 cents...
 
Well, the simple fact of the matter is that older cards are not going to be able to deliver this game the way it was intended to be played. As an 8800GTX owner, I can't really bitch and complain about Warhead performance when there are graphics cards that are twice as powerful on the market and they can be had relatively cheaply.

The thing is, these types of outdoor shooter games have historically been the most challenging to run. I remember the first time I played Battlefield 1942--I had a system that was pretty competent that was simply brought to its knees in much the same way just because the game was geared for a newer generation of hardware. Crysis and Warhead are sort of the same thing.

Since this game doesn't quite rise to the level of killer app status, the best way to deal with it is to revisit it after your next build or upgrade. It is really encumbent on Nvidia and ATi to come out with cards that can just run this game as intended, and I think they will, but it will take some time. We could see a cheap card that can do this game very quickly now that the two companies are competing again. I just don't think the 4800 or GTX280 generation products are fast enough.

Oh and one more thing, remember when everyone used to play on 19 inch CRT monitors at 1024 x 768? Maybe you cranked it to 1600 x 1200 on older games just for fun. Today, the flat panels we use have native resolutions that are a lot higher than 1024 x 768. 1680 x 1050 is now very common but back in the day if you would have told me that we'd be playing cutting edge games at that resolution I would have said no frickin way. The point is we are gaming in HD now and that in itself creates a challenge with cutting edge stuff.
 
At 1280 x 1024 with all Gamer settings, 2x AA and DX9 the game runs well. I would say it seems to run a little quicker than Crysis. The game looks fantastic on these settings. Only thing I don't like is motion blur, turned that off straight away
 
Roberty said:
I'm not here to knock Vista but it seems that everyone that's moaning and groaning about performance issues with Warhead is running Vista. I'm running it on Windows XP with an 8800GT and can run it smoothly with everything turned to enthusiast. It seems to me this is an issue between it and Vista.

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

Running fine here on Vista x86 and a 8800GT. Using 177.92 beta drivers if that helps.
 
Roberty said:
I'm not here to knock Vista but it seems that everyone that's moaning and groaning about performance issues with Warhead is running Vista. I'm running it on Windows XP with an 8800GT and can run it smoothly with everything turned to enthusiast. It seems to me this is an issue between it and Vista.

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

I don't think it's Vista, rather DX10 is broken in this game. I couldn't play some levels in dx10 on all minimum, while the same levels run fine on dx9 and all gamer with a few enthusiast settings.
 
When I first booted up the game, I pumped max settings and max resolution and was angry because it would not be playable, the original crysis was playable at my settings one resolution down!

Well, after I got a bit further in the game, I tried pumping all the settings back up, with the exception for particles, and it seems to be pretty smooth now. I even think think it just barely makes the playable margin on the on-foot part of the ice level, which is good since on the old crysis I had to lower some settings

(Vista)
 
On my 1st playthrough I had everything set to gamer and the game was buttery throughout.Now Im testing enthusiast and averageing ~35-40fps with some dips into high 20s..Indoor areas are 40-50..All in all,quite playable at enthusiast.Im gonna turn motion blur down to see how it fares..

Rig in sig for the above.
 
Okay, rig in sig. 1920 x 1200 full enthusiast settings, with Cat 8.9 (BIG performance increase w/ the 4870X2) - im getting ~35 fps at all times, never below 25
 
Okay after Cat 8.9 and some more playing, I'm playing it in DX10 Vista x64 with 1920 x 1200, everything no Enthusiast, and with 4xAA. I'm consistenly getting 25+ fps, usually in the 30-40 range. Game is smooth as butter and beautiful.

I can even play at 2560 x 1600 with no AA and almost everything at enthusiast, rarely dropping below unplayable. All with a single 4870x2. I love it!
 
Playing on the PC in my sig:

1920x1080
everything set to enthusiast
CCC set to AA 8x (edge detect/samples 24x) and 16x AF

I get 30-40 FPS in DX9 mode and less than 15 FPS in DX10

I'm using Vista x64 and Cat 8.9 and I'm very disappointed with the the DX10 results.
 
Grimspoon said:
Playing on the PC in my sig:

1920x1080
everything set to enthusiast
CCC set to AA 8x (edge detect/samples 24x) and 16x AF

I get 30-40 FPS in DX9 mode and less than 15 FPS in DX10

I'm using Vista x64 and Cat 8.9 and I'm very disappointed with the the DX10 results.
Click to expand...

What frames would you get if you disabled crossfire?
 
I'll check that now.

As a side note, I also experience a great deal of texture pop up (I think that's what it's called). Textures tend to take a second or two in order to display correctly on some surfaces.

Pretty distracting!

Edit:

Under the settings I listed above, but with crossfire disabled, I get the following results:

DX9:
~ 15-25 FPS

DX10:
~ 5 FPS
 
Grimspoon said:
Playing on the PC in my sig:

1920x1080
everything set to enthusiast
CCC set to AA 8x (edge detect/samples 24x) and 16x AF

I get 30-40 FPS in DX9 mode and less than 15 FPS in DX10

I'm using Vista x64 and Cat 8.9 and I'm very disappointed with the the DX10 results.
Click to expand...

Grimspoon said:
I'll check that now.

As a side note, I also experience a great deal of texture pop up (I think that's what it's called). Textures tend to take a second or two in order to display correctly on some surfaces.

Pretty distracting!

Edit:

Under the settings I listed above, but with crossfire disabled, I get the following results:

DX9:
~ 15-25 FPS

DX10:
~ 5 FPS
Click to expand...

imho, this seems very unlikely. I say this because even on my 4870 x2, if it set all settings to enthusiasts with 4x AA in game at 1280 x 1024 on dx9 i get an avg.30-35 frames, but its most likely due to my small amount of ram. Others with the 4870 x2 who run at 1920 x 1200 enthusiasts 4x AA on dx9 with 4gb's of ram get an avg of 35-40 frames. So even though you have 8gb's of ram, it should only give you a couple of frames more over 4gb's and since you're running 4870 CF you should be getting lower frames, since the 4870 x2's can handle AA much more effectively than 4870 CF. And since you said you're running at 24x CFAA, and getting the same avg's as people with the 4870 x2 with 1/4 of the AA you're using, it justs seem very unlikely, pretty much impossible technically speaking.
 
Grimspoon said:
I'll check that now.

As a side note, I also experience a great deal of texture pop up (I think that's what it's called). Textures tend to take a second or two in order to display correctly on some surfaces.

Pretty distracting!

Edit:

Under the settings I listed above, but with crossfire disabled, I get the following results:

DX9:
~ 15-25 FPS

DX10:
~ 5 FPS
Click to expand...

Interesting because I was planning on buying a Visiontek 4870 from BB and wanted to see what performance would be with it. I guess Enthusiast is the way to go then, awesome!
 
I should have been more clear, I'm not running a benchmark, I'm simply reporting what I see on my screen with r_displayinfo=1 in my system.cfg, showing me my FPS. I'm only taking a reading in the first level, just past the 3rd checkpoint.

Quick and dirty.

Hope that clears things up a bit with regards to my numbers.

speedy523 said:
imho, this seems very unlikely. I say this because even on my 4870 x2, if it set all settings to enthusiasts with 4x AA in game at 1280 x 1024 on dx9 i get an avg.30-35 frames, but its most likely due to my small amount of ram. Others with the 4870 x2 who run at 1920 x 1200 enthusiasts 4x AA on dx9 with 4gb's of ram get an avg of 35-40 frames. So even though you have 8gb's of ram, it should only give you a couple of frames more over 4gb's and since you're running 4870 CF you should be getting lower frames, since the 4870 x2's can handle AA much more effectively than 4870 CF. And since you said you're running at 24x CFAA, and getting the same avg's as people with the 4870 x2 with 1/4 of the AA you're using, it justs seem very unlikely, pretty much impossible technically speaking.
Click to expand...
 
Grimspoon said:
I should have been more clear, I'm not running a benchmark, I'm simply reporting what I see on my screen with r_displayinfo=1 in my system.cfg, showing me my FPS. I'm only taking a reading in the first level, just past the 3rd checkpoint.

Quick and dirty.

Hope that clears things up a bit with regards to my numbers.
Click to expand...

haha i think i may have come on a bit strong with my approach, but the #'s for my frames as well as others are from regular game play also, and usually the first level. Which is why i said its near impossible, because if the 4870 x2 cant produce those results, its high unlikely that 4870 CF can. I did sound like i was accusing you though, and i want to take that back, i just wanted to tell you that your stats just seemed very unlikely. Haha, i hope this clears some up for me :)
 
The area I was taking my stats from didn't have very dense brush, and only about 4 or so enemies just off in the distance ready to attack as I approach. In that area I'd see my FPS go anywhere from 20-60 FPS.

As I moved along, ignoring the way points and trying to find more dense brush move around in I'd see my FPS drop as low as 12 FPS, then rise again near ~30FPS depending what was on my screen.

On the beach with nothing by sand and clear sky on my screen I witnessed my FPS raise as high as 70+ FPS, That wasn't an average though.

The fluctuations ARE pretty wild, and I wouldn't expect to get an avg of 30-40 FPS consistently throughout an actual play-through with my current settings. :eek:
 
Dammit two crashes to the desktop in twenty minutes! Is it my system? I haven't reformatted my HDD in 8 months. Should I?


BTW- there are way too many Crysis threads on here.
 
solideliquid said:
Dammit two crashes to the desktop in twenty minutes! Is it my system? I haven't reformatted my HDD in 8 months. Should I?


BTW- there are way too many Crysis threads on here.
Click to expand...
ROFL, why would you reformat after one app crashes? Update your drivers, reinstall them, but reformating would be overkill...
 
BDV said:
So finally went out and bought this thing.

Very disappointing.

System:

3ghz Core 2 Duo
2 Gb pc1066 ram
8800GTX
Vista x64

Settings:

Crysis defaulted to mainstream 10x7, I raised resolution to 16x10

The game is barely playable... very hard to aim. Frame lag is very noticeable. I'm guessing around 30 fps.

Pathetic.... I wouldn't call my system a top end, but come on... Mainstream settings and it lags like this:?

What a waste of money...
Click to expand...

Increase your RAM.

I'm running a similar system with 8GB and a 640MG GTS at Gamer and above.

I was having big problems on another system: AMD 5000+ w/2GB RAM. Had to upgrade the RAM (2gb) and drop a 9850 into the rig to make the game playable with Crossfired 3870s at Mainstream. Still experience major slowdowns in areas (Mine Entrance, Final Showdown) with lots of aliens.
 
solideliquid said:
Dammit two crashes to the desktop in twenty minutes! Is it my system? I haven't reformatted my HDD in 8 months. Should I?
Click to expand...

Mines crashed a couple of times also. It only does it when I'm loading a new level I've noticed. It's probably just a bug that will get worked out with a patch. I also ran into a bug the other night on my first run through. It was near the end when you have to go up the tower before the big boss fight. It worked fine the first time but I got killed right after that. When I restarted from the tower I'd fall through the floor of the building all the way to the ground and get killed. I loaded the last save before that and then I couldn't climb the stairs - you would just walk right through them and the enemies could see and shoot you right through the walls of the tower. I had to completely exit the game and then start it over and it was fine after that.
 
JohnnyH24 said:
Increase your RAM.
Click to expand...

I'm running one of the custon configs that show the FPS and the memory usage. Crysis Warhead uses between 1.4 and 1.6 gigs of ram on my system while running. That would not work well on a system with only 2 gigs of ram if I was guessing. I'm running 4 gigs BTW.
 
i went over 1.7gigs on windows xp64, i only have 2gigs and in task manager i went over that:/. i did enable a couple commands to reduce stuttering(r_texturesstreaming 0 and e_precache_level). i didnt have one crash since i clocked my e6600 to default from 3.1 to 2.4.
 
It runs OK on my system with everything set to "gamer" and motion blur turned off but when everything was covered in ice it ran like complete CRAP so I put all settings to "minimum" to get through that area.

Do you need two of the latest video cards to run this game perfectly? It uses 50-60% of my CPUs max; I ain't buying a damn $500 video card.
 
It seems Crytek was pushing that $653 PC idea to previewers back in June when both the PC Gamers article and the following IGN article was written.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/884/884351p2.html

As you can see IGN mentions the game being demonstrated on a $652 PC by Crytek (3rd paragraph).

However, they don't seem to mention fun things like "resolution" or any other ACTUAL settings used in the demo's they viewed on that PC. "All the bells and whistles" is not very specific, and is also not likely to be an actual accurate quote from Crytek, but rather an slight misinterpretation by the PC gamer staff of the actual Crytek statements.
 
g1xx3r said:
On my 1st playthrough I had everything set to gamer and the game was buttery throughout.Now Im testing enthusiast and averageing ~35-40fps with some dips into high 20s..Indoor areas are 40-50..All in all,quite playable at enthusiast.Im gonna turn motion blur down to see how it fares..

Rig in sig for the above.
Click to expand...

Crazy, I'm only gettig 4-5 FPS on enthusiast. I thoguht it was the 1920x1080 that was killing me, guess not. I'll probably jsut wait a couple years until I can afford the hardware to play this game, currently it it the only game I can't play.
 
Another thing I noticed is that when you change your graphics settings during the game it just eats up RAM and doesn't release it until you quit. When I changed to minimal settings it went well over 3GB/RAM and I eventually got a message from Vista saying that I was almost out of memory, heh.
 
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...

Just want to point out another thing in this image.... They're spending $240 on the case (with motherboard and PSU included I presume, because I don't see them elsewhere on the list) and say they are spending a few extra bucks on the case because they like the design.. HELLO? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of finding the cheapest PC that can run Crysis decently? If you're gonna plop down a bit more cash, don't do it on a fancy case, that's not gonna run Crysis. How's this? You can invite your buddies over to check out Crysis on your newly-built Crysis PC, and it will look and run like shit (no monitor is included either, obviously). When they say "Hey, that looks like shit" you can then point to your fancy case that you paid a bit extra for and say, "Yeah, but that's pretty cool looking!". Yeah, WINNAR! :confused:

Seriously. Don't splurge on the case you idiots (being whomever came up with this spec) get a better video card instead. It will do way more for you in the end. Secondly, I seem to recall a [H] thread that people were able to build their own cheap Crysis machines when the original game was released. I'd bet that if a new one were to start for warhead, we'd have a few machines that would be cheaper, and run the game better than the one priced out here. Yes, even if everything was from newegg. Give me a break, this print is a complete joke.

That aside, it's running well enough for me, though I haven't really toyed around with it yet. (Q6600@3.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GTX260, @1920x1080) I'm on Vista x64, using the steam version. It set everything to Gamer, and I haven't bothered messing with it yet, but it ran OK. Not super, not bad. Only a few spots where I could tell it was slowing down. Now that I've played it, I'll go back and tweak things and see what I can do to change it up. I would like to try Dx9 with Enthusiast settings, but I think I'm hoping for too much. As long as it looks pretty and runs well, which it does so far. :D

I am in love with the power struggle all over again, the balance changes they've made really make the game shine again. Was hoping for a few more Power struggle maps, but I guess I'll have to live with this at the moment. Give us a map pack! Oh, and unlocking the amphibious APC for everyone, about damn time!
 
At the beginning I tried to max everything out with HD4850 crossfire (including AA) @16x10 and failed miserably. Once I started playing with the settings I am settling on this configuration at the moment.

20080923181521copyjl5.jpg


I am getting solid framerates with no stutter at all. The game smooths out the more I play it feels like. The config above is producing pictures like this:

20080923195157copyds1.jpg



I am pretty happy with the way the game looks and plays. I will bump it up a bit and see how it works (specially sound to enthusiast). BTW the game is awesome!!!!!
 
I finished the original Crysis yesterday afternoon and proceeded to buy Warhead off Steam. Started the first level last night, and been playing Crysis Wars a bit today. I have to say that Warhead for SURE runs better! 1440x900, I'm able to set it to all Gamer in both. It wasn't as playable in the original Crysis.

Anyways, I probably have to spend some more time with it, but so far, so good, I'm looking forward to playing through as Psycho :D
 
F.E.A.R. said:
I am getting solid framerates with no stutter at all. The game smooths out the more I play it feels like. The config above is producing pictures like this:

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7457/20080923195157copyds1.jpg
Click to expand...

I just got past that point & I've had a blast. :D Blowing up the ATVs was fun since I used super speed ability & attached explosives to each & detonated them. Always fun to utilize what ever you have & go all out with the battles.
 
Shader on mainstream? Isn't shader one of the biggest difference maker in terms of visual fidelity?
 
F.E.A.R. said:
At the beginning I tried to max everything out with HD4850 crossfire (including AA) @16x10 and failed miserably. Once I started playing with the settings I am settling on this configuration at the moment.

20080923181521copyjl5.jpg


I am getting solid framerates with no stutter at all. The game smooths out the more I play it feels like. The config above is producing pictures like this:


I am pretty happy with the way the game looks and plays. I will bump it up a bit and see how it works (specially sound to enthusiast). BTW the game is awesome!!!!!
Click to expand...
There must be something wrong with my setup. My rig is VERY similar to yours, but it is unplayable on dx10, especially anywhere there is ice or snow. Even if I put everything on minimal, I can barely play. Dx9 is fine, but dx10 is a trainwreck.

Any ideas anyone?
 
Modred189 said:
There must be something wrong with my setup. My rig is VERY similar to yours, but it is unplayable on dx10, especially anywhere there is ice or snow. Even if I put everything on minimal, I can barely play. Dx9 is fine, but dx10 is a trainwreck.

Any ideas anyone?
Click to expand...

Use dx9? :p
 
aznpxdd said:
Shader on mainstream? Isn't shader one of the biggest difference maker in terms of visual fidelity?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. I am still messing around with the settings. I will try cranking shaders up and see what happens. I do like what I am seeing visually the way it is. I'll compare.
 
I finally got this a few days ago and I am enjoying this more than the original game. I do think the DX10 performance is better than the previous game.

The trick is, if you are using an 8800 series card, you have to keep the shader settings on the lower side. The shader setting is beyond a shadow of a doubt, the one that gives the biggest performance hit. Believe it or not, at 1680 x 1050 with an overlocked 8800GTX I have everything on enthusiast except:

Shadows: Mainstream
Shaders: Gamer
Post Processing: Gamer

Everything else on enthusiast, no anti-aliasing. If I really want it super smooth, I drop shaders down to mainstream.

These settings make the game playable and it looks terrific to me. I can almost get away with enthusiast post processing but performance is borderline.

You don't need a GTX280 or SLI to play this game and get a lot out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top