![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Crysis: Warhead Gameplay Perf and IQ @ [H]
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,993
Kyle or Brent,
Did you guys have any problems with the game crashing all the time?
I for one had a helluva time with the game. It would crash about every 30+ mins or so. The outdoor levels caused the most problems, the train level especially.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will post my experiences for reference on a lower end system (more on level with the "Crysis" PC, a little below actually
)
WinXP DX9, 2GB of RAM, Athlon X2, Radeon 4850, running FRAPS.
Can run ALL Gamer settings at 1280*1024. No AA/AF. Runs at playable frame rates (40-50 FPS) throughout outdoor levels. Indoor levels (e.g. caves and inside Carrier) FPS shoots almost to 100. I could probably do better now that I know what settings are the most intensive and can tweak accordingly. Thanks for the review guys.
Outdoor levels were there is a lot going on will bring it down to near unplayable levels, as the FPS reads teens and 20's...but it glitches like crazy, making it feel even slower than that. I imagine that has a lot more to do with my CPU than anything else.
Its obvious to me the AI routines of the Aliens have improved, but not by much. They will atleast try to flank you now. But I've seen a couple times were they were stuck in the rocks.
Did you guys have any problems with the game crashing all the time?
I for one had a helluva time with the game. It would crash about every 30+ mins or so. The outdoor levels caused the most problems, the train level especially.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will post my experiences for reference on a lower end system (more on level with the "Crysis" PC, a little below actually
)WinXP DX9, 2GB of RAM, Athlon X2, Radeon 4850, running FRAPS.
Can run ALL Gamer settings at 1280*1024. No AA/AF. Runs at playable frame rates (40-50 FPS) throughout outdoor levels. Indoor levels (e.g. caves and inside Carrier) FPS shoots almost to 100. I could probably do better now that I know what settings are the most intensive and can tweak accordingly. Thanks for the review guys.
Outdoor levels were there is a lot going on will bring it down to near unplayable levels, as the FPS reads teens and 20's...but it glitches like crazy, making it feel even slower than that. I imagine that has a lot more to do with my CPU than anything else.
Its obvious to me the AI routines of the Aliens have improved, but not by much. They will atleast try to flank you now. But I've seen a couple times were they were stuck in the rocks.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
Ill leave out the boo, hiss part. But Id would like an explaination for the omission of those parts.
Kyle?
edit: WTH?! You're saying that at 1680 the GTX260 outperforms the X2 at the exact same settings?
Ask Brent Justice, he is managing editor controlling this article.
Snowknight26
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,434
Omn. Heh.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
Game will run for hours on my 3.2GHz Core 2 Quad and 4870x2 without issue.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,634
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
I had several crashes on the 4670 and framerates all over the place. on the 8600gt in the same system performance seemed much less sporadic and no crashes. I had texture streaming set to 1 instead of 2 which may have caused some crashes but it still only crashed with the ATI card.Kyle or Brent,
Did you guys have any problems with the game crashing all the time?
I for one had a helluva time with the game. It would crash about every 30+ mins or so. The outdoor levels caused the most problems, the train level especially.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will post my experiences for reference on a lower end system (more on level with the "Crysis" PC, a little below actually
WinXP DX9, 2GB of RAM, Athlon X2, Radeon 4850, running FRAPS.
Can run ALL Gamer settings at 1280*1024. No AA/AF. Runs at playable frame rates (40-50 FPS) throughout outdoor levels. Indoor levels (e.g. caves and inside Carrier) FPS shoots almost to 100. I could probably do better now that I know what settings are the most intensive and can tweak accordingly. Thanks for the review guys.
Outdoor levels were there is a lot going on will bring it down to near unplayable levels, as the FPS reads teens and 20's...but it glitches like crazy, making it feel even slower than that. I imagine that has a lot more to do with my CPU than anything else.
Its obvious to me the AI routines of the Aliens have improved, but not by much. They will atleast try to flank you now. But I've seen a couple times were they were stuck in the rocks.
Let's see your FPS on the ice levels. Mine ran great in the jungle then everything went down hill after the first ice levels never to recover.
If this review is any example...........
I seriously doubt the "Crysis-PC" could do what it was advertised to do.
The GPU in that computer is an nvidia 9800 GT..............
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/09/09/crysis-warhead-699-pc-unveiled/1
I seriously doubt the "Crysis-PC" could do what it was advertised to do.
The GPU in that computer is an nvidia 9800 GT..............
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/09/09/crysis-warhead-699-pc-unveiled/1
I couldn't agree more. Please continue to do this.
Z
Zinn
Guest
Wow, if I had bought that Crysis PC and expected to play above 800x600, I'd be pissed. Talk about foul marketing hype.
My experience with Warhead basically mirrors this article... it doesn't perform any better. It performs the same (and I've actually noticed the textures are of worse quality in Warhead). Any visual difference is due to art direction and not so much a difference in innate image quality.
And the game crashes erratically. Sometimes I can play for hours, sometimes I can play for ten minutes, but it crashes. In both Vista 32 / 64 and DX9 and DX10. Very frustrating.
My experience with Warhead basically mirrors this article... it doesn't perform any better. It performs the same (and I've actually noticed the textures are of worse quality in Warhead). Any visual difference is due to art direction and not so much a difference in innate image quality.
And the game crashes erratically. Sometimes I can play for hours, sometimes I can play for ten minutes, but it crashes. In both Vista 32 / 64 and DX9 and DX10. Very frustrating.
Porter_
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,467
thirded on the lower resolutions.
I've put a few hours in now w/ a E4800 @ 3.3GHz, 2GB DDR2, and an 8800GTX. Game ran pretty much ok at 1920x1200, 0xAA, 8xAF, and Gamer level everything. Ran just as shitty as Crysis and played just as shitty as Crysis. I haven't had any crashes so I'm not sure why some people are getting them.
Though I am going to have to tell my wife to stop buying me video games as gifts... first Spore now this... grumble...
Though I am going to have to tell my wife to stop buying me video games as gifts... first Spore now this... grumble...
I agree with the DX10 only review. We need to poke a [H]ard finger in the chests of the developers and gpu manufacturers about this. DX11 will be out by the time DX10 runs easier than dx9 like they said it would years ago.
Gaming has got to be one of the most wtf-tastic industries ever. It is a shame that my two favorite forms of entertainment, music (loudness wars, piracy, generally poor management and behavior) and pc gaming are so plagued with higher ups who often need help finding their way to the door much less getting it right the first thirty times.
Ok, off the soapbox and ty to the [H] fellas for "keeping it real".
Fight the power!
Gaming has got to be one of the most wtf-tastic industries ever. It is a shame that my two favorite forms of entertainment, music (loudness wars, piracy, generally poor management and behavior) and pc gaming are so plagued with higher ups who often need help finding their way to the door much less getting it right the first thirty times.
Ok, off the soapbox and ty to the [H] fellas for "keeping it real".
Fight the power!
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,993
-double post. sorry.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
I dont see how you guys are playing it on high settings and resoltions with just 2gb of memory. even at 1024x768 on mostly mainstream(medium) DX9 settings the game uses over 1300mb of ram according to the r_displayinfo in the console. adding another gig to my crappy pc made all the difference in the world.
trapilales
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 74
How come there's no mention or analysis in any crysis related articles of the multiplayer portion (crysis wars).
I bring this up because there's more to a game engine then just graphics and there's something to be said about the consequences of using (or rather shoehorning) these 'next gen' engines online.
I'm currently playing Wars on a GTX 260 and it runs like crap. Lag and slowdowns all over the place. I've lowered my settings as much as i can in the hope of squeezing every fps i can, but there seems to be no avoiding the lag spikes when there's intense action.
So now im left with a game that looks like something out of 1998, and still runs like crap.
Seems like the crysis engine is simply not well suited for online gaming. There's a difference between building an engine that does one thing well (graphics), and building an overall solution that will work well under any scenario.
I'll fully admit that crysis singleplayer is the best looking thing on any platform out there. But that's about it.
I bring this up because there's more to a game engine then just graphics and there's something to be said about the consequences of using (or rather shoehorning) these 'next gen' engines online.
I'm currently playing Wars on a GTX 260 and it runs like crap. Lag and slowdowns all over the place. I've lowered my settings as much as i can in the hope of squeezing every fps i can, but there seems to be no avoiding the lag spikes when there's intense action.
So now im left with a game that looks like something out of 1998, and still runs like crap.
Seems like the crysis engine is simply not well suited for online gaming. There's a difference between building an engine that does one thing well (graphics), and building an overall solution that will work well under any scenario.
I'll fully admit that crysis singleplayer is the best looking thing on any platform out there. But that's about it.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,993
IIRC, BF2 and BF2142 used almost that much RAM when on the 64 player maps. After several patches, these games were very playable. I had zero glitches related to system specs. Those games had other glitches though, but I'm not discussing those here.
I'm going to check out the r_displayinfo again on my rig later tonight. IIRC, the usage was much higher than 1300MB on certain levels (e.g. train level, especially near beginning w/ several APC's and helicopter). What was wierd about gameplay is it would start out smooth as silk, and eventually would slow down to a crawl. I don't think its heat related as I have even cranked the 4850 fan to 100% to test, and it still crashed. Please bear in mind, my HD is going crazy this whole time (using virtual memory?).
The game never blue screened, it would just freeze, then crash straight to desktop. Many times the game would freeze in the middle of action, but eventually recover (with the HD going nuts).
I imagine the memory use is damn close to 2GB on this game in certain areas. If you got 3GB or more to allow for O/S overhead, your good to go.
Never gone online to game...
And it runs just fine on WinXP 32-bit w/ 2GB of memory for me. Maybe you have too much crap running in the background. If Warhead wants to take 1.3GB of my ram then fine, that's why I have 2GB. I don't need 3GB to run a program that takes 1.3GB of space unless I have an assload of crap running that I don't need.
And it runs just fine on WinXP 32-bit w/ 2GB of memory for me. Maybe you have too much crap running in the background. If Warhead wants to take 1.3GB of my ram then fine, that's why I have 2GB. I don't need 3GB to run a program that takes 1.3GB of space unless I have an assload of crap running that I don't need.
Hitting the 2GB address space limit?
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
which brings up the question of whats taking them so long to get 64-bit Warhead out.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,993
Sorry, I edited that quote out of my post because I wasn't 100% sure on the memory leak. But a potential memory leak is being reported around the net.
which brings up the question of whats taking them so long to get 64-bit Warhead out.
From what I've read, they didn't have time to release the 64bit version in time for release. 64bit is a priority for Crytek, it just wasn't 100% necessary for release since most customers are still 32bit. I've read on other forums that they plan on releasing 64bit as a significant patch with the sandbox editor, etc...
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
We only used publically available Beta's and WHQL's as found on AMD or NV's site, we don't used leaked drivers.
Nope, I played it fine on my own machine with no problems at all.
Ill leave out the boo, hiss part. But Id would like an explaination for the omission of those parts.
Kyle?
edit: WTH?! You're saying that at 1680 the GTX260 outperforms the X2 at the exact same settings?
At the time of evaluation, which the timeframe turn around was rather short for this article, the 216 core card we had was in use by me and knowing our evaluations have shown that the 216 core card doesn't provide a gameplay experience improvement, or even barely an ap2ap improvement over the original 260, plus the fact the 260's original are so cheap now below $200, we used the original 260. We have more 216 cards now and will include them in the future. The 1GB 4870 card was not available during the timeframe this evaluation was being worked on.
We've got more games to cover this month and next, and we will have a broader range of cards.
Sounds like network issues you are having to me, and thus is the problem evaluating multiplayer games, there are many more variables in place that we cannot control.
I don't know how someone with a GTX 260 can go, "I've turned down every setting and it still "lags"". If by "lag" you mean high ping, that's not related to your video card. I've played Crysis Wars with one 8800GT and with all "Gamer" settings, it runs at around 60fps 90% of the time at 1024x768. If by "turning down every setting" people mean "turning down every setting one knotch then playing it at 25x16" then yes, it might run slowly. Turn down your resolution and it'll run amazingly.
Also, more than 90% of this game is multiplayer...it has huge maps, lots of weapons, bases you can blow up, points you can cap which unlock other weapons/vehicles, etc. If you buy Crysis Warhead for the four-hour single player mode, you're just wasting your money. It's like buying Team Fortress 2 then saying it's crap because it doesn't have a single player mode. Play the game online - it looks great and runs great.
Proof (From team deathmatch matches)
When you die:
Same amount of detail as offline, even for the water:
Headshots give you more points:
Set up an explosive charge and took out two guys:
You can see team mate icons through objects:
Scoreboard (I was lagging because the Crysis Warhead download wouldn't pause:
Also, more than 90% of this game is multiplayer...it has huge maps, lots of weapons, bases you can blow up, points you can cap which unlock other weapons/vehicles, etc. If you buy Crysis Warhead for the four-hour single player mode, you're just wasting your money. It's like buying Team Fortress 2 then saying it's crap because it doesn't have a single player mode. Play the game online - it looks great and runs great.
Proof (From team deathmatch matches)
When you die:
Same amount of detail as offline, even for the water:
Headshots give you more points:
Set up an explosive charge and took out two guys:
You can see team mate icons through objects:
Scoreboard (I was lagging because the Crysis Warhead download wouldn't pause:
Also, I wanna add that the reason Crytek claims the game runs better is simply because they're using lower resolution textures. I have screenshots from Crysis at 4000x3000, high settings, DX9 and nothing looks blurry or pixelated. In Crysis Warhead, even at 1024x768 you can see lots of blurry textures and a lot of the character textures are blurry up close now, when they weren't in Crysis for the same character models.
Sure, that's what "optimizing" is, but come on...of course it'll run better if you turn down the graphics.
Sure, that's what "optimizing" is, but come on...of course it'll run better if you turn down the graphics.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,993
trapilales, you are not alone. I've been PM'ing another forum member about this same issue after he read this thread.
I agree with Brent, there are too many variables for them to test the multiplayer side of the game. Even the predominantly multiplayer games they (or other sites) have used in past atleast had some sort of basic SP campaign (and possibly bots) they could atleast use. Games that fall into this category are Unreal Tournament series, Quake 3 and 4, Battlefield series, etc.
I've always used the rule of thumb to knock a few settings down 1-2 notches from the playable settings used in SP when I play MP. This usually helps compensate for Network overhead.
Crysis Wars seems to be the exception right now...as I have to nerf every damn setting to down to almost lowest settings at 1024x768 rez no AA/AF (and it looks like DX7 or DX8). Testing myself on a reliable server, I still end up with the same settings as the autoconfig to get it right.
Even then it still lags sometimes when there are more than 16 players on a map. This leads me to believe there is a llarge network and CPU overhead for the Multiplayer side...and the cost of entry for decent MP on this game is high. When I say "large overhead" I am comparing it to other MP FPS games out there right now, e.g. BF series, TF2, COD4, etc.
If thats the case, then I will live with it, this is a next gen game after all. My 2 year upgrade should be happening soon anyways.
Based on BigD's posts above...it seems to confirm the high CPU overhead...he's using a Q6600. My guess is that anything less than C2D or high clocked AMD X2 (2.8+) and less than 3GB of RAM is going to experience issues. Whereas GPU is favored over CPU for SP, I imagine CPU is even more favored than GPU for MP.
Dosn't setting 16xAF in the control panel interfeer with the use of parallax occlusion mapping in Crysis?
To all those people who claimed Crysis was badly optimised, and said their proof was that Crytek was going to make Warhead so much more optimised, here is clear proof that it was just bullshit.
Crysis is a demanding game due to the high fidelity graphics and interactive physics, AI etc, it is not badly optimised. I hope this is finally put to bed.
Eggothewaffle
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 352
So then it's just that...Crysis Warhead is also badly optimized too?
Will it take more than 2 years for a single GPU setup to play Crysis/Crysis Warhead at all the highest settings at well over 60 frames per second? Doesn't that strike anyone here as a little mindboggling?
It's not a dig at Crysis or its variants...I'm just a little awestruck.
Will it take more than 2 years for a single GPU setup to play Crysis/Crysis Warhead at all the highest settings at well over 60 frames per second? Doesn't that strike anyone here as a little mindboggling?
It's not a dig at Crysis or its variants...I'm just a little awestruck.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
well considering that several people have come up with better looking/better performing configs I would say it isnt as optimized as it should be. standard performance is all over the place and to be honest a lot of the graphics look like shit. pretty much every inside scene looks like its from 2003 even on very high settings.
Sow me one game that looks better...ball in your court.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
there are plenty of games that look better on the inside scenes. even the first STALKER blows Crysis out of the water in that respect. take a screenshot of inside one of those huts and look at 4 year old games and you will that Crysis is a joke in those environments. pots, pans, office furniture, stoves, appliances and other objects look horrid and out of place. even the vehicles and planes in Warhead a pretty darn dull looking. sure Crysis and Warhead look stunning overall but even outside there are several things that look like total crap.
You come with one game, that CANNOT match Crysis in the visual department?
You are nothing but a troll...welcome to my ignore.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
I just simply gave you examples of what I was talking about and thats it. Crysis looks as bad inside as orignal STALKER does outside. I can take great looking shots of Crysis and at the same time I can find plenty of substandard graphics in the game. I already said that Crysis looks stunning overall so it sounds like you are the one that is a fucking troll.You come with one game, that CANNOT match Crysis in the visual department?
You are nothing but a troll...welcome to my ignore.
Z
Zinn
Guest
Yeah, I can't believe no article has mentioned this. The textures in Crysis Warhead are blatantly inferior to those in the old Crysis. Even at "Enthusiast" settings. It's kind of disappointing..