Crysis Warhead performance WORSE!?

From what I'm seeing, it looks the same as Crysis at the best settings. Now that I have a more powerful card, running it at max settings is a real pleasure.
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
From what I'm seeing, it looks the same as Crysis at the best settings. Now that I have a more powerful card, running it at max settings is a real pleasure.
Click to expand...
some areas look much worse and to me its not even a comparison. medium looks a little a better than before but the top two settings look worse to me. yes I know I cant play on those settings but I can look just like I did in the original game. lol
 
To me it has a lot of pop in now : /
Anyone else notice this ? Perhaps is bc i only got 512 of vram, who knows
 
Brownstone said:
To me it has a lot of pop in now : /
Anyone else notice this ? Perhaps is bc i only got 512 of vram, who knows
Click to expand...
yes its much worse in Warhead. also its the settings not how much vram you have. you can go in the game config and change it but Im not sure what exactly to change off the top of my head.
 
Draax said:
:confused:

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

Bells and whistles I think would be gamer settings with like one or two settings one notch down. The Enthusiast means just that, that rig you linked was not by any standard an enthusiast rig.
 
ojax said:
I still do not understand how anyone can defend Crytek and their games... A history of shitty, buggy beautiful looking games,
Click to expand...
lol, you just described nearly every game and video card released after King's Quest IV.

But if you're really interested in game play over graphics, just drop your rez to 800x600 and be happy...or go back to cs :\
 
Proxy said:
Bells and whistles I think would be gamer settings with like one or two settings one notch down. The Enthusiast means just that, that rig you linked was not by any standard an enthusiast rig.
Click to expand...
all settings on gamer(high) is not really possible with an 8600gt. well maybe at 800x600 and with a decent cpu too.
 
im running a e6600, 2 gigs ram, raptor 150 drive, ati 4870 with windows xp 64bit with all latest drivers and i am getting alot of loading and hitching does anyone know if an extra 2 gigs of ram would fix all this loading, everytime i look in a new area or make a fast turn the game like hangs thx
 
More RAM definitely helps, I'm unsure how many others run 8GB, but even moving from 4 to 8 is amazing. Games load & run a whole lot smoother. The jump from 2 to 4 will help really well.

Less RAM = More HDD access... never good for gaming.
 
well for me, it only took a couple of hours to beat, and that was not rushing through, taking screenies, and killing everything. And i personally think warhead looks better cause it has that a darker feeling that gives it atmosphere like with Stalker. Especially when the sound's turned up, and theres a thunderstorm for examplr, very imersive. But its personal opinion because others may like crysis 1's graphics better since its brigher with more lighter colors.

As for the textures and everything, those will most likely be patched or just be fixed by a memory upgrade. Overall, i think the game's a lot better than crysis 1 and definitely worth the $30, even though i did want mroe after i beat the game :(
 
cannondale06 said:
all settings on gamer(high) is not really possible with an 8600gt. well maybe at 800x600 and with a decent cpu too.
Click to expand...

While I do agree that it may have been some what misleading. I have played the game personally and I can say it's not as bad as the first one by any means. Crytek did not say, and feel free to prove me wrong, "We guarantee you can play Crysis Warhead with Enthusiast settings on a $650.00 PC." Really? ... NO WAY! Now by prove me wrong I mean with a direct quote and or link, not some YOU read some where.
 
I played for quite a while last night, and noticed a few more things. First, the game moves along quite quickly on my system. Once again everything on Enthusiast, DX10, no AA, at 1680x1050. The only place that I've noticed poor performance so far was when I got to the Beach Bar/Resort area. This could be due to playing it straight to that point non-stop, and the video card heating up a bit, or perhaps there's a memory leak, or it could just be a taxing area (like the ice levels on Crysis.) Who knows... It does run quite well though. I believe their claims of better performance to be true on my system. However, there is something about the graphics that doesn't look as good as Crysis. Not sure what it is actually. I'm not noticing the brown colors that some people have mentioned, but something in the textures looks not quite as good. I don't know if there's some kind of weird dithering going on, wacky texture filtering, or what, but it seems a little grainy sometimes, and I only notice it on occasion. The lighting seems a little more extreme in some areas too, like they cranked up some of the HDR settings or something. (kinda gives some areas that over saturated UT3 look)

Small complaints, and engine speculation aside, it looks pretty good, runs nicely, and has been pretty fun so far. Crytek games as a whole still don't rate in my best games ever list very well, but I've had my share of fun with them.
 
cannondale06 said:
the higher two settings are more playable in Warhead because they are uglier than the original game. there isnt as big of a gap in visuals between medium/mainstream and very high/enthusiast like there was in Crysis.
Click to expand...

I'm using the cvar: d3d9_triplebuffering=1 in an autoexec file not in ati ccc. You could be right however, I don't really know if it's working or not. I do know that vsync is and the game is running great. No hitching or popping, etc like others are experiencing. I also set motionblur to OFF since I don't like it anyway.
 
Kidfinger said:
I have a problem with it because that is not true. I have a problem with it because you are claiming to all that your word is truth when it is obviously not. You are saying PC gamer says this. Im telling you that Crytek says otherwise and I have linked to that on more than one occasion on this thread. You want to continue believing some second hand information even when presented with the ACTUAL information from Crytek themselves. Like I said before, you keep quoting something that did not come from Crytek but from another source claiming thats what Crytek told them. Funny thing is, you fail to provide any type of links to show your information is true. I posted many links from other sites that got their information from Crytek (including Cryteks own site as well as the official site for Warhead) and it is nothing like PC gamer says. Therefore either they are lying, its a typo or the reviewer is an ignorant ass munch that doesnt understand the difference between 8800 and 9800 in print. And to top it all off, you eat it up like ice cream and wonder on your merry way.

So go right on ahead believing PC Gamer even when no other site agrees with them. Keep on spreading their falicy as if it were a biblical belief. Hell, go on and post a true link to PC Gamer. After all, it is the only link you can post that shows that because no one else is saying that is what Crytek told them.

If you want to continue this obsessive belief in second hand information, go right ahead, but Im through arguing with you. If you need another reply, just go back and reread the other replies I already gave that proved those specs you posted are inaccurate. And maybe try clicking on those links and reading them before you do so. You might learn something.
Click to expand...

You have no brains. He linked you the pic, from an article, in a reputable mag in which the main guy talks about the very machine.

Admit you got owned.
 
also, anyone who installed from a dvd, in your Bin32 folder, is there the benchmark_gpu.bat and benchmark_cpu.bat? My steam version doesnt, but it has the cfg's in place in teh config folder. So can someone check, and if its there, can you upload it?
 
Performance impressions of Warhead:

Once I've sat through one hundred thousand million years of insidious sponsorship videos from nVidia, Intel, EA, Crytek, the American Republican Party's presidential campaign, a pre-rendered cinematic wherein even the pre-rendered vehicles' headlamps show through the vehicle in front of them, and a real-time cinematic, I took a look at the game's performance.

I decided that letting the game decide what settings to use with the 'optimise' button was a mistake, as the final intro sequence, the live action one, ran about as well as Rick Waller. I went to change the settings down from 'Gamer' to 'Mainstream' - Crytek/EA having decided that they were far too cool to conform to the 'Low/Medium/High' conventions, like the crowd of brainless dicks that they are - and found that the performance was so shafted that the menu lagged. I had enough time between clicking 'set all to mainstream' and the 'are you sure you want to set all to mainstream?' buttons to go downstairs and move all my beers from the freezer to the fridge, bring one back upstairs, and crack into it.

I then alt-tabbed to write this. When tabbing back in, I laughed my guts out of my arse. Why? Because alt-tabbing prompts the silly bastard of a game to go into windowed mode and shit to the right of the screen. It was actually so funny and enjoyable that I shat.

I'm about to load it up again, as the only way I could ascertian to restore the windowed mode was to restart the game. Time for some Mainstream fun! I'll keep you all updated. You love it.

Point of reference: this is the Steam version, on 64-bit Vista, on a Q6600 and 8800GTS at 1920x1200.
 
just benchmarked the whole "Adapt or Perish" mission from beginning to end, no stops. The settings were 1280 x 1024 dx9 all enthusiasts and 16x AF with Q AD.

From Very Start to the Very End.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
36313, 948081, 0, 92, 38.302


Min was from loading areas when it slows down for a sec. And personally i think the frames are lower than expected because as i benchmarked i left r_displayinfo on and in the beginning it some parts i hit around 110 frames for a couple seconds and i usually had a stable 45 frames, but still the results are nice :)

Also, system specs are in sig.
 
Wally said:
Performance impressions of Warhead:

Once I've sat through one hundred thousand million years of insidious sponsorship videos from nVidia, Intel, EA, Crytek, the American Republican Party's presidential campaign, a pre-rendered cinematic wherein even the pre-rendered vehicles' headlamps show through the vehicle in front of them, and a real-time cinematic, I took a look at the game's performance.

I decided that letting the game decide what settings to use with the 'optimise' button was a mistake, as the final intro sequence, the live action one, ran about as well as Rick Waller. I went to change the settings down from 'Gamer' to 'Mainstream' - Crytek/EA having decided that they were far too cool to conform to the 'Low/Medium/High' conventions, like the crowd of brainless dicks that they are - and found that the performance was so shafted that the menu lagged. I had enough time between clicking 'set all to mainstream' and the 'are you sure you want to set all to mainstream?' buttons to go downstairs and move all my beers from the freezer to the fridge, bring one back upstairs, and crack into it.

I then alt-tabbed to write this. When tabbing back in, I laughed my guts out of my arse. Why? Because alt-tabbing prompts the silly bastard of a game to go into windowed mode and shit to the right of the screen. It was actually so funny and enjoyable that I shat.

I'm about to load it up again, as the only way I could ascertian to restore the windowed mode was to restart the game. Time for some Mainstream fun! I'll keep you all updated. You love it.

Point of reference: this is the Steam version, on 64-bit Vista, on a Q6600 and 8800GTS at 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

Totaly different from my experience. Ok so I'm on a lower resolution (1680x1050) and using Win XP but I have a very fluid game, average fps around 30, with all settings at Enthusiast except motion blur (turned off, don't like it).
Menues very fast (several hundreds fps) alt-tab works fast and returns to full screen, no crashes or freezing (played for about 5 hours)
 
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...
 
Wolfkin said:
Totaly different from my experience. Ok so I'm on a lower resolution (1680x1050) and using Win XP but I have a very fluid game, average fps around 30, with all settings at Enthusiast except motion blur (turned off, don't like it).
Menues very fast (several hundreds fps) alt-tab works fast and returns to full screen, no crashes or freezing (played for about 5 hours)
Click to expand...

That sucks. I finally got into the game, and whenever I get hit whilst looking through the gun's sights, a fat blue bar gets stuck across the bottom of my screen for a few seconds.
 
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...

That sucks.

I got:
3.2Ghz AMD x2 6000+
3gb ddr pc1066 ram
GTX 260
Vista x64

mine runs like a dream in 'gamer' settings at 16x10.
steady 20fps on 'enthusiast' setting in 16x10 also.
 
For my system:

Q6600
4 GB DDR2-800
GTX280

I get something like 15-20 FPS on Enthusiast settings, 2xAA, 1680x1050 - is this abnormally low? I see people saying they have issues, and others saying they're fine. Crysis performs better for me...(than warhead)

but I'm on nV beta drivers from end of August, is it time I get new drivers?
 
rampantandroid said:
For my system:

Q6600
4 GB DDR2-800
GTX280

I get something like 15-20 FPS on Enthusiast settings, 2xAA, 1680x1050 - is this abnormally low? I see people saying they have issues, and others saying they're fine. Crysis performs better for me...(than warhead)

but I'm on nV beta drivers from end of August, is it time I get new drivers?
Click to expand...

people are saying they're getting the best performance from their nVidia cards on the 177.92 beta drivers, which were released end of august, so you're probably on them right now. Also your frames are probably taking a hit because of the AA, try turning it off and see.
 
Just tested performance and visual quality with enthusiast settings and a custom config.

Here are the screens:

DX9 Enthusiast

crysis-2008-09-19-18-08-24-07.bmp


DX9 Custom Config

crysis-2008-09-19-17-51-19-11.bmp


DX9 Enthusiast

crysis-2008-09-19-18-09-14-83.bmp


DX9 Custom Config

crysis-2008-09-19-17-53-28-11.bmp


DX9 Enthusiast

crysis-2008-09-19-18-09-47-89.bmp


DX9 Custom Config

crysis-2008-09-19-17-54-27-34.bmp


DX9 Enthusiast

crysis-2008-09-19-18-10-33-97.bmp


DX9 Custom Config

crysis-2008-09-19-17-55-27-45.bmp


DX9 Enthusiast

crysis-2008-09-19-18-11-11-47.bmp


DX9 Custom Config

crysis-2008-09-19-18-01-24-89.bmp


Overall, the gameplay is much smoother with higher frames and better quality. It does use more ram by the numbers, but its much more stable, no stutters, no pop in texture problems, and much better performance and visual quality :)
 
speedy523 said:
Here, to see the difference in a better more striking way go to these links

http://www.freewebs.com/speedy523/rolloverset1.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/speedy523/rolloverset2.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/speedy523/rolloverset3.htm


http://www.freewebs.com/speedy523/rolloverset4.htm


http://www.freewebs.com/speedy523/rolloverset5.htm

After you open the link, hover over each image to see the Custom Config Version of it

So 1st image is DX9 Enthusiast, 2nd image is DX9 Custom Config

Enjoy :)
Click to expand...
sorry but those are still awful looking and much much worse looking than the original game. also turn some AF on.
 
cannondale06 said:
thats enthusiast/very high settings? damn thats ugly as hell. :confused:
Click to expand...

That's the problem I'm having. I'm running "gamer" across the board, except with motion blur off, getting what feels like similar performance to original Crysis which wasn't perfect but was good enough for me, but it looks like hell. Did they take out their special whizzy foliage anti-aliasing entirely? And it looks like the AO is being done at some crazy low resolution which ends up making everything look pixellated (look at walls in the corners of rooms especially).

Maybe "enthusiast" has all the good stuff, but if I'm going to take a performance hit just to get back to how Crysis looked, that's a strange interpretation of "optimization".
 
cannondale06 said:
sorry but those are still awful looking and much much worse looking than the original game. also turn some AF on.
Click to expand...

lol AF is on and forced to 16x and i just wanted to show how the config makes the game looks better than defualt enthusiast and how it increases performance.

And its all on personal preference, for me, i like warhead better because even though crysis was nice looking, i didnt get an atmospheric feeling with it since everything was so bright, thats why so many configs were made to actually make crysis 1 get this kind of feeling, as well as better performance.
 
Your memory usage went through the roof. I never even push 1 GB used when running enthusiast in DX10 mode.

Can you post your config online?
 
rampantandroid said:
Your memory usage went through the roof. I never even push 1 GB used when running enthusiast in DX10 mode.

Can you post your config online?
Click to expand...

yup, give me one sec to upload it. Also, even in DX10 mode, mine, as well as others, went way past 1gig going towards 2gigs for me since thats all i have and even higher than that for some who have 4+ gigs.

Here you go

http://rapidshare.com/files/146731836/Warhead-DX10-DX9-Custom.Configs-Set-1.rar

The link has both DX9 and DX10 Configs :)
 
Just tried some AA in the custom config. I tried 4x AA set in game and had an avg. of around 40 frames stable and i tried 8x AA and got an avg of around 25-30 frames stable.

Now im gonna try and see how hardware AA runs.

EDIT: Tried Hardware AA. 8x Hardware AA is crap compared to 8x Software. Theres still lots of jaggies on hardware that arent even there on 4x Software. Well i guess warhead still is all around nvidia optimized...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top