GTX 275 & Crysis Warhead: Performance?

I

I3eyond

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
937
With the rig in my sig, I get around 24-30 FPS with everything on Enthusiast and 4xAA. My CPU isn't peaking.

Should I be getting higher frame rates?

Running at 1680x1050.
 
Last edited:
yes..it's your cpu, holding you back..big time. I get an average of 45fps (my GPU's are factory overclocked @ 670Mhz)
I would assume that your missing out on around 10+fps just with that CPU.

That CPU is hurting...even if you took that E6600 to 3.8ghz...you still wouldn't be getting the most out of those cards IMO.


sorry my mistake..I thought you are running in SLI...30fps is normal.
 
PlatinumPC said:
yes..it's your cpu, holding you back..big time. I get an average of 45fps (my GPU's are factory overclocked @ 670Mhz)
I would assume that your missing out on around 10+fps just with that CPU.

That CPU is hurting...even if you took that E6600 to 3.8ghz...you still wouldn't be getting the most out of those cards IMO.
Click to expand...

If you're only getting 15FPS more than me with an extra $250 card and a much much better processor, then I'm not too upset with where I'm at now at all. :confused:
 
yeah but Crysis is like that, and remember it's not so much 15fps..it's 50% and the difference (for me) between playable and not at those settings.
 
So I downloaded a program called RAM Monitor. It shows that I've used up 1900MB when the game is full out going. Will it be worth it to upgrade to 2 more 1GB sticks since I'm on a 32-bit OS?
 
2GB is not really enough(as you can see by your test) from personal experience, I found that I was in need of around 3GB ram...considering it's so cheap, I would look at putting another couple of sticks in there...but I wouldn't expect more than 1-2 extra frames though.
 
RAM is almost irrelevant for improving frame rate in any games except a couple MMOs and maybe one or two RPGs that were poorly coded once you have 2 GB.

Your settings are simply way too extreme for the hardware you have. A single GTX 275 and C2D is not enough to run Enthusiast settings even with no AA, never mind 4xAA. Better off trying 2xAA, and probably reducing everything but post-processing to Gamer.
 
I3eyond said:
With the rig in my sig, I get around 24-30 FPS with everything on Enthusiast and 4xAA. My CPU isn't peaking.

Should I be getting higher frame rates?

Running at 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

actually that fps is really good already..

you can't go over that range..

in the Train stage, your FPS will drop deep blow than that, just let you know..
its normal... not cuz your CPU is bottlenecking, its your GPU that is limiting in this point.

btw, you playing on DX10 or DX9?
 
shansoft said:
actually that fps is really good already..

you can't go over that range..

in the Train stage, your FPS will drop deep blow than that, just let you know..
its normal... not cuz your CPU is bottlenecking, its your GPU that is limiting in this point.

btw, you playing on DX10 or DX9?
Click to expand...

DX9

Matrices said:
Your settings are simply way too extreme for the hardware you have. A single GTX 275 and C2D is not enough to run Enthusiast settings even with no AA, never mind 4xAA. Better off trying 2xAA, and probably reducing everything but post-processing to Gamer.
Click to expand...

Then what's up with the IGN review when they say:

ign.com said:
I played Warhead on a high-end machine with a quad core CPU and the latest Nvidia graphics card at high resolution (1680x1050) with all the details set to Enthusiast, which is essentially very high. It looked cutting edge and the frame rate was solid.
Click to expand...

This review would have been around when the game came out, so my graphics card is undoubtebly better than the one in their post in which they describe.
 
4xAA is killer in Crysis. And the graphics look better with the console command r_useedgeaa 2 and it runs much better too.
 
IGN is not what I would call the most reliable source of anything.

The statement itself from the review is meaningless. Did he ever define "solid?" Did he say what section he was playing on?

Also you are wrong about one thing - when Warhead came out, the GTX 280 was already out. The GTX 275 is a little slower.

And no, you are not CPU limited on any single GPU solution with a C2D unless maybe you own an ATI HD 5870.
 
I3eyond said:
DX9



Then what's up with the IGN review when they say:



This review would have been around when the game came out, so my graphics card is undoubtebly better than the one in their post in which they describe.
Click to expand...

DX9 seems to be very reasonable to your setting, thought u were using DX10 with those lol which its nearly impossible to run that high with a single GPU, (and shock me the first time I saw of).

and 4xAA is a killer for you right now, nVidia crank up AA in that game is not scaling too well compare to ATI in this situation. try to use useEdgeAA setting in your config file if you really need AA.

anyway, IGN is just pure BS... I never trust their review...
 
I mean when I disable viewing FPS and I just play the game, it really is playable. There are certain times when aiming is hard, but overall really it's not that bad. But it's knowing that I'm playing under 30FPS that just makes me know that hey, it's really not all that smooth up to what it could be.
 
I don't think you're CPU limited.. I get around 25 fps average with my i7, but it can dip to the teens at times. Seems normal to me.
 
I3eyond said:
So I downloaded a program called RAM Monitor. It shows that I've used up 1900MB when the game is full out going. Will it be worth it to upgrade to 2 more 1GB sticks since I'm on a 32-bit OS?
Click to expand...

I have much experience with this in Crysis. If the 32-bit OS is XP or Vista, you can modify the boot.ini to allow programs to use more than 2 GB of RAM. Don't know much about 7.

I've found I get much smoother game play in Crysis and Warhead with the modification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top