Crysis: warhead

[Dino-Man]

So has anyone played warhead and the original crysis yet? If so can you really see the difference graphics wise and do you think a 4850 will be good enough to play warhead max? 1680by1050 screen size.

[redrumy3]

comes out in about 2 days according to steam so we just have to wait

[ALiEN2953]

my HD4870 is not enough to run it even at all high at 1280x1024. i cant imagine you would be able to run a newer updated engine with a slower card. Though im sure it will run well at med/high

[Firey_chasm]

my HD4870 is not enough to run it even at all high at 1280x1024. i cant imagine you would be able to run a newer updated engine with a slower card. Though im sure it will run well at med/high

the problem with orginal crysis is that it is badly optamised I believe, so if they spend more time optamizing warhead then it might need lower reqs to max

[theELVISCERATOR]

Well I can play crysis at 1680x1050 all VH with decent framerates,and at high with GREAT framerates.

It is optimized, just for nvidia cards.

[Breakin Newz]

Hey guys i've never played crysis but I want to purchase it.. Should I get just the regular crysis or just buy crysis warband alone? Not sure how it works?

[redrumy3]

Hey guys i've never played crysis but I want to purchase it.. Should I get just the regular crysis or just buy crysis warband alone? Not sure how it works?
you can buy both on steam for 70 bucks http://store.steampowered.com/sub/987/

i would play the 1st one first before warhead imo

[deathman20]

my HD4870 is not enough to run it even at all high at 1280x1024. i cant imagine you would be able to run a newer updated engine with a slower card. Though im sure it will run well at med/high

Well damn guess my old 8800GT is more powerful than your card.

I have 2x 4850's that run it fine at 1920x1200 and thats nearly 2x the pixels, with a high/ultra-high combo going on.

[Leviathan41]

Hey guys i've never played crysis but I want to purchase it.. Should I get just the regular crysis or just buy crysis warband alone? Not sure how it works?
Crysis Warhead's story is a parallel story that takes place at the same time as Crysis. Without ruining anything, you play Warhead as one of your squad-mates in Crysis that you lose contact with, but the stories of the two games take place at the same time. With that said, it would probably make more sense in terms of the story to play Crysis first and then Warhead.

[redrumy3]

crysis runs great on my 4870 @ 1680 x 1050 very high x64 4aa dx10 so smooth i love my 4870 ^_^

[BlackEdition]

what kind of framerate do you get, redrummy3? i am just curious as to how much better your 4870 is compared to my sli 8800gt's...

they should still hold me over for a while... i am hoping for about a year (longer would be nice)...

[redrumy3]

hmm i don't know, i will go check in a bit i just played through the whole game 2 days ago was fun ^_^

[theELVISCERATOR]

what kind of framerate do you get, redrummy3? i am just curious as to how much better your 4870 is compared to my sli 8800gt's...

they should still hold me over for a while... i am hoping for about a year (longer would be nice)...

Dont bother my 280 matches TWO 4870s in crossfire.

[hajalie24]

will the steam version have drm? i heard it might since bioshock had drm on steam

[Kenquinn]

will the steam version have drm? i heard it might since bioshock had drm on steam
I don't think warhead will have drm if you get it on steam as the non steam version does not have drm as far as i know. The reason the steak version of bioshock had drm was because the normal version of it had drm as well.

[thurst0n]

my HD4870 is not enough to run it even at all high at 1280x1024. i cant imagine you would be able to run a newer updated engine with a slower card. Though im sure it will run well at med/high

Not sure what your'e talking about. Keep in mind that crysis is very CPU dependent as well as GPU. If you don't believe me simply watch your CPU core temps. Also at such a low resolution, and depending on your processor again, your GPU is probably not the weakest link in your chain. At that resolution your GPU isn't getting enough information to process. Your CPU simply can't keep up or doesnt have enough to give the GPU.

I can run crysis at max, with 4xAA and it runs just fine with one
4870 XOC from Diamond.
However I am only on 17inch monitor, and at 1280x1024.
and I'm also running
QX6850 @ 3.2 ghz, and my RAM is oc as well.

Also, when you say newer, updated.. well did you ever notice how Crysis Pre Patch ran slow? and post patch it is easily +10fps accross the board (in my experience) The most code is optimized the better everything will run.

I really hope that software developers can keep up with hardware in the future or we will be playing a lot of catchup.

[jdrake90]

you can buy both on steam for 70 bucks http://store.steampowered.com/sub/987/

i would play the 1st one first before warhead imo

my HD4870 is not enough to run it even at all high at 1280x1024. i cant imagine you would be able to run a newer updated engine with a slower card. Though im sure it will run well at med/high

First off - Warhead has re-optimized graphics engine - they took the Cry Engine 2 (the first Crysis used this) kept the graphics quality just as high - and made it work better on lower end systems. They are even going to sell a crysis branded PC that will run warhead on high at 30 FPS - the PC sells for $699

Secondly - I don't really see the second one as being an addition to the first - since they are parallel stories - so just get warhead - enjoy the better graphics - and save yourself the money.

[suineg]

I am going to have to try it.

What is this about the normal version not having DRM?

[ALiEN2953]

Dont bother my 280 matches TWO 4870s in crossfire.

don't make me laugh.

does any one have any ideas on why my game is running so slow. And it clearly is not because of my "slow" 3.6ghz quad core. Could it be due to that i only have 2gb of ram right now

[ChinStrap]

i'm running an e8600 @ 4GHz and the 9800gx2 @ 754/1154

about two hours into the game - looks great. another great single player. i have not installed the crysis wars multiplayer yet.

/edit: i picked my copy up from Game Stop about noon. made the guys open the shipping box to get it :P

[Cheator]

don't make me laugh.

lol. Yeah I had a good laugh too.

I will try it out tonight on my 4850 and see what the dilio is. What OS?

[redrumy3]

game is awesome, much more action !! runs great on 4870 1680 x 1050 4aa loving it!

[xtkxhom3r]

game is awesome, much more action !! runs great on 4870 1680 x 1050 4aa loving it!

dang i want to try it so bad but i refuse to play it untill i beat the original crysis

[nightelph]

does any one have any ideas on why my game is running so slow. And it clearly is not because of my "slow" 3.6ghz quad core. Could it be due to that i only have 2gb of ram right now

I doubt its the memory. What vid drivers are you using? 32bit or 64bit crysis? Got anything running in the background? You should be able to run way higher than 1280x1024!

[Neural Net]

Well I can play crysis at 1680x1050 all VH with decent framerates,and at high with GREAT framerates.

It is optimized, just for nvidia cards.

Not true, my X2 runs it very well at 1920x1200. All High, never goes below 28fps.

[deathman20]

Not true, my X2 runs it very well at 1920x1200. All High, never goes below 28fps.

Same.. Its not an issue with mine and I have 2x 4850's.

[RangerXLT8]

The system in my sig plays Warhead maxed out. I beat it in less than 24 hr and that is including 6 hrs of sleep and 6 hours of work and a couple hours of TV.

[hajalie24]

this game actually ran slower than the first crysis for me, i have to set warhead to dx9 in order for me to play enthusiast and 4aa on 1280z1024. on dx10 i have it set as gamer and 2aa, when the first crysis ran on high and 4aa lol

[Aztroth]

Well I can play crysis at 1680x1050 all VH with decent framerates,and at high with GREAT framerates.

It is optimized, just for nvidia cards.

I've got a 4850, and I run Crysis on high 1280x1024 (monitor doesn't go higher =/ )flawlessly (until I get to the last level, then some kind of bug/glitch maxes all my ram out, and my comp locks up... same point every time... no idea why.)

so I dont know how you have a problem running it at all with a 4870.

[theELVISCERATOR]

crysis framerate dips exponentially with each res increase and going from high to vh..

ask neural what he gets at VH 1920x1200..

unplayable.

[theELVISCERATOR]

don't make me laugh.

does any one have any ideas on why my game is running so slow. And it clearly is not because of my "slow" 3.6ghz quad core. Could it be due to that i only have 2gb of ram right now



I guess you never let the facts get in the way..

Check the ATI 4870 CF thread.

Boom headshot..your dead.












I get 40 fps at 1680x1050 VH.

hmm that chart shows 35 fps..



http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=571156

Too easy.

[Neural Net]

Load of rubbish from the NV fanboys I'm afraid. Not to mention that VH is actually playable, it's just not smooth.

[Pntgrd]

I get 40 fps at 1680x1050 VH.

hmm that chart shows 35 fps..I don't think you can call this an even comparison considering you are running a cpu at 700mhz more than what Brollocks used in that thread. Remeber, Crysis is heavily cpu dependent. It would be very interesting to see the results if all things except video setups were equal. I wouuld be willing to bet it would then be a completely different story.

[BlackEdition]

so far i am not impressed with the optimization that they have done to the crysis engine.

i can't even run everything on gamer with the system in my sig. is there something wrong?

i am running at 1680 by 1050, no AA... i have to believe my system is more capable than the system that crytek claims to run warhead on the highest settings at 30fps...

[Essenar]

This game is NOT optimized. If it is, it's a very negligible difference and only to certain systems.

We tried it on our test rig:
Core 2 Quad 9550 @ 3.6ghz
4gb OCZ Reaper
HD4870 @ 790/1100
Velociraptor

Virtually no bottleneck and we BARELY get playable frame-rates at Playable settings.

Don't even bother with trying to diagnose issues. Our system is top notch, best drivers, best settings. Every other game than Crysis and Warhead runs great. Plain and simple this game is a joke.

I'm guessing the people saying they're getting great performance are either using power of persuasion to "believe" it's faster or they're lying. Even PC Gaming Hardware showed the 4870 getting 34 FPS on a 4870 with a QE6850. At Enthusiast, we can't get past 25 FPS. It's playable on Gamer, but Crysis original was playable on High/some Very high with this system too, so how's that optimized? Parallel performance difference to me.

[Neural Net]

Crysis does more graphically than any other game PERIOD. If you actually care to look technically at what it's doing compared to other game engines then you'd understand why it runs so much slower than other games.

Blackedition - I'm pretty sure in some instances SLI is broken in regards to Crysis, I had very poor performance with my 8800GT SLI system a few months back when playing Crysis, everything else was fine. Ironically, I play it on my X2 and the game plays very well on High at 1920x1200 (my SLI setup could only run High at 1280x800 to get similar performance).

[theELVISCERATOR]

just finished warhead and I think it was great..

played on gamer settings and it ran great.

I did have some glitching when zoomed in under fire with the scope...

other then that it ran awesome......

Looked better then crysis also...

[Essenar]

Crysis does more graphically than any other game PERIOD. If you actually care to look technically at what it's doing compared to other game engines then you'd understand why it runs so much slower than other games.

Blackedition - I'm pretty sure in some instances SLI is broken in regards to Crysis, I had very poor performance with my 8800GT SLI system a few months back when playing Crysis, everything else was fine. Ironically, I play it on my X2 and the game plays very well on High at 1920x1200 (my SLI setup could only run High at 1280x800 to get similar performance).

It's not about how it LOOKS, it's about how it PERFORMS.

Crytek said that Crysis Warhead would be optimized to run great on mid-range systems. Their words, not mine.

Crytek also said that Crysis would run on a 7800GTX SLI set up on high settings smoothly when it was in beta. Also their words, not mine.

It might look great, but people want games to play, not games to watch in slide-show mode.

I'd rather have a game that looks good, and plays great, than a game that looks great and runs like crap, and if you turn the settings down to make it run "fine", it looks like all the other games, only worse. Oh and it still runs like crap.

[Dapman02]

Do you guys think I should get a performance boost by moving to 8GB as compared to 4GB

[theELVISCERATOR]

This is about as tough as a scene gets..

38 fps at 1680x1050....gamer settings..

so ya essenar has issues..lulz..

[SMTP]

For some reason, Warhead absolutely kicks my system in the balls. I could run Crysis with a single 8800GT on VH settings with decent framerates (including the ice levels) at 1440x900. On High settings everything was perfect. With 2 GTs, I can't even run Warhead at this resolution on Gamer :/

Using XP x64 and 175.16 drivers.

[BossBorot]

This is about as tough as a scene gets..

38 fps at 1680x1050....gamer settings..

so ya essenar has issues..lulz..

calm down there is absolutely no reason to laugh at someone having issues with a game

I know your just trying to defend your point but that was just uncalled for

[theELVISCERATOR]

Too many people spreading disinformation though..

Just like the 3 install limit turned out to be unlimited installs, on up to 5 pcs at a time.

[Cheator]

Too many people spreading disinformation though..

Just like the 3 install limit turned out to be unlimited installs, on up to 5 pcs at a time.

And people saying a 280 matches 2x4870s. yes, we know.

[Dapman02]

Too many people spreading disinformation though..

Just like the 3 install limit turned out to be unlimited installs, on up to 5 pcs at a time.

Even on Steam, is there a way to deactivate an install? that is complete garbage, it's like bioshock all over again:temper:

[Essenar]

Too many people spreading disinformation though..

Just like the 3 install limit turned out to be unlimited installs, on up to 5 pcs at a time.

Your $450 video card that "monster suplex" owns two 4870's, can barely run Crysis at 38 frames per second on NON max settings at NON 1080p and I have issues?

MOD CONTENT EDIT, where your 280GTX manages to prove Anandtech, Tomshardware, Guru3d, TechReport and various other sites wrong, and where 38 fps on "1 level below max" settings at "1 resolution below 1080p" is considered max settings, MOD CONTENT EDIT,
Until then, here in REALITY world, we'll all believe that 1680 at "High" with a $450 video-card pulling 35+ FPS is not optimized.

Crysis Warhead running "mediocre" on 200 series cards only, means it's a badly optimized game. Hate to break it to you. You could turn it into a "Well that means the 260/280GTX are much better cards" argument, but that'd still make Crytek look bad.

WarriorII

[ratbuddy]

It's not about how it LOOKS, it's about how it PERFORMS.

Rubbish. It's a game with great graphics. Not the developers fault if you do not understand your system's limitations. Lower the settings or resolution and just enjoy the game.

EDIT BY WARRIORII

[Pntgrd]

Here we go again :beer:

[Pntgrd having flashbacks to when Crysis was released last year/]

[Essenar]

Rubbish. It's a game with great graphics. Not the developers fault if you do not understand your system's limitations. Lower the settings or resolution and just enjoy the game.

EDIT BY WARRIORII

I'm not talking about the sig in my rig. The rig I tested Warhead on was a Q9550 at 3.5, a 4870 OC'ed, a Velociraptor and 4gb OCZ Reaper.

I had my experience with EVGA which changed my opinion about them. I'll keep it in my sig until a mod tells me otherwise. In fact, I'll link it to the thread documenting my experience. MOD FIXED.

[ratbuddy]

I'm not talking about the sig in my rig. The rig I tested Warhead on was a Q9550 at 3.5, a 4870 OC'ed, a Velociraptor and 4gb OCZ Reaper.

I had my experience with EVGA which changed my opinion about them. I'll keep it in my sig until a mod tells me otherwise. In fact, I'll link it to the thread documenting my experience.

Yesss, and what resolution/settings did you try to run it at? A single 4870 is nowhere near strong enough to bend Crysis to it's will, you still have to use proper settings or it will run poorly.

Your experience with EVGA is fairly typical of any vendor, you just have too high expectations, as evidenced by all the people in that thread saying you were being unreasonable.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Your $450 video card that "monster suplex" owns two 4870's, can barely run Crysis at 38 frames per second on NON max settings at NON 1080p and I have issues?

MOD EDIT, where your 280GTX manages to prove Anandtech, Tomshardware, Guru3d, TechReport and various other sites wrong, and where 38 fps on "1 level below max" settings at "1 resolution below 1080p" is considered max settings, MOD EDIT

Until then, here in REALITY world, we'll all believe that 1680 at "High" with a $450 video-card pulling 35+ FPS is not optimized.

Crysis Warhead running "mediocre" on 200 series cards only, means it's a badly optimized game. Hate to break it to you. You could turn it into a "Well that means the 260/280GTX are much better cards" argument, but that'd still make Crytek look bad.



Barely runs?

And that 38 fps shot was shown as a worst case scenario.

during the game it runs about 45 to 70 fps depending on the scenery.

If you have played crysis you should know it doesnt need 100 fps to run smoothly.

I am a person who thought I ALWAYS needed 100 fps to be smooth.

Till crysis that is.

As far as the resolution I run it at the max my monitor supports.

I knew better then buying a 24 or 30 inch monitor, because of the hw requirements to run demanding games at high res.

If you don't like crysis then don't buy it or play it.

But doesnt mean there arent millions who do, and will and will enjoy it.....

And one 4870 is WAYYYYYY slower then an oc'd 280.

[theELVISCERATOR]

And people saying a 280 matches 2x4870s. yes, we know.


At lower resolutions like 1680x1050 it's certainly true.

if you can call 1680x1050 low resolution.


Did you bother checking the link?

Probably not.

[Hardin]

I'm so glad I didn't get this game. I don't have to worry about a lame story and poor framerates. And all of the arguments that I will avoid just because I don't care.

[ratbuddy]

Not to mention the millions of copies that were pirated.

I do wonder if they include the 'free with video card' copies as sales or not..

[outercipt]

I have been playing Warhead with my system mostly on "Mainstream" and at 1680*1050 in XP cus in Vista keeps crashing... with my old x1950GT 256mb and it runs very well.

Yeah, i know mainstream is not the highest setting but it is still good looking. It looks very similar to what i saw when i played Crysis on High settings.

So far the game is so fun and i love the new things, cant wait to end this game XD

[theELVISCERATOR]

I have played through the game in one sitting non stop with ZERO crashes in Vista 64 ...


heres a screenshot at enthusiast...which I hate...over the old high or very high.

Game still runs smooth at a somewhat reduced framerate..

Still doesnt need a ton of fps to run smooth....dunno how they do it...

the memory footprint is reduced....running gamer mode I was under a gig of mem usage..

[theELVISCERATOR]

WARHEAD bench tool is out now!

First run at DX9 Enthusiast = 36.11 fps on avalanche....

Now we can compare apples to apples......


http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=399030


next run at gamer settings...


DX 10 cost me 3.4 fps...or so...


So I guess I will run in DX9 mode....so much for the vaunted dx10 is faster bs.....


I have seen some 4870x2 runs at 1920 on incrysis at 47 fps so I stand corrected! So I guess the ati cards driver situation is being sorted.....

[btaylor1117]

I've been playing at 1920x1200 from start to finish 2x AA all Very High except shaders (seems to make a big difference). Framerate usually is at 59.9 (Vsync effect). Intense combat will drop it to about 45. Rarely with a rediculous amount going on it can drop to 30ish just for a second. It may sound strange but i gained about 5 fps just overclocking all the memory on my 4870x2 x2 from 900 to 950. All gpu cores at 800mhz. Have fans at 70%. Warhead has been a blast for me, a lot smoother a lot more fun that original. Also a note, my computer was 100% stable at 4.2ghz but with warhead it would crash almost instantly. Lowered it to 4.0 and haven't crashed one time in quite a bit of time playing. Max temps recorded while playing final level were 33/38/38/38

[WarriorII]

Lets keep this Thread on Topic.


WII

[WorshipMe]

I could run it at high DX9 1280x1024 0xAA on my old 700/2000 8800GT. I can run it at the same settings but at 1600x1200 on my HD 4850.

[Neural Net]

Ok here's my benchmark (system in sig):

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/773/4870x2warheadbenchenthuei6.jpg

[theELVISCERATOR]

Now I am thinking i need to try a new driver lol...

[Semjonov]

Ok here's my benchmark (system in sig):

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/773/4870x2warheadbenchenthuei6.jpg

So what driver are you using?

[Neural Net]

The latest - 8.9s.

[Neural Net]

Takes a little getting used to, but it's loads of fun once you get into it. The suit functions cost a lot less energy which helps - I've had more "LOL" moments playing this than I have most other games, it's pretty awesome in terms of the moves you can pull off.

[woz101]

Do you need Crysis installed in order to install Warhead?

Thanks!

[Neural Net]

I found the demo, but it is only SP :( well hmmm... any vids. of mp I can watch. Oh & my system should be able to handle it right?

Your system will run it fine, as for multiplayer vids there are some on youtube.

Do you need Crysis installed in order to install Warhead?

Thanks!

Nope it's a standalone game.

[woz101]

1. I am at "From Hell's Heart," how many chapters are there left, including the one I am in?

2. I chose "selective install," and I thought I had ONLY chosen the English language pack--it was highlighted. But when I was defragging the system via Auslogics defragger, the progress report shows that other language packs are also installed. How did you guys manage to ONLY install the English language pack?

Also, the install took a long time, like 15 minutes or so. Did it also take you guys that long?

Thanks!

PS: it is a much better game than the original Crysis, imho: better story telling, better game play, cut scenes less heavy-handed, among other things.

[Leviathan41]

PS: it is a much better game than the original Crysis, imho: better story telling, better game play, less intrusive cut scenes, among other things. (I guess "better story telling" has already included "less intrusive cut scenes." :))
Yeah I agree. Most of this thread is about benchmarks and framerates, but I am enjoying the story and gameplay so far. I liked Crysis and I think Warhead is even better.

[theELVISCERATOR]

yes the install takes some time...it has to unpack all the files.

I did a custom install, and unchecked all the lang packs. except english of course.

[woz101]

Nope it's a standalone game.

Thanks for the answer! :thup:

[woz101]

Thanks, Leviathan and Elvis, for the info!

Now, you guys haven't told me how many missions/chapters are left? I am at "From Hell's Heart," in the beginning, on a train. :)

Thanks!

[lordkosc]

I was told the campaign for this game is around 4-5 hours long? Is that true?

:screwy:

Seems a bit short.

[deathman20]

I was told the campaign for this game is around 4-5 hours long? Is that true?

:screwy:

Seems a bit short.

Thats what I've been hearing. But then again for basically an expansion pack, thats standalone for $30 guess I'd expect it for that price.

[theELVISCERATOR]

took me 6 hrs, but I like to try diff ways through the levels....

[Semjonov]

09-23-2008 04:33:16 - Windows XP x86

DirectX 9.0c ENTHUSIAST 1X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 32.06 Max: 57.36 Avg: 44.94 ]

DirectX 9.0c ENTHUSIAST 1X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA 2x
==> Framerate [ Min: 20.10 Max: 32.80 Avg: 26.27 ]

DirectX 9.0c ENTHUSIAST 1X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA
4x
==> Framerate [ Min: 15.42 Max: 32.11 Avg: 25.86 ]


Q6600@3300, 4GB ram, 4870x2, Catalyst 8.9, Winxp
AA really slaughters the framerate.

[redrumy3]

took me almost 8 hours on delta (7.5 hrs according to steam), some levels i ran through fast others i took my time. Died quite a few times on delta especially towards ending lol

[cabose1227]

This game hates my rig, I can bairly run minimum. Did crytec make sure that the 8800 gts couldent run this cause on the first one i can run it on high with 4x aa.

[JonEapples]

This game hates my rig, I can bairly run minimum. Did crytec make sure that the 8800 gts couldent run this cause on the first one i can run it on high with 4x aa.

I'm running Warhead on my rig (with 8800GTS) all settings set to gamer no AA, and it runs great. Update your video drivers if they're old, that helped me out. Also, try running it in DX9, when I use DX10 the game doesn't perform as well.

[Hey_Its_Cole]

Anyone tried this on a 8800 ultra? My system is in my sig.

[cabose1227]

I'm running Warhead on my rig (with 8800GTS) all settings set to gamer no AA, and it runs great. Update your video drivers if they're old, that helped me out. Also, try running it in DX9, when I use DX10 the game doesn't perform as well.

I am running the latest beta drivers so thats fine and its set to dx9 and it still sucks.

[theELVISCERATOR]

I am running the latest beta drivers so thats fine and its set to dx9 and it still sucks.


Hmm I could install it and test it on my backup rig

E3110
IP35pro
2gb Ballistix 8500
8800GT vanilla...

what exact drivers?

my backup rig runs on a 1280x1024 LCD so thats about right for an 8800....your res?

[FBPerformance]

I am getting 25-50fps on "Mainstream" @ 1680x1050 with my current setup. I know my current setup (cpu/mobo) are a bottleneck. Waiting for next month 2 start new E8500/P5QDeluxe build. Overall though I'm not disappointed with what my current setup did given it's specs.

[cabose1227]

Hmm I could install it and test it on my backup rig

E3110
IP35pro
2gb Ballistix 8500
8800GT vanilla...

what exact drivers?

my backup rig runs on a 1280x1024 LCD so thats about right for an 8800....your res?

yup, its 1280x1024. The cpu is at 3.2 so stock should do it for a E3110 and I am running 177.92. thanks for any help you can offer.

[theELVISCERATOR]

yup, its 1280x1024. The cpu is at 3.2 so stock should do it for a E3110 and I am running 177.92. thanks for any help you can offer.

I just installed the new whqls with wh and played through some levels on gamer settings....ran real good until the chase scene with the chopper, then I think I was getting some thermal throttling since I am on stock hsf right now or something...

will run the wh bench tool try avalanche at gamer settings..

[cabose1227]

The main problem is frost, it does not run at anything other than minnimum. the first levels are like 25fps at mainstream. I think It may be a bad instal, I am having sound problems to.

[theELVISCERATOR]

The main problem is frost, it does not run at anything other than minnimum. the first levels are like 25fps at mainstream. I think It may be a bad instal, I am having sound problems to.


Install and run the WH tool and run the avalanche level...its all ices and snow...


I will start off at gamer settings.....1280x1024..

[cabose1227]

I found out whats going on, this game is screwed up. I get crappy frames at easy and medium but hard is 5x better:screwy:. Also the more aa the better the frames are to:confused::confused::confused:. So now I am running hard on enthusiust and 8xaa @around 35 frames. I am happy and sad at the same time, I am sad that this game is so buggy and screwy and happy it looks so awsome!!!!!!!!!!! Has anyone else had problems like this?

[citabria]

I ran DX9 and DX10 benchies with No-SLI and with Quad SLI:

/////////// NO-SLI \\\\\\\\\\\\\
09/26/2008 19:48:15 - Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 18.45 Max: 47.36 Avg: 37.83 ]
DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 18.48 Max: 68.14 Avg: 49.99 ]
DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 15.86 Max: 64.75 Avg: 37.41 ]
DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 15.59 Max: 37.83 Avg: 27.90 ]

//////////// QUAD-SLI \\\\\\\\\\\\\
09/26/2008 20:13:27 - Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 19.69 Max: 90.99 Avg: 49.00 ]
DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 18.90 Max: 92.16 Avg: 50.61 ]
DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 17.97 Max: 89.87 Avg: 43.80 ]
DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 13.88 Max: 70.15 Avg: 39.82 ]

System is in my SIG. All clocks were stock. Nvidia driver 177.92. Would a high end quad cpu help? maybe, mabe not. The system is capable of decent cpu and gpu overclocks, I didn't oc for this yet. I am not very happy with the performance gain for the dollars invested in the box. The water cooling does wonders for the 9800gx2's tho, so I could get decent bechies with oc.

OKays, I ran the overclocks. CPU at 4.033 ghz, GPU's linked at 684/1710/1100
//////////// QUAD-SLI Overclocked \\\\\\\\\\\\\
09/27/2008 16:38:26 - Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1
DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 26.73 Max: 105.15 Avg: 59.59 ]
DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 27.82 Max: 108.70 Avg: 60.93 ]
DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 28.43 Max: 105.35 Avg: 52.00 ]
DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 19.96 Max: 95.44 Avg: 48.49 ]

Gains of about 10 fps across all tests is decent, and should make for a good gaming experience.

[don'tknow]

I ran DX9 and DX10 benchies with No-SLI and with Quad SLI:


/////////// NO-SLI \\\\\\\\\\\\\

09/26/2008 19:48:15 - Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 18.45 Max: 47.36 Avg: 37.83 ]

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 18.48 Max: 68.14 Avg: 49.99 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 15.86 Max: 64.75 Avg: 37.41 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 15.59 Max: 37.83 Avg: 27.90 ]


//////////// QUAD-SLI \\\\\\\\\\\\\

09/26/2008 20:13:27 - Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 19.69 Max: 90.99 Avg: 49.00 ]

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 18.90 Max: 92.16 Avg: 50.61 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1280 x 800 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 17.97 Max: 89.87 Avg: 43.80 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 13.88 Max: 70.15 Avg: 39.82 ]

System is in my SIG. All clocks were stock. Nvidia driver 177.92.

Would a high end quad cpu help? maybe, mabe not. The system is capable of decent cpu and gpu overclocks, I didn't oc for this yet.

I am not very happy with the performance gain for the dollars invested in the box. The water cooling does wonders for the 9800gx2's tho, so I could get decent bechies with oc.

You haven't OC'd that e8500?!.....There's your problem.

[don'tknow]

I found out whats going on, this game is screwed up. I get crappy frames at easy and medium but hard is 5x better:screwy:. Also the more aa the better the frames are to:confused::confused::confused:. So now I am running hard on enthusiust and 8xaa @around 35 frames. I am happy and sad at the same time, I am sad that this game is so buggy and screwy and happy it looks so awsome!!!!!!!!!!! Has anyone else had problems like this?

hah, wth?......

I only play on Hard or above, but that's original Crysis... will get Warhead this weekend and run some benches with my current pos cpu and then my new one on monday.

There's also this weird thing about Crysis running better at 16x AA than 8x AA...

[theELVISCERATOR]

Ran the frost level in WH tool and got about 32 fps at 1280x1024 gamer no all with 8800GT..

[don'tknow]

haha, here's my results:


09/27/2008 20:12:13 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

DirectX 9.0c ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 17.59 Max: 37.55 Avg: 27.53 ]


DirectX 9.0c GAMER 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 19.38 Max: 63.45 Avg: 43.46 ]


Crappy but not unplayable. Can definitely tell it's better optimized than original Crysis.

Some more benches, different map:


DirectX 9.0c ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 7.55 Max: 42.85 Avg: 30.84 ]


DirectX 9.0c GAMER 2X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 6.60 Max: 60.53 Avg: 37.87 ]

Beh, can't expect much out of an old 90nm.

Processor: Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 180 @ 2786 Mhz
CPU ID: x86 Family 15 Model 35 Stepping 2
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
Physical memory: 2.00 GB
Display adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 896 MB
Driver version: GeForce Release 178 (178.13)

Will do more benches monday when I upgrade this piece of crap.

[theELVISCERATOR]

WH does not run faster then Crysis..it does more stuff at a slower speed...

[blade_the_first]

This is my first post here.
I have this system currently :
Athlon 64 3200+
ASUS A8N-E
2 gb DDR400
XFX 8800GTS 320MB.
DELL SE198WFP 19inch monitor(1440*900)

I am not able to run warhead properly even at Mainstream setting.I am getting only 14 fps on an average.And all the talk about Warhead being optimised for low end machines.Disappointing..Do I probably need to upgrade?

[don'tknow]

This is my first post here.
I have this system currently :
Athlon 64 3200+
ASUS A8N-E
2 gb DDR400
XFX 8800GTS 320MB.
DELL SE198WFP 19inch monitor(1440*900)

I am not able to run warhead properly even at Mainstream setting.I am getting only 14 fps on an average.And all the talk about Warhead being optimised for low end machines.Disappointing..Do I probably need to upgrade?

Your CPU is a huge bottleneck. Upgrade the CPU/Mobo/RAM and it'll at least triple your fps. If you can afford around $250-300, then get something like an e7200 or e8400 + any P5Q series mobo + 4gb DDR2 1066 ram, OC the cpu to 3.8 - 4 ghz and your fps should be around 40-50 at max settings with the 8800gts.

[WarriorII]

This is my first post here.
I have this system currently :
Athlon 64 3200+
ASUS A8N-E
2 gb DDR400
XFX 8800GTS 320MB.
DELL SE198WFP 19inch monitor(1440*900)

I am not able to run warhead properly even at Mainstream setting.I am getting only 14 fps on an average.And all the talk about Warhead being optimised for low end machines.Disappointing..Do I probably need to upgrade?

Is your system BONE stock on the settings?
(no ocerclock?)

[nightelph]

Soo is it me or is there no 64-bit executable? I just played the first few levels, fun stuff! I'll have to post a bench.

[blade_the_first]

Is your system BONE stock on the settings?
(no ocerclock?)

ya thats pretty much it,no overclock.

Time for me to upgrade or should I wait for the nehalems?

[deathman20]

Soo is it me or is there no 64-bit executable? I just played the first few levels, fun stuff! I'll have to post a bench.

None yet, suppositly it will be coming out in a patch in the future.

Me im waiting til that comes out since 64-bit there was such a huge performance increase for me in Crysis over 32-bit.

[BlackEdition]

so the lack of a 64bit executable means that no matter what operating sys you are running, crysis is running in 32bit?

if that is the case, i certainly hope that they release a 64 bit patch...and i also hope that it gives me a performance boost. right now warhead is performing worse than the orig crysis for me...

[deathman20]

so the lack of a 64bit executable means that no matter what operating sys you are running, crysis is running in 32bit?

if that is the case, i certainly hope that they release a 64 bit patch...and i also hope that it gives me a performance boost. right now warhead is performing worse than the orig crysis for me...

Yes thats why there is a 32 and 64 bit exe for Crysis, and probably why its running slightly slower for you. I mean I got a 7-10FPS increase with 64-bit Crysis for 64-bit, I sure as heck don't want to give that type of gain up. And if they are optimizing it even mroe then well hopefully it will perform even better in 64-bit mode.

[BlackEdition]

that would be nice.

i was very excited at the prospect of warhead in terms of frame rate increase...however, i really don't think, at least with my experience, that anything has changed markedly for the better...

they said that a e7200, 9800gt rig would be able to play the game on high settings at 30fps...

i have a machine that is similarly spec'd in the processor department (maybe a slight lean towards the e7200 if at stock, definitely if overclocked), twice the ram, and two 8800gt's and i can't run the game at a playable frame rate at high settings...

yeah...i am disappointed

[Trent]

I picked up warhead saturday, played it a little so far and while the graphics are nice to look at I dont really think the game is anything special. Glad I only spent $24 on it.

[Maverick0984]

With my 8800GTX and Q6600 it plays Warhead w/ 2xAA and everything set on "Enthusiast" except post-processing, which is "Gamer" or whatever the 1st tier down from Enthusiast is. Resolution is 1680x1050 as well.

I hadn't tried 4xAA at all, but upping post-processing definitely induced some stutter. It was playable, but this way it plays like butter.

[SMTP]

I'm glad I didn't spend a lot on this because the optimization is very disappointing. On my system (need to update my sig to show 8800GT in SLI) I can play Crysis with everything on Very High settings in DX10 on Vista with pretty good FPS. Same PC barely handles Warhead and Warhead actually looks worse to me. The texture pop-in is really bad. I've tested on 2 installations, don't know what the problem is. There's also a nasty problem where the game stutters to almost no FPS when it loads any part of the level. Crysis didn't do this at all.

If I use the benchmark tool, the first loop is absolutely terrible FPS. Subsequent loops seem to run okay. Still, my PC should be able to run this on Enthusiast and instead gets F'd hard.

[SteveLord]

Ya know...it sure would be nice if when you people posted benchmarks and 4-5 screenshots of benchmarks at a time, that you just highlighted what the result was. Makes your systemflexing a little more interesting.

[Jetster220]

Some of you guys are confusing me. Because I just got done playing Warhead on the exact same system Ive played through the original Crysis with, which is in my sig, and Warhead DOES run better than the original Crysis did. I run it on full Enthusiast and it runs very smoothly, seems more optimized to me.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Some of you guys are confusing me. Because I just got done playing Warhead on the exact same system Ive played through the original Crysis with, which is in my sig, and Warhead DOES run better than the original Crysis did. I run it on full Enthusiast and it runs very smoothly, seems more optimized to me.

You must run the benches to say for sure.

Seat of the pants doesnt work.

Maybe you got your system running better then it did then.

[nightelph]

Finished the game last night. I really enjoyed the levels, they were fun. The 'storyline' is a different matter. Sure it piggybacks Crysis but I found myself not really paying much attention, just the objectives. And don't get me started on the cut-scenes.
On the technical front, despite downgrading from 64bit in Crysis to 32bit in Warhead, I still noticed a frame jump, but nothing super. Also, after two hours of play I started getting 'hangs'. Almost as if my 512mb of vRAM was full. The game would freeze for a moment, then keep going. Using r_displayinfo 1 ingame showed I was using just over 2000mb of the available 4gb.

[theELVISCERATOR]

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=4134


Wow makes some results here look fishy...


http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2008/9/26/cd5dddb1-93d3-44cb-8377-93a3b29ba9c4.png

[Cheator]

My 4850 gets about 20 FPS at that res, no AA/AF on Gamer. So I dont know if thats right.

[don'tknow]

Well, just built my new rig and I am unable to run the WH Bench tool anymore lol.

---------------------------
FBWHTool.exe - Common Language Runtime Debugging Services
---------------------------
Application has generated an exception that could not be handled.

Process id=0xce8 (3304), Thread id=0xcec (3308).

Click OK to terminate the application.
Click CANCEL to debug the application.
---------------------------
OK Cancel
---------------------------


On a new WindowsXP install, with SP3. Results on search engines say it's a common error for not having the required microsoft .NET version. I installed 3.0, 2.0., 1.0, 1.1 and 1.1 SP1. Warhead requires 1.1 SP1. Still won't work. Wth is going on?

Ran Crysis GPU Bench and got 50.13 FPS on 2nd loop, 1680x1050 all high settings (with Nature mod) on DX9. All stock settings, no software tweaks (new windows install) and all bios settings on 'auto'. Made me chuckle, since my poor Opteron only got 37 fps on that bench.

[JonEapples]

Well, just built my new rig and I am unable to run the WH Bench tool anymore lol.

---------------------------
FBWHTool.exe - Common Language Runtime Debugging Services
---------------------------
Application has generated an exception that could not be handled.

Process id=0xce8 (3304), Thread id=0xcec (3308).

Click OK to terminate the application.
Click CANCEL to debug the application.
---------------------------
OK Cancel
---------------------------


On a new WindowsXP install, with SP3. Results on search engines say it's a common error for not having the required microsoft .NET version. I installed 3.0, 2.0., 1.0, 1.1 and 1.1 SP1. Warhead requires 1.1 SP1. Still won't work. Wth is going on?

Ran Crysis GPU Bench and got 50.13 FPS on 2nd loop, 1680x1050 all high settings (with Nature mod) on DX9. All stock settings, no software tweaks (new windows install) and all bios settings on 'auto'. Made me chuckle, since my poor Opteron only got 37 fps on that bench.

I get the same error and haven't been able to run the WH bench either. I messed around with it for awhile updating the .NET versions even though I know I was already up to date, uninstalling and reinstalling the tool, ect., but finally gave up. If anyone has a solution for this I would like to know as well. I want to run the benchmark to help me fine tune my settings for the best performance/quality for my current setup.

[Firey_chasm]

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=4134


Wow makes some results here look fishy...


http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2008/9/26/cd5dddb1-93d3-44cb-8377-93a3b29ba9c4.png

iv never found those tables give an accurate example of cards capabilities with a game, they are just useful at comparing cards. my 8800GTS does waaay better than that on origonal crysis (not played warhead yet)

[don'tknow]

also DX10 is -10 to FPS. On average.

But that graph does look way too low, and it's on a q6600 @ 3 ghz. What were they doing while running those benches? Simultaneously running it on 5 instances of Crysis at once? Should be getting at least over 20 fps higher than those numbers.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Actually I get 36 fps on my rig which is quite a bit faster then his, so scaling seems about right...at same res and settings..

[hajalie24]

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=4134


Wow makes some results here look fishy...


http://img.inpai.com.cn/article/2008/9/26/cd5dddb1-93d3-44cb-8377-93a3b29ba9c4.png

i got the same results on my 4850 before i started applying some tweaks lol

[don'tknow]

Actually I get 36 fps on my rig which is quite a bit faster then his, so scaling seems about right...at same res and settings..

What do you mean?

"CrysisGPU 64.15 fps 1680x1050 All High " in your sig. How does that translate to 36 fps in Warhead? O.o

Maybe minimum fps in the most action-intensive scenes or something?

[theELVISCERATOR]

What do you mean?

"CrysisGPU 64.15 fps 1680x1050 All High " in your sig. How does that translate to 36 fps in Warhead? O.o

Maybe minimum fps in the most action-intensive scenes or something?



All high is below VERY HIGH.

or enthusiast in WH.

Thats from running the GPU bench in Crysis under DX 9..

I have since gone to vista...and use VH or enthusiast to bench...

I have also learned that I don't have to worry about fps in crysis or wh as long as its above 30 or so...

Heres a screenshot on a demanding section the train through the swamp....kills your framerate...

says 38.3 fps DX10 enthusiast...

[don'tknow]

a demanding section the train through the swamp....kills your framerate...

ah ok, thought so. didn't think you'd really be getting 38 average through the whole game.

[TristanW]

The avalanche level runs extremely well in this benchmark. 4870x2 quadfire, e8400 at 4ghz (500x8) using 8.9s
http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp44/xternalx/cw-avalanche52fps.jpg

[Oc1Kenube]

I can run enthusiast settings at 1440 x 900 no problems at all on sig machine.

[theELVISCERATOR]

The avalanche level runs extremely well in this benchmark. 4870x2 quadfire, e8400 at 4ghz (500x8) using 8.9s
http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp44/xternalx/cw-avalanche52fps.jpg



Something about 8xAA is either broke or optimized for.


Single 280 @ 1680x1050 ran dx 9 same framerate!

[nightelph]

I can get over 40 fps maxed dx10 19x12 in an indoor level if I crouch and stare at the floor..
:)

[Neural Net]

To be honest theELVISCERATOR, 1680x1050 (1.76MP) is nothing compared to 1920x1200 (2.3MP), the difference in pixel count is, large, to say the least.

[redrumy3]

To be honest theELVISCERATOR, 1680x1050 (1.76MP) is nothing compared to 1920x1200 (2.3MP), the difference in pixel count is, large, to say the least.
agreed and hes running dx10 @ 1920x1200

[deathman20]

Well besides the fact. Benchmarking and ingame speeds can be a large difference in FPS.

[theELVISCERATOR]

To be honest theELVISCERATOR, 1680x1050 (1.76MP) is nothing compared to 1920x1200 (2.3MP), the difference in pixel count is, large, to say the least.


I realize that, my point was more about the increase on framerate from running 8XAA then not.


The difference aside 4 gpus vs one is an astounding difference also, for not much gain.

Shows you the scaling works against you, 4 gpus massive power requirements prove to me its a bad value.

[don'tknow]

In the first Crysis I get better FPS on 16x AA than 8x or 4x, for some weird reason. Haven't tried AA with Warhead yet. I'll do some tests when I get a working card and OC my CPU.

[don'tknow]

Ok I just got Warhead Bench Tool working again. Downloaded latest version from Guru3D.. they've been updating it a lot recently and it was changed to use the .NET 2.0 instead of 1.1.

New system, everything stock:

Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz @ 3005 Mhz
CPU ID: x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3
Physical memory: 2.00 GB
Display adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 896 MB
Driver version: GeForce Release 178 (178.13) (20080917135500.000000-000)


//////////// Summary \\\\\\\\\\\\\

10/02/2008 20:51:58 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

DirectX 9.0c ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 15.89 Max: 37.92 Avg: 27.54 ]


10/02/2008 21:01:44 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 27.46 Max: 64.82 Avg: 43.49 ]



10/02/2008 21:05:55 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

DirectX 9.0c ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 12.28 Max: 42.46 Avg: 33.27 ]


10/02/2008 21:09:33 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 2X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 14.97 Max: 63.00 Avg: 50.18 ]



Funny, there was no improvement at all in Avalanche. Must be more GPU bottlenecked than CPU? Guess I'll find out when I OC next week.
Edit: oh, actually the min FPS on Gamer settings improved by a lot in Avalanche... the avg. stayed the same. Went from 19 min to 27 min.

[don'tknow]

Looking at some of the previous results, OUCH @ Vista.

//////////// QUAD-SLI \\\\\\\\\\\\\ - this is with e8500 + 2x 9800GX2's, all stock clocks.
09/26/2008 20:13:27 - Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 3X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0x
==> Framerate [ Min: 19.69 Max: 90.99 Avg: 49.00 ]



These are my results with an e8400 + a single gtx 260, all stock.
10/02/2008 21:09:33 - Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3

DirectX 9.0c GAMER 2X @ Map: airfield flythrough @ 8 1680 x 1050 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 14.97 Max: 63.00 Avg: 50.18 ]


They should make a Crysis/Crysis Warhead commercial which says "Want to play Crysis? Upgrade from Vista to Windows XP!" O.o

[necrokiller]

yeah... single GTX 260 handles the game without any problems at 1680x1050 on GAMER...but the game seems boring on without particle and shader set to ENTHUSIAST

I can get over 40 fps maxed dx10 19x12 in an indoor level if I crouch and stare at the floor..
:)

Hahahaha

[TristanW]

//////////// Summary \\\\\\\\\\\\\

10/02/2008 23:52:19 - Microsoft® Windows Vista™ Home Premium 64-bit Service Pack 1

DirectX 10 PERFORMANCE 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 55.65 Max: 153.86 Avg: 118.70 ]

DirectX 10 PERFORMANCE 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 2xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 56.82 Max: 171.06 Avg: 116.89 ]

DirectX 10 PERFORMANCE 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 4xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 49.94 Max: 171.94 Avg: 116.01 ]

DirectX 10 PERFORMANCE 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 8xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 45.52 Max: 173.85 Avg: 117.40 ]

DirectX 10 MAINSTREAM 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 9.23 Max: 78.24 Avg: 55.70 ]

DirectX 10 MAINSTREAM 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 2xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 9.31 Max: 79.82 Avg: 55.32 ]

DirectX 10 MAINSTREAM 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 4xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 9.33 Max: 77.16 Avg: 55.47 ]

DirectX 10 MAINSTREAM 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 8xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 9.33 Max: 76.70 Avg: 55.58 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 44.48 Max: 111.48 Avg: 75.61 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 2xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 44.45 Max: 108.73 Avg: 72.88 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 4xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 42.91 Max: 108.13 Avg: 71.93 ]

DirectX 10 GAMER 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 8xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 33.39 Max: 96.31 Avg: 68.40 ]

DirectX 10 ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 0xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 33.74 Max: 84.24 Avg: 62.00 ]

DirectX 10 ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 2xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 30.70 Max: 74.90 Avg: 56.59 ]

DirectX 10 ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 4xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 30.97 Max: 77.98 Avg: 56.22 ]

DirectX 10 ENTHUSIAST 2X @ Map: avalanche @ 0 1920 x 1200 AA 8xx
==> Framerate [ Min: 25.95 Max: 73.77 Avg: 52.46 ]

Mainstream performace in avalanche for me was bad.

[nightelph]

DANG. What hardware was this on Tristan? Throw your specs in your sig!

[Firey_chasm]

DANG. What hardware was this on Tristan? Throw your specs in your sig!

The avalanche level runs extremely well in this benchmark. 4870x2 quadfire, e8400 at 4ghz (500x8) using 8.9s

[nightelph]

That explains it.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Anybody played with the nuke grenade launcher yet...

Amazing effects with giant boulders ripped from the ground....but it doesnt do much actual damage...

[don'tknow]

Well this is interesting... going from 3 ghz to 3.6 ghz there is zero increase in FPS for me on the benchmarks... I'm definitely GPU capped. EVGA still hasn't even shipped my g.d. vid card so it's gonna be like 3 more days or something stupid, hopefully it properly works without massive artifacts so I can OC it and measure the improvement.

2nd day shipping turned into 6 days, thanks UPS.

[ghost_recon88]

Man, I'm still waiting on Westinghouse to ship me back a replacement LCD (if they ever do :bang head) so I can play this game @ 1920x1200 :attn:

[Impar]

Greetings!

Warhead DRM strikes paying customer:
Crysis Warhead - I upgraded my system and have been deactivated (http://www.amazon.com/tag/pc%20game/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3GKALMXMEZ5D&cdThread=Tx3VOZCX2TGXR3R)

As one who has been burnt, let me warn you. A couple of weeks ago I purchased Crysis Warhead. I hadn't read anything about DRM at the time and I installed it like any other game, put in serial number, and played it. Since them I upgraded my motherboard, and reinstalled windows Vista. Because of upgrade problems I acually reinstalled Crysis Warhead twice. When I reinstalled Crysis Warhead last night, I received the following popup screen - " The game will not start! For security reasons, only a limited number of machines can ever be licensed by a single purchase. This limit has been reached. Please purchase another registration code, reinstall, and then try again". I tried emailing EA customer service but have not had a reply. Honestly, I wish I had never purchased the game at all. The game is worthless and I just purchased it a couple of weeks ago! I knew nothing about the DRM limitation when I purchased it. For those of you who make regular hardware upgrades - Beware! You may find yourself in the same predicament as me if you purchase this product and make hardware changes.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Greetings!

Warhead DRM strikes paying customer:


fake.

[Impar]

Greetings!fake.Proof?

[Leviathan41]

Anybody played with the nuke grenade launcher yet...

Amazing effects with giant boulders ripped from the ground....but it doesnt do much actual damage...
Where did you get that?

[theELVISCERATOR]

Greetings!Proof?

Exactly what proof......

The policy is stated as unlimited installs on up to 5 pcs.


Thats the proof.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Where did you get that?


start up game with -DEVMODE,

then use i_noweaponlimit,

then i_giveallitems...

you also get the freeze ray and other stuff..

[Impar]

Greetings!
The policy is stated as unlimited installs on up to 5 pcs.
The unlimited game installs only work if, and only if, the PC continues to have the same hardware profile and the same OS installation.
The guy was tweaking and testing his system and re-installed Vista, that expends five activations very easily.

[ghost_recon88]

Greetings!

The unlimited game installs only work if, and only if, the PC continues to have the same hardware profile and the same OS installation.
The guy was tweaking and testing his system and re-installed Vista, that expends five activations very easily.

The thread you're referring to is this one here (http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=80&threadid=2234663&enterthread=y) I believe. People (myself included) have already given him suggestions on what he should do to get his game working again. Until I see a couple hundred different people posting that, I would treat that guys install as an isolated case.

[theELVISCERATOR]

Greetings!

The unlimited game installs only work if, and only if, the PC continues to have the same hardware profile and the same OS installation.
The guy was tweaking and testing his system and re-installed Vista, that expends five activations very easily.


Well I would not install it till you are done tweaking.


Lack of common sense seems to be the main factor.

[don'tknow]

I've been playing with a very well optimized config file for the past few hours and it seems to do what it says:

http://shadowdane.shackspace.com/Crysis/index.html

Runs at Gamer speeds and looks almost the same as Enthusiast settings. I haven't been able to run it in Bench tool, gives me an error when trying to load it even if I rename it to .config. But on gamer settings I get 46 fps avg on the Avalanche bench at 1680x1050, 0 AA DX9. The config runs about 1 fps lower than that, so basically it lets you play Enthusiast settings at 45 fps in large, graphic-intensive maps on a slightly-above-mid-range GPU (my gtx 260 OC'd to FTW speeds). Not bad.

[burningcpu]

"Well I would not install it till you are done tweaking.


Lack of common sense seems to be the main factor."

That is a little strong considering this is an enthusiast forum. I screw with my settings all the time, and I for one want my purchased games to stay purchased, no matter what I do to my computer.

[theELVISCERATOR]

"Well I would not install it till you are done tweaking.


Lack of common sense seems to be the main factor."

That is a little strong considering this is an enthusiast forum. I screw with my settings all the time, and I for one want my purchased games to stay purchased, no matter what I do to my computer.



You really need to read a TOS sometime.

You don't own the game, you buy the right to play it.


Limited right.

[Impar]

Greetings!
You don't own the game, you buy the right to play it.
Thats why I will not buy those rental games.

[ghost_recon88]

Greetings!

Thats why I will not buy those rental games.

All software is like that, you simply rent a license to play it, you don't actually OWN the game. The developing company is the one who owns the game. You learn these things if you read the EULAs ;)

[Impar]

Greetings!
All software is like that, you simply rent a license to play it, you don't actually OWN the game.
I can install a proper game I bought anytime I want, how many times I want, run whatever software I wish and change my system as I please without any trouble.
These rental games fail on all above categories.

[Firey_chasm]

Greetings!

I can install a proper game I bought anytime I want, how many times I want, run whatever software I wish and change my system as I please without any trouble.
These rental games fail on all above categories.

ghost was replying like that since you quoted him. All games you have ever bought you don't own.

but i do know what you are saying, the games with the new DRM certainly raise a huge question mark about buying. It certainly stopped me getting Spore

[Impar]

Greetings!
ghost was replying like that since you quoted him.
I hadnt quoted Ghost_recon88 before.

[deathman20]

Greetings!

I can install a proper game I bought anytime I want, how many times I want, run whatever software I wish and change my system as I please without any trouble.
These rental games fail on all above categories.

And even those games that "limit installs" still have that capacity to install it and play it anytime you want as well. If you run out of licenses just e-mail/call them up and its reinstated.

Spore now is another thing since just 2 months after release they are already mentioning expansion pack to be released by year end. Then you got Starcraft 2 thats releasing 3 boxes for the same game basically.

[Impar]

Greetings!
If you run out of licenses just e-mail/call them up and its reinstated.
Why should I?

Whoever pirates the game has no limits and the paying customer is punished having to deal with the limits/restrictions?

Nope. EA will not see my money while it continues with this policy.
Just cancelled my pre-order of Dead Space after confirming it comes with the same DRM as Warhead.
So far, EA has lost 190€ from me.

[NsOmNiA91130]

So far, EA has lost 190€ from me.

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots. You do realize that DRM, in one form or another, has existed for years. Remember those old games who used to ask you questions about the manual or disk? Simple forms of copy protection. This was easily circumvented by pirates, which meant they didn't have to answer the questions. Why didn't you care then? Or what about when CD Keys started in the mid-90's, why didn't you care? Or online activation in Steam? Or product activation in Windows? All you buy when you buy software is a license to use that software, the company holds all rights to revoke said license at any time. While limited uses sucks, I doubt 99% of the community will care or even notice, as they don't format their computers every week or reinstall games every day for "speed." If you don't like it, stop playing games.

Goddamn.

tl;dr, DRM has been around for a long time, stop crying, you don't own any of your games.

[BeHappy]

Anyone have the problem of warhead using one core far more than any other?

MY q6700 has core #4 at %90+ and the others stay at about %5-10.

Thought this was optimized for multiple cores?

[Hardin]

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots. You do realize that DRM, in one form or another, has existed for years. Remember those old games who used to ask you questions about the manual or disk? Simple forms of copy protection. This was easily circumvented by pirates, which meant they didn't have to answer the questions. Why didn't you care then? Or what about when CD Keys started in the mid-90's, why didn't you care? Or online activation in Steam? Or product activation in Windows? All you buy when you buy software is a license to use that software, the company holds all rights to revoke said license at any time. While limited uses sucks, I doubt 99% of the community will care or even notice, as they don't format their computers every week or reinstall games every day for "speed." If you don't like it, stop playing games.

Goddamn.

tl;dr, DRM has been around for a long time, stop crying, you don't own any of your games.

He's not complaining about stuff like cd keys. He's complaining about install limits.

[Impar]

Greetings!
If you don't like it, stop playing games.
If I dont buy them, I dont play them.
Glad EA is not the only publisher out there.

[deathman20]

Greetings!

Why should I?

Whoever pirates the game has no limits and the paying customer is punished having to deal with the limits/restrictions?

Nope. EA will not see my money while it continues with this policy.
Just cancelled my pre-order of Dead Space after confirming it comes with the same DRM as Warhead.
So far, EA has lost 190€ from me.

Not saying its the best choice but it is an option if you want to play games on the PC. Some companies are slowly switching over, others do not intend to have it. All in due time alot of us will have to deal with alot of this type of thing because gaming companies don't seem to mind at all, and as EA stated it hasn't hurt there sales, which IMO is BS. It has hurt sales but we are a minority so they could care less.

If you want to game, console is where its at without worrying about DRM crap more or less.

[Impar]

Greetings!
If you want to game, console is where its at without worrying about DRM crap more or less.
Can you overclock consoles?

[don'tknow]

I miss the days of hard games... like Battletoads and stuff. Every game nowadays is super-dumbed down so anyone can beat it, even on highest difficulty. Makes the more hardcore players get very bored pretty fast.

Thinking of some more ways to play through Warhead that would be challenging while still being fun, just not ridiculously impossible. Recently I killed the last boss without using the Plasma Accumulator Cannon on Delta difficulty. Didn't take as long as I thought it would. What should I do next? Maybe like going through the whole game with only punching/throwing objects to kill enemies, except on bosses; using only pistol if there's enough ammo in the area.

[Firey_chasm]

I miss the days of hard games... like Battletoads and stuff. Every game nowadays is super-dumbed down so anyone can beat it, even on highest difficulty. Makes the more hardcore players get very bored pretty fast.

Thinking of some more ways to play through Warhead that would be challenging while still being fun, just not ridiculously impossible. Recently I killed the last boss without using the Plasma Accumulator Cannon on Delta difficulty. Didn't take as long as I thought it would. What should I do next? Maybe like going through the whole game with only punching/throwing objects to kill enemies, except on bosses; using only pistol if there's enough ammo in the area.


you only think old games were harder because you were less experienced then hehe :), whenever I reload up doom and play that through on hardest difficulty its never as hard as I remember)


if you want more of a challenge from the game then multiplayer and/or mods are the answer I think :)

[don'tknow]

you only think old games were harder because you were less experienced then hehe :), whenever I reload up doom and play that through on hardest difficulty its never as hard as I remember)


if you want more of a challenge from the game then multiplayer and/or mods are the answer I think :)

Oh I know that, but it wasn't only experience. Try beating "Battletoads" (NES) or "Battletoads in Battlemaniacs" (SNES) without any gameshark/cheats and see how long it takes. Not mentioning Battletoads & Double Dragon because that one was much easier.

Maybe we could make somewhat of an exception for the BT games because their difficulty was downright excruciating... but in general there were more difficult games in old times. Part of it I admit had to do with controls being crappy and unrefined, and lots of 'annoyances' that made games unnecessarily difficult (watch the Angry Video Game Nerd to see what I mean)... but I believe they can still make current games much more difficult without introducing crappy controls/annoyances, and they need to give a much greater reward for completing any game on highest difficulty.

Today's market is centered around casuals, for the most part.


Anyway about the config file I posted earlier, noticed a few things that had to be refined; the shadows look very ugly in some cutscenes and the particle effects on some explosions (barrels/alien deaths) are dull and nearly nonexistant. Fixed by setting these values: e_particles_lod=0.95 r_ShadowJittering=1. Also removed motion blur: r_MotionBlur=0 g_radialBlur=0 which gives a gain of about 5 fps.. doesn't seem much on paper but it's noticable in-game.