• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anyone else playing Crysis Warhead already ?

S

sourthings

Member
Anyone else playing this yet. On my system (3.6 quad core, 4gb ram, 4870x2) at 1920x1200 all very high under dx10, I average 30fps or so, this is with no AA. In warhead at the same res, same system, everything on 'enthusiast' which is the new max setting.. 20fps.

Seems even worse now.. not better 🙂
 
Once the maker of a terribly inefficient game engine, always the maker of a terribly inefficient game engine.
 
Originally posted by: sourthings
Anyone else playing this yet. On my system (3.6 quad core, 4gb ram, 4870x2) at 1920x1200 all very high under dx10, I average 30fps or so, this is with no AA. In warhead at the same res, same system, everything on 'enthusiast' which is the new max setting.. 20fps.

Seems even worse now.. not better 🙂
Click to expand...

do you have texture streaming on?
 
Originally posted by: drebo
Once the maker of a terribly inefficient game engine, always the maker of a terribly inefficient game engine.
Click to expand...

Sandbox is NOT an inefficient engine. Google it. It's not even debateable. Granted, it could be better, it's not ineffcient by any means. Point me to a game that looks better and runs smoother?? You can't.

It comes down to the amount of processing that is going on, plain and simple. If your hardware can't do it, then it's going to slow down. In a few years, hardware will be able to take full advantage of the engine. Until then, everyone will grind trying to max it out and get 60fps.
 
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: sourthings
Anyone else playing this yet. On my system (3.6 quad core, 4gb ram, 4870x2) at 1920x1200 all very high under dx10, I average 30fps or so, this is with no AA. In warhead at the same res, same system, everything on 'enthusiast' which is the new max setting.. 20fps.

Seems even worse now.. not better 🙂
Click to expand...

do you have texture streaming on?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Is that an in game option or elsewhere ?

To the other poster, I am using cat 8.7s, I guess there may be some changes to the engine that are causing driver issues. Guess I will turn it down, even with a somewhat playable framerate at very high in the original, I still turned settings down to get it smooth. A 10fps drop seems pretty much to me though..
 
Originally posted by: sourthings
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: sourthings
Anyone else playing this yet. On my system (3.6 quad core, 4gb ram, 4870x2) at 1920x1200 all very high under dx10, I average 30fps or so, this is with no AA. In warhead at the same res, same system, everything on 'enthusiast' which is the new max setting.. 20fps.

Seems even worse now.. not better 🙂
Click to expand...

do you have texture streaming on?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Is that an in game option or elsewhere ?

To the other poster, I am using cat 8.7s, I guess there may be some changes to the engine that are causing driver issues. Guess I will turn it down, even with a somewhat playable framerate at very high in the original, I still turned settings down to get it smooth. A 10fps drop seems pretty much to me though..
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure, its something I just recently read about at crymod.com the official crysis forum (all the crytek devs talk on there). Someone had said texture streaming greatly effects performance and doesn't do too much for graphics.

I believe you can change in the config?

Also, i would just put it on HIGH...
 
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: drebo
Once the maker of a terribly inefficient game engine, always the maker of a terribly inefficient game engine.
Click to expand...

Sandbox is NOT an inefficient engine. Google it. It's not even debateable. Granted, it could be better, it's not ineffcient by any means. Point me to a game that looks better and runs smoother?? You can't.

It comes down to the amount of processing that is going on, plain and simple. If your hardware can't do it, then it's going to slow down. In a few years, hardware will be able to take full advantage of the engine. Until then, everyone will grind trying to max it out and get 60fps.
Click to expand...

Its about time someone agrees with me.
I'm tired of people blaming it on a poorly optimized game engine.

Crysis just simply draws more stuff at greater detail at a greater distance than other current games.

Ive seen arguments that Gears Of War and COD4 look and run better.
What a joke, Gears of Wars draw distance is non existant and COD4 draws nowhere near the detail or distance of Crysis.

If video cardswould have continued their trend of doubling in performance like they were, then Crysis would have played just fine on the newest cards.
Unfortunately that didnt happen and Crysis's performance was percieved as poorly optimized. IMO
 
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: sourthings
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: sourthings
Anyone else playing this yet. On my system (3.6 quad core, 4gb ram, 4870x2) at 1920x1200 all very high under dx10, I average 30fps or so, this is with no AA. In warhead at the same res, same system, everything on 'enthusiast' which is the new max setting.. 20fps.

Seems even worse now.. not better 🙂
Click to expand...

do you have texture streaming on?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Is that an in game option or elsewhere ?

To the other poster, I am using cat 8.7s, I guess there may be some changes to the engine that are causing driver issues. Guess I will turn it down, even with a somewhat playable framerate at very high in the original, I still turned settings down to get it smooth. A 10fps drop seems pretty much to me though..
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure, its something I just recently read about at crymod.com the official crysis forum (all the crytek devs talk on there). Someone had said texture streaming greatly effects performance and doesn't do too much for graphics.

I believe you can change in the config?

Also, i would just put it on HIGH...
Click to expand...

Texture streaming is used to load only the textures that are needed for the particular area you are in. It cuts down on vram usage, but can also cause your game to studder as you move around the level as it loads the textures. By turning it off, the engine will preload every texture for that level into video/system memory. This is where larger memory sizes on vid cards can actully be useful.

 
Originally posted by: sourthings
Anyone else playing this yet. On my system (3.6 quad core, 4gb ram, 4870x2) at 1920x1200 all very high under dx10, I average 30fps or so, this is with no AA. In warhead at the same res, same system, everything on 'enthusiast' which is the new max setting.. 20fps.

Seems even worse now.. not better 🙂
Click to expand...
Durr...?
 
sourthings...

I am trying to play the game at 1900 x 1200 (24" monitor) but it does not appears as an option on the graphics setting. The max it goes is 1600 x 1200. Did the option just appeared for you?

Also, I'm getting worse performance as well on Warhead than the original Crysis at a higher resoltution. I'm using 2 x 9800gtx in SLI and a E8500 @ 4.0ghz
 
Originally posted by: Hugh H
sourthings...

I am trying to play the game at 1900 x 1200 (24" monitor) but it does not appears as an option on the graphics setting. The max it goes is 1600 x 1200. Did the option just appeared for you?

Also, I'm getting worse performance as well on Warhead than the original Crysis at a higher resoltution. I'm using 2 x 9800gtx in SLI and a E8500 @ 4.0ghz
Click to expand...

Yes, the resolution was just listed there. Maybe try a re-install. Although I think this has that nasty DRM that limits your installs. Yeah the lower fps is a real letdown, I'd heard in some reviews that the framerate was improved.

Apparently now the sunrays, and other related dx10 features are enabled in dx9 on the max settings. Maybe that is what they were benching. I'm going to try doing some comparison screenshots to see how similar max dx9 is to max dx10.
 
Originally posted by: funks
same thing here, I dont' get 1900x1200, or 1680x1050 resolution. Vista x64 w/ 8800GT
Click to expand...

Go into your C:\Users\<username>\Documents\My Games\Crysis_WARHEAD\ folder, and edit the game.cfg file...

change the lines:

r_Height = 1200
r_Width = 1920

(they aren't next to each other in the file)

As far as the optimizations go, it seems to me that they mostly are centered around the Gamer setting. I played the Crysis at everything on High, except texture quality at Ultra High with 2xAA, and by selecting the same settings with Gamer/Enthusiast in Warhead, it seems to play a bit smoother.

Enabling Enthusiast across the board really makes the FPS tank, just like they did in the original Crysis.

From reading the pre-release stuff, I was under the impression that Crytek tweaked/optimized the Gamer preset, and this was the basis for the $699 Crysis gaming rig. As I understood it, the idea was that someone could simply set everything to the Gamer preset if they had an 9800GT (8800GT) class or better card, and not have to mess around with much more to get decent frames at 1680x1050. I don't think that they tuned or optimized Enthusiast/Ultra High much, nor was that really the intention.

It has been a point of contention in the past when game devs have left out high levels of eye candy that were unplayable on hardware available at the time of release. IIRC, Id did that with DoomIII. I personally am glad that Crytek didn't opt to go that route just so people could crank the settings to the max. One of the rewards of getting new hardware is the ability to go back and play a game at higher settings.
 
Gona pass on this game just as I did on original Crysis. From what I saw on my friend's computer, you either make it look good and play a slideshow (C2D 8500 and 9800 GTX in SLI), or go for smoother framerate, in which case the game does not look that great at all. Crysis really does not scale down gracefully. Now Warhead is repetition of the same story, plus DRM that limits the number of installs. Nope, not interested, especially considering the DRM bullshit. But I am sure Crytec guys will blame poor sales on piracy, just as they did before. It has nothing to do with the fact that they put out an average shooter whose sole distinction is its graphics...which no one can actually take advantage of.
 
Guys with monitor problems: have you tried installing a monitor driver?
I had the same issue with the original Crysis (wouldn't list 1680x1050) until I installed my monitor's driver, was peachy after that.
 
Originally posted by: phexac
Gona pass on this game just as I did on original Crysis. From what I saw on my friend's computer, you either make it look good and play a slideshow (C2D 8500 and 9800 GTX in SLI), or go for smoother framerate, in which case the game does not look that great at all. Crysis really does not scale down gracefully. Now Warhead is repetition of the same story, plus DRM that limits the number of installs. Nope, not interested, especially considering the DRM bullshit. But I am sure Crytec guys will blame poor sales on piracy, just as they did before. It has nothing to do with the fact that they put out an average shooter whose sole distinction is its graphics...which no one can actually take advantage of.
Click to expand...

or get a 4870, and play maxed settings at 1680x1050 smooth as silk...
 
I am playing WARHEAD on my 8800gtx @ 1920x1280 with the adv settings on "Gamer" which I think is high with no AA or AF and it was def playable, no real noticeable choppiness. Not using FRAPS so I don't know the exact FPS.
 
When I first started playing last night the game ran terribly, as if it wasn't sure what speed to run at. I rebooted my PC and now it runs incredibly smooth and I enjoyed it all night.
 
If you are an ATI user, I would try installing the new 8.9s. I put those on last night and got a 4-5fps increase on the max settings.
 
Originally posted by: videogames101
Originally posted by: phexac
Gona pass on this game just as I did on original Crysis. From what I saw on my friend's computer, you either make it look good and play a slideshow (C2D 8500 and 9800 GTX in SLI), or go for smoother framerate, in which case the game does not look that great at all. Crysis really does not scale down gracefully. Now Warhead is repetition of the same story, plus DRM that limits the number of installs. Nope, not interested, especially considering the DRM bullshit. But I am sure Crytec guys will blame poor sales on piracy, just as they did before. It has nothing to do with the fact that they put out an average shooter whose sole distinction is its graphics...which no one can actually take advantage of.
Click to expand...

or get a 4870, and play maxed settings at 1680x1050 smooth as silk...
Click to expand...

Only if you have low standards on what "smooth as silk" framerates are. I played it at 1280x960 on a GTX 280 and the framerate often fell into the 20s during the alien fights later on, with a mix of high and very high settings and no AA.

I liked Crysis as a game though. I'll just turn down more settings if it's needed to get decent performance in Warhead.
 
Originally posted by: videogames101
Originally posted by: phexac
Gona pass on this game just as I did on original Crysis. From what I saw on my friend's computer, you either make it look good and play a slideshow (C2D 8500 and 9800 GTX in SLI), or go for smoother framerate, in which case the game does not look that great at all. Crysis really does not scale down gracefully. Now Warhead is repetition of the same story, plus DRM that limits the number of installs. Nope, not interested, especially considering the DRM bullshit. But I am sure Crytec guys will blame poor sales on piracy, just as they did before. It has nothing to do with the fact that they put out an average shooter whose sole distinction is its graphics...which no one can actually take advantage of.
Click to expand...

or get a 4870, and play maxed settings at 1680x1050 smooth as silk...
Click to expand...



I doubt that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top