Anyone else playing Crysis Warhead already ?

[marmasatt]

I agree. I was a little worried after reading this thread but I'm running this fine with the system in my sig. No AA and volumetric lighting and like two other things as mainstream and the rest at gamer and it looks fantastic.

 

[AzN]

The first Crysis I played with 8600gts. Everything on medium and it played fine up on till the ice level and deck which I had to play at low. With my 8800gs clocked nearly to 8800gt speed wise I could play everything on high but could not play dx9 very high. I got an average of of 20fps or so.

With warhead I could play enthusiast with the same 8800gs. Little bit on the slow side but playable. Probably something in the mid 20's average. I rather turn all the eye candy on this time to get a better experience.

At high I think it might have slowed a little but very high got a little faster.

 

[BD2003]

I dont think it runs too poorly given the way it looks. The only thing that really annoyed me about the original crysis was how damn inconsistent it was. I understand that we're not dealing with consoles and the hardware and capabilities will be variable, but they should at least make it so you dont have to change your settings just to get a playable framerate throughout the game.

In the jungle and spaceship interior parts, on my c2d 3.0ghz and 9600gt, I got solid 30-40fps at 1280x720 on high. The ice jungle was getting a little framey, and after I got out of the sphere, the entire game practically fell apart performance wise, especially the last bosses - it was like a 10fps slideshow. I had to drop down to medium or lower just to get the same performance I was getting before.

If anyones beat warhead yet, is it at least more consistent?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: error8
What annoys me is that this game has been advertised as running way faster then the normal Crysis. It doesn't run faster, it feels even more sluggish then its predecessor and stupid sites like IGN are saying "the game runs with high frame rates even on an 8800 GT". MY ass, it doesn't . Even on high I get 15-20 fps at 1680X1050. Did Crytek payed the reviewers to lie about system requierments??
"Ok, tell the morons that are reading these reviews that the game runs great!" And so, the morons bought the game. I should have kept these money for getting another videocard sometime later, but nooo, I had to get Warhead, since it runs so smooth.

After reading the reviews I too was excited about playing the game with some level of consistently smooth frames. No such luck. "Gamer" settings at 1680x1050 on my 8800gt sli, c2d @ 3 ghz and it still stutters as much as the original.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...about_the_game/?page=3

The benchmarks above even show the min fps drops to 10 on a GTX280.

Color me disappointed. And this paragraph from the IGN review is utter bullcrap:

"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. Next, I checked the game on a slightly older PC with a two-year old 8800GTS and I was still able to crank it to Enthusiast settings and the same resolution and get solid results. Finally, I checked it out on the "$700 PC" that Crytek and EA have been touting. It really is a $700 machine built on the latest mainstream parts (the video card is a 9800GT), and I was able to play the final boss battle at the same resolution and at Enthusiast settings and get solid frame rates. I also tried it the Gamer setting, which is essentially high, and the frame rate was buttery smooth."

Excuse me? "Enthusiast" (maximum) settings at 1680x1050 on an 8800GTS? They're lying. Seriously, flat out, lying. I'm stuttering at Gamer with my SLI config. The benches I linked show a gtx280 dropping min fps into the teens. How can they post such crap when two minutes playing the game or a simple Google search prove them wrong? They're the John McCain of game reviews.

 

[duragezic]

There doesn't seem to be the benchmarks included with Warhead? I am curious how my performance is. It feels like it runs worse and looks worse!

I am running at 1680x1050, all settings on Gamer except Motion Blur which is off. With Crysis I ran 1680x1050, all settings on High except Motion Blur off. Then I started running CCC level 5 with ToD and whatnot and it dropped performance a lot but looked much better.

Mostly it feels worse due to occasional stutter that I don't get why is happening in Warhead. I never expected Warhead to magically run way better. People always seem to think the next patch is going to improve performance hugely or whatever but unless the engine had some major unoptimized parts, performance is usually only very slightly improved over time. But right now it feels even worse, but I guess I'll need some benchmarking tool to compare with.

Also I find the way brush and things appear is really bad. It seems like the distance for this drop-in/out is greatly decreased. Maybe I'm confusing my custom Crysis config with the standard Warhead settings.

For some reason I really hate the names of the settings they used. What could be possibly wrong with Low/Medium/High/Very High or Ultra.

Oh yeah, does anyone know how the highest setting in Warhead (Enthusiast) compared to Very High in Crysis? I haven't bothered to put Vista back on just for DX10, but I do see in Warhead that Enthusiast is an allowed setting in DX9. Did they just remove that sort of artificial limitation with Very High in DX9 that could be achieved actually?

 

[ashishmishra]

Umm....I'm running enthusiast settings (DX9) across the board with Q6600 3.2 & GTX260 640/1400/2200 at 1680x1050, it runs pretty good. As with the original it plays pretty good even at 20-25 FPS dips. However, at a particular indoor level the fps went above 60 and zomd the smoothness......was amazing, I have never experienced just smoothness in a video game before. I have had the chance to play the original with the 8800GT/8800GTS-512/9800GX2 and the GTX260 and I must say that the GTX260 felt so much better because the performance was very consistent not all over the place unlike g92 and its derivatives esp the 9800GX2.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: jonks
Excuse me? "Enthusiast" (maximum) settings at 1680x1050 on an 8800GTS? They're lying. Seriously, flat out, lying. I'm stuttering at Gamer with my SLI config. The benches I linked show a gtx280 dropping min fps into the teens. How can they post such crap when two minutes playing the game or a simple Google search prove them wrong? They're the John McCain of game reviews.

I agree, this is BS...

I just finished the game on the rig in my sig (Q9450 @ 3.2/4GB/GTX 280 SLI) at 1920x1200 2xAA on "Gamer" settings, and the entire game isn't 'buttery smooth' even with that setup.

I went back and fought the end boss with Enthusiast settings at 1680x1050 0xAA, and even with GTX 280 SLI there are dips in FPS to the 20s.

edit: I was thinking about this, and the dips seem to happen at whatever video settings I use. I wonder if perhaps there are parts of Warhead that are actually CPU limited.

 

[SSChevy2001]

It does run a little better than the original, but my G92 isn't good enough even for the gamer settings DX10. With a nice mixed autoexec.cfg it plays nice at the 1536x864 ( 16/9 version of 12x10 ) DX9 and still looks as good as very high.

Still doesn't seem optimized for C2Q. Even a "Runs great on Core 2 duo" logo sticking it to C2Q owners.

 

[AdamK47]

Just finished it. Great game!

 

[jonks]

Well I set everything to Enthusiast and compared to Crysis, it ran much better. When I had everything on Very High in Crysis I'd be watching a slideshow, whereas with Warhead it is barely playable with occasional hitches, but def way better than Crysis. "Buttery smooth" is not an expression that comes to mind, but performance didn't seem any worse with Enthusiast than it was with Gamer settings for me. Weird.

The part at the end of the 2nd or 3rd level where you need to board the submarine, the game turned into a slideshow with single digit fps, which I would guess is an SLI error akin to the Citadel map in Mass Effect, which for some reason SLI cannot process. I don't feel like disabling SLI and checking now, but maybe on my 2nd playthru I'll give it a go.

 

[Qbah]

I am on the train right now and sh!!!!!!t... The game stops for a second every few seconds with heavy fighting (and there's a lot of KPA here...). It's almost unplayable. All Enthusiast 1680x1050 no AA. C'moooooon. I got a Quad at 3.2GHz and a HD4870 If this is optimized I'd hate to see the unoptimized one...

Back to DX9 Gamer no AA for me, it seems... Ehh.

 

[ComputerDude67]

I have a 4850 Toxic and play all settings maxed w 2*AA at 1680*1050 and runs well for the most part. I am happy. It was slow on my 8800GTS 640MB 96SP and I had it at 1280*1024.

 

[sticks435]

Originally posted by: ComputerDude67
I have a 4850 Toxic and play all settings maxed w 2*AA at 1680*1050 and runs well for the most part. I am happy. It was slow on my 8800GTS 640MB 96SP and I had it at 1280*1024.

Strange. I'm using those same settings, with a GTX 260/C2D 6750 and everytime I go to fire, or turn around real quick, it starts lagging and dropping FPS. If I'm just moving around, I get around 25-30 fps, but as soon as the action starts, it's like 15-20.

 

[duragezic]

There might be some problem with the texture streaming. I forgot exactly how r_TexturesStreaming works, but the CCC config I have for Crysis sets it to 0. I think the default for high is 2, maybe 1 for medium. I read on InCrysis forums that there is some major problem with this. It might be the cause of the stuttering that I've seen a number of people post about or just the performance in general.

I don't know how these reviewers can flat out say how much better it runs. I haven't run benchmarks but it feels definitely slower and the graphics seem worse. Seriously some of the fade-in on objects made me think I got something jenkity in my drivers or config!

But still plenty playable and looks awesome. Having fun with it.

I must need to upgrade my CPU. I know a 2.7ghz X2 is a bit slow for a 4870, but damn I read people with much lesser of video cards (8800GT at most) running similar settings or slightly less than I do.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: BD2003

If anyones beat warhead yet, is it at least more consistent?

Nope, once your transition to the ice stage, the frame rate tanks massively. It moves from 25-30fps playable to about 10-15fps.

As far as Crysis being inneficient, I call bunk on that as well. Crysis is an incredable game. The engine is far, far more graphically ahead of the rest. Crytek should have just released the game with medium settings being very high and then allowed people to tweak the INI like they did in Oblivion if they wanted better graphics. Then people would shut-up over their stupid complaints. Call it poorly coded, etc... What a joke. Those guys are top notch programmers.

Their biggest mistake was counting on the gamers to back them with their incredably high settings. Unfortunately, they were met with people who felt their 8800GTX's were paper weight because the FPS were not 60+. Oh, lets cry... Lets stop progression so that I can have the best card in the world. I mean, really... What the hell does it matter if a game looks good? The only thing that matters is that my 8800GTX remains on the top of the charts, and plays every single game at 60+ FPS, no matter how shitty it looks.

 

[jonks]

The game ran noticeably better once I DISABLED SLI. Apparently there's something up with these drivers or a setting. I found this on another forum:

"SLI works when changed to alternate framerendering and it works noticeably better than with Crysis"

I'll give that setting a shot when I get home, and if that doesn't work I'll try some beta drivers or something. I confirmed that at least 2 parts of the game so far result in single frame rendering due to SLI, but when disabled run perfectly smooth.

 

[QuadDamage2k]

I get 80 to 90fps with my Ati 4850 clocked up a bit Might be my killer cpu tho

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: QuadDamage2k
I get 80 to 90fps with my Ati 4850 clocked up a bit Might be my killer cpu tho

or your 800x600 resolution? cuz with that card at 1440x900 on MAINSTREAM (i.e. crap) settings you are only pulling 46fps

http://www.techspot.com/articl...performance/page5.html

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

As far as Crysis being inneficient, I call bunk on that as well. Crysis is an incredable game. The engine is far, far more graphically ahead of the rest. Crytek should have just released the game with medium settings being very high and then allowed people to tweak the INI like they did in Oblivion if they wanted better graphics. Then people would shut-up over their stupid complaints. Call it poorly coded, etc... What a joke. Those guys are top notch programmers.

Their biggest mistake was counting on the gamers to back them with their incredably high settings. Unfortunately, they were met with people who felt their 8800GTX's were paper weight because the FPS were not 60+. Oh, lets cry... Lets stop progression so that I can have the best card in the world. I mean, really... What the hell does it matter if a game looks good? The only thing that matters is that my 8800GTX remains on the top of the charts, and plays every single game at 60+ FPS, no matter how shitty it looks.

I am not asking for 60+FPS constant! I want to have playable framerates. And not some nice looking pics. I didn't buy a game to play it in two years. On medium settings this is nothing spectacular, ha, average at best. The story's so-so. There's a lot of shooting in Warhead, sure, that's fun. But the major selling point of this game was... yep, you guessed it... graphics. And who cares about it if you can't play the game with the nice graphics? That's right, nobody. Does it look awesome, beyond anything you have seen before and is it lightyears ahead of the other titles? Of course it is. Can you play it looking like that? No. So why should I be happy about it that the framerate tanks? Cause Crytek made a game that will be playable in a year or two? Great ...NOT!

 

[Tempered81]

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

Play it in DX9 and go from 20 to 30 FPS

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

As far as Crysis being inneficient, I call bunk on that as well. Crysis is an incredable game. The engine is far, far more graphically ahead of the rest. Crytek should have just released the game with medium settings being very high and then allowed people to tweak the INI like they did in Oblivion if they wanted better graphics. Then people would shut-up over their stupid complaints. Call it poorly coded, etc... What a joke. Those guys are top notch programmers.

Their biggest mistake was counting on the gamers to back them with their incredably high settings. Unfortunately, they were met with people who felt their 8800GTX's were paper weight because the FPS were not 60+. Oh, lets cry... Lets stop progression so that I can have the best card in the world. I mean, really... What the hell does it matter if a game looks good? The only thing that matters is that my 8800GTX remains on the top of the charts, and plays every single game at 60+ FPS, no matter how shitty it looks.

I am not asking for 60+FPS constant! I want to have playable framerates. And not some nice looking pics. I didn't buy a game to play it in two years. On medium settings this is nothing spectacular, ha, average at best. The story's so-so. There's a lot of shooting in Warhead, sure, that's fun. But the major selling point of this game was... yep, you guessed it... graphics. And who cares about it if you can't play the game with the nice graphics? That's right, nobody. Does it look awesome, beyond anything you have seen before and is it lightyears ahead of the other titles? Of course it is. Can you play it looking like that? No. So why should I be happy about it that the framerate tanks? Cause Crytek made a game that will be playable in a year or two? Great ...NOT!

The game on Medium looks better than any other outdoor based game out on the shelf currently. You wouldn't be complaining if medium was renamed to high. Oblivion took well over a year to play in full glory. Why should Crysis be any different? Name a game that can render outdoor scenes better than Crysis on medium. Post screenshots and explain how you came to that conclusion - then we can talk.

 

[skace]

Jesus fuck, check it out, people who expect to be able to run the Enthusiast settings on their piece of crap machines. Color me surprised.

You know why they renamed Very High to Enthusiast? It was to dissuade people from using those goddamn settings because it's like running face first into a wall. Enthusiast is supposed to be longevity, like "hey check it out, nVidia just released the GX4000 and I went back and played Crysis at 2560x1600 on Enthusiast and it looks beautiful!". It's not "Zomg I have SLI why can't I run everything on max!!"

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: skace
Jesus fuck, check it out, people who expect to be able to run the Enthusiast settings on their piece of crap machines. Color me surprised.

You know why they renamed Very High to Enthusiast? It was to dissuade people from using those goddamn settings because it's like running face first into a wall. Enthusiast is supposed to be longevity, like "hey check it out, nVidia just released the GX4000 and I went back and played Crysis at 2560x1600 on Enthusiast and it looks beautiful!". It's not "Zomg I have SLI why can't I run everything on max!!"

I don't think is so much it.. the main issue I think is once you start pulling the sliders back the game quickly starts looking like a 20 fps dog turd. It spans the range of beautiful slide show to hideous slide show.

That said.. You can find some great configs by searching the various Crysis forums.

 

[error8]

Changed the 8800 GT with a 4870 and I must say things have improved a lot. I still get horrible slowdowns from time to time, but for the most part it runs around 20 fps. I'm playing it on enthusiast 1680X1050 no AA. I'm only at the ice level, so I don't know what's going to happen later on.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: 43st
I don't think is so much it.. the main issue I think is once you start pulling the sliders back the game quickly starts looking like a 20 fps dog turd. It spans the range of beautiful slide show to hideous slide show.

The game automatically recommended gamer settings for me @ 1680x1050. I've been running those w/ 30-40 FPS. Which I wouldn't call a slide show. (20-29 = stuttering, <20 could be considered a slide show).

However, I'm prepared to lower my settings to medium if required, just like I did the first time around. And the game looks completely fine on medium - definitely not a "dog turd".