Crysis Warhead real laggy, CPU?

[Noya]

I downloaded the Crysis demo back in the day, and on the lowest settings my 7600gt would lag.

I recently bought a eVGA 9600gt SSC (super super clocked) and Crysis Warhead (after hearing it was easier to run than the original). At 1024x768 (yes, I'm still rocking a CRT), I get quite a bit of lag on the setting under GAMER with no AA. I know the 9600gt isn't all that, but I thought I would get smoother gameplay since CoD4 plays smooth with high setting and AA.

Is the lag due to my Opteron 165 @ 2.25ghz and only 1.5gb DDR400?

Would an e7200 @ 3ghz and 4gb of RAM take care of most of the lag?

 

[CrystalBay]

More RAM will should help a lot..if your using Vista or XP

 

[aatf510]

Originally posted by: Noya
I downloaded the Crysis demo back in the day, and on the lowest settings my 7600gt would lag.

I recently bought a eVGA 9600gt SSC (super super clocked) and Crysis Warhead (after hearing it was easier to run than the original). At 1024x768 (yes, I'm still rocking a CRT), I get quite a bit of lag on the setting under GAMER with no AA. I know the 9600gt isn't all that, but I thought I would get smoother gameplay since CoD4 plays smooth with high setting and AA.

Is the lag due to my Opteron 165 @ 2.25ghz and only 1.5gb DDR400?

Would an e7200 @ 3ghz and 4gb of RAM take care of most of the lag?

My rig has a 4GHz+ Core 2 Duo, 4870x2 and 4GB of ram, and I only run the "gamer" (not enthusiast) setting to be perfectly smooth in Crysis. So go figured...

 

[nitromullet]

Are you getting the lag right when you start playing, or does it only set in after you progress forward a bit? I've noticed that if you play for a while without exiting the game it begins to use more and more memory (you can see memory usage by using ~ and r_displayinfo = 1). It appears that Warhead has some issues with memory management, and as a result the game can get very choppy over time. The fix is simple though, just save the game where you are, shut it down, and restart it.

 

[hondaf17]

Don't know how to help but at least for comparison purposes the game runs great on my system (see sig) with everything set to "mainstream". I could probably bump a few things up to gamer.

 

[AzN]

More ram couldn't hurt but if you are using xp I think you are okay with only 1.5gigs. Vista needs 2gigs for Crysis.

Crysis is GPU bound. You need the fastest gpu and it still chokes. A better cpu and more ram could help some but not as much as a better GPU would.

You might as well change some settings to medium if you feel it's not smooth enough to play. Particularly the shader portion and texturing of the settings since 9600gt is weak in those dept. compared to G92 chips. Overclock that opteron some more.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn
More ram couldn't hurt but if you are using xp I think you are okay with only 1.5gigs. Vista needs 2gigs for Crysis.

Crysis is GPU bound. You need the fastest gpu and it still chokes. A better cpu and more ram could help some but not as much as a better GPU would.

You might as well change some settings to medium if you feel it's not smooth enough to play. Particularly the shader portion and texturing of the settings since 9600gt is weak in those dept. compared to G92 chips. Overclock that opteron some more.

Adding the fastest gpu avaiable is not going to help with less than 3 gigs of system ram, at least for Vista. With the 8600gt my game was choking really bad in Warhead and would sometimes dip to 1 to 2 fps when turning the mouse. I added a gig for a total of 3 and the game was smooth at 1024x768 on mainstream(water on enthusiast) settings after that.

I also went with a 4670 and was not happy because my minimum framerate didnt increase one bit over the 8600gt. I tried a 9600gt again and still the minimums were no better than the 8600gt even at the same settings. I thought well crap maybe a better cpu would help some.

I picked up a Dell from Best Buy with a E7300 and 4gigs ram and put the 4670 in there just to see what would happen. Its night and day having a better cpu. With a mix of gamer and mainstream settings at 1024x768 my framerates increased almost 50% with the E7300 over the 5000 X2. Of course average framerate isnt much higher on ALL gamer(high) settings but the minimums are much better and the game is so much more playable an smooth.

My room looks like a computer wharehouse and I have been driving myself crazy trying to get the best bang for the buck. I can tell you that having at least 3 gigs(maybe 2 gigs for XP) for games like Warhead and Clear Sky is VERY important. Also his current cpu will hold him back at 1024x768 because its even worse than mine. Even on gamer settings a better cpu will help with playabilty because it will keep the minimum framerate up and the average framerate will be slightly better too. His biggest prob at the moment is clearly the lack of ram though.


The 9600gt wouldnt fit in the Dell so I did some HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Warhead tests with Warhead Benchmarking Tool 0.29. Remember his cpu is even slower and the 9600gt is better so he would have even more of a difference by getting a much faster cpu.

Mainstream HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300..........60.9 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2.....41.4 FPS

Gamer HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300.........32.8 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2....27.9 FPS

warhead benchmarking tool 0.29


also look how bad the performance is at 1680 on Gamer(high) settings with a GTX280 and 5000+ X2. his cpu is even slower so he would be wasting his money to put faster video card in his system especially since he plays at just 1024. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-review-4.html

 

[dust]

Hey guys, I'm facing a rather embarrasing issue with Warhead. The game simply crashes after an hour and a half or so and much more often if I restart it at the same time. I believe it has something to do with the overclocking, I just don't know exactly what!

I'm running the game on Enthusiast, AA 8X, 1280x1024 (19" LCD), VSync on.
I've tried lowering the specs ( the recommended specs - Gamer), without AA and VSync and it's the same story.


Any ideas?

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: Drivenbyvoltage


Hey guys, I'm facing a rather embarrasing issue with Warhead. The game simply crashes after an hour and a half or so and much more often if I restart it at the same time. I believe it has something to do with the overclocking, I just don't know exactly what!

I'm running the game on Enthusiast, AA 8X, 1280x1024 (19" LCD), VSync on.
I've tried lowering the specs ( the recommended specs - Gamer), without AA and VSync and it's the same story.


Any ideas?

To start how about not OC'ing? See if that solves it, you may need to back your OC down, it could be a heat issue, PSU, etc. Isolate the problem first, rule out one by one what you have verified to work. :thumbsup:

 

[necro007]

Originally posted by: Drivenbyvoltage


Hey guys, I'm facing a rather embarrasing issue with Warhead. The game simply crashes after an hour and a half or so and much more often if I restart it at the same time. I believe it has something to do with the overclocking, I just don't know exactly what!

I'm running the game on Enthusiast, AA 8X, 1280x1024 (19" LCD), VSync on.
I've tried lowering the specs ( the recommended specs - Gamer), without AA and VSync and it's the same story.


Any ideas?

Hey guys not to sound like a noob but is that setting only for Warhead and not for the original Crysis.

 

[roid450]

the faster CPU will help but you still need a faster better GPU

my PC has a 2.4ghz Q6600 and at 2.4 ghz i was getting fps in the 10-15 range at 1600x1200 on all enthusiast (veryhigh) and i overclocked it to 3 ghz and now im always in the 20-30 fps range on enthusiast with no AA

id say the faster cpu will help, then you might be ok. the 9600gt aint all that bad. it ran crysis when i had it but on Gamer settings and 1280x1024 around 20fps or slightly less

 

[dust]

Originally posted by: Oakenfold

To start how about not OC'ing? See if that solves it, you may need to back your OC down, it could be a heat issue, PSU, etc. Isolate the problem first, rule out one by one what you have verified to work. :thumbsup:

That was my first thought also of course, I ran benchmark tests on the vanilla and I'm getting nearly 67 FPS on high without AA and 51.5 with 16xq, 1280x1024 since I cannot test bigger res. I ran the tests after start up, after two hours of comp usage also. I am getting the same story on 3DMark 06, the perf oscilates within 100 points regardless of the previous usage (20780 3dmarks).

I thought abt the overheating also and I have PC Probe (I don't know how reliable is that anyway), and the only warning came for the North Bridge temp maybe because the threshold was set for 45 degrees C, I raised the level to 60 and even after hours of playing whatever the temp doesn't cross 53 C. The SB is 10 degrees below the NB always.

I've been thinking abt the memory being to low for the over-all config. Currently it is set to 912 MHZ and I know little abt the tRD to attempt to enhance it.

I set the proc to 1.45 V, the Dram to 2.2 V. I don't think this might be an issue.

 

[dust]

To start how about not OC'ing? See if that solves it, you may need to back your OC down, it could be a heat issue, PSU, etc. Isolate the problem first, rule out one by one what you have verified to work. :thumbsup:
[/quote]

I've been thinking abt the memory being to low for the over-all config. Currently it is set to 912 MHZ and I know little abt the tRD to attempt to enhance it.

I set the proc to 1.45 V, the Dram to 2.2 V. I don't think this might be an issue.
[/quote]

I'm using XP

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: roid450
the faster CPU will help but you still need a faster better GPU

my PC has a 2.4ghz Q6600 and at 2.4 ghz i was getting fps in the 10-15 range at 1600x1200 on all enthusiast (veryhigh) and i overclocked it to 3 ghz and now im always in the 20-30 fps range on enthusiast with no AA

id say the faster cpu will help, then you might be ok. the 9600gt aint all that bad. it ran crysis when i had it but on Gamer settings and 1280x1024 around 20fps or slightly less

you most certainly did NOT double you performance at very high settings at 1600x1200 from overclocking your cpu. not even on medium settings and a better gpu at that res would oveclocking your cpu double you framerate. in fact there is NO gaming scenario where overclocking your cpu by 25% would result in 100% increase in framerate.

 

[mancunian]

Originally posted by: toyota
you most certainly did NOT double you performance at very high settings at 1600x1200 from overclocking your cpu. not even on medium settings and a better gpu at that res would oveclocking your cpu double you framerate. in fact there is NO gaming scenario where overclocking your cpu by 25% would result in 100% increase in framerate.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[roid450]

i might have exaggerated a bit but it did help it out some nonetheless

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: Noya
I downloaded the Crysis demo back in the day, and on the lowest settings my 7600gt would lag.

I recently bought a eVGA 9600gt SSC (super super clocked) and Crysis Warhead (after hearing it was easier to run than the original). At 1024x768 (yes, I'm still rocking a CRT), I get quite a bit of lag on the setting under GAMER with no AA. I know the 9600gt isn't all that, but I thought I would get smoother gameplay since CoD4 plays smooth with high setting and AA.

Is the lag due to my Opteron 165 @ 2.25ghz and only 1.5gb DDR400?

Would an e7200 @ 3ghz and 4gb of RAM take care of most of the lag?

you make a very good point. Crysis sucks... i bet the video card companies made them program this game so shitty. I mean they didnt make any money of this crap fest from sales.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: Noya
I downloaded the Crysis demo back in the day, and on the lowest settings my 7600gt would lag.

I recently bought a eVGA 9600gt SSC (super super clocked) and Crysis Warhead (after hearing it was easier to run than the original). At 1024x768 (yes, I'm still rocking a CRT), I get quite a bit of lag on the setting under GAMER with no AA. I know the 9600gt isn't all that, but I thought I would get smoother gameplay since CoD4 plays smooth with high setting and AA.

Is the lag due to my Opteron 165 @ 2.25ghz and only 1.5gb DDR400?

Would an e7200 @ 3ghz and 4gb of RAM take care of most of the lag?

you make a very good point. Crysis sucks... i bet the video card companies made them program this game so shitty. I mean they didnt make any money of this crap fest from sales.

he didnt make that point and you fail at trying to yourself. his problem is that he doesnt have enough system ram to run at the settings his gpu is capable of so of course he is lagging. his relatively slow cpu isnt helping matters either.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn
More ram couldn't hurt but if you are using xp I think you are okay with only 1.5gigs. Vista needs 2gigs for Crysis.

Crysis is GPU bound. You need the fastest gpu and it still chokes. A better cpu and more ram could help some but not as much as a better GPU would.

You might as well change some settings to medium if you feel it's not smooth enough to play. Particularly the shader portion and texturing of the settings since 9600gt is weak in those dept. compared to G92 chips. Overclock that opteron some more.

Adding the fastest gpu avaiable is not going to help with less than 3 gigs of system ram, at least for Vista. With the 8600gt my game was choking really bad in Warhead and would sometimes dip to 1 to 2 fps when turning the mouse. I added a gig for a total of 3 and the game was smooth at 1024x768 on mainstream(water on enthusiast) settings after that.

I also went with a 4670 and was not happy because my minimum framerate didnt increase one bit over the 8600gt. I tried a 9600gt again and still the minimums were no better than the 8600gt even at the same settings. I thought well crap maybe a better cpu would help some.

I picked up a Dell from Best Buy with a E7300 and 4gigs ram and put the 4670 in there just to see what would happen. Its night and day having a better cpu. With a mix of gamer and mainstream settings at 1024x768 my framerates increased almost 50% with the E7300 over the 5000 X2. Of course average framerate isnt much higher on ALL gamer(high) settings but the minimums are much better and the game is so much more playable an smooth.

My room looks like a computer wharehouse and I have been driving myself crazy trying to get the best bang for the buck. I can tell you that having at least 3 gigs(maybe 2 gigs for XP) for games like Warhead and Clear Sky is VERY important. Also his current cpu will hold him back at 1024x768 because its even worse than mine. Even on gamer settings a better cpu will help with playabilty because it will keep the minimum framerate up and the average framerate will be slightly better too. His biggest prob at the moment is clearly the lack of ram though.


The 9600gt wouldnt fit in the Dell so I did some HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Warhead tests with Warhead Benchmarking Tool 0.29. Remember his cpu is even slower and the 9600gt is better so he would have even more of a difference by getting a much faster cpu.

Mainstream HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300..........60.9 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2.....41.4 FPS

Gamer HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300.........32.8 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2....27.9 FPS

warhead benchmarking tool 0.29


also look how bad the performance is at 1680 on Gamer(high) settings with a GTX280 and 5000+ X2. his cpu is even slower so he would be wasting his money to put faster video card in his system especially since he plays at just 1024. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-review-4.html

Actually Crysis runs perfectly fine with 2gigs on vista. I know because I had 2 gigs with Vista and played Crysis perfectly fine. The only reason I bought another stick was to play BF2 with Vista which is a memory hog.

4670 is 128bit bus. if you knew a little bit about graphics you would know that memory bandwidth has whole lot to do with minimum frame rates.

You are also comparing low resolution like 1024x768 where CPU matter a bit more. I think you are exaggerating when you say 50% frame rate increase. Perhaps in settings where the GPU isn't bottlenecked like low and mainstream but not high settings.

Over 40fps is bad performance? Which you hand picked on GTX280 which is 2.5x powerful than a 9600gt which is more limited to CPU even in gamer settings? At least point to cpu scaling with 9600gt and you might actually sound credible.

You have no idea about what is bottlenecks of which. You pointing to a low resolution and telling me it's CPU bottlenecks doesn't mean much. I suggest you do a bit more research.

Edit:

Ran ambush at your settings on my 8800gs

E6300 @ default 1.86ghz
1024x768 mainstream 47fps
1024x768 gamer 36fps

E6300 @ 2.56ghz
1024x768 mainstream 60fps
1024x768 gamer 42fps
1440x900 mainstream 57fps
1440x900 gamer 32fps

E6300 @ 3.22ghz
1024x768 mainstream 75fps
1024x768 gamer 47fps
1440x900 mainstream 67fps
1440x900 gamer 33fps

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn
More ram couldn't hurt but if you are using xp I think you are okay with only 1.5gigs. Vista needs 2gigs for Crysis.

Crysis is GPU bound. You need the fastest gpu and it still chokes. A better cpu and more ram could help some but not as much as a better GPU would.

You might as well change some settings to medium if you feel it's not smooth enough to play. Particularly the shader portion and texturing of the settings since 9600gt is weak in those dept. compared to G92 chips. Overclock that opteron some more.

Adding the fastest gpu avaiable is not going to help with less than 3 gigs of system ram, at least for Vista. With the 8600gt my game was choking really bad in Warhead and would sometimes dip to 1 to 2 fps when turning the mouse. I added a gig for a total of 3 and the game was smooth at 1024x768 on mainstream(water on enthusiast) settings after that.

I also went with a 4670 and was not happy because my minimum framerate didnt increase one bit over the 8600gt. I tried a 9600gt again and still the minimums were no better than the 8600gt even at the same settings. I thought well crap maybe a better cpu would help some.

I picked up a Dell from Best Buy with a E7300 and 4gigs ram and put the 4670 in there just to see what would happen. Its night and day having a better cpu. With a mix of gamer and mainstream settings at 1024x768 my framerates increased almost 50% with the E7300 over the 5000 X2. Of course average framerate isnt much higher on ALL gamer(high) settings but the minimums are much better and the game is so much more playable an smooth.

My room looks like a computer wharehouse and I have been driving myself crazy trying to get the best bang for the buck. I can tell you that having at least 3 gigs(maybe 2 gigs for XP) for games like Warhead and Clear Sky is VERY important. Also his current cpu will hold him back at 1024x768 because its even worse than mine. Even on gamer settings a better cpu will help with playabilty because it will keep the minimum framerate up and the average framerate will be slightly better too. His biggest prob at the moment is clearly the lack of ram though.


The 9600gt wouldnt fit in the Dell so I did some HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Warhead tests with Warhead Benchmarking Tool 0.29. Remember his cpu is even slower and the 9600gt is better so he would have even more of a difference by getting a much faster cpu.

Mainstream HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300..........60.9 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2.....41.4 FPS

Gamer HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300.........32.8 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2....27.9 FPS

warhead benchmarking tool 0.29


also look how bad the performance is at 1680 on Gamer(high) settings with a GTX280 and 5000+ X2. his cpu is even slower so he would be wasting his money to put faster video card in his system especially since he plays at just 1024. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-review-4.html

Actually Crysis runs perfectly fine with 2gigs on vista. I know because I had 2 gigs with Vista and played Crysis perfectly fine. The only reason I bought another stick was to play BF2 with Vista which is a memory hog.

4670 is 128bit bus. if you knew a little bit about graphics you would know that memory bandwidth has whole lot to do with minimum frame rates.

You are also comparing low resolution like 1024x768 where CPU matter a bit more. I think you are exaggerating when you say 50% frame rate increase. Perhaps in settings where the GPU isn't bottlenecked like low and mainstream but not high settings.

Over 40fps is bad performance? Which you hand picked on GTX280 which is 2.5x powerful than a 9600gt which is more limited to CPU even in gamer settings? At least point to cpu scaling with 9600gt and you might actually sound credible.

You have no idea about what is bottlenecks of which. You pointing to a low resolution and telling me it's CPU bottlenecks doesn't mean much. I suggest you do a bit more research.

Edit:

Ran ambush at your settings on my 8800gs

E6300 @ default 1.86ghz
1024x768 mainstream 47fps
1024x768 gamer 35fps

E6300 @ 2.56ghz
1024x768 mainstream 60fps
1024x768 gamer 42fps
1440x900 mainstream 57fps
1440x900 gamer 32fps

Im not going to argue back and forth with you. I ran everything at 1024x768 because the OP said he is playing at 1024x768. so yes his cpu but mostly his lack of ram is causing his bad performance and lag.

that linked review clearly showed that even on high settings at 1680 that my 5000 X2 sucks especially when matched with a high end card. also remember that the OPs cpu is even slower than mine. first you will argue that there is no bottleneck then you will argue its only at low res or settings and then you will act like losing 16fps at 1680x1050 on high setting is no big deal.

there was also a review of Warhead that clearly stated that with just 2 gigs of ram on Vista you will have bad hitching at points. cpu and ram does matter and Im not going to go back and forth with you as usual so take it as it is. you live in a world of your own where facts or somebody elses results mean nothing to you.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn
More ram couldn't hurt but if you are using xp I think you are okay with only 1.5gigs. Vista needs 2gigs for Crysis.

Crysis is GPU bound. You need the fastest gpu and it still chokes. A better cpu and more ram could help some but not as much as a better GPU would.

You might as well change some settings to medium if you feel it's not smooth enough to play. Particularly the shader portion and texturing of the settings since 9600gt is weak in those dept. compared to G92 chips. Overclock that opteron some more.

Adding the fastest gpu avaiable is not going to help with less than 3 gigs of system ram, at least for Vista. With the 8600gt my game was choking really bad in Warhead and would sometimes dip to 1 to 2 fps when turning the mouse. I added a gig for a total of 3 and the game was smooth at 1024x768 on mainstream(water on enthusiast) settings after that.

I also went with a 4670 and was not happy because my minimum framerate didnt increase one bit over the 8600gt. I tried a 9600gt again and still the minimums were no better than the 8600gt even at the same settings. I thought well crap maybe a better cpu would help some.

I picked up a Dell from Best Buy with a E7300 and 4gigs ram and put the 4670 in there just to see what would happen. Its night and day having a better cpu. With a mix of gamer and mainstream settings at 1024x768 my framerates increased almost 50% with the E7300 over the 5000 X2. Of course average framerate isnt much higher on ALL gamer(high) settings but the minimums are much better and the game is so much more playable an smooth.

My room looks like a computer wharehouse and I have been driving myself crazy trying to get the best bang for the buck. I can tell you that having at least 3 gigs(maybe 2 gigs for XP) for games like Warhead and Clear Sky is VERY important. Also his current cpu will hold him back at 1024x768 because its even worse than mine. Even on gamer settings a better cpu will help with playabilty because it will keep the minimum framerate up and the average framerate will be slightly better too. His biggest prob at the moment is clearly the lack of ram though.


The 9600gt wouldnt fit in the Dell so I did some HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Warhead tests with Warhead Benchmarking Tool 0.29. Remember his cpu is even slower and the 9600gt is better so he would have even more of a difference by getting a much faster cpu.

Mainstream HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300..........60.9 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2.....41.4 FPS

Gamer HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300.........32.8 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2....27.9 FPS

warhead benchmarking tool 0.29


also look how bad the performance is at 1680 on Gamer(high) settings with a GTX280 and 5000+ X2. his cpu is even slower so he would be wasting his money to put faster video card in his system especially since he plays at just 1024. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-review-4.html

Actually Crysis runs perfectly fine with 2gigs on vista. I know because I had 2 gigs with Vista and played Crysis perfectly fine. The only reason I bought another stick was to play BF2 with Vista which is a memory hog.

4670 is 128bit bus. if you knew a little bit about graphics you would know that memory bandwidth has whole lot to do with minimum frame rates.

You are also comparing low resolution like 1024x768 where CPU matter a bit more. I think you are exaggerating when you say 50% frame rate increase. Perhaps in settings where the GPU isn't bottlenecked like low and mainstream but not high settings.

Over 40fps is bad performance? Which you hand picked on GTX280 which is 2.5x powerful than a 9600gt which is more limited to CPU even in gamer settings? At least point to cpu scaling with 9600gt and you might actually sound credible.

You have no idea about what is bottlenecks of which. You pointing to a low resolution and telling me it's CPU bottlenecks doesn't mean much. I suggest you do a bit more research.

Edit:

Ran ambush at your settings on my 8800gs

E6300 @ default 1.86ghz
1024x768 mainstream 47fps
1024x768 gamer 36fps

E6300 @ 2.56ghz
1024x768 mainstream 60fps
1024x768 gamer 42fps
1440x900 mainstream 57fps
1440x900 gamer 32fps

E6300 @ 3.22ghz
1024x768 mainstream 75fps
1024x768 gamer 47fps
1440x900 mainstream 67fps
1440x900 gamer 33fps

Im not going to argue back and forth with you. I ran everything at 1024x768 because the OP said he is playing at 1024x768. so yes his cpu but mostly his lack of ram is causing his bad performance and lag.

that linked review clearly showed that even on high settings at 1680 that my 5000 X2 sucks especially when matched with a high end card. also remember that the OPs cpu is even slower than mine. first you will argue that there is no bottleneck then you will argue its only at low res or settings and then you will act like losing 16fps at 1680x1050 on high setting is no big deal.

there was also a review of Warhead that clearly stated that with just 2 gigs of ram on Vista you will have bad hitching at points. cpu and ram does matter and Im not going to go back and forth with you as usual so take it as it is. you live in a world of your own where facts or somebody elses results mean nothing to you.

If you look at my testing @ 1024x768 @ gamer settings or yours the difference is only 5fps or so from 700mhz difference. That's at 1024x768 if you go little higher resolution like 1440x900 or 1280x1024 the difference becomes non existent.

The link you gave is with a GTX 280. Of course X2 5000 will be limited. When you have enough graphic power that's what happens. A 9600gt does not compare and is slow with crysis.

You see the mainstream results and you get 40fps with your 4670 and your x2 5000. Now if you have enough graphics power you would also get 40fps at enthusiast or gamer settings in Warhead. A 6ghz core 2 duo won't be able to do the same.

I even took out my other gig of memory when I did the benchmarks. Go look at your task manager and see how much memory the game uses because Crysis or warhead doesn't take more than 2 gigs of ram to run efficiently on vista. This has has been mentioned before in the same forum when Crysis was first released. On XP you can get away with 1.5gigs.

I think you tried to argue last time about Crysis being CPU limited and you got shut down by many computer gurus in the forum. Like I said before I suggest you do some more research.

 

[aclim]

at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Azn
More ram couldn't hurt but if you are using xp I think you are okay with only 1.5gigs. Vista needs 2gigs for Crysis.

Crysis is GPU bound. You need the fastest gpu and it still chokes. A better cpu and more ram could help some but not as much as a better GPU would.

You might as well change some settings to medium if you feel it's not smooth enough to play. Particularly the shader portion and texturing of the settings since 9600gt is weak in those dept. compared to G92 chips. Overclock that opteron some more.

Adding the fastest gpu avaiable is not going to help with less than 3 gigs of system ram, at least for Vista. With the 8600gt my game was choking really bad in Warhead and would sometimes dip to 1 to 2 fps when turning the mouse. I added a gig for a total of 3 and the game was smooth at 1024x768 on mainstream(water on enthusiast) settings after that.

I also went with a 4670 and was not happy because my minimum framerate didnt increase one bit over the 8600gt. I tried a 9600gt again and still the minimums were no better than the 8600gt even at the same settings. I thought well crap maybe a better cpu would help some.

I picked up a Dell from Best Buy with a E7300 and 4gigs ram and put the 4670 in there just to see what would happen. Its night and day having a better cpu. With a mix of gamer and mainstream settings at 1024x768 my framerates increased almost 50% with the E7300 over the 5000 X2. Of course average framerate isnt much higher on ALL gamer(high) settings but the minimums are much better and the game is so much more playable an smooth.

My room looks like a computer wharehouse and I have been driving myself crazy trying to get the best bang for the buck. I can tell you that having at least 3 gigs(maybe 2 gigs for XP) for games like Warhead and Clear Sky is VERY important. Also his current cpu will hold him back at 1024x768 because its even worse than mine. Even on gamer settings a better cpu will help with playabilty because it will keep the minimum framerate up and the average framerate will be slightly better too. His biggest prob at the moment is clearly the lack of ram though.


The 9600gt wouldnt fit in the Dell so I did some HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Warhead tests with Warhead Benchmarking Tool 0.29. Remember his cpu is even slower and the 9600gt is better so he would have even more of a difference by getting a much faster cpu.

Mainstream HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300..........60.9 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2.....41.4 FPS

Gamer HD4670 DX9 1024 x768 Ambush Level
2.66 E7300.........32.8 FPS
2.60 5000+ X2....27.9 FPS

warhead benchmarking tool 0.29


also look how bad the performance is at 1680 on Gamer(high) settings with a GTX280 and 5000+ X2. his cpu is even slower so he would be wasting his money to put faster video card in his system especially since he plays at just 1024. http://www.hardwarecanucks.com...formance-review-4.html

Actually Crysis runs perfectly fine with 2gigs on vista. I know because I had 2 gigs with Vista and played Crysis perfectly fine. The only reason I bought another stick was to play BF2 with Vista which is a memory hog.

4670 is 128bit bus. if you knew a little bit about graphics you would know that memory bandwidth has whole lot to do with minimum frame rates.

You are also comparing low resolution like 1024x768 where CPU matter a bit more. I think you are exaggerating when you say 50% frame rate increase. Perhaps in settings where the GPU isn't bottlenecked like low and mainstream but not high settings.

Over 40fps is bad performance? Which you hand picked on GTX280 which is 2.5x powerful than a 9600gt which is more limited to CPU even in gamer settings? At least point to cpu scaling with 9600gt and you might actually sound credible.

You have no idea about what is bottlenecks of which. You pointing to a low resolution and telling me it's CPU bottlenecks doesn't mean much. I suggest you do a bit more research.

Edit:

Ran ambush at your settings on my 8800gs

E6300 @ default 1.86ghz
1024x768 mainstream 47fps
1024x768 gamer 36fps

E6300 @ 2.56ghz
1024x768 mainstream 60fps
1024x768 gamer 42fps
1440x900 mainstream 57fps
1440x900 gamer 32fps

E6300 @ 3.22ghz
1024x768 mainstream 75fps
1024x768 gamer 47fps
1440x900 mainstream 67fps
1440x900 gamer 33fps

Im not going to argue back and forth with you. I ran everything at 1024x768 because the OP said he is playing at 1024x768. so yes his cpu but mostly his lack of ram is causing his bad performance and lag.

that linked review clearly showed that even on high settings at 1680 that my 5000 X2 sucks especially when matched with a high end card. also remember that the OPs cpu is even slower than mine. first you will argue that there is no bottleneck then you will argue its only at low res or settings and then you will act like losing 16fps at 1680x1050 on high setting is no big deal.

there was also a review of Warhead that clearly stated that with just 2 gigs of ram on Vista you will have bad hitching at points. cpu and ram does matter and Im not going to go back and forth with you as usual so take it as it is. you live in a world of your own where facts or somebody elses results mean nothing to you.

If you look at my testing @ 1024x768 @ gamer settings or yours the difference is only 5fps or so from 700mhz difference. That's at 1024x768 if you go little higher resolution like 1440x900 or 1280x1024 the difference becomes non existent.

The link you gave is with a GTX 280. Of course X2 5000 will be limited. When you have enough graphic power that's what happens. A 9600gt does not compare and is slow with crysis.

You see the mainstream results and you get 40fps with your 4670 and your x2 5000. Now if you have enough graphics power you would also get 40fps at enthusiast or gamer settings in Warhead. A 6ghz core 2 duo won't be able to do the same.

I even took out my other gig of memory when I did the benchmarks. Go look at your task manager and see how much memory the game uses because Crysis or warhead doesn't take more than 2 gigs of ram to run efficiently on vista. This has has been mentioned before in the same forum when Crysis was first released. On XP you can get away with 1.5gigs.

I think you tried to argue last time about Crysis being CPU limited and you got shut down by many computer gurus in the forum. Like I said before I suggest you do some more research.

the point I was getting at last time was that adding a much better gpu wasnt going to make much difference with my 5000 X2 and guess what it didnt. I may not have been really cpu limited with the 8600gt but the fact remains going with a faster cpu would have given me more fps at the settings and res I was running.

now back to on topic. you said the gpu is all that really matters in Crysis and thats not true. I showed those benchmarks I got because it clearly shows that the op would get a huge boost in performance going with the cpu he was thinking about getting.

yes I know that link was for a gtx280 but that also was on all high settings at 1680 so it does clearly show that having a good cpu matters. the op is wanting to play at 1024x768 so his cpu is holding him back quite a bit even on the 9600gt.

with Warhead my task manager was going right to 1.98 gb with only 2 gb of ram and it now sits at 2.16 - 2.22gb with 3 gigs of ram and all the hitching has disappeared. Warhead uses about 1400-1600mb of ram at the settings I am using at 1024x768.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: toyota
the point I was getting at last time was that adding a much better gpu wasnt going to make much difference with my 5000 X2 and guess what it didnt. I may not have been really cpu limited with the 8600gt but the fact remains going with a faster cpu would have given me more fps at the settings and res I was running.

now back to on topic. you said the gpu is all that really matters in Crysis and thats not true. I showed those benchmarks I got because it clearly shows that the op would get a huge boost in performance going with the cpu he was thinking about getting.

yes I know that link was for a gtx280 but that also was on all high settings at 1680 so it does clearly show that having a good cpu matters. the op is wanting to play at 1024x768 so his cpu is holding him back quite a bit even on the 9600gt.

with Warhead my task manager was going right to 1.98 gb with only 2 gb of ram and it now sits at 2.16 - 2.22gb with 3 gigs of ram and all the hitching has disappeared. Warhead uses about 1400-1600mb of ram at the settings I am using at 1024x768.

Yet you were arguing last time that CPU was the bottleneck with your 8600gt and that's with medium settings. :laugh:

At gamer settings a CPU can do so much with a 9600gt. A faster GPU would mostly eliminate the graphic bottlenecks considering crysis is the most GPU intensive game there is to PC gaming.

5fps is huge difference at gamer settings which the OP was asking?

A 9800gtx that cost less to upgrade his motherboard and CPU (perhaps even memory) would give you far better results with Crysis @ gamer settings even @ 1024x768.

That link doesn't show me anything besides GTX 280 need a better cpu than a x2 5000 even at gamer settings. A 9600gt wouldn't show that big of a difference in Crysis because it just doesn't have graphic power to run Warhead @ gamer comfortably.

You probably have lot of startup programs loaded. There you go Warhead uses about 1.4 gigs of memory. I had no problem running Crysis with 2 gigs of ram in vista. If you also searched this forum we have dozens of people testifying that Crysis works perfectly fine with 2 gigs of ram in vista.

My 8800gs shouldn't even be compared to a stock GS or your 4670. It performs in the level of a 8800gt which is faster than 9600gt with Crysis no matter how much that 9600gt was overclocked on stock voltage cooling because it's missing SP, TMU which push raw frame rates. A 9600gt would have less of that effect with a faster CPU compared to my 8800gs because it just can't doesn't have the power.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: aclim
at low Resolution like that a better GPU probably wont do you any better. At low resolution its more CPU/RAM taxing. Thats where you may need an upgrade.

While your statement is true for most games out there. Then again we are talking about Crysis at gamer settings.