Getting lower FPS on Crysis Warhead compared to reviewers

[Compddd]

How come when I try the same settings as HardOCP did on Crysis: Warhead, I get noticably lower FPS then them? Is my CPU holding me back? I have a 280 and 4GB Ram, can't think of anything else. Oh I'm on a PCI-E 1.0 motherboard as well.

 

[OCChronic]

You need to look at the difference, overall, compared to your system and the test sytem of the review. The video card, cpu and RAM are not the only things that can affect the system's overall performance. The souncard can make a difference, beleive it or not. The MCH latch setting, the mem divider of the chipset, the FSB and Trd settings, as well as many other memory sub-timings can all have an impact on performance and should be fine tuned for maximum performance.

 

[myocardia]

Yes, your GTX280 is being held back somewhat by your processor. They were running a QX9770 @ 3.6 Ghz. They were also using DDR3, which doesn't help alot, but every little bit counts. Mostly, it's because they had twice as many cores, running ~400 Mhz faster than your cores are running.

 

[NoSoup4You]

Quad-core seems like the main difference between your system and HardOCP's test rig. But whether or not a quad-core is really going to help you that much... I'm not sure.

 

[angry hampster]

e: nvm i am wrong.

 

[Tempered81]

pci-e 1.0, dx10, 3.2ghz 65nm dual core, older chipset, older drivers.

You could overclock your gpu too.

 

[AzN]

quad makes minimal difference if not at all with Crysis. CPU doesn't make a dramatic difference with Crysis but it does help.

You are running 2560x1600 are you not? That can cripple the fastest video card not to mention you are running the most GPU intensive game there is in PC gaming.

 

[Tempered81]

hardware canucks showed a 2.83ghz 45nm yorkie give identical fps as a 3.0ghz 45nm wolfie.
so there is a slight advantage, just not 100% faster. i'd say cpu makes a difference in warhead:

http://images.hardwarecanucks....ames/CWH/CPUCharts.jpg

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
hardware canucks showed a 2.83ghz 45nm yorkie give identical fps as a 3.0ghz 45nm wolfie.
so there is a slight advantage, just not 100% faster. i'd say cpu makes a difference in warhead:

http://images.hardwarecanucks....ames/CWH/CPUCharts.jpg

It could just be cache difference or FSB differences. Not necessarily has to with quad cores.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Azn
It could just be cache difference or FSB differences. Not necessarily has to with quad cores.

Umm, those two processors have identical amount of L2$ per core, and identical FSB's.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Azn
It could just be cache difference or FSB differences. Not necessarily has to with quad cores.

Umm, those two processors have identical amount of L2$ per core, and identical FSB's.

I hope you are joking.

Q9550 has 2 dual cores sharing 2 6meg cache per core.. 1 core could be using 6meg cache while another could use up the other 6meg cache. Totaling 12meg cache in a dual core optimized game.

E8400 has 6meg cache to share between 2 cores.

 

[Compddd]

I changed it to DX9 rendering, and put it on gamer everything, with sound and textures set to enthusiast and shadows to mainstream, like they had. Now I'm getting FPS decently close to what they got. I guess DX9 makes a big difference?