Crysis Warhead: Benchmark

E

eric66

Gawd
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
920
'The Cry Engine was not only said to be visually upgraded, but also in regards of the performance. You still need a high-end card, but all in all Warhead is running a little smoother.

At high details the Geforce GTX 280 is up ahead with the GTX 260 and the HD 4870 behind it. With a 9800 GTX+ or a HD 4850 Warhead is slipping down to the average framerate level. The game is slow on anything lower than a 8800 GT. At maximal details the Radeon HD 4870 is the winner, but even on this card Warhead is unplayable with those settings.'

Crysis_Warhead_GPU_2.JPG


http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ecial_and_general_info_about_the_game/?page=3
 
The "Enthusiast" setting is the ultra high quality setting.

I'm going to see how it plays later today on my HD 4850 and 9800GTX cards. "Gamer" setting should be playable.
 
I play on gamer @ 1680 1050 which is high and few things set below that which is med and I pump out around 30 fps. In all med settings im getting a min fram of 40. Compared to the first crysis i was hitting frams in the teens. So its not that bad and it runs a little bit better. My drivers are 177.92.

WARS runs 100% better in all aspects. Graphics, gameplay, performance.

Im trying to get pics up for the past day and i cant get them up..soon as i do ill post.
 
I'll be waiting for a custom config. The original crysis runs better and looks better with the CCC and TOD mod
 
Yeah I don't think it runs much better than the old one....like barely. I'm getting 27-30fps average with everything on the "gamer" setting.

Q6600 3.2ghz
4870
 
What happened to that review with a guy saying with a Q6600 4GB and GTX 260 he could run Enthusiast @ 1920x1200 35-50fps

Seriously, what the hell... how can they even put that, when reality is so far off
 
Have you guys noticed that it is graphically "dumbed down" compared to the original? There was another thread saying something similar to that, possibly the only reason it runs a little smoother.
 
Inconsistent results really. Nvidia cards always seemed to perform better than ATI in Crysis, why it's suddenly the other way around in Warhead? The minimum frame rate seems a bit dodgy aswell, especially for the 280 and the 9800GTX+.

And what's with using the 3 months old 177.41 driver? I know, it's the last official one, but the newer ones like the 177.92 should perform considerably better.
 
hmm I wonder how my 1GB 4850 will run this game at that rez? Guess ill have to wait until I buy a copy of the game to see bcuz we're never gonna find any benchies for my card :(
Thats what I get for being unique. :rolleyes:
 
The only single card that might even have a remote chance at running this game at acceptable framerates is the 4870X2, then. For that to be true it needs to scale almost perfectly with dual GPUs, so that the min framerate is 28 FPS and the average 46.

Since we know that almost no game scales 100% with dual GPUs, and the original Crysis was one of the worst games as far as scaling, that will probably not be the case. Instead you'll need two 4870X2 cards or three (or even four) GTX280 cards just to get playable (not great) framerates at 1680x1050 with no FSAA, not to mention higher resolutions.

Yes, Crysis looks great, and Warhead probably looks even better.. But there are games out there that look *almost* as good, and run at 40+ FPS on an 8800GT...
 
BX_TECH_GOD said:
hmm I wonder how my 1GB 4850 will run this game at that rez? Guess ill have to wait until I buy a copy of the game to see bcuz we're never gonna find any benchies for my card :(
Thats what I get for being unique. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I thought the consensus was there were no performance benefits to the 1GB 4850 over the 512MB version in any circumstance?
 
JimmiG said:
The only single card that might even have a remote chance at running this game at acceptable framerates is the 4870X2, then. For that to be true it needs to scale almost perfectly with dual GPUs, so that the min framerate is 28 FPS and the average 46.

Since we know that almost no game scales 100% with dual GPUs, and the original Crysis was one of the worst games as far as scaling, that will probably not be the case. Instead you'll need two 4870X2 cards or three (or even four) GTX280 cards just to get playable (not great) framerates at 1680x1050 with no FSAA, not to mention higher resolutions.

Yes, Crysis looks great, and Warhead probably looks even better.. But there are games out there that look *almost* as good, and run at 40+ FPS on an 8800GT...
Click to expand...
http://rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33924963&page=11

4870x2 is doing quite well with new drivers by the way this guy is ati driver tester
 
I'm having a problem with this game...the multiplayer exits itself after like 5 min and the single player does it after 40-45 min its weird. It does crash...just ends.
 
Dude, people can game with 4xaa very high settings at 1920x1600 with 4870x2. Just look around the web, plenty of testimonials provided newest drivers are installed.
 
I played half the first lvl on my 4850 and i avg 29fps Gamer settings DX9 @ 1920x1200

Not bad, not bad at all... tho i notice alot of pop in
 
ZMTToxics said:
I thought the consensus was there were no performance benefits to the 1GB 4850 over the 512MB version in any circumstance?
Click to expand...

Hmm I hope not :(
But from my own personal experience it holds up well at the 1920x1200 resolution I run my games at (UT3, Crysis, MOH:A).
The 1GB should make a difference by at least 5fps at 1920x1200 and higher especially with AA and AF on.
 
I started playing Warhead on my 9800GTX. It's playable at 1680x1050 @ Gamer settings. It's not completely smooth so I might drop the resolution to the next notch down.

I'll try it on the HD 4850 system this weekend. It should be faster.
 
Ok, I thought Crysis Warhead's engine was going to be optimized, I got the game and decided to benchmark it. And I have a 4870x2 with 8.9 installed. And I got very disappointing results.

1680x1050 at 8x, 16AF, very high settings.

10-20 FPS, sometimes even under 10 FPS. Horrible.

I'll try it later without any AA.
 
John Vuong said:
Ok, I thought Crysis Warhead's engine was going to be optimized, I got the game and decided to benchmark it. And I have a 4870x2 with 8.9 installed. And I got very disappointing results.

1680x1050 at 8x, 16AF, very high settings.

10-20 FPS, sometimes even under 10 FPS. Horrible.

I'll try it later without any AA.
Click to expand...

I don't mean any disrespect to you or your video card, but expecting to play Crysis Warhead with 8x Anti-Aliasing does seem a bit unrealistic.
 
capable heart said:
I don't mean any disrespect to you or your video card, but expecting to play Crysis Warhead with 8x Anti-Aliasing does seem a bit unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Yeah well I thought I would get at least a playable framerate since Crytek said that the engine was going to be more optimized, though I didn't have high hopes for that. Oh well.
 
John Vuong said:
Yeah well I thought I would get at least a playable framerate since Crytek said that the engine was going to be more optimized, though I didn't have high hopes for that. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I just loaded up Warhead.
I used maximum(enthusiast, I guess) settings on my setup at 1920 X 1200, no AA.
The game was very smooth and using the in game console I was over 35 FPS most of the time.
I'm using Cat 8.9
In Crysis the first I can't really enjoy the game at all at very high. I hovered in the low 20s with the same computer,set the same way I have this new version.

I tell you what, the game doesn't look as good as the first one. I don't think the textures are nearly as sharp.

I think "gamer" is medium from the first game and "enthusiast" is high. I think Crytek just dumbed down the graphics; thats how they "optimized it". So it could run on their new Crysis computers. There's a lot of stuff in the first level at the resort that plain looks like shit, no where near as crisp and well defined as the first game.
 
Now I'm running the game at 1680x1050 with no AA this time, at least I'm getting 30-40-50 FPS average, 40 FPS most of the time.
 
ZMTToxics said:
I thought the consensus was there were no performance benefits to the 1GB 4850 over the 512MB version in any circumstance?
Click to expand...
the consensus was wrong. lol actually Crysis seems to be the only game that having more than 512mb on the 4850 helps.


"Again, that's not bad at all, we are using an extremely heavy on the GPU scene here. It's funny to see that Crysis is framebuffer limited, with 1 GB memory it performing better than the 4870 with 512MB until you hit GPU limitation in the highest resolutions."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-radeon-hd-4850-1gb-gvr485oc1gi-review/8
 
Is Warhead going to be as ho-hum as Crysis? How much you wanna bet Fallout 3 will run better & be at least 5X the game "Far" Crysis or Warhead will ever be. I just think it's funny how all the attention seems to be on these 2 average gameplay games. A lot of the focus is surrounding how the game runs/looks rather than is it really that good to fap over.
Games like COD4,TF2,& Portal don't require a lot of horsepower & offer way more gameplay value. I know it's sounds like I'm flamming but I'm really not, just offering some prespective;)
 
kubebot said:
Is Warhead going to be as ho-hum as Crysis? How much you wanna bet Fallout 3 will run better & be at least 5X the game "Far" Crysis or Warhead will ever be. I just think it's funny how all the attention seems to be on these 2 average gameplay games. A lot of the focus is surrounding how the game runs/looks rather than is it really that good to fap over.
Games like COD4,TF2,& Portal don't require a lot of horsepower & offer way more gameplay value. I know it's sounds like I'm flamming but I'm really not, just offering some prespective;)
Click to expand...



The game is very fun.

You just have to have decent system to play it on.
 
SonDa5 said:
The game is very fun.

You just have to have decent system to play it on.
Click to expand...

Looks like I'll need to update my sig. Just recently got the following...
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3.0GHz
Asus P5Q Pro
OCZ Platinum Edition 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000

Maybe I'll enjoy the games more with this, but I not holding my breath since most games now a days are gpu bound.
 
unrealsword said:
Uhh I think you linked to a wrong post as that post is about a guy with a gtx280.
Click to expand...
http://rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33924963&page=11

sorry this one guys name is clerick

'Words describe how insane it looks on a 37" 1080p screen with 5.1 blasting throughout. Everything is set to enthusiat level (there seems to be AA as well even though I didn't enable it) and yet it manages to run above 30 fps 99% of the time. It's great fun and I wish you could all see it in person'
 
cannondale06 said:
the consensus was wrong. lol actually Crysis seems to be the only game that having more than 512mb on the 4850 helps.


"Again, that's not bad at all, we are using an extremely heavy on the GPU scene here. It's funny to see that Crysis is framebuffer limited, with 1 GB memory it performing better than the 4870 with 512MB until you hit GPU limitation in the highest resolutions."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-radeon-hd-4850-1gb-gvr485oc1gi-review/8
Click to expand...

You sir have made me feel much better about my purchase. Thanks! ;)
 
Warhead actually worked very well for me on Enthusiast up until the initial ice area then I got some stuttering. Dropping it one down to Gamer smoothed things out perfectly again.

Crysis:Warhead - 1440x900 Enthusiast/Gamer

C2Q [email protected]
4 GB RAM
Vista 64
MSI 8800Ultra OC
 
Just beat the game....kinda disappointing and short.

Too bad the game was only $25 or I'd try to sell it.
 
Judging by the screenshots I thought the game looked worse than the original. I'll still pick it up though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top