So how much better does Warhead really run?

[Soetdjuret]

I don't think AF is enabled. With the shader setting on Enthusiast POM is enabled instead.

Not quite right, AF is there when POM is activated, but it doesn't affect the textures in witch POM affects, so for some textures they work, on the bridge for example.

[Q]

It runs much better for me. Enthusiast level on XP64. 1280x1024. 2xAA. Crysis would run this in the teens on my machine. This runs it in the 30's.

Then again, it doesn't look as good, IMO.

[JH24]

I am running Warhead in Dx9 mode(Vista32) and I am getting lot of stuttering during combat scenes. I also noticed a lot of hard disk activity. I tried at 1280 x 1024, 2x AA and Enthusiast setting. Also where do you turn AF on?

Is my 2GB RAM the culprit?


I don't really know much about computers, but I think 2 Gb of ram is one of the causes. I heard that in DX9 Warhead uses more memory than in DX10, this probably leads to a lot of swapping on the harddrive to fill the gaps. I noticed in your computer descriptions you have a 8800 GT. It is a great card but I worry that Enthusiast and 2x AA may be too much too handle.


You could try setting everything on "Gamer" and with no AA and see how that works. If you're happy with the performance that gives you in the most intense and demanding scenes, you can try increasing some of the settings step by step, experiment with it and see which one will give you a noticable performance decrease or leads to swapping and which one not.


AF must be, as far as I know, be forced through the control panel of your videocard. There's no setting in Crysis (Warhead)

[nekrosoft13]

I am running Warhead in Dx9 mode(Vista32) and I am getting lot of stuttering during combat scenes. I also noticed a lot of hard disk activity. I tried at 1280 x 1024, 2x AA and Enthusiast setting. Also where do you turn AF on?

Is my 2GB RAM the culprit?

yes, Warhead uses quite a bit more ram then Crysis

[mailman2]

Runs ALOT better using -dx9, I mean almost double the FPS here 1680x1050 @ Gamer. Even enthusiast is playabe now.

[Madpistol]

yes, Warhead uses quite a bit more ram then Crysis

Yep. I've been monitoring my memory usage on my G15, and memory usage is @ roughly 95% for 2GB of ram. This game is a ram hog. It's not a big deal though. The stuttering is fairly minimal, and when it does happen, it corrects itself quickly.

If you need a reason to upgrade from 2GB of memory, this game is it.

Btw, I'm running all settings @ Enthusiast @ 1280x800, no aa. If you knock some of the settings down a level, it'll probably reduce the memory load.

[Soetdjuret]

Btw, I'm running all settings @ Enthusiast @ 1280x800, no aa. If you knock some of the settings down a level, it'll probably reduce the memory load.

How does the game run on those settings on your system?

[Madpistol]

How does the game run on those settings on your system?

It averages about 30fps in warhead, I can sometimes get it up higher...

I haven't actually run FRAPS yet to see what the frame rates are like. That's just an estimate, It's very fluid and playable at those settings. It probably doesn't dip below 20 except for the massive battle scenes.

[Soetdjuret]

Nice

[crainger]

Warhead in DX9 mode under Vista is so much faster than Crysis 32bit DX9 mode under Vista for me. Like Night and day almost and they both look pretty much the same.

[matrix787]

warhead runs so much faster in dx9 than dx10 under vista x64 its ridiculous!

[aceflier]

warhead runs so much faster in dx9 than dx10 under vista x64 its ridiculous!

Hmm Im running everything at enthusiast but shadows on gamer at 1680x1050 90% through the game in DX10 and I havent had one instance where I thought that it was running slow.

Maybe warhead has better quad core support?

I also have 4gb ram?

I'm getting as good as or better performance at this resolution as I did in crysis at 1366x768 all very high/shadows medium. (Considering what is happening on screen that is amazing) Was also very smooth in crysis for me.

I duno warhead runs fine for me.

Wish the new gtx260's would release soon so I can make a decision on what sli solution to go with vanilla or 216 sp?

[wysiwyg]

wtf

bloody thing is running worse than Crysis is for me, seems more sluggish at same res. crysis is very smooth on my rig on high with dx custom dx9 config thing tat gives dx10 effects, but not warhead :(

aso im getting weird effects or glow textures popping up lots like this one=

anyone know why?

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6725/warheadwtfqk6.jpg

anyone?

[Feyy]

Driver issue/conflict with older files?

Try newest drivers with a proper cleanout?
Card overheating?

[Eliminator]

the game does run better... ive set everything to enthusiast except for shadows which i keep on gamer and these are the tweaks im using
r_MotionBlur=0
r_DepthOfField=0
r_UseEdgeAA=0
r_SSAO=0 (biggest boost here)
im getting 40-60 fps at 1920x1200 in the first level so far... AF doesnt seem to be working for me... it just kills performance but it doesnt work on any surface so i keep it off

[CaptNKILL]

r_SSAO=0 (biggest boost here)

I just looked that up to find out what it was...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Space_Ambient_Occlusion

That actually looks like the thing that was missing in the Warhead screens in the Crysis vs. Warhead comparison shots earlier...

Is that off by default at most settings?

[agentkay]

Definitely runs better, everything set to enthusiast at 1920x1080, no issues with blurry textures or LOD either (DX9, XP, 177.83)

[Eliminator]

Definitely runs better, everything set to enthusiast at 1920x1080, no issues with blurry textures or LOD either (DX9, XP, 177.83)
i noticed some blurry textures in a few places even up close... also using same drivers

I just looked that up to find out what it was...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Space_Ambient_Occlusion

That actually looks like the thing that was missing in the Warhead screens in the Crysis vs. Warhead comparison shots earlier...

Is that off by default at most settings?
i havent checked in warhead but in the original crysis it is only on by default when using very high shaders... basically it just makes the lighting a tad better in some places... not worth the big performance drop (25%) at all IMO... i just started the snow level and the performance is a lot lower there...

[agentkay]

i noticed some blurry textures in a few places even up close... also using same drivers


I was actually expecting to see some and was ready to disable the texture streaming but atm (just arrived at the harbor) I really don't see why I should do that. Did you try to disable texture streaming?

SSAO is definitely enabled when you put everything on ethuasist/very high.

[Eliminator]

I was actually expecting to see some and was ready to disable the texture streaming but atm (just arrived at the harbor) I really don't see why I should do that. Did you try to disable texture streaming?

SSAO is definitely enabled when you put everything on ethuasist/very high.
i havent tried disabling texture streaming... iirc that screws up shadows in some areas?... also the game is a big RAM hog and i noticed a few small stutters since its going over my 2GB of RAM (no choice since im on XP32)... so disabling texture streaming would probably fill my system RAM in no time even with 1GB of video RAM

[Bman212121]

So it's a mixed bag. Some say it runs better, some say it runs worse. The LOD seems to be up in the air about which one looks better as well. From the screens I've seen posted it looks like Crysis looked better, but until you're in the game it's probably hard to tell.

[Mike89]

I don't notice one running any better than the other. I don't use fps counters, I just go by how the game runs (smoothness, movement, hiccups, etc).