Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central > Crysis

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-19-08, 10:40 AM   #25
Soetdjuret
Teh lazy swede
 
Soetdjuret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Svea
Posts: 1,982
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaWter View Post
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.
Soetdjuret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 10:48 AM   #26
Q
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,808
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

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.
Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 10:53 AM   #27
JH24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 143
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornadog View Post
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)
JH24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 10:57 AM   #28
nekrosoft13
I'm Geralt
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicagoland, once a year in Poland
Posts: 24,366
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornadog View Post
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
__________________
Windows 8 the next big failure, right after Windows ME
nekrosoft13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 11:12 AM   #29
mailman2
Ducking & Dodging
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,948
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Runs ALOT better using -dx9, I mean almost double the FPS here 1680x1050 @ Gamer. Even enthusiast is playabe now.
mailman2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 01:10 PM   #30
Madpistol
It's a wittle baby!
 
Madpistol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 4,554
Send a message via AIM to Madpistol
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nekrosoft13 View Post
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.
__________________
http://bfbc2.statsverse.com/sig/deta...d%20Pistol.png


MadPistol's Rig

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (RB-C3) @ 4Ghz, 1.425 Vcore, 1.25V NB VID
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme (w/ Scythe Gentle Typhoon 120mm fan)
Gigabyte UD3H AM3 790GX motherboard
XFX Radeon HD 5870
PNY XLR8 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600
G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600
Soundblaster X-Fi Fatality Titanium
OCZ Vertex II 120GB SSD (OS drive)
Western Digital 500GB Caviar (black)
Western Digital 640GB Blue
Samsung DVD burner
Logitech MX performance mouse
Logitech G15 keyboard
Corsair HX 750-watt Modular PSU
Antec Nine Hundred case
Windows 7 Home Premium x64
ASUS MK241 24" LCD
ACER X241W 24" LCD - RIP
Madpistol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 01:26 PM   #31
Soetdjuret
Teh lazy swede
 
Soetdjuret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Svea
Posts: 1,982
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpistol View Post
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?
Soetdjuret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 02:34 PM   #32
Madpistol
It's a wittle baby!
 
Madpistol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 4,554
Send a message via AIM to Madpistol
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soetdjuret View Post
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.
__________________
http://bfbc2.statsverse.com/sig/deta...d%20Pistol.png


MadPistol's Rig

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (RB-C3) @ 4Ghz, 1.425 Vcore, 1.25V NB VID
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme (w/ Scythe Gentle Typhoon 120mm fan)
Gigabyte UD3H AM3 790GX motherboard
XFX Radeon HD 5870
PNY XLR8 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600
G.Skill Ripjaws 2x2GB CL8 DDR3 1600
Soundblaster X-Fi Fatality Titanium
OCZ Vertex II 120GB SSD (OS drive)
Western Digital 500GB Caviar (black)
Western Digital 640GB Blue
Samsung DVD burner
Logitech MX performance mouse
Logitech G15 keyboard
Corsair HX 750-watt Modular PSU
Antec Nine Hundred case
Windows 7 Home Premium x64
ASUS MK241 24" LCD
ACER X241W 24" LCD - RIP
Madpistol is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-19-08, 06:48 PM   #33
Soetdjuret
Teh lazy swede
 
Soetdjuret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Svea
Posts: 1,982
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Nice
Soetdjuret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 07:03 PM   #34
crainger
 
crainger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia
Posts: 29,559
Send a message via AIM to crainger
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

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.
crainger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 08:42 PM   #35
matrix787
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

warhead runs so much faster in dx9 than dx10 under vista x64 its ridiculous!
__________________
E6750 @ 3.5Ghz (8x438)
8800GTX @ 620/1625/1010
P5K-E WIFI AP/SOLO
4GB OCZ PC6400 Platinum Rev 2
Corsair HX520 PSU
Benq FP241W
Antec P182 Gun Metal
matrix787 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-08, 09:24 PM   #36
aceflier
Bringer of teh Welt
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 197
Default Re: So how much better does Warhead really run?

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix787 View Post
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?
__________________
2600K 4.9ghz 1.38v
2X Palit gtx560ti 2gb 1000/2000
8gb 1600mhz Kingston HyperX
128gb Crusial Real SSD
750gb WD Black
Buggy wife RMA next week
Vantage P43697 3DMarks
3D Mark 11 P10008
aceflier is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"GPU has fallen off the bus" error on 650M unless a CUDA program run first amonakov NVIDIA Linux 0 06-18-12 07:34 PM
Getting the proprietary nvidia driver to run with Debian 3.0 r0 (woody) Katchina404 NVIDIA Linux 9 01-12-03 09:49 AM
What resolution do you all run Unreal2003 retail version at with all details on max.? imtim83 Gaming Central 9 10-04-02 11:17 AM
On The 333 Boards Does Anyone Run At 166fsb john19055 CPUs, Motherboards And Memory 22 07-30-02 08:39 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.