Crysis Warhead DX10 vs. DX9 comparisons and more!

[Blacky]

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/418x627/2008/09/Aufmacher_080918000803.jpg

DX10 vs DX9 comparisons pics (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,660402/News/Crysis_Warhead_-_Comparative_screenshots_with_DX9_vs_DX10_and_all_ quality_settings/)


Graphic cards benchs

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2008/09/Crysis_Warhead_GPU_1.JPG

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2008/09/Crysis_Warhead_GPU_2.JPG



More here (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,660468/Reviews/Crysis_Warhead_Benchmark_special_and_general_info_ about_the_game/?page=1)

[FischOderAal]

Looks like the tide changed from Crysis to Crysis Warhead. Wasn't the GTX280 better than HD-4870 in Crysis?

Now without FSAA/AF HD-4870 has higher minimum FPS, but lower max-FPS while with FSAA/AF the HD-4870 takes the crown :)

In your face NVIDIA :)

*SCNR*

€dith: I'm not a NVIDIA-hater, but I do feel malicious-joy/schadenfreude as NVIDIA behaved quite arrogant the past months imho.

Can you really say "schadenfreude" in english? :confused:

[ahmad]

The 48xx series are raping in all these new titles, nice :)

Also I noticed they are using quality on Geforce drivers.. for sure I can guarantee you it looks better on the Radeons too with these tests :)

I hope X2 scales nicely on this game!

[Epsilon84]

Howcome the min framerates go DOWN on higher end nVidia cards?

[STaRGaZeR]

Driver problems, GTX280 less minFPS than 9800GTX+? No way.

[josty2]

*cuddles his 4870.
I must say that the warhead graphics do look a lot nicer and I'm pleased to see that with some driver optimisation ATI has gotten a lot better at another TWIMTBP title.
But has performance gone up from crysis to warhead or are only the graphics improved bringing even worse performance?

[[XC] hipno650]

im not to sure about these tests considering the GTX 280 loses out to the 9800gtx+ and GTX 260 in mins by allot to. heck it loses to the 8800gt. im not to sure about this.

[Epsilon84]

Driver problems, GTX280 less minFPS than 9800GTX+? No way.

Indeed, something is clearly amiss with the nVidia results, and not just with the GTX200 cards either. How does the 8800GT get higher min framerates than the 8800GTS?

[Sagart]

I hope X2 scales nicely on this game!
Me too! ;)

Can someone with a 4870X2 run some tests?
Just pre-buyed my Warhead on Steam, but can't play in 10 hours or so. :(

[[XC] hipno650]

Me too! ;)

Can someone with a 4870X2 run some tests?
Just pre-buyed my Warhead on Steam, but can't play in 10 hours or so. :(
sorry to say but from what i have seen crossfire is a no go and does next to nothing for you:(. hopefully drivers will fix that

[FischOderAal]

Indeed, something is clearly amiss with the nVidia results, and not just with the GTX200 cards either. How does the 8800GT get higher min framerates than the 8800GTS?

They didn't mention if it's the G80 GTS or G92 GTS. From the differences I'd guess it's a G80 GTS und G92 GT.

[Macadamia]

You know what? Disregarding min frames (buggy testing), the average frames are quite coherent with shader power. (ATI's PR values need to be 0.7x-0.8xed)

The GTX 260 doesn't have much over the 9800GTX+ in shader power, so maybe it shows here. Texture processing wise nVidia has always overshot the requirement by a mile since G80 so it's not the problem.

GTX260: 715 GFlops
9800GTX+: 705 GFlops

Making sense now?

Looks like a straight up repeat of G71 vs R580. Tsk...

[Silver Bullet]

Glad to see my new 4870 going to do well... Palit Radeon HD 4870 Sonic Dual Edition (http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=32991&promoid=1008) - $238 CND (AMIR $20) :)

[Epsilon84]

They didn't mention if it's the G80 GTS or G92 GTS. From the differences I'd guess it's a G80 GTS und G92 GT.

I don't think so, a G80 GTS won't get higher avg framerates than a G92 GT.

[Blacky]

The 48xx series are raping in all these new titles, nice :)

Also I noticed they are using quality on Geforce drivers.. for sure I can guarantee you it looks better on the Radeons too with these tests :)

I hope X2 scales nicely on this game!

I hope its scales nice as well but we all know how bad xfire does on crysis

[XS2K]

Err Crysis has no DX10 special effects,the site that reviewed this says so (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,653869/News/Crysis_Warhead_No_more_special_DirectX_10_effects/) (neither the old one,the Very High settings were locked manually just for Vista) so there is no DX9/10 comparison....
Also I don't see how the 48xx series are "raping" the competition(since in the 2'nd graph all the card's have a sucky FPS),gotta put my RED goggles on!

[Tonucci]

hipno650;3297838']im not to sure about these tests considering the GTX 280 loses out to the 9800gtx+ and GTX 260 in mins by allot to. heck it loses to the 8800gt. im not to sure about this.

+1


I wanna see more reviews.....With Warhead vs old crysis performance/IQ too :)

[mascaras]

hipno650;3297838']im not to sure about these tests considering the GTX 280 loses out to the 9800gtx+ and GTX 260 in mins by allot to. heck it loses to the 8800gt. im not to sure about this.


maybe driver problems >> http://rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1335619964&postcount=311

:shrug:


regards

[purecain]

i would not like these numbers if i were a gtx280 owner...

[ShArKo]

crytek said that the game will be more optimized than original crysis :s :s

Well..... 27 average FPS for a 8800GTS is to low :s I get more in the original crysis with my 8800GTS (G92)......

I will post some screen shot when I install the game to night or tomorrow....... :D

[foch3 -USA-]

This has to be hard to swallow for Jen-Hsun Huang, I thought Nvidia was the last man standing.

Though its clearly a drive issue for the min fps I don't think its as easy to say that for the avg with FSAA/AF.

[clayton]

Well the game is said to have sharper textures and graphical updates. Wouldn't be suprised if cards suffer lower FPS on MAXED settings compared to the older Crysis engine.

[Klarko]

Wheres The 4870 X2????

[MrMojoZ]

Also I don't see how the 48xx series are "raping" the competition(since in the 2'nd graph all the card's have a sucky FPS),gotta put my RED goggles on!

The card that costs $100 less wins, thats not exactly cool. Hopefully Nvidia can fix this with drivers.

[Shintai]

Even with drievr problems the 280GTX would beat the 260GTX since they are identical in architecture. Sounds like a flaw in the test setup or simply the result->graph part...Same with the 8800 series.

[gregorisvas]

I surrely hope with the 8800GTS 512MB SLI the game will be playable... :S I'm not in the mood of changing graphics cards once again...

[FlawleZ]

It's interesting to note the performance of the 7900GTX vs X1900XTX, ignore the fact that they're both humbled by Warhead and look at the difference between the two. In their hay day, they were very similar performers with the X1900XTX always having the slight advantage depending on the game. But the extra shader power of the X1K series really shines through these newer games. Almost as if ATI had a bit more foresight than Nvidia at the time.

[Hockster]

Pretty poor results so far for every card. I certainly won't pay for a game that runs like crap.

[T_Flight]

Oh God... :(

I read this whole thread only to realize we have another massively overdrawn game and that proves the GTX280 is still new and needs more dev on the drivers.

Even after the drivers have been optimized for the card the game will still be massively overdrawn and whether it's ATi or nVidia or Intel or AMD on the CPU it won't matter. If you crank up the eye candy you will not get to 60 FPS minimum even with the most expensive of systems.

I've seen crysis on a freinds machine, and really don't know what all the excitement is about. He bought it for the novelty after they stated it would have DX10 features which it didn't and really hasn't played it much. He mainly uses it as a benchmark and test game.

It's basically just another running through the Jungle shooter that is massively overdrawn and inefficient. I'm hoping game companies start getting back to efficient use of resources. I hope they push it, but we need to get back to 60 FPS min. There are too many of these games that can't be played smoothly for years after they are released.

I really don't pay any attention to "system specs" because they are never near enough. I wanna see them post a system that will maintain a min of 60 FPS average 100 with higher peaks. That's smoothness. In this case they can't, becasue that technology doesn't exist yet.

[Blacky]

I don't know but, I never bought when EA said that crysis warhead was going to be more "optimized" than the previous crysis game, I didn't expected better results than those either... seems like we need to wait next-gen (GT400 & R900?) cards to run this game like supposed to, because latest cards seem to still struggling on crysis.

[G0ldBr1ck]

I dont understand why just like the first Crysis so many are complaining that they made the game to demanding. Why is this so bad when they provide a way to set the graphics to run just fine on current hardware? I think its great that they push it that far, 2 years from now using the latest hardware the game will still look great rather than outdated.

[FlawleZ]

I dont understand why just like the first Crysis so many are complaining that they made the game to demanding. Why is this so bad when they provide a way to set the graphics to run just fine on current hardware? I think its great that they push it that far, 2 years from now using the latest hardware the game will still look great rather than outdated.

I agree mostly, except for the simple fact that 90% of Crysis/Warhead owners will NOT be playing this game at all in 2 years. Beautiful graphics or not, the gameplay itself will be mundane to say the least.

[MrMojoZ]

I think its great that they push it that far, 2 years from now using the latest hardware the game will still look great rather than outdated.

Well there is a diffrence between poorly coded and pushing the limits.

[Papu]

I agree mostly, except for the simple fact that 90% of Crysis/Warhead owners will NOT be playing this game at all in 2 years. Beautiful graphics or not, the gameplay itself will be mundane to say the least.

there your wrong...

[Papu]

Oh God... :(

I read this whole thread only to realize we have another massively overdrawn game and that proves the GTX280 is still new and needs more dev on the drivers.

Even after the drivers have been optimized for the card the game will still be massively overdrawn and whether it's ATi or nVidia or Intel or AMD on the CPU it won't matter. If you crank up the eye candy you will not get to 60 FPS minimum even with the most expensive of systems.

I've seen crysis on a freinds machine, and really don't know what all the excitement is about. He bought it for the novelty after they stated it would have DX10 features which it didn't and really hasn't played it much. He mainly uses it as a benchmark and test game.

It's basically just another running through the Jungle shooter that is massively overdrawn and inefficient. I'm hoping game companies start getting back to efficient use of resources. I hope they push it, but we need to get back to 60 FPS min. There are too many of these games that can't be played smoothly for years after they are released.

I really don't pay any attention to "system specs" because they are never near enough. I wanna see them post a system that will maintain a min of 60 FPS average 100 with higher peaks. That's smoothness. In this case they can't, becasue that technology doesn't exist yet.

have you played crysis? it does certainly NOT need 60fps min , 30 will suffice to have the game feeling smooth

[Winzeler]

I'm staying above 30 (with a few exceptions pushing me down to 25) with 2 GTX 280's. I have it set to 1920x1200, Enthusiast settings, and 8x AA. If I turn off 8x AA (which doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the eye candy) I stay comfortably above 50.

I loved the first Crysis SP, and am loving the second.

If you didn't like the first one, you won't like this one. If you wanted to rant about the performance of the first one, you'll probably want to rant about the performance of this one.

So far, my only complaint with this game has been the lack of any developments in AI.

[cantankerous]

Is there at least blood in this game when shooting the Koreans? If you shoot a dead corpse on the ground, does it actually react, or do you still shoot through it as if it was invisible into the ground below?

[Shakti]

PCGH is the famous magazine which 1. testet HD 4870 X2 on a defect Nvidia motherboard 2. testified micro stutter as a result of this defect motherboard 3. didnt comprehend their unlimited stupidity 5. were aggressiv against german hardware forum members who doubted the results 4. after weeks and weeks said to their readers we are sorry - so do us all a favour, stop posting their nonsens here, we are all better off.

[s e r e n i t y]

Is there at least blood in this game when shooting the Koreans? If you shoot a dead corpse on the ground, does it actually react, or do you still shoot through it as if it was invisible into the ground below?

By law Crytek is not allowed to enable gore under German legislation.

This was said before Crysis.

[foch3 -USA-]

But others are seeing the same results.

[Shakti]

I will NOT buy Warhead, because they stopped OFFICIALLY the support for Crysis, and even announced that worldwide, so they shot themselves in the foot.
And, to make all even worse, here is a short text from crymod-forum concerning copy protection:

Quote: You can install it on your PC as many times as you want. You can do this for 5 computers.
So if you change your hardware that counts as a new PC. Honestly, 5 upgrades is quite some time.
Also you can contact EA if you require any further activations. I would say that is pretty good. Quote end.


EA, I would say words (instead of pretty good) which would be censored, but to make it clear: EA, you will NOT get any Cent from me, got it?

And concerning ragdoll: The first version of Farcry in germany had ragdoll, and was rated mature, and later replaced by a castrated version. All Farcry versions worldwide had ragdoll enabled, even asian versions.
But since EA wants to sell Crysis to children, they took ragdoll, splatter etc. out of the game to make it compatible with THE SIMS... Maybe in half a year they sell it to children for their handy or whatever.

Years ago i had said i wait for the day that Quake from id software becomes non bloodied, but hey, id's next game will be published from: EA.

[Natalia]

When will people learn that DX10 is like giving your GPU a tapeworm.

[ahmad]

When will people learn that DX10 is like giving your GPU a tapeworm.

Whether you like it or not, dx10 is here, and its mean :D

PCGH is the famous magazine which 1. testet HD 4870 X2 on a defect Nvidia motherboard 2. testified micro stutter as a result of this defect motherboard 3. didnt comprehend their unlimited stupidity 5. were aggressiv against german hardware forum members who doubted the results 4. after weeks and weeks said to their readers we are sorry - so do us all a favour, stop posting their nonsens here, we are all better off.

I haven't forgotten. Yes I don't trust their articles one bit, however the trend in the recent titles has been the same: 4870 matches/outpaces gtx280 (check stalker clear sky). So for now, these are the numbers we have. If we can find better, I am all for it.

have you played crysis? it does certainly NOT need 60fps min , 30 will suffice to have the game feeling smooth

You are also forgetting that it neither needs to run at Very high settings nor does it need 24xAA, nor 2560x1630 (or whatever is) resolution.

If you have the power go for it. Most of us don't have enough video cards to make this run smooth (if it were that simple), so I say enjoy it at lower settings until the hardware catches up.

And for those saying gtx280 drivers blah blah, don't forget this game is developed on the gt200, for the gt200. For some little guy to kick the snot out of it is not easy. Especially since ATI hasn't dropped their optimized drivers for this game yet.

[Macadamia]

PCGH is the only website that doesn't seem to be paid off by nVidia to do daring tests.


Other sites just ignore these tests, or does them in the dumbest way ever.

[MomijiTMO]

I can barely see a difference between DX9 and DX10 [apart from chicken count lol].

[STaRGaZeR]

I can barely see a difference between DX9 and DX10 [apart from chicken count lol].

Because there is no difference at all. Well yes, a significant perfomance drop.

[XS2K]

Err... if the test wasn't made when fighting then it is FUD atleast the 4850 part,I get higher FPS than that on gamer settings ~30-35

[DragoonXX]

Because there is no difference at all. Well yes, a significant perfomance drop.

at the most I see slightly better water effects in DX10, but that's it

[RejZoR]

Thats not true that DX10 is slower. It's all up to design. Check out Unigine Tropics Demo. It runs faster under DX10 and also looks better (especially observe palm leaves reflections in water in the first cut sequence). In DX9 and OGL modes, water reflection is way too green, while with DX10 it looks totally natural and even runs faster.

[Tonucci]

... however the trend in the recent titles has been the same: 4870 matches/outpaces gtx280 (check stalker clear sky).



What recent titles other than stalker ? How does it makes an "trent in recent titles" ? Care to point to credible reviews showing what you said ?


After reading many reviews it became clear to me that the gtx280 is, in general (of course I could run around posting carefully selected graphs), substantially faster than the 4870.

Im not disagreeing just for the sake of it, maybe Im just outdated. Its just that, from all I have seen, it seems to me that your point would be valid for the gtx260 only.

[zerazax]

What recent titles other than stalker ? How does it makes an "trent in recent titles" ? Care to point to credible reviews showing what you said ?


After reading many reviews it became clear to me that the gtx280 is, in general (of course I could select a few occasions where it loses, and run around posting carefully selected graphs), substantially faster than the 4870.

Im not disagreeing just for the sake of it, maybe Im just outdated. Its just that, from all I have seen, it seems to me that your point would be valid for the gtx260 only.


GRID seems to favor the 4870 a lot, as does Age of Conan, though I guess that depends on how you define "recent", and AC as well though thats further back now

If games get more shader intensive, the 4870 will have the edge since it has a higher ALU:TEX ratio (and Nvidia moved to a higher ALU:TEX ratio with the GT200's, which is favorable to ATI's design)

[RunawayPrisoner]

Ah hah!
Crysis vanilla: r_ssao_quality = 1
Crysis Warheads vanilla: r_ssao_quality = 2

"Improved" graphics much? :p: Now... since SSAO is concerned, no wonder the HD4800 series would do better. SSAO is very shader-intensive.

That aside, there will be problems when SSAO is increased in Crysis... all 3D models will start having an outer-rim overlay that is either bright or light depending on the color of the model behind them... Fix is to increase r_ssao_radius to a very large number. See attachments for pics of before and after.

P.S.: SSAO in Crysis Warheads seems to be stage-specific, too.

[Tonucci]

GRID seems to favor the 4870 a lot, as does Age of Conan, though I guess that depends on how you define "recent", and AC as well though thats further back now

If games get more shader intensive, the 4870 will have the edge since it has a higher ALU:TEX ratio (and Nvidia moved to a higher ALU:TEX ratio with the GT200's, which is favorable to ATI's design)

I was reading a few reviews to see if you are right, and found out that, in AoC, the gtx280 is a little faster (even @ high res +AA). In grid the 4870 had slightly higher avg fps. I cant see how 2 or 3 games could indicate an trent or things to come. These games are new but they are nothing too special, graphically wise.

How they perform in future, shader intensive games is yet to be seen. Whats on paper does not necessarily translates to reality like this. Current gen ati cards may have alot of shader power but may be bottlenecked by other aspects in the future. It does look promising, but lets not stretch it too much. We simply dont know.

Hd4870 price/performance is awesome, but lets not get carried away and make it look like more than it is.

Sorry for the OT, this was my last post about the subject.

[XS2K]

Well there is a diffrence between poorly coded and pushing the limits.

And you know that Warhead is poorly coded because you designed a game which looks the same or better and runs faster?:rolleyes:
Also the games runs with ~8-10FPS better than the original one and still looks better,think of it could you play Crysis Very High with 2XAA on a 4850 and still get 35-40FPS and ~25-30 in combat?
The game looks out of this world most of the times yeah the trees need some work as other things but untill there is a game that tops Crysis graphic wise you can't say that it is badly coded.

[Decami]

The funniest part about this is in comparison 4, the distant cliffside looks more realistic in mainstream no aa, no af mode than dx10 or 9 enthusiast mode with aa and af. If you are any kind of hiker or sight seer, you will understand, or have seen high quality shots in scenarios that resemble it. The mist seems to completely discolor the cliff side, which is just not what happens.

i must say though, warhead looks better than original graphically, sun light illumination is alot more realistic and the shadows cast a little better.

[XS2K]

It's because of the particle effects....
For a detailed video memory usage in Crysis check this (http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=11614)

[Luka_Aveiro]

My ram/vram consuming...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3300728&postcount=363

[RunawayPrisoner]

Also the games runs with ~8-10FPS better than the original one and still looks better,think of it could you play Crysis Very High with 2XAA on a 4850 and still get 35-40FPS and ~25-30 in combat?

Yes, if it's in DX9. I have tested that.

DX10 Enthusiast in Crysis Warheads is a slideshow at 10fps. From my own experience, the difference between Crysis and Crysis Warheads is zero.

The funniest part about this is in comparison 4, the distant cliffside looks more realistic in mainstream no aa, no af mode than dx10 or 9 enthusiast mode with aa and af. If you are any kind of hiker or sight seer, you will understand, or have seen high quality shots in scenarios that resemble it. The mist seems to completely discolor the cliff side, which is just not what happens.

i must say though, warhead looks better than original graphically, sun light illumination is alot more realistic and the shadows cast a little better.

Because... ahem... like stated above, of SSAO. SSAO was the trick that others are using to get "Ultra High" in Crysis. It's nothing new. Just increase dark and bright (HDR). In this case, Crytek is only increasing SSAO. You can check that via the console, or it's visible enough: models in some places without illumination will have some kind of fog overlaying them. Refer to the screenshots I posted above.

Maybe I should say this now: Crysis Warheads IS just as fast... or slower, than Crysis with a good, tweaked game.cfg. Period. The game engine is intact. The two games play the same. There is no difference... at all. If you implement Crysis Warheads' settings (SSAO and other things) into Crysis, it'll make Crysis look really close to Warheads. If you feel like the lights are better, etc... it's only because Crytek pulled the sun closer to the ground, which was exactly what other Crysis mods were doing to achieve a more "natural" look.

P.S.: Again, Crysis Warheads changed almost NOTHING significant from Crysis!

[MrMojoZ]

And you know that Warhead is poorly coded because you designed a game which looks the same or better and runs faster?:rolleyes:


I didn't make a claim one way or ther other, I answered a question with the correct answer. :rolleyes:

[ahmad]

I cant see how 2 or 3 games could indicate an trent or things to come. These games are new but they are nothing too special, graphically wise.


You contradict yourself there, and its exactly what I am saying: the recent titles favour red :) . Doesn't matter what you think of it, thats my statement. Even in bioshock, 4870 loses to gtx 280 by 5FPS.. which is gained by a simple overclock in CCC.

Don't forget, you are comparing a $500 beast to a $300 card. Theoretically, the gtx280 should never lose to the 4870. We will see how my statement holds with the upcoming games.

[jaredpace]

Wheres The 4870 X2????

off the charts:p:

[Tonucci]

You contradict yourself there, and its exactly what I am saying: the recent titles favour red :) . Doesn't matter what you think of it, thats my statement. Even in bioshock, 4870 loses to gtx 280 by 5FPS.. which is gained by a simple overclock in CCC.

Don't forget, you are comparing a $500 beast to a $300 card. Theoretically, the gtx280 should never lose to the 4870. We will see how my statement holds with the upcoming games.

What contradiction ?

"the recent titles favor red" ? 2 or 3 games are THE recent titles ? All 2 or 3 of them ? What about the other new titles ? lol .... There is no pattern when we are dealing with exceptions.

You are stretching it way beyond reason when you say that a few titles, among the new ones, are indicative of any kind of trend.

You started saying that 4870 matches/outpaces gtx280, and then you mentioned one game. Now you are talking about price/performance and losing by a few fps not being so bad. Seems a little lost to me. Werent we talking about hd4870 matching/outpacing the gts280 in pure performance ? Way to spin things up when it doesnt go your way :confused:

Im not taking what you said too literally, I just asked for concrete info that bases your opinion. Looks like theres none, just speculation and willingness for ATI to come out on top. A few new games out of many doesnt prove much nor indicates an trend.

I have 3 ati cards here, Im using one right now. Im not an biased fan trying to defend nvidia. I was just wondering if you had concrete evidence to support your claims. Looks like I was wrong, they are baseless :)


Like you said, lets wait and see, instead of trying to predict the future without elements for doing so. :up:

[foch3 -USA-]

All I want to know is, who is Trent?

[Tonucci]

All I want to know is, who is Trent?

My english failed me. Thanks for pointing it out :up:

[GAR]

does this game have a multiplayer???? i dont see one in the menu.

[mikeyakame]

Yes. Crysis Wars disc. It's the MP component. If you bought a copy which I'll assume you did then it's either included in the box or download seperately from EA Live, D2D, Steam etc!

Plays much smoother than the Original at same settings. 1920x1200 DX10 All Enthusiast 0xAA 0xAF 25-30fps avg on my gtx280.

One other thing when using DX9 mode game consumes between 1.5-2x the DX10 ram. Separate copy of VRam is stored in main system RAM, this is where DX9 loses over DX10.

Overall I'm quite happy about Crytek's effort on Warhead. Valve screwed around alot on Steam though. Us aussies didn't get the game till 10-11am 19th our time.

[GAR]

Yes. Crysis Wars disc. It's the MP component. If you bought a copy which I'll assume you did then it's either included in the box or download seperately from EA Live, D2D, Steam etc!

Plays much smoother than the Original at same settings. 1920x1200 DX10 All Enthusiast 0xAA 0xAF 25-30fps avg on my gtx280.

One other thing when using DX9 mode game consumes between 1.5-2x the DX10 ram. Separate copy of VRam is stored in main system RAM, this is where DX9 loses over DX10.

Overall I'm quite happy about Crytek's effort on Warhead. Valve screwed around alot on Steam though. Us aussies didn't get the game till 10-11am 19th our time.

Ahhh, ofcourse the other disk...... thanks.

[Tonucci]

I wonder if the enthusiast settings really has everything that very high has. It looks like it does, but we could be missing something.

Just out of curiosity tho... Im not complaining, since it seems to be equally good but with better performance.

[mikeyakame]

It actually looks further improved over very high of the original, seems they tweaked it up a notch

[003]

Game is a load of :banana::banana::banana::banana:. I have to set it at 1440x900 on "good performance" (two steps below max) with only 4xaa to get a semi playable framerate on dual 4870X2s. The game is fun, but I am really starting to get :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing pissed off at the lack of crossfire scaling in crysis.

[Tonucci]

Game is a load of :banana::banana::banana::banana:. I have to set it at 1440x900 on "good performance" (two steps below max) with only 4xaa to get a semi playable framerate on dual 4870X2s. The game is fun, but I am really starting to get :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing pissed off at the lack of crossfire scaling in crysis.

Is your quad overclocked ?

CFX scaling may be deficient, but I think you are very CPU limited at your res and settings.

[003]

Yes, 3.7GHz.

I score 22k in 3dmark06 and X12900 in vantage.

And Crysis actually performs about the same as Warhead @ the aforementioned settings, except I can have Crysis at 1920x1200, 8xAA and all very high.

[WRC]

003 you might have to wait for better drivers. For my videocard (8800gts g80) the game will not run at all on enthusiast setting with the old 177.92. I just upgraded to 177.98 and now it doesn't crash anymore

[RejZoR]

I'll rather play Far Cry again...

[NightCrawler™]

That article is bull... I can play CW at gamers settings @ 1680x1050, no AA AF, DX9 at an average of 30-35FPS.. that's with the system in my sig..
The only thing I've turned off is the blur...

[mikeyakame]

003 you might have to wait for better drivers. For my videocard (8800gts g80) the game will not run at all on enthusiast setting with the old 177.92. I just upgraded to 177.98 and now it doesn't crash anymore

i second that. 177.98 is quite good except the DV bug in vista x64, but thats only once a reboot and negligible for now.

[mikeyakame]

Game is a load of :banana::banana::banana::banana:. I have to set it at 1440x900 on "good performance" (two steps below max) with only 4xaa to get a semi playable framerate on dual 4870X2s. The game is fun, but I am really starting to get :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing pissed off at the lack of crossfire scaling in crysis.

i'm pretty sure i've heard or read somewhere from Crytek that Cryengine 2 doesn't scale very well beyond 2 cards. Even Tri-SLI scales quite poorly from what i've seen.

[Stukov]

i'm pretty sure i've heard or read somewhere from Crytek that Cryengine 2 doesn't scale very well beyond 2 cards. Even Tri-SLI scales quite poorly from what i've seen.

Has there been a 'Cryengine 2' driver released yet for either side?

[mikeyakame]

negative on that, us NV guys are either using 177.92 officially from NV or 177.98 which is a leaked driver but runs better than the last official beta.

[Stukov]

negative on that, us NV guys are either using 177.92 officially from NV or 177.98 which is a leaked driver but runs better than the last official beta.

I would just assume that both sides would work on performance across the board with the game and that it's too early to tell how good/bad scaling will be in the game.

[mikeyakame]

you definitely arent wrong there! there is work to be done for both, and with that no doubt will be AFR profiles and optimizations to warhead from cryteks side.

[003]

003 you might have to wait for better drivers. For my videocard (8800gts g80) the game will not run at all on enthusiast setting with the old 177.92. I just upgraded to 177.98 and now it doesn't crash anymore

Better drivers my arse. Crysis has been out for how long now? ATI and nvidia both know how good it would look on paper if they were to put out a driver that scaled well with multi GPU configurations in Crysis.

If it hasn't already been released, it never will be, IMO.


And quite frankly, Crysis scales for :banana::banana::banana::banana: even with two cards. Average FPS will go up about 2, maybe 5 at various peaks.

[JohnZS]

I don't understand why they are using Forceware 177.41 when 177.92 has been out for quite a while...they are even using Catalyst 8.9! which is a brand new ATi driver, if you ask me this benchmark is rigged
John

[Blacky]

my friend got it yesterday and he said the game is a memory hog besides GPU power, 2gb isn't enough for this game he claims, also I spoke with another friend and he said that the first one runs smoother than this one...

[Xion X2]

hipno650;3297854']sorry to say but from what i have seen crossfire is a no go and does next to nothing for you:(. hopefully drivers will fix that

Not sure where you're getting this. Crossfire works well on Crysis these days.

Here are some benches that I put together for 4870X2/CrossfireX. Unfortunately I didn't have a single 4870 to test with, but you can see that going from 2 GPUS > 4 even benefits significantly when using Very High / 4xAA / 1920x:

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/8427/crysisjg4.jpg

Here's a shot of DX10, all Very High at 1920x with 2xAA. 56fps according to the little fraps counter in the upper right-hand corner:

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7254/crysisfrapsng7.jpg

[inCore]

my friend got it yesterday and he said the game is a memory hog besides GPU power, 2gb isn't enough for this game he claims, also I spoke with another friend and he said that the first one runs smoother than this one...

They always have to be one step ahead. Just when we thought hardware was slowly catching up to Crysis, BANG, Crytek blows our dreams into next year.

[Eastcoasthandle]

huh?
I can do 1680x1050 with 4xAA and get between 25fps-30fps and it's very fluid at that speed. When I decreased settings to get 50 FPS immersion improvement (smoothness, responsiveness, etc) was nearly the same.

[Bla$nA]

@ Xion X2:
Your Results are really amazing but it seems like you are the only 4870X2 user having such a nice Performance in Crysis.. did you do anything? any kind of cfg or something?
if i play Crysis @ Very High DX10 it seems like i walk from one picture into another :|
Was the last screen with 1920x1200 dx10 very high 56fps with 2 oder 1 4870x2?

[Xion X2]

No special configs. Using the latest Crysis patch and the 8.9 drivers. The 8.9 drivers provided around a 20% performance boost on both a single X2 and CrossfireX. Also running Vista 64.

The screenshot was taken in quadfire mode (4 gpus.) A single X2 gets me about 40fps at that same location.

Testing was conducted using fraps, and here are the logs. The logs have been modified to show the different graphics configs (High/Very High/2xAA/4xAA) but the numbers were not altered in any way. Results for CrossfireX(4 gpus) are at the top, and the X2 results are at the bottom.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/114/crysisfrapsgm4.jpg

[ahmad]

I see what they mean by free 4xAA... Who to believe, biased reviewers or real data... :)

Thanks for sharing.

[nosboost300]

sooo, anyone got some numbers for 4850 crossfire for crysis... i just bought me a pair and i'm hoping to play crysis on a modded high in dx9... hopefully its as playable as it was on my old 9800gx2 @ 1920x1080

[Xion X2]

Yeah, there really is virtually no difference between 2/4xAA, but 8xAA takes too much of a hit on Very High--even w/ 4 GPUs.

The one thing I left out of my sig is that I'm running 4GB of RAM. I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not, but I've "heard" that Vista likes more than 2GB for gaming. I also have 16x PCIe 2.0 on both lanes. I noticed bla$na is running a P35. I don't want to speculate on someone's hardware, but I'm wondering if that could be bottlenecking the card. Seems like Crysis on very high likes a ton of bandwidth. I read quite a few reviews where even a P45 was bottlenecking 4870 Crossfire on Crysis. Once I saw that, I made the move from my P45 to this X48.

It runs well, though. There are occasional drops to 30 and 25 on a rare occasion (usually in completely open landscapes where you can see off into the distance for miles), but there are several areas where it runs in the mid-high 50s as you see in the snapshot above.

[Donnie27]

Mine runs well too when its responding LOL! I got a "not responding" App crash at 32% loading the Thunder Level :rolleyes:

[RunawayPrisoner]

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee60/cuongvietpham/Crysis/DX10.jpg

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee60/cuongvietpham/Crysis/DX9.jpg

Thought this would be interesting. CPU usage is smoother and lower on DX10. DX9 is significantly faster. And... since we're just looking at a scene, it's obvious: ATI drivers offload something onto the CPU all the time.

[Psykocyber]

Thought this would be interesting. CPU usage is smoother and lower on DX10. DX9 is significantly faster. And... since we're just looking at a scene, it's obvious: ATI drivers offload something onto the CPU all the time.Or it could simply be because DX10 has a lower CPU overhead.

[doomwill]

Crysis Warhead Enthusiast DX 9 vs DX10

DX9 1680x1050 Enthusiast


http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c158/willdoom/crysis1680x1050novoteste.jpg


DX10 1680x1050 Enthusiast

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c158/willdoom/dx101650x1050validato.jpg

[Nasgul]

So, basically you can't play this game with current cards........unless you wait 2 years and use those cards to play this game with high settings all the way?

Good, I just saved myself $25 and will wait for when it gets down to $9.99.

Now that I got this sweet 24" monitor I can't make good use of it because Crysis is a video card killer.....:down:

[gosh]

Here is another picture of how the CPU works

Phenom 9500 (2,2 Ghz), 4870X2, DX 10
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3415/crysiswareheadvl9.jpg

I think that "draw calls" is much easier on DX 10 compared to DX 9 for the cpu, there are some switching from user to kernel mode on DX 9 and that is a very heavy operation. DX 10 has optimized this

[Unbornchild]

@ Xion X2:
Your Results are really amazing but it seems like you are the only 4870X2 user having such a nice Performance in Crysis..

He's not the only one, I too have extraordinary good performance in Crysis. Maxed out settings 1600x1200, smooth as butter.
if i play Crysis @ Very High DX10 it seems like i walk from one picture into another :|
Your main problem is you've got only 2 GB RAM in Vista. You need 4 GB (in V 32-bit) and of course SP1 and all later updates.
So, basically you can't play this game with current cards........unless you wait 2 years Pay attention. HD 4870X2.

[WRC]

wow im truly impressed by the hd 4870x2. This means if i get the card i can run crysis smoothly@very high with 4x aa using my 20 in lcd (1680*1050). Thanks for the benches xion x2

[003]

Hold On A Second Here.

Xion X2 and Unbornchild.

How the hell are you getting such good performance with 2x 4870X2 CFX?!!?

Especially you Xion!! You mean to tell me that you run the game at 1920x1200, all Very High/Enthusiast settings, and 4xAA, and your MINIMUM framerate was 30fps?!?!

Either that is a load of BS or there is something wrong with my system!!!

I have Catalyst 8.9 and 2x 4870X2 CFX as well, and a Q9450 @ 459*8, and 8GB of DDR2 RAM @ 1103. I score X12900 in 3DMark Vantage.

Crysis and Crysis Warhead don't perform nearly as well as the results you are posting!! If I play at 1920x1200, Very High/Enthusiast and 4xAA my FPS will frequently be in the 20s and occasionally in the high teens. If I look at a floor or a low detail area I might be lucky to see 40-50fps.

What the hell gives here? How can I get the kind of performance you are getting!? :(

[Unbornchild]

First: those are not my charts. I too find those figures high.

I just discovered the benchtool 2 hours ago.
Since, i am benching the game that plays smooth as butter in each and every scene, @ all enthusiast, 1600x1200 8xAA, on DX 10 / DX 9 the same. And i'm surprised to see the real fps (according to the benchtool). Again it's proof Crysis (and Warhead more so) doesn't need more than 28 average (18 min) -EDIT: on a HD 4870X2- to look and feel absolutely smooth and stutterless. Apparently with Crysis, the objective fps isn't the whole story, the subjective experience (that what you notice) is as if about 50 ~60 fps constant.

[003]

It's not that it doesn't need more than 28fps. It's that we're all used to playing it at 28fps. Set the graphics and resolution really low so you get 60-70 avg fps, and you will see how much smoother it is.

[WRC]

xion x2 is using SSD drives and from the reviews i've seen, they greatly improve minimum frame-rates on some games versus the HDD's due to low acces times. I think this is the reason why the frames don't dip down too much http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=14

[Unbornchild]

It IS already smooth. Plus at max visual quality. What more do you want?

Plus, a single 512MB 4870 gives almost 25 fps at the same settings (on this same PC of mine) but with stutters (512MB VRAM limit) and when fps dips to 15 or lower you get disturbing delays. On 4870X2 those do not happen, although the measured fps (in benchtool or fraps) is only about the same in the dips (unnoticeable ingame) and 5 fps higher in the avg (again: ingame experience feels much higher).
Amazing smoothness is probably due to the combination of the 1 GB VRAM and shaderpower of the card and Crytek's smart programming.

[ahmad]

He has a 1000watt PSU, you don't. Also, probably different bioses all around, maybe :shrug:

Hold On A Second Here.

Xion X2 and Unbornchild.

How the hell are you getting such good performance with 2x 4870X2 CFX?!!?

Especially you Xion!! You mean to tell me that you run the game at 1920x1200, all Very High/Enthusiast settings, and 4xAA, and your MINIMUM framerate was 30fps?!?!

Either that is a load of BS or there is something wrong with my system!!!

I have Catalyst 8.9 and 2x 4870X2 CFX as well, and a Q9450 @ 459*8, and 8GB of DDR2 RAM @ 1103. I score X12900 in 3DMark Vantage.

Crysis and Crysis Warhead don't perform nearly as well as the results you are posting!! If I play at 1920x1200, Very High/Enthusiast and 4xAA my FPS will frequently be in the 20s and occasionally in the high teens. If I look at a floor or a low detail area I might be lucky to see 40-50fps.

What the hell gives here? How can I get the kind of performance you are getting!? :(

[003]

xion x2 is using SSD drives and from the reviews i've seen, they greatly improve minimum frame-rates on some games versus the HDD's due to low acces times. I think this is the reason why the frames don't dip down too much http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=14 SSD would only improve performance if the game was loading things from the HDD. For me, the hard drive is hardly ever accessed in Crysis, only when loading. And if it were a problem, there would be stuttering, not a constant low FPS.

He has a 1000watt PSU, you don't. Also, probably different bioses all around, maybe :shrug:

Trust me, it isn't the PSU. He has the same motherboard as I do, and likely using the latest BIOS (0410), which I am as well. He has a Q9550 at 4GHz, I have a Q9450 at 3.67GHz. But that is not the issue either. While my Q9450 will not do 4GHz, it will do 3.96GHz with a lot of voltage, and at that speed my FPS does not increase any perceptible amount from 3.67.

Not sure how much RAM he's got, but I've got 8GB DDR2 at 1103MHz. All in all, if he is getting that kind of performance, then there is no reason why my performance shouldn't be very comparable, which it isn't.

[Nasgul]

Pay attention. HD 4870X2.:ROTF:

Yeah.......I'm gonna rush to buy (a brand of GPU I have even never bought in my computing life) an ati 4870x2 $550 to play a $25 game...

Doesn't sound like a good trade off, I think I'm just gonna go buy me a PS3 (Blu-Ray) and have $150 left to buy games and some movies...



This reminds me of Doom 3, the 6800 GTS or 6800 Ultra couldn't handle at max settings.............two years later the 8800GTX was ripping through that game.

[mikeyakame]

So, basically you can't play this game with current cards........unless you wait 2 years and use those cards to play this game with high settings all the way?

Good, I just saved myself $25 and will wait for when it gets down to $9.99.

Now that I got this sweet 24" monitor I can't make good use of it because Crysis is a video card killer.....:down:

plays fluid on my overclocked gtx280 at 1920x1200 dx10 with all enthusiast and no AA and looks simply amazing. i don't see how you figure that its not playable with current gen cards. AA is a killer, but you don't need AA to enjoy it. i get avg of around 27-29fps. this is clocked at 670/1458/2600 for playing warhead.

[Macadamia]

:ROTF:

Yeah.......I'm gonna rush to buy (a brand of GPU I have even never bought in my computing life) an ati 4870x2 $550 to play a $25 game...

Doesn't sound like a good trade off, I think I'm just gonna go buy me a PS3 (Blu-Ray) and have $150 left to buy games and some movies...



This reminds me of Doom 3, the 6800 GTS or 6800 Ultra couldn't handle at max settings.............two years later the 8800GTX was ripping through that game.

Sour grapes eh?

People ASKED for playable Crysis. ATI answered. nVidia is there licking lollipops trying to sell Core 216s to people like you. :rofl:

[Donnie27]

It IS already smooth. Plus at max visual quality. What more do you want?

Plus, a single 512MB 4870 gives almost 25 fps at the same settings (on this same PC of mine) but with stutters (512MB VRAM limit) and when fps dips to 15 or lower you get disturbing delays. On 4870X2 those do not happen, although the measured fps (in benchtool or fraps) is only about the same in the dips (unnoticeable ingame) and 5 fps higher in the avg (again: ingame experience feels much higher).
Amazing smoothness is probably due to the combination of the 1 GB VRAM and shaderpower of the card and Crytek's smart programming.

Very good assessment until the last part. The Game has some glitches to say the least. Just as I feel through the Carrier and had all but Prophet's head, Gun and boots disappear. In this game I get up in the control tower and save the game. I then get killed go back to the save, now each time it starts, I fall through the floor. 3 straight falls to my death since I have nothing solid to stand on:rofl::ROTF: In 3 parts of the game I had to go back and replay through levels.

This post could have been a rant but I thought, why waste time? This game should run faster and have fewer glitches since it is a sequel. So with all that firepower your computer has this game shouldn't present any stuttering with with one 4870X2 that plows through every game not named Crysis.:ROTF:

[Unbornchild]

Don't know about your copy, but i bought the game (DVD version). No such (or any other) glitches happened. Played the DX10 version (on Vista64Ult SP1)twice, now playing the DX9 version (on XP)
If your copy is 100% OK, maybe your 'glitches' are caused by too high ingame-settings for your 512MB card.

[LowRun]

So, basically you can't play this game with current cards........unless you wait 2 years and use those cards to play this game with high settings all the way?

Good, I just saved myself $25 and will wait for when it gets down to $9.99.

Now that I got this sweet 24" monitor I can't make good use of it because Crysis is a video card killer.....:down:

So there is no good use for a 24" monitor out of playing Crysis? :rolleyes:

[MrMojoZ]

Doesn't sound like a good trade off, I think I'm just gonna go buy me a PS3 (Blu-Ray) and have $150 left to buy games and some movies...


Yeah, who wants to discuss extreme computer gaming on a web site dedicated to extreme computers anyway.


:confused:

[Blacky]

game review

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/09/23/crysis-warhead/1

[Donnie27]

Don't know about your copy, but i bought the game (DVD version). No such (or any other) glitches happened. Played the DX10 version (on Vista64Ult SP1)twice, now playing the DX9 version (on XP)
If your copy is 100% OK, maybe your 'glitches' are caused by too high ingame-settings for your 512MB card.

I have the Downloaded Version. Running on system in my Specs, with Vista Ultimate 64, in DirectX 10. I had similar glitches in WinXP 32bit DirectX 9 mode. Decreasing the settings makes almost no difference. Computer running at stock 3GHz BTW!.

Note* Other games like FEAR, Call Of Duty3-add ons- 4, Medal Of Honor + add ons, STALKER, Half Life2 add ons + Fake-factory (64bit mode) + about 8 others like flight sims and etc... run smooth as butter. Vista-UE 64 had two none Crysis Crashes in about 5 months and one of those I caused.

I have screen captures I can show this evening, can't get to Putfile right now.

[003]

I still want to know how Xion X2 is getting the kind of speed he has.

[Donnie27]

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/12/36022291139.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic/7362943)

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/11/32121420490.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic/7124540)

Putfile is not letting me up load the new ones from Warhead.

[iTravis]

Here's my bench at 1920x1200 no AA Enthusiast with HD4870 CF, don't know why others have ridiculously high fps while I only have this :(
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/816/cw1920x1200enthusiastuv7.jpg

[Tonucci]

I still want to know how Xion X2 is getting the kind of speed he has.

Me too....

The hd4870x2 was not even included in the recent Legion Hardware article for the following reasons:

"Crysis was absent from our Radeon HD 4870 X2 scaling article, as we left if out on purpose. Given that Crossfire does not scale very well in Crysis, this game would have been a pointless addition, as it would not have allowed the Radeon HD 4870 X2 to work at full speed. However this game is ideal for testing the performance of the GeForce GTX 280 with a range of processors. "

[Eastcoasthandle]

Here's my bench at 1920x1200 no AA Enthusiast with HD4870 CF, don't know why others have ridiculously high fps while I only have this :(
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/816/cw1920x1200enthusiastuv7.jpg

If you made a lot of changes to a custom file (autoexec.bat, etc) try deleting your cache usually found in:
C:\...\My Documents\My Games\Crysis_WARHEAD\Shaders\Cache
C:\...\My Documents\My Games\Crysis_WARHEAD\Shaders\Cache\D3D9\CGPShaders
C:\...\My Documents\My Games\Crysis_WARHEAD\Shaders\Cache\D3D9\CGVShaders

Then start up WH or the benchmark and see if that helps any...

[railer]

one thing to boost your fps like 20% set you shadows to medium, it looks almost the same. And for glitches try defrag with disk keeper until crysis install has no fragments left.

I don't know about you guys but i play it at 50-70 fps avrg 1280/1024 res 2x AA and wolfie at 4g and just 8800 gts. My drivers set to performance. Sure i loose a bit in quality but i cant honestly notice it that much especially in MP and it plays really smooth and gameplay is awesome. TIA is really tactical now.
What happened to this generation can you guys tweak a bit? Is loosing just a bit of quality worth extra 30FPS?
I miss Q3 days when we had slow hardware and were tweaking games and settings to maximize performance. 4870x2 and you complaining?:rofl:

[Kersh]

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/8766/wtfkj2.jpg

average 38 and I see like 20 fps, will be microstuttering of X2 ?

[XS2K]

Here's my bench at 1920x1200 no AA Enthusiast with HD4870 CF, don't know why others have ridiculously high fps while I only have this :(


Damn mate smth is wrong in your setup...
Here is what I get with a E2160 @ 3.1Ghz and a 4850 @ 650/1030 (really bad card for OC)

[iTravis]

@eastcoasthandle: I tried that but it didn't help.
@XS2K: I have no idea why either. I set AA, AF to Application controlled, disable AI Catalyst and the rest just set to performance.
Wondering if anybody with similar setup gives out the result so I can compare. :(

[Eastcoasthandle]

@eastcoasthandle: I tried that but it didn't help.
@XS2K: I have no idea why either. I set AA, AF to Application controlled, disable AI Catalyst and the rest just set to performance.
Wondering if anybody with similar setup gives out the result so I can compare. :(

Did you have any crashes? If so, uninstall your Cat drivers, reboot then reinstall your Cat drivers.

[iTravis]

Did you have any crashes? If so, uninstall your Cat drivers, reboot then reinstall your Cat drivers.

No I don't have any crashes as I don't have any problems with my driver. I can play Crysis just fine, just don't know why I got such poor performance even though I know CF ain't scaled that well in Crysis.

[Xion X2]

I don't know what to tell you guys, but many of these review sites are wrong. Crossfire does scale in Crysis, and rather well. I'm playing the original, not Warhead.

You guys do know that my benches were conducted using actual gameplay and not the benchmark tool, right? The benchmark was done on the beach and jungle area at the beginning of the game at the "Nomad" checkpoint. I ran through both the jungle and beach area. And yes, the minimum framerate was as shown above on the graph. Benching took place over a period of about 1:30 - 2:00 for each setting, so it was rather thorough, I thought. I walked the same path through for each setting both on a single X2 and CrossfireX.

CrossfireX is clearly faster by about 35-40%. I've tested it many, many times on both the 8.8 betas/8.9 betas. In fact, I have found 2 other games that scale well in CrossfireX: Oblivion w/ Qarl's texture mod and Lost Planet Dx10. So it's not just a freak thing.

If these review sites aren't seeing CFX benefit, then perhaps there's an issue with the benchmarking tool not running on all GPUs. But in real gameplay it benefits significantly.

003 -- I don't know if your PSU is an issue, but I can tell you that you're cutting things really close with it. Your system is probably drawing over 800 watts. And yes, I am using the latest BIOS. Are you on Vista 64?

[Anth Seebel]

I don't know what to tell you guys, but many of these review sites are wrong. Crossfire does scale in Crysis, and rather well. I'm playing the original, not Warhead.

You guys do know that my benches were conducted using actual gameplay and not the benchmark tool, right? The benchmark was done on the beach and jungle area at the beginning of the game at the "Nomad" checkpoint. I ran through both the jungle and beach area. And yes, the minimum framerate was as shown above on the graph. Benching took place over a period of about 1:30 - 2:00 for each setting, so it was rather thorough, I thought. I walked the same path through for each setting both on a single X2 and CrossfireX.

CrossfireX is clearly faster by about 35-40%. I've tested it many, many times on both the 8.8 betas/8.9 betas. In fact, I have found 2 other games that scale well in CrossfireX: Oblivion w/ Qarl's texture mod and Lost Planet Dx10. So it's not just a freak thing.

If these review sites aren't seeing CFX benefit, then perhaps there's an issue with the benchmarking tool not running on all GPUs. But in real gameplay it benefits significantly.

003 -- I don't know if your PSU is an issue, but I can tell you that you're cutting things really close with it. Your system is probably drawing over 800 watts. And yes, I am using the latest BIOS. Are you on Vista 64?

Canned unverifiable benchmarks have no weight with me. Use the benchmarking tool to compare results, obviously. :rolleyes:

Someone said earlier that Nvidia GPU's scale like crap -I disagree. My results:

Test software:
Crysis 1.2.1
Crysis benchmarking tool
Vista Ultimate 64

Test machine:
QX9650 ES @ 4GHz H2O
XFX 780i
2x1GB DDR2 1200MHz HyperX
GeForce GTX 280 SLI
M-Audio 2496

Settings:
DX10
1920x1200
Everything on Very High
No AA

TEST #1: GTX 280
http://lagg.me/out.php/i284_CrysisGTX280VeryHigh.jpg

TEST #2: GTX 280 SLI
http://lagg.me/out.php/i285_CrysisGTX280SLIVeryHigh.jpg

[003]

003 -- I don't know if your PSU is an issue, but I can tell you that you're cutting things really close with it. Your system is probably drawing over 800 watts. And yes, I am using the latest BIOS. Are you on Vista 64?

I contacted PC Power and Cooling and gave them my full system specs including overclock info and water cooling loop info, and they said the TC 860 would have no trouble with this system. Yes I am running Vista 64.

Oh and Anth, I am kind of pissed off about CFX scaling. I know it does exist but compared to nvidia scaling it is a load of crap. Going from one GTX 280 to two there is more than 100% increase in average FPS. But my results with 2x 4870X2 CFX are crap compared to that:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3084/benchmarkgt4.jpg

Whats even more crap is that GTX280 SLI has only 1.87TFlops of processing power where as 2x 4870X2 CFX has 4.8TFlops. Utter rubbish. And my PSU is not the issue, Vantage preset extreme is normal, as is UT3, CoD 4 and all other games I have. The only thing that brings this system to its knees is crysis and crysis warhead. I am using cat 8.10 RC2.

[saaya]

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/418x627/2008/09/Aufmacher_080918000803.jpg

DX10 vs DX9 comparisons pics (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,660402/News/Crysis_Warhead_-_Comparative_screenshots_with_DX9_vs_DX10_and_all_ quality_settings/)


Graphic cards benchs

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2008/09/Crysis_Warhead_GPU_1.JPG

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2008/09/Crysis_Warhead_GPU_2.JPG



More here (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,660468/Reviews/Crysis_Warhead_Benchmark_special_and_general_info_ about_the_game/?page=1)

thanks blacky! :toast:

[Razmatazz]

Are there benchmarking tools for both Crysis and Warhead for online/Steam versions? With in-game FPS turned on, I seem to be running high 20s to mid 30s in Crysis DX10/Very High/4xAA. But, I agree with Anth Seebel that verifiable benchmarks are what's needed.

[Xion X2]

Oh and Anth, I am kind of pissed off about CFX scaling. I know it does exist but compared to nvidia scaling it is a load of crap.
Come on, though. You're comparing 4-GPU scaling with two? Apples to oranges.

A more fair comparison would be tri-SLI scaling vs CFX.. although that still wouldn't be apples to apples.

[Xion X2]

Canned unverifiable benchmarks have no weight with me. Use the benchmarking tool to compare results, obviously. :rolleyes:

Nope, I'd rather play the actual game. I mean, that's what it's for.. to play, right?

Who gives a #$&@# about the benchmarking tool if the game plays entirely different? Show me how the actual game plays so that I can have a realistic expectation of the performance I'll get on my setup.

And my benches are verifiable. I posted frapslogs and screenshots of the location I was benching at. You can account for every frame and every second of benching if you chose to.

[initialised]

That aside, there will be problems when SSAO is increased in Crysis... all 3D models will start having an outer-rim overlay that is either bright or light depending on the color of the model behind them... Fix is to increase r_ssao_radius to a very large number. See attachments for pics of before and after.I think this is what detracts (slightly) from the 3D view on a Trimon, will try this. THX

[Blacky]

thanks blacky! :toast:

;) np, Ive been playing crysis warhead for a while now and I'm having fun so far vs the first one it has more action, more enemies at the same time and more graphics!