???Quote:
Also set the game budget to your system so you don't encounter swap.
I hit 95% ram use (with 4gb) towards the end of the second level and swapping was painfully noticeable :(
Printable View
???Quote:
Also set the game budget to your system so you don't encounter swap.
I hit 95% ram use (with 4gb) towards the end of the second level and swapping was painfully noticeable :(
with new catalyst 8.9
windows vista DX10
1920x1200
Enthusiast mode (very high)
http://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?image=10920mn2.jpg
http://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1920vg7.jpg
http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=19202fr8.jpg
Ok i added the -DX9 = +7Fps :)
windows Vista 64bit
DX9 Mode
1920x1200
Enthusiast Mode
4870X2
DX10 >> http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=19202fr8.jpg
DX9 >> http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=novoab0.jpg
another SS in DX9 Mode
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=novo1wp4.jpg
http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=novo3qa1.jpg
http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=novo4et9.jpg
http://img230.imageshack.us/my.php?image=novo6ru2.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?image=novo7uo6.jpg
http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=novo8im2.jpg
http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h1hs3.jpg
http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h2it6.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h3xg6.jpg
http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h4ur3.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h5ob4.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h6qn3.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=h7sn2.jpg
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/2218/h1ft1.th.jpghttp://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4...osaoqu4.th.jpghttp://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2...sao2bf5.th.jpg
:up:
well i just installed it and from what i have seen it does run better but the biggest thing i noticed was it is WAY more multi-threaded than before. i had all 4 core with almost equal usage going. and as far as settings go i was able to play at 1680x1050 in DX10 with Every thing on Enthusiast (except water, shadows, shadders and textures) without it going below 20 on a 8800gtx. so if i am seeing this right then you can use Enthusiast settings with DX9? even in XP? i hope this is true! i will test once my defrag is done as i noticed lots of strange HD activity going on.
edit: just tested and yes DX9 with Enthusiast is a go. say hello to extra FPS!
I barely see any differences between Dx9 and 10 so I should give it a try in DX9 then, plus +7fps is a no brainer. :D Would be great if mascaras tested with HD4870 CF but I guess I can expect the same performance by looking at the HD4870X2.
Well THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE between DX9 and DX10!
Is it only me who has problems with the texturestreaming 0 command?
So mr mascaras are you saying that cat 8.9 official gives better performance? Will save me a lot of time later to know this - cheersQuote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
Crysis had 64-bit support and it installed punkbuster. Why would they have removed it? There's always much more pop-in with 32-bit, I want 64-bit support back!Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
You could resolve the pop-in with the r_texturestreaming 0 command but since it crashes the game I guess you can't anymore...
From what I remember you are suppose to place that last in your command lists.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS2K
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy = 2048
e_terrain_normal_map = 0
r_texturestreaming = 0
Can also improve IQ. Once you make those changes I think you have to restart that map (it's been a while). Anyone else experiencing save point crashes?
yep , with 4870X2 the catalyst 8.9 = same performance as the "old" & very good catalyst Sample4800X2 Beta :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumid
btw: i finished the game today , not very long game , about 4 hours !
DX10 mode not very good performance , DX9 runs better but not perfect , more FPS in DX9 but also has a few breaks sometimes !
another thing i noticed is that in Crysis1 with 20/25 fps we already can play the game , while in crysis warhead with 20 fps is not so playable as crysis1 (at least with my System config)
In my opinion the game definitely need new patch/s and maybe also new Drivers for graphic cards !
Also the game only support 32bit , we need to test in 64bit to see if the game run better !
regards
I agree, 64bit is needed. 64bit doesn't have a performance decrease over running 32bit like DX10 does over DX9. I am running DX9 mode on Warhead and I really don't find it that much more optimized than the original Crysis. Sure, at some points I hit early 40's instead of mid 30's, but at graphically intensive parts like explosions etc it still dips into the early 20's just like the original Crysis did. Like Mascaras noted, 25fps was very playable in the first Crysis. In Warhead, the same fps doesn't nearly feel as smooth. you need at least 28-30fps+ to feel like the first one. So far the game starts out pretty action packed. I enjoy it, but wouldn't recommend it on these so called performance increases alone.
I too am hoping for a new driver, but with the original Crysis already being out for almost a full year now, how much more can they squeeze from this engine that hasn't been done already? With Warhead being nearly identical, I'm not expecting miracles from either video card camp.
i used rivatuner to measure my system (watch sig) tasking...
Res: 1280x1024, no AA
8800GT @ 760/1900/1900
2GB memory, windows XP SP3
All settings set to Enthusiast
http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vramru5.jpg
At 1280x1024, it nearly consumes 512MB, if you bump the resolution up to 1680x1050 and add 4xAA, 512MB is clearly not enough.
It is also tasking my e8400 @ 4050mhz almost at max, and using almost all my ram and almost all my vram.
Seems pretty optimized to me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
when I talk about optimized I mean Gameplay/Smooth/FPS !
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantankerous
yep , the game has a lot more action & Fun then Crysis1 , however in windows Vista @ DX10 the game dont run so good/smooth , and even in windows Vista but DX9 mode the game has a few breaks (i only tested with 4870X2 , dont know about single GPu) ,especially in last levels (i already finished the game)
regards
When I talk about optimized, I mean the ability that the software has in order to push the hardware in an efficient way... I think Crysis does it very well, some think otherwise, I don't care...Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
About dual-gpu concerns, its very clear that CryEngine2 is not friend of scalability... If you come to think of it, dual GPU is only here about 3 years, that's about the same time Cryengine2 took off... Rewriting such an engine in order to make it more multi gpu friendly should be costly, and for 30 bucks, I guess we are getting a very good game. At least I am enjoying it :)
yep , i understand what you mean with VRAM , and CPU usage optimization but for me thats not optimizations if the gameplay is not good ! :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
for me game optimization is the ability that the software has in order to push the hardware in an efficient way AND the gameplay is good !
regards
If one can't play at Very High, then play at High or get new hardware, just as simples as that :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
GRRR!!!! Amazon's pre-order is CRAP. I got an email from them saying it'll be available in NOVEMBER. Play.com also is out of stock. Where the fsck can i get it from thats NOT steam?
Well I can see why it was priced as less. That was unbelievably short and well, almost dull. The whole game was less fun than Crysis's Assault map and was an utter waste of the potential of a game with Psycho in it.
Spent more time looking at cut scenes and driving past action than shooting stuff up, the whole game was one massive tease with no "happy ending" as the airport did not satisfy as the damn cut scene takes over and you don't get to punch the lights out yourself.
Hope the MP crysis wars is better as it felt like I was playing leftover maps from the first one. Rates a MEH++
Also this will probably be the last game I get from steam as 180kb/s on a 20meg line is crap, tried switching content servers and that was the fastest I could get from them. It took from 10am to 7pm to get the damn thing down, not a good way to make your customers happy...
So yeah, not happy with the game, not happy with the steam service, and after that not even fussed if there is any more from Crytek again.
/rant
What's the problem with Steam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
BTW, people complaining about Warhead value, haven't certainly played it on Delta... I am, and I know it is very Hard, yet, very pleasant.
If you play it on Delta, believe me it will look like a totally different game.
Because i want a PHYSICAL copy.
Playing Crysis in delta is a joke, the koreans are still retarded :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
yes i agree that 20-25FPS was playable in Crysis but in warhead is not. however i noticed on my 8800gtx i was able to turn up way more details (used mixed Gamer and Enthusiast settings at 1680X1050) and it was very playable so i would say they did a pretty good job and they use the CPu way better as i noticed all 4 cores kicking. however i did not notice ANY random breaks that you speak of after i set my settings to get the best quality for frame rates. maybe some microstuddering? on a gameplay side absolutely fantastic. i just wish it was way longer and the soundtrack was amazing. worth every penny.Quote:
Originally Posted by mascaras
:shrug:
I think 20-25FPS is perfectly playable in Warhead. Infact, I didn't notice any performance difference, as for what comes to playing experience, compared to the original. And it seems CryTek paid attention to the 3rd party eye-candy tweaks as Warhead is even prettier... Anyways, while playing I kept noticing how incredibly stable the frame rate is and how fluid the game is even at such low frame rates. It was completely enjoyable on my G92GTS (846/2214/1044) @ 1680x1050 + 8xAF.
Anyways, I found Warhead to be quite entertaining. There's less pointless wandering in it than in the original.
I'm using the suit allot more than the original!
Great game so far!