Crysis Warhead, <20fps on high specced Quad core pc at gamer settings???

KNiVES · 23 Sep 2008 at 22:35

Comparision screenshots, frame rate information included, all settings on Enthusiast:

r_useedgeaa 0

r_useedgeaa 2

Normal 2xAA

Sorry for the large screens but unadultered, full-size screens are the only way to convey the graphics and their differences across properly.

You can see a pretty huge difference between 0 and 2 edge aa. 2x edge aa and 2x proper AA also look almost identical, with 2x edge aa having practically zero performance hit. It's pretty much a no brainer which kind of anti-aliasing to use here. Anything other than 2x edge aa (r_useedgeaa 2) takes far too much performance loss for the amount of graphical lustre it gives. 4xAA especially.

Marky · 23 Sep 2008 at 22:36

Nice screenies

Editing my config now

Gashman · 24 Sep 2008 at 00:05

try HDR and SSAO, looks pretty impressive!

Rybo89 · 24 Sep 2008 at 00:08

Crysis Warhead, <20fps on high specced Quad core pc at gamer settings???

Welcome to pc gaming

Gashman · 24 Sep 2008 at 00:10

back on topic, something horribly wrong there, don't get anywhere near as bad as that in DX10 nevermind DX9 and i have a 'mediocre' 8800GTS :rolleyes:

and also don't have quad core, plus using custom config. :confused:

engstrom0304 · 24 Sep 2008 at 20:32

How do you use r_useedgeaa 2, it doent work in the console

engstrom0304 · 24 Sep 2008 at 20:32

could it be a the disk security program slowing things down?

engstrom0304 · 24 Sep 2008 at 20:33

i had to install from a folder as cd drive didnt work properly. When the disk security probrag kicked in there was no cd in drive.

KNiVES · 24 Sep 2008 at 20:35

engstrom0304 said:
How do you use r_useedgeaa 2, it doent work in the console

Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, but do the command
con_restricted 0
first as that disables the restrictions of most other commands that would be used to alter the graphics on the spot. r_useedgeaa 2 should after that. If you want to avoid doing that everytime, make a system.cfg notepad file with the command in it and save to your Crysis Warhead folder.

LoadsaMoney · 24 Sep 2008 at 20:43

Believing Cryteks bs about it running better than Crysis is your problem, as you should have known it wouldn't.

monkentage · 24 Sep 2008 at 22:16

is 19-24fps on a 8800gtx q6600 stock and 4gb ram @ gamer settings no aa normal? i thought they were going to make it run a lot better? i got better than that on crysis.

eyetrip · 24 Sep 2008 at 22:30

monkentage said:
is 19-24fps on a 8800gtx q6600 stock and 4gb ram @ gamer settings no aa normal? i thought they were going to make it run a lot better? i got better than that on crysis.

Its the Q6600 at stock thats killing it. If it were running at 3/3.2GHz it would make a huge difference.

KNiVES · 24 Sep 2008 at 22:31

LoadsaMoney said:
Believing Cryteks bs about it running better than Crysis is your problem, as you should have known it wouldn't.

Is that why I've been posting screens of Enthusiast at 1680x1050 running at 30fps then? I can't even manage high at 30fps at 1680x1050 with the original. I know you have a grudge with Crytek ever since the 'this can run at highest settings on a 8800GTS' debacle but let it go man. Warhead runs way better. Everyone else says so, the reviews says so, the benchmark says so, I say so (in fact I know so, seeing as I play both games every day and sees a paradigm shift in performance) - but Loadsamoney doesn't. We all know which is the case here.

bledd · 24 Sep 2008 at 22:32

8800gts != high spec

Streeteh · 24 Sep 2008 at 22:37

monkentage said:
is 19-24fps on a 8800gtx q6600 stock and 4gb ram @ gamer settings no aa normal? i thought they were going to make it run a lot better? i got better than that on crysis.

Something must be wrong there then, i ran (and completed it at) 1680x1050 in Gamer on a opty 175, 4 gig of DDR1 ram and a 8800GT. Average FPS was probably somewhere between 25-30 but at points i saw the FPS hit 60 (and obviously get stuck there due to v-sync).

LoadsaMoney · 24 Sep 2008 at 22:37

Even Crytek said it was slower, they said an 8800 GT gets 30 in it, i was getting around 38 in Crysis on my GT.

KNiVES · 24 Sep 2008 at 22:57

LoadsaMoney said:
Even Crytek said it was slower, they said an 8800 GT gets 30 in it, i was getting around 38 in Crysis on my GT.

Warhead slower than the original?

What about all the hardware variables anyway? What about the legions of people who are seeing much better framerates? All the reviews? Benchmarks? Warhead is universally lauded for its optimizations, you are seriously crazy if you think it runs slower than the original. And until I see a link specifically saying Crytek has said Warhead will run or is running slower than the original, I don't believe you. Saying 'oh they said x card will run at x framerate' is especially useless if you're not going to mention the settings, resolution, other pieces of hardware... etc. I could go on forever. I could just as well say my 4870 is running at 30fps, does that mean your 8800GT is faster than it? You're skimming and missing an awful lot just to try and back your stuff up dude.

Cyber-Mav · 25 Sep 2008 at 03:41

LoadsaMoney said:
Even Crytek said it was slower, they said an 8800 GT gets 30 in it, i was getting around 38 in Crysis on my GT.

and what fps are you getting in warhead with the GT?

Margaret · 25 Sep 2008 at 04:41

LoadsaMoney said:
i was getting around 38 in Crysis on my GT.

Looking at the floor sure.

Inazuma · 25 Sep 2008 at 07:32

Marky said:
OcUK saves the day again! Our work here is done... *Throws on cape and flys off with fist in the air*

Edit: Just to throw in my own input I guess: I'm on a Q6600 @ 3.4 Ghz, 8800GTX, 4GB RAM. The game usually hovers around 24-30 FPS on 1680x1050; mostly Gamer settings, Enthusiast on Sound and Post Processing. This is pretty good because I used to have to play Crysis on High with a few Medium settings. The game definitely looks better too- though this may largely be due to there being some better level designers on the team who made good use of the lighting. Jaggies seem to be less visible too