I have done quite a lot of experimenting with Crysis Warhead.
I only really use it as a benchmark to test the gaming performance of my computer:
780i sli chipset
9800GT 512MB, sli (2 gpus) - tried OC at 620 1750 1100 stable
q6600 @ 2.4 (tried somewhat at 2.7 best stable I can get)
4GB 854 MHz ram (with 2GB at 1066 there is not enough ram to run the game)
vista x64
creative extrememusic sound card
always have the latest drivers, bios, windows updates and crysis patches
The strange thing is, no matter how I tweak the settings or my system, my fps is stuck at around 20 during the most demanding scenes/action and rarely achieves more than 40 when there is the least demand on cpu or gpu.
Setting everything to minimum only achieves about 2 fps against everything up full at enthusiast. I have tried a vast array of tweaks taken from sources such as tweakguides.com and various forum posts. Through testing, I have discovered that DX10 64bit is better than the other methods for my system.
Even changing the resolution makes no difference, 1280x1024 is only about 1fps worse than 800x600 (windowed or fullscreen). According to windows' resource monitor, none of my cores are used more than 50% and the ram "hard faults" are never above about 2/3 of the way and the capacity used is around 2.2GB (or ~2 with windows classic look)
I have tried various settings in my nVidia control panel regarding to various aspects, notably the game's "3D Settings" - with everything on default, or forcing AA, my fps is the same. I have tried the different sli modes - sfr performs marginally better than either alternate frame mode.
When I use the in-game console to display the resource usage, nothing is used even halfway, not even video memory - the game claims it only uses about 300MB.
Ultimately, where is my bottleneck? I cannot see it. If changing graphics settings from minimal to enthusiast makes no difference to frame rates, what is the cause? It is a strange puzzle.
Here are some fps levels I get in other games (on maximum settings):
cod4 ~130(sli-afr2) ~100(sli-sfr) ~80(single)
cod5 waw ~150(nvidia recommended sli)
bioshock ~160
cs source on dust2 ~70(nvidia recommended sli) ~400(single) (in video stress test my average is 600 on full with sli and about 400 without, but that test is very odd)
hl2 ep2 ~200(nvidia recommended sli) ~80(single gpu)
very odd array of different frame rates. Of course that would be expected but I have met people with single 8800gt or 9800gt cards who can achieve around 80fps on minimal in crysis warhead but about 20 on enthusiast - why does it not make a difference for me?
I only really use it as a benchmark to test the gaming performance of my computer:
780i sli chipset
9800GT 512MB, sli (2 gpus) - tried OC at 620 1750 1100 stable
q6600 @ 2.4 (tried somewhat at 2.7 best stable I can get)
4GB 854 MHz ram (with 2GB at 1066 there is not enough ram to run the game)
vista x64
creative extrememusic sound card
always have the latest drivers, bios, windows updates and crysis patches
The strange thing is, no matter how I tweak the settings or my system, my fps is stuck at around 20 during the most demanding scenes/action and rarely achieves more than 40 when there is the least demand on cpu or gpu.
Setting everything to minimum only achieves about 2 fps against everything up full at enthusiast. I have tried a vast array of tweaks taken from sources such as tweakguides.com and various forum posts. Through testing, I have discovered that DX10 64bit is better than the other methods for my system.
Even changing the resolution makes no difference, 1280x1024 is only about 1fps worse than 800x600 (windowed or fullscreen). According to windows' resource monitor, none of my cores are used more than 50% and the ram "hard faults" are never above about 2/3 of the way and the capacity used is around 2.2GB (or ~2 with windows classic look)
I have tried various settings in my nVidia control panel regarding to various aspects, notably the game's "3D Settings" - with everything on default, or forcing AA, my fps is the same. I have tried the different sli modes - sfr performs marginally better than either alternate frame mode.
When I use the in-game console to display the resource usage, nothing is used even halfway, not even video memory - the game claims it only uses about 300MB.
Ultimately, where is my bottleneck? I cannot see it. If changing graphics settings from minimal to enthusiast makes no difference to frame rates, what is the cause? It is a strange puzzle.
Here are some fps levels I get in other games (on maximum settings):
cod4 ~130(sli-afr2) ~100(sli-sfr) ~80(single)
cod5 waw ~150(nvidia recommended sli)
bioshock ~160
cs source on dust2 ~70(nvidia recommended sli) ~400(single) (in video stress test my average is 600 on full with sli and about 400 without, but that test is very odd)
hl2 ep2 ~200(nvidia recommended sli) ~80(single gpu)
very odd array of different frame rates. Of course that would be expected but I have met people with single 8800gt or 9800gt cards who can achieve around 80fps on minimal in crysis warhead but about 20 on enthusiast - why does it not make a difference for me?
