Crysis Warhead Review

Well just to get to the point, it will max on anything equal to an 8800 GTS @ 1680x1050, and looks better then Crysis. so no more comparing of Crysis...YAY.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/909/909584p1.html

 

Great news!thx for sharing m8

 

Wow, if this is true then very, very good news. You have to be a poor ******* of have an equally poor PC to not get this game.

 

Game review is great and only $30, fantastic

 

Great price for a game!! Hopefully it doesnt come with the 3 install drm bs!!

 

Fry Electronics is gonna have that game for $23.99 when it comes out on thrus.

 

They said a 2 year old 8800 gts, so does that mean they used the 8800 gts with 96 shader cores? If so, this is good news indeed.

 

And where is Crysis? I have the EA preorder and its still not available for download. Was this not supposed to be released today?

 

I am feeling old! Warhead is out already?!

 

i think so. so an 8800m GTS/GTX should be almost able to max it, the GTX anyways.

 

He claims it was maxed at 1680x1050 with the 8800 GTS. That card being two years old would make it either the 320/640mb model. I wonder if they had AA on. Either way, the 9800M GTX is more powerful than the 8800 GTS 640, so I'm stoked! Now if only I could start that download from EA...

 

I checked on ea, they only say the game is in stock, nothing about it being available for download.

 

Well they said the preorder would be available the 16th. So a little bummed. It was my day off today

 

I think you have a cold coming on, should go see a doctor tomorrow

 

*cough* *cough* *sneeze* Mr. Sup, I'd don't feel so well *burb* I need to go see doctor Psycho... *cough*

 

16th is the shipping day, official release day is 17th.

 

D2D will have it the 17th today, at 10am PST for download

 

I already got it through a friend who works as a reviewer. Actually I was surprised the game ran worse than original Crysis out of the box on my laptop and this with SLI. In Vista it ran really bad, running it in XP it ran a little better. But seriously, it probably has to to with a driver or so. I ran with 177.92 but the performance is really lacking.

 

Really!
I thought they optimized this game to run better than Crysis!!!!......Grrrrrrrrrr
Was that a retail version?

 

Running amazingly for me. At first I was pissed off by the performance. I had it set to 1680x1050 Gamer mode, and got about 10fps. So i pulled thing down and was able to manage 20fps and still have it look half decent. Then I realized I was folding protein molecules on the gpu in folding @ home I turned that off and went from 20fps to 50. So I cranked back up to gamer with a few set to enthusiast, 1680x1050 and am averaging about 25fps. It all looks dang good too.

 

Yeah however to me personally 25 fps average is too low. Crysis runs better so far. But I guess a patch or two and some tweaks will fix this game too

I do run at 1920x1200 so all in all it runs pretty good after all, but still not as good as Crysis High. Yep retail version. Will try the newest driver though and see how it runs with that first 177.98.

 

Thats no good news so the warhead is even more badly optimized!? Hopefully FarCry 2 will make some changes in the market.

 

can you guys check and see how much ram its using? Early beta test showed that it had memory leaks and was using 2gb of ram.

 

Will check that, also to me it seems like Warhead does not use SLI, seems more like a single 8800m GTX does all the work for me thereby the low results. I did try and put an autoexec.cfg and put in MultiGPU=2 there, though no difference in performance.

Well not just me reporting bad performance:

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24115

Seems like there is a new sort of lighting, global ambient lighting that chugs fps like mad. If there is a way to turn this off somehow I´m sure the game would run better. Well I need to test it more.

 

do u guys think it will run pretty good on my pc? specs are listed... ive never played the original but i know it needs a hell of a machine to run it....

 

Magnus do you gave a profile for the game?

 

Actually I tested my config I have for original Crysis for this one, it works great!! Though there is some issues with too dark terrain and such, so apparently there might be some new commands that has to be added. However the game does run fluently now.

Installing it on my desktop at the moment to see how it runs there.

 

I picked up Warhead from Steam today. Right now I'm running under "mainstream settings" @ 1280x800 and so far it's plays well. However, I never played the original Crysis and I really don't know what to expect. I tried putting it on the "gamer" mode but it was unplayable @ 1280x800, I may try bumping it down to 1024x768 and report back later.

 

Well my Warhead runs fluently now with some minor tweaks and at 1920x1200

 

this gaqme can run on low setting on a M1330?

 

I was pretty disapointed with how WARHEAD runs, didn't play to much but it seems that it does run worse then the original crysis. I'm running a 260 clocked at 626 with a quad core at 3.0 4 gb ram. I'mma check ram later and drivers etc.

 

I agree actually. I can run Crysis at 1920x1200 on most settings on high but in Warhead I have to run medium settings 1920x1200 and I still lag in intense sequences. I'm still testing out different settings for best performance.

 

this means i wont be buying this game i was going to get it on my laptop, but it seems as tho it wont run good at all on it!

 

After some tweaking of the OS and my clock speeds, I'm getting 30-40fps everything maxed 1680x1050 no aa.

 

if you got an sli rig make sure you create an sli profile for the game otherwise sli will not be enabled when playing. i think AFR 2 should be set.

 

nvm that sli comment. i just got the game and sli works fine because it still uses the old crysis.exe which is automatically recognized in profile.

edit, i would not say sli works fine. it works the same as before. it micro-stutters like as before lol.

 

Any ideas why no Sandbox or 64-bit?

 

don't know about sandbox but i can tell you that they changed the settings requirements where i can get the very high settings under windows xp. they are called enthusiast settings now. stupid name but same thing.

very high settings is not very playable even with sli in 1920x1200 native, i have to add.

 

So..contrary to popular rumor..this may be the more intense benchmark, and more demanding version?

 

they did not include an internal benchmark tool like they did with the original

 

it runs worse than crysis?! i knew it was too good to be true

 

^^ Read all the other posts. It runs far better than Crysis. Something is wrong with the machines with whom those claim that it is running worse. I'm maxing it out on my laptop for gosh sakes...

 

It's definitely seems more demanding in DX10. I tried DX9 and I max that out for free on 1920x1200.

 

I dont know who to believe here... i'm about to get the game but.. everyone say different things, like in here:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ecial_and_general_info_about_the_game/?page=3

it seems that the game runs like crap,

while other people say that a 8800GTS max the game on gamer settings easily.

 

Btw, gamer is high and enthusiast settings are very high.

 

well, for what it's worth, i bought it yesterday to play on my SLI 8600's, but thought what the heck, lets try it on the Tablet with ATI integrated 3200HD, and at 1024x600 (native screen is 1280x800) in dx9 with minimum settings, I'm getting 20-30fps, and on the smaller screen it stills look mighty pretty ha. So, definately some improvements in dx9 mode atleast. Haven't done any tweaking or messing with settings yet, but was just amazed it ran that well at all on the little machine.

As a side note, my X205 was running mainstream (medium I guess?) in dx10 mode at around 20-30fps as well at 1440x900 (native). Gonna try tweaking and see how it goes, but I'd say it runs better than Crysis did out of the box, and with some tweaking will be running well.

 

after having some more time to play with the game it appears that it is overall not as smooth as the first one. it just seems to get sticky for no reason and to stutter. for example, i am in the same area of fighting the enemy and turning from one direction to another direction will cause a very annoying stutter even after all the loading is supposedly finished. i mean, i look at one direction and zoom with the scope and it stutters. i look in another direction and zoom in again and the same stutter. this is even worse in sli mode.

i am talking about a sever stutter where the frame rates take a nose dive and then recover. it is very appearant in the first level where you figt inside the beach resort houses.

i think this may be what some are refering to as it runs worse than the first one.

 

yea i get stutter with no frame dive, when i look back and forth and strafe, i get bad stuuter and good frames on my desktop

 

Basically it has to do with texturestreaming. Make an autoexec.cfg and put in Texturestreaming = 0 and you will see it go away.

 

i just started the 2nd level and the performance is much better. so far i think crytek made a mistake with the first level in that they throw too much for the gpu to render smoothly and thus makes alot of people think the game runs worse than the first one when in fact it actually runs better. there are some things and some situations where performance is lower than expected.

for example, performance issues when inside the beach resort in 1st level fending off enemy gaurds but i get smooth gameplay during start of 2nd level.