Crysis Warhead on the M860TU

Just thought I'd throw my first impressions out here since we're all crazy about performance on this laptop.

Picked up Crysis Warhead this morning, been playined around with it, tweaking a little bit, and of course playing the actual game.

My first impressions are that its pretty much the same as the first game, with a few tweaks. It DOES run better graphically, but not that much better.

I'm getting an average of 25-30 fps, dipping down to 20-15 if something really insane happens (i.e. 2 cars explode at the same time) on all very high DX10 (or "enthusiast" as its called now), except for shadows which are on medium, and shaders which are on high. My resolution is 1280x800, and it's still looking quite amazing. If I up the resolution to 1440x900, I lose about 10 fps, and if I up the shaders to very high I lose about 6 fps.

Edit: screens, just from where I am in the game now, quick shots.










edit: Whoa... alright, so I just did a quick uninstall of Ntune (since I was playing around with the clock settings on the 9800m GT only to realize you can only modify shaders) and all my framerates shot up by about 5-10 FPS.


edit #2
Just overclocked my GPU to 610/1525/945 with a bios flash, and I'm getting some +10fps on this game now, bringing playability up a ton.


Real benchmark time...

Downloaded the Crysis Warhead benchmarking tool:


Gamer settings, DX10, 1440x900, 0xAA/AF, Ambush Level - PLAYABLE
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3502, Recorded Time: 92.69s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 142.22s, Average FPS: 24.62
Min FPS: 16.68 at frame 1865, Max FPS: 33.97 at frame 2838
Average Tri/Sec: 1918432, Tri/Frame: 77910
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 6.70
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 149.22s, Average FPS: 23.47
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 3434, Max FPS: 34.52 at frame 2830
Average Tri/Sec: 2180469, Tri/Frame: 92912
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 5.62

Gamer settings, DX10, 1280x800, 0xAA/AF, Ambush Level - PLAYABLE
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3502, Recorded Time: 92.69s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 119.11s, Average FPS: 29.40
Min FPS: 18.79 at frame 2468, Max FPS: 40.68 at frame 766
Average Tri/Sec: 1658913, Tri/Frame: 56421
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 9.25
TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)

Enthusiast settings, DX10, 1440x900, 0xAA/AF, Avalanche Level - UNPLAYABLE
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3145, Recorded Time: 83.68s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 169.39s, Average FPS: 18.57
Min FPS: 9.48 at frame 1174, Max FPS: 26.43 at frame 741
Average Tri/Sec: -3654111, Tri/Frame: -196809
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.62

Enthusiast settings, DX10, 1280x800, 0xAA/AF, Avalanche Level - BARELY PLAYABLE
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3145, Recorded Time: 83.68s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 140.91s, Average FPS: 22.32
Min FPS: 10.51 at frame 1176, Max FPS: 32.09 at frame 741
Average Tri/Sec: -4477805, Tri/Frame: -200625
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.61
TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)

My Preferred settings - PLAYABLE
Resolution: 1440x900, DX10, 0xAA/AF
Objects: Enthusiast
Particles: Enthusiast
Physics: Enthusiast
Post Processing: Gamer
Shading: Gamer
Shadows: Mainstream
Sound: Enthusiast
Textures: Enthusiast
Volumetric Effects: Enthusiast
Water Effects: Enthusiast
Motion Blur: Enthusiast


TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 3502, Recorded Time: 92.69s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 121.94s, Average FPS: 28.72
Min FPS: 16.74 at frame 1872, Max FPS: 42.90 at frame 1273
Average Tri/Sec: 3642342, Tri/Frame: 126822
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.12
TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)



All benchmarks are taken with the overclock GPU, and stock CPU.


Throughout all tests, my GPU temps hit a peak of 82 degrees, CPU hit 65 degrees, HDD hit 59 degrees
__________________

 

plz dont start more Crysis threads cause I ll be swearing. How can u resale a game that is so badly optimized!? Even NASA cant run Crysis maxed out.

 

Crysis Warhead is the second installment with a better optimized graphics engine, please make better informed posts before you click the reply button.

 

Warhead is actually supposed to be much more optimized

edit: doh!...I knew I should have stuck with Mavis Beacon

 

"is supposed to" ... please read other people comments on how warhead is performing before u click the reply button.

 

I've already read, and seen benchmarks on the game. It does run better. An 8800GTS (old 640mb revision) is able to max the game out at 1440x900 with playable rates. Performance like that was unheard of with the original Crysis.

As well, I'm here playing it right now, it runs better.

 

but still, I m kinda disappointed

 

Here's an excerpt from the IGN review by Jason Ocampo that should help clear things up...

"Finally, we get to the part of the review everyone wants to know about: performance. Crytek claims that Warhead is better optimized than Crysis, and everything I experienced confirms this. In fact, what's amazing is that Warhead not only runs better than Crysis, it looks better than Crysis. Keep in mind, a year has passed since Crysis shipped and there still isn't a non-Crytek game that approaches it in terms of visuals. Warhead features more definition to the terrain, and the lighting and particle effects have gotten big boosts. I found myself walking through jungle with the morning light piercing the canopy and had to stop and just absorb the moment. It had a level of atmosphere that I can't recall from the first game."

"I played Warhead on a high-end machine with a quad core CPU and the latest Nvidia graphics card at high resolution (1680x1050) with all the details set to Enthusiast, which is essentially very high. It looked cutting edge and the frame rate was solid. Next, I checked the game on a slightly older PC with a two-year old 8800GTS and I was still able to crank it to Enthusiast settings and the same resolution and get solid results. Finally, I checked it out on the "$700 PC" that Crytek and EA have been touting. It really is a $700 machine built on the latest mainstream parts (the video card is a 9800GT), and I was able to play the final boss battle at the same resolution and at Enthusiast settings and get solid frame rates. I also tried it the Gamer setting, which is essentially high, and the frame rate was buttery smooth. You do lose some visual quality stepping down from Enthusiast, but even at Gamer Warhead still looks better than almost every game out there."

 

There is another forum called desktopreview.com. U can post there any benchmarks regarding any Desktop GPU. Here in the notebookreview we keep concentrated on mobile performance and so far that is disappointing with any mobile GPU.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=300145&page=3

 

I am as well, I did expect more of an FPS boost than what I got.

I'm going to try different drivers later tonight, but I gotta go to work soon.

 

why all the hate? its a great game even at medium and 22 fps (the way I played it on my 6831FX.

warhead is a different angle to the story and has crysis wars for free all for $29!

 

to some people 22fps is acceptable. For me I d rather read a comic book instead.

 

How's the framerate on high settings?

 

On all high 1280x800 I'm getting a 30-40 average, dropping to 25 in some places.

 

Whoa... alright, so I just did a quick uninstall of Ntune (since I was playing around with the clock settings on the 9800m GT only to realize you can only modify shaders) and all my framerates shot up by about 5-10 FPS.

edited the first post with the same reply.

 

On the NP5796 with my stats in my sig, overclocked to 2.7ghz with shaders at 1450mhz, 1680x1050, Enthusiast except motion blur which is off, Vista tweaked a bit for speed, I average over 30fps, with intense action dropping to a minimum of 25fps and scenes maxing around 50fps.

Crysis Warhead is beautiful and far more optimized than Crysis. There is a level of atmospherics I never saw in Crysis, and the performance is out of this world. I never imagined they would be able to optimize it like they did. Take if from somebody who's played the original dozens of times through and made dozens of personal mods for the game. The difference is substantial. Both cores also run anywhere from 85-100% utilization, something I like to see in a game. I hated watching my CPU idle away in Crysis when I knew it could be doing far more.

Crysis Warhead does not have a 64-bit mode, benchmarks, or the Sandbox Editor. Why? No idea...

 

You've overclocked a Montevina?

 

forget crysis. Farcry 2!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ya montevina can be overclocked to 2.7ghz using SetFSB. Use Clock Generator RTM876-660. Hit Get FSB then SetFSB. It will downclock it to 2.4ghz. Wait a minute and slide the slider down a little bit and hit Set FSB again. It will then clock it up to 2.7x GHz.

Farcry 2 looks amazing.

 

Might I share my screenshots from Warhead, though from my XPS M1730? 1920x1200

 

30-50fps

 

that mean you got sli working?

 

Yeah, actually I have tweaked for a few hours, now I am happy with the result as you can see The amazing thing is that even if you are in a firefight it rarely dips below 30 fps. What I wrote in the other forum I have to take back. Sure the game is rough right out of the box, but just some minor tweaking opens up a whole new level of performance.

 

Awesome screenies....gotta pull the trigger on a 9262 as that's what it's all about

 

Yep, got mine to 2.729.5 GHZ, I'm going to try 3dmark06 and see if any difference in score can be made. Programs do seem to open faster though, question though, how do I 'revert' to 2.53 if I feel this OC is dangerous?

 

Shut down the computer. No way to go back. You can't reboot either.

 

Lol. Oh snap. Well, looks like I have to have PCMW mail me all my upgrades or parts on my laptop. Next time they'll be seeing this is when I'm ready to exchange for a new laptop in 2010-2011

Edit: You're pulling my leg. It loses the settings when the computer is shutdown or put into sleep mode. Oh well. Doesn't matter. When is AutoFSB going to support this?

 

No idea. Just set it and it should do its own thing.

 

If this was in response to me, I deleted that message before I knew you'd replied. I went ahead and raised my 2.4 to 2.585. I'm going to test it out before going any higher.

 

I`ve taken my older T7500 upto 2.6 Gz safely and well in the temp limit, so a 150 Mhz on a Montevina CPU won`t hurt, trust me...
Magnus, stunning results as always

 

9901 3dmarks holy crap! I didn't realize the CPU was that much of the score. That's +700 over my stock score.

Sorry for derailing your topic.

I'm a little bit too light on money to afford any new games this month.

 

No worries, I actually got my CPU to 2.7 because of this thread as well...

Now I just want to overclock the GPU without having to flash it (I don't trust myself that much), and I'll be happy with this rig.

 

-.-' again people forget setfsb overclocks your entire system including the graphics card....

 

After overclocking my M860 to 2.7, i got a 3DMark06 score at 10110 and 15500 in 3DMark05!.

 

@Magnus are the custom "crysis 1" cfg working with this warhead?? could you explain your optimization?
Thx a lot

 

Got a score of 9922 in 3dmark06. Does it matter if I'm running anti virus software etc.?

 

oile I made a new custom optimization for Warhead.

 

I am getting a laptop with EXACTLY the same components as you Clyzm. Is there anything i should install/uninstall when I get it (comes with vista installed) or modify it in any way to increase performance, or is it good enough straight out of the box.

 

Aside from disabling a few basic windows services (i.e. hard drive indexing), you shouldn't need to do much. You shouldn't have any bloatware installed with this system if you ordered from a good re-seller.

Aside from that, update your video card drivers, and I personally (as well as others in this thread) overclocked the processor to 2.7Ghz using SetFSB.

 

im trying out this setfsb program, what is a safe temperature threshold?

 

No way you'll hit the threshold. CPU designed for up to 105C, your safe at around 75-80C, if you can even get it that high...

 

sooo is this program supposed to crash or lock up my system?

 

I don't know why, but with my cust cfg @ 1680x1050 i score 16-17 fps!! in crysis 1 same cfg I scored 22 fps!! How it is possible?

 

Yeah those "better picture quality, better fps" custom configs might not be working so well on Crysis Warhead since it's a slightly modified engine. Also, 1680x1050 on a 8800GTX? Jeez... what kinda settings are you running there.

 

Clyzm, did the FSB overclock raise your average framerate much?

 

I got about 4-5fps more from a raise of 2.5 - 2.7. I was very impressed.

 

do you guys have an issues with crashing or freezing when you use setfsb? im trying to figure out if im doing something wrong...

 

Make sure your GPU is NOT overclocked. You can take the OC up 1-2% for the GPU, but try it stock first. They cannot be OC'd together.

 

The FSB overclock took me up about 2-3 FPS. Also, my computer as a whole seems noticeably faster, in the sense that windows seems to be opening apps and such much quicker.

I only wish that I could apply the settings on startup so my proc wouldn't go back to 2.53 after a restart.

 

whats the stock setting for the gpu? when i hit get fsb it says 963/760 (im assuming thats the GPU) and 2394.1 for the CPU. will it automatically overclock the GPU too when i hit set fsb?