Crysis Warhead Hardware Performance Review Comments Thread

[MpG]

Originally Posted by FiXT

Not a bad idea at all. I will keep it in mind for future reviews - provided there is enough time. I would like to expand on the Ram/OS section, unfortunately that is usually the section that takes the most time. As games become outdated so quickly after release, sometimes trade offs have to be made between more content, and just getting the most desired information out there asap.

Agree completely. Even those of us who actually LIKE benching our computers just don't have the time or resources to compare the kind of stuff that this review did, which is why it's nice to see this data organized and laid out for us. And I would consider the areas that you did compare to ALL be more important than memory.

[nam]

Crysis Warhead Hardware Performance Review


well presented and clear to read nice one keep up the good work the memory bench was interesting i.e 2gb over 4gb

[gs01]

Yes I have the tlb disabled on my xp and vista using the tlb disable tool at extremesystems, and yes doing a search it seems isolated to amd cards. I mean this is an awesome game it's just a shame I can't enjoy it to well even mainstream in multiplayer it's still sketchy. Hopefully some better drivers come out I got 8.10 beta they helped a bit maybe the final release will solve it.

[=v4v=radsbee]

Great review Have the game and love it playing on mainstream, gamer was a little tough on my system. On mainstream it is very smooth, never took note of FPS. Love the mouse over.

[belgolas]

Awesome review! Get a pay raise.

Anyways I am playing crysis warhead with playable frame rate at 1920 x 1200 Enthusiast with 8 x AA. This game is so amazingly beautiful. Although some of the cut scenes are a little dull.

[random_2]

The apprehension over Vista has been the major cause of the slow adoption along with game developers lagging behind on the uptake. The original Crysis was heralded for its DirectX10 support, and the gamers who used it were treated to improved visuals and immersion. However, Crysis Warhead has arguably taken a step back in terms of quality, offering almost no visual improvements when using the supposedly advanced technology. Is this apparent lack of change a limitation of the game's engine, negligence on behalf of the developers, or does DirectX10 just not offer the quality boost that we once thought?

I'd say from every article I have ever read about DX10, that it was the fact it showed no improvements visually....got that?....none nada, zero...was the reason, people didn't adopt it. Oh yeah....and then there's the substantial performance hit by switching over to Vista and DX10.
Warheads "taken a step back"???????????? How could that possibly be? From What?
Ummm....hate to break it to you, but there never was a quality boost under DX10, so how is it possible to question whether it's negligence or a limitation of the games engine?
You must have missed all those reviews that were specifically searching for improvements w/ DX10 and couldn't find them.

[FiXT]

Originally Posted by random_2

I'd say from every article I have ever read about DX10, that it was the fact it showed no improvements visually....got that?....none nada, zero...was the reason, people didn't adopt it. Oh yeah....and then there's the substantial performance hit by switching over to Vista and DX10.
Warheads "taken a step back"???????????? How could that possibly be? From What?
Ummm....hate to break it to you, but there never was a quality boost under DX10, so how is it possible to question whether it's negligence or a limitation of the games engine?
You must have missed all those reviews that were specifically searching for improvements w/ DX10 and couldn't find them.

I encourage you to read the full review so as to not miss the screenshot evidence showing both DirectX9 in the original Crysis and DirectX10 in which there are very clear differences, most notably in the lighting, and in the extra background textures and features.
I don't quite know what reviews you have been looking at, but again if you refer to the above mentioned screenshots, you will very clearly see a visual difference between DX9 and 10. Coupled with the resource management improvements of DX10 as shown in our ram charts I would say this would be a very compelling reason to switch over. Arguably, the factor holding people back is the fact that one has to use Vista in order to take advantage of it - thereby making Vista a limiting factor - hence the very true and factual statement in the review. Also in the review, was the chart showing very little difference between XP and Vista, page 8 in case you missed it.


With Warhead DX9 and DX10 are virtually the same. With the original offering improved performance under DirectX10, one has to wonder why the same option was not available in the sequel? I consider this a step back, but this may be debatable: have stepped back DX10, or stepped up DX9.. you say tomato, I say tomato (mmm, that saying doesn't work so well in print ) either way, it is a step in the wrong direction given the potential DX10 has.

[random_2]

The difference here I believe is in the Very High Settings As opposed to the difference between DX10 and DX9. Below is a link to a forum showing the file hack in Crysis to let a DX9 card running on XP use very high settings in Crysis. Once done there's little if any difference between the DX9 and DX10.
I'm not saying that later games have not been able to utilize DX10 with more success than the Crytek team, but I really don't think there was much gained with DX10 as developed in the original Crysis.
Are we seeing a better utilization of the DX 10 in Warhead by the game developers,
so that there are in fact more noticeable improvements in this title?
Was the lock on the very high settings in Crysis (original) a matter of necessity due to DX10, or was it a matter of some colusion between developers and manufacturers to force software and hardware upgrades on the general public? If files can be hacked in the game to allow very High settings to be used, then does that make DX10 a bunch of bulls...t??
Is the image quality that much better that it's worth rebuilding/building new, or running Vista and suffering the performance hit of 10-15%?
Meh....I don't know. Now we are all running a mediocre OS because that's what everyone else is doing...namely hardware and software review sites, and we have to stay in the game don't we? Gee and Windows 7 is just around the corner. Hope they get it right this time

Crysis: DirectX 10 vs. DirectX 9 - Features at GameSpot
hothardware.com/News/DX9_vs_DX10_with_Lost_Planet/
Crysis: DirectX 10 vs. DirectX 9 Comparision Screenshots - WinMatrix

Hack for DX 10 settings on DX9 hardware and SW
Crysis Demo 'Very High' Settings Hack

[S_G]

Interesting. I guess they didn't improve the multithreading very much, though it would seem that there may be a very marginal benefit when running a quad versus a dual clock-for-clock.

I have a couple of things to nitpick though. That trailer is far from HD. Maybe "HQ" by Youtube standards, but not HD. HD is at the bare minimum 960x720. And I wouldn't call the differences between DX9 and DX10 minor. The lighting is far more realistic. Other than that, great review! Wish I had more free time to play though.

[belgolas]

I remember in an interview that Crytek said that if you have the power under XP to run very high then why wouldn't they let us. In other words Crytek probably got paid for Crysis to lock very high settings.

Oh and S G HD is technically 1080P. 720P is ED or enhanced definition.