|
The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread
|
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2008 @ 20:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
kill the deer for food :D
we shoudl call this the official graphics card and PC gaming thread.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2008 @ 20:57
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:06 |
Link to this message
|
Maybe we should. You can't talk about one and not talk about the other.
The performance increase is noticeable. I have better highs, but a similar average. I topped out at 40 running through the jungle. They use HDR and bloom to kind of hide the outside when you go into a dark stand of trees or when you first walk into an open field. So everything is much smoother now with only a slight decrease in overal visual detail. But this is made up for easily by all the other improvements. This is how Crysis should have been to begin with.
Th verdict so far is...
Crysis
Gameplay: 9/10
Graphics: 8/10
Performance: 4.5/10
Overall: 8/10
Crysis: Warhead
Gameplay: 9/10
Graphics: 10/10(IMO)
Performance: 5/10
Overall: 9/10
Warhead isn't much different. But there are enough graphical improvements, performance boosts, and bug fixes to call it a decent overall improvement. I'll at least go so far to say, if you Can handle Crysis decently, Warhead can be expected to run at the same settings with a slight FPS boost. Any improvements at all were welcome.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2008 @ 21:12
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:10 |
Link to this message
|
Wow,
That's quite a thorough review for a relatively short amount of play time.
So what does the game cost? How are they marketing it? You said parallel, but I still don't quite get it. Will people who haven't played crysis (like me) get this one instead and not the original??
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
So what does the game cost? How are they marketing it? You said parallel, but I still don't quite get it. Will people who haven't played crysis (like me) get this one instead and not the original??
It's a different game than the original. Warhead tells the story from one of your squadmate's point of view. Get both as they're both worth it. I'd recommend you get the first one before Warhead. You will understand the story WAY better and you will get the full effect of all the improvements made in Warhead..
Warhead is supposed to be a bit shorter so it's only $30. I got mine for 29.95 +tax at Gamestop.
Quote:
That's quite a thorough review for a relatively short amount of play time.
These are all improvements that jumped out at me right away because they fixed all the issues that bothered me before. I've had maybe an hour of play time in the last several hours. Enough to get a good impression at least.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
so was this on DX10 enthusiast at 1920 with a stock 4870 and a 3.4 Q6600?
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:35 |
Link to this message
|
Nope I'm using Windows XP Dx9 with all high(gamer). But very high settings can now be selected in Dx9. I won't bother. It's still something I'll need crossfire for to even test it out decently.
Crysis was originally developed as a Dx9 native game. The Dx10 features are a few extra shaders in Very High that really don't add much. In the original Crysis, Very high can still be hacked so you get only the visual improvements. With this "cheap" very high, you get the light beams, parallax mapping, color grading and everything.
I don't think it's that much different to hack the "cheap" very high settings in Warhead. But the in-game very high settings kill my framerate. I'll try it tomorrow and report in :P
Overall though, the game is "prettier". Sam WILL notice the improvements instantly like I did.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:39 |
Link to this message
|
As long as I don't enable AA performance is admirable on all high, but the 40% drop caused by enabling the very high hack (and 60% drop by doing it properly) will be a bit too much to make 2560 playable, and AA is out of the question.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol 40%? The cheap very high hack gives maybe a 15-20% drop in performance. You might get say 25FPS instead of 30.
One thing that killed the realism for me: you automatically pick up ammo now. I thought scavenging the ammo from the ground and picking it up yourself was a cool feature :(
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
24. September 2008 @ 21:59 |
Link to this message
|
Well .... Nice! So now crysis is two games in one - more bang for the buck when the new build comes along. When did Shaff say the 7870 was coming? Oh, first the 5870, I forgot. Boozer says wait on the new build until Nehelem - will that be quad core?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 22:16 |
Link to this message
|
ok guys educate me some here.. now remember i dont have the top end GPU you all have. and i have only been playing COD4 for a month or so now.
wlak me through these settings you all keep talking about..
AA??
HIGH default settings?? where do you make these changes at?
is this part of OCing the GPU or in the game?
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
24. September 2008 @ 22:18 |
Link to this message
|
i7 will have dual quad and octo configurations.
im waiting for the GTX280 GX2 if there is such a card, if not the GTX380, becuase competition is good for the customer.
also comeon deneb (amd 45nm Quadcore)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 22:26 |
Link to this message
|
They are still separate games. But the second is cheaper so go nuts :P
The battles are a bit more scripted and action oriented. Whereas you'd face 5-6 guys at once in Crysis, you'll be facing 10-15 in Warhead. They come at you from all different directions and add a lot of strategy to the fights. The scripting means they'll be taking cover in hardened positions and taking advantage of their terrain, such as charging down hills at you. Though they are a bit easier to kill this time through, they seem to have grasped the concepts of movement, cover, suppressing fire and teamwork well enough to provide a consistent challenge.
Warhead is taking 1.4GB of RAM as we speak. So expect it to take advantage of anything over 2GB if you have it... runs smooth for me though. At least as well as stock Crysis.
Also, just in. There are really nice rain effects that make everything look shiny and wet.
The story is, IMO, pretty exciting. The cut scenes are sweet as sh1t.
EVERYONE GET THIS GAME NOW AND SEE ALL THE NEW FEATURES!!!! It's definitely an improvement on the original.
Also, the cheap very high settings work fine. Runs as smooth as Crysis did with them on.
Quote:
AA??
HIGH default settings?? where do you make these changes at?
is this part of OCing the GPU or in the game?
In most games, you go to options in-game and you can change the graphics settings so the performance suits your system. The settings are usually high, medium, and low or you can enable or disable features. Lowered or disabled settings means lowered graphical quality, sometimes drastically, but higher performance. Higher settings are more demanding on your system but look much better.
AA is anti-aliasing. It's an image filter that drastically cleans up the image and helps eliminate jagged edges in the graphics due to the limits of monitor resolution. You can usually enable AA by going in your graphics control panel or in the in-game menu if it has the option. AA does have a performance hit, but if your system can handle it, it can really make a difference and make the game look way better.
Also, never OC your GPU. That's only asking for trouble.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2008 @ 22:39
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 22:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry, but I've got even more. You play as Psycho and apparently, his last name is Sykes.
Pretty much confirmed now that every weapon got a re-texture to look more detailed and more cool :P
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 22:50 |
Link to this message
|
well im sure my system can handle any game out right now... not to sure about my GPU...lol Evga Ge-force 7600GT 256mb
like i said i have only played COD4 so far. and i havent gone into any options in the game to set up the quality level high,med,low will look into that tonight before i play Madden 09..lol
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 23:00 |
Link to this message
|
Your system will have problems with something like Crysis no doubt. It's the most demanding game ever to come out. But something like CoD4 is very reasonable on your system. I used to have a 7600GT and they aren't all that bad. I recommend you disable "shadows" and "soften smoke edges" settings as they really don't add much to the game but give the biggest performance hits. I used a 7600GT to play CoD4 before and it was still relatively enjoyable compared to my 8800GTS or HD4870.
There are a lot more action-scripted sequences in Warhead. Apparently, while Nomad was taking a stroll on the beach, Psycho was doing some intense, difficult sh1t. There is a driving sequence early on that especially impressed me. Keep in mind that, while improved, Warhead has a lot more action going on at once so you will still see some lower framerates.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2008 @ 23:04
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 23:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Estuansis:
Your system will have problems with something like Crysis no doubt. It's the most demanding game ever to come out. But something like CoD4 is very reasonable on your system.
my system will or the GPU???
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
The GPU specifically. The rest of the system seems to be top-notch to me.
More weapons. A semi-auto grenade launcher *drools*. An AMD processor can handle it, but I think Warhead, moreso than Crysis, is one game where the jump to Core 2 architecture is big. So many scripted sequences and heavy physics. My Core 2 Quad breezes through the physics :D
Also, there are claymores for setting traps and boobie traps the Koreans will set up. I thought it was a nice touch.
Warhead is like twice as much action on the screen as Crysis. Lots of explosions and some awesome gun fights with at least 6-8 guys on both sides.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. September 2008 @ 23:34
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 23:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
ok i can accept that..lol i know my GPU is my weekest link. other than maybe some more mem... you started to scare me there..lol
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. September 2008 @ 23:30 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, you could easily power something like an HD4870 and game like a champ :)
More details. There are hovercraft which are sweet and the performance in ice levels has improved a bit. Also, the SMG(not the new one) that was previously too weak to use, is now serviceable and can even take down guys in nanosuits with some effort...
And now, with further play, I can confidently say that Warhead is a heavy improvement from Crysis in some areas. There are some new shader effects later on that put everything else absolutely to shame. Get it and see what I mean.
Any questions? Show of hands?
I won't spoil the story though. It's totally worth the purchase alone, IMO.
I'm totally hooked now. The absolutely awe-inspiring action sequences and cut scenes make up completely for the loss of sandbox gameplay. Objectives are much more focused which works amazingly well for the style of guns and gameplay.
Keep in mind that Warhead needed to be optimized to even be playable. When running around on the beach or in the woods like in most of Crysis, I get 30-35. But as the game takes off and the action picks up, I hover around 25-30 with occasional drops to maybe 22 or so. Even with the enhancements, the amount of stuff they throw at you means jumpy performance like in the last parts of Crysis. Though, I've seen nothing quite as bad as the final boss in the original. And that's with way more happening, so I think they've done a lot to help playability. And that's with the post processing haze improved so the ultra high-res textures are way more visible and stunning.
Again, I stress, there is WAY WAY WAY more action going on than in any part of Crysis. Warhead is a different kind of beast. It really shows off the power of CryEngine and makes it POP! Changes aside, Crysis and Warhead are still near identical graphical equals for the most part, but some parts of Warhead make Crysis look like a quiet morning in church... yeah, it's just that awesome.
"Wow" Factor:
Crysis: 7/10 (9/10 in later levels)
Warhead: 10/10(all the way through so far)
Nothing is apparently different at first. But when you start looking for the ugly spots Crysis had, you won't find them. Everything just looks like a higher level of quality and retains it all the way through.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. September 2008 @ 03:45
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. September 2008 @ 07:21 |
Link to this message
|
Estuansis: Read the article, i think it was 24fps to 18 with the hack, and 14 in Vista running the real very high. Warhead is looking really good though, so tempting... ;)
As for picking up ammo, I heard that was only on the lower difficulty, the higher ones it's the same:
Spam: GTX280GX2 won't happen without a significant reduction in TDP. GTX380 will undoubtedly happen eventually, but I'd probably expect a GTX290 of some kind first.
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
25. September 2008 @ 10:24 |
Link to this message
|
All of you will probably laugh at all this, but I'm just wondering which card is better in a single card setup, the gtx 280 or the HD 4870
Thanks
(+[_]%) 1: 2.60 > 2.80 > 2.81 >3.03 > 1.50 > 3.52M33 > 3.52M33-4 > 3.90M33 > 3.90M33-3 > 4.01M33 > 4.01M33-2 > 5.00M33 > 5.00M33-3
My GAMING LAPTOP!! : Acer Aspire 5930G - P8400 2.26Ghz//4 GB DDR2//GeForce 9600M GT 512MB GDDR3
Ultimate Handheld/Portable Gaming Device :P |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. September 2008 @ 11:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, the GTX280 is mildly faster, but also far more expensive. I'd go with the HD4870 for the monumental cost saving, the GTX280 is barely more than 10% faster than the 4870 in a fair few tests.
|
Senior Member
|
25. September 2008 @ 11:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
and i think GTX280 also uses more power. HD4870 is just little behind just like sam said, and it cheaper and use less power
SEX
Now Ive got your attention please read my post above
Own: Computer, PS2, PS3, PSP and Asus UX32VD i5 Ultrabook
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
25. September 2008 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
A little less, yeah. On the other hand, if you want the fastest card you can buy that fits in one PCI express slot, consider the HD4870X2 (assuming you use at least a 23" monitor, else it's pretty much pointless)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
25. September 2008 @ 12:00 |
Link to this message
|
Alright thanks, so the 280 is the better performer, but is quite a bit more expensive.
Just one more question:
I play crysis at medium/high (a mix of both) at 1280x800 playable.
Will I be able to play Warhead with everything on high due to the engine improvements???
Thanks
EDIT : I'm not planning on buying one of these, just wondering :D
(+[_]%) 1: 2.60 > 2.80 > 2.81 >3.03 > 1.50 > 3.52M33 > 3.52M33-4 > 3.90M33 > 3.90M33-3 > 4.01M33 > 4.01M33-2 > 5.00M33 > 5.00M33-3
My GAMING LAPTOP!! : Acer Aspire 5930G - P8400 2.26Ghz//4 GB DDR2//GeForce 9600M GT 512MB GDDR3
Ultimate Handheld/Portable Gaming Device :P
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. September 2008 @ 12:02
|
