Crysis: Warhead

Kicking things off as always is Crysis: Warhead, still one of the toughest game in our benchmark suite. Even 3 years since the release of the original Crysis, “but can it run Crysis?” is still an important question, and for 3 years the answer was “no.” Dual-GPU halo cards can now play it at Enthusiast settings at high resolutions, but for everything else max settings are still beyond the grasp of a single card.

Though NVIDIA is primarily targeting the GTX 550 Ti towards 1680x1050 users, we’re including 1920x1200 to showcase games where the card is fast enough to handle that higher resolution at a playable framerate, or to show where it’s close to crossing the mark. However this is largely to satisfy our curiosity rather than to generate data from which to draw a comparison.

Out of our normal card lineup the GTS 450 is the slowest card we keep, so NVIDIA quite literally has nowhere else to go but up here. For the GTX 550 this means vaulting well past the GTS 450, giving us a 23% increase in performance; keep in mind that the theoretical improvement based on core and memory clocks alone is only 15%, so whenever we exceed that we are clearly seeing the benefits of the additional ROPs, L2 cache, and memory bandwidth afforded by enabling the 3rd memory controller. In any case at 32.2fps it’s playable, however Crysis is a demanding enough game that it makes much more sense to turn the game’s settings down some more before taking it on.

Meanwhile compared to AMD’s offerings the GTX 550 comes out ahead of the 5770 by half a frame per second, while the 6850 completely clears the field - –he GTX 550 only manages 72% of the 6850’s performance here. The situation compared to the GTX 460 768MB is much better, but still the GTX 550 is only 85% as fast.

As for the Zotac factory overclock, here we’re picking up 3%. This is curiously much lower than the theoretical advantage.

In terms of minimum framerates the GTX 550 ends up doing better. It ends up being ahead of the 5770 by nearly 10%, and against the 450 it beats it by 30%. However the GTX 550 still falls short of the 6850 by nearly 25%.

The Test BattleForge
Comments Locked

79 Comments

View All Comments

  • vedye - Thursday, March 17, 2011 - link

    Thanks for pointing that out!! But the author will not respond to you. Anantech is already proven pro-Nvidia. If I were them, I would ignore ur post as well. Just keep pretending.
  • Demon-Xanth - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    From the consumer standpoint, why would I get a 550 over a 460? I read through this and can't come up with a single reason.
  • Gami - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    there's no point in getting it.. they need to eliminate the stock of the 400 series first, from all outlets, so that this thing would actually have a chance to be even thought of being bought.
  • Taft12 - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    Soon that reason will be "the GTX 460 768MB is not available", but that is not yet true, and indeed there is no reason to buy this card.
  • qwertymac93 - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    how did they get 1GB of memory with a 192-bit bus? Are you sure its not 768MB?
  • Demon-Xanth - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    There's a whole page on that. Plus many comments on other pages.
  • z3nny - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    Yeah, RTFA.
  • Lolimaster - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    So after near 1.5years HD5770 is the better buy for mid value customers. Right now in many places HD6850 costs less than the 460 1GB and performs better (even more with the new 11.4pre and future (mejolnir "driver" updates)
  • qwertymac93 - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    never mind, read the next page... And now i wish you guys had an edit function...
  • z3nny - Tuesday, March 15, 2011 - link

    It would have helped if you RTFA first before posting like a fool.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now