Crysis: Warhead

Kicking things off as always is Crysis: Warhead, still the toughest game in our benchmark suite.Even 2 years since the release of the original Crysis, “but can it run Crysis?” is still an important question.

Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead

Crysis can be particularly memory-dependent, which in this case highlights the difference between the 768MB and 1GB GTX 460. 2560x1600 is not a viable option on the 768MB card here (or in most other games) due to the lack of VRAM, while at lower resolutions we can still clearly see the impact of having less RAM, less L2 cache, and less ROP power. At both 1680 and 1920, the 1GB GTX 460 is roughly 10% faster than the 768MB card. This much less than the 33% lead the 1GB GTX 460 has in terms of RAM/L2/ROP, but it’s still clear that there is a price to pay on the 768MB GTX 460.

Meanwhile the Radeon 5830 - already a hobbled card due to having half the ROPs of a full Radeon HD 5870 – takes a hard loss here. The 768MB GTX 460 comes ahead at 1920 by roughly 14% even with its RAM disadvantage. AMD definitely has their work cut out for them. As for the Radeon 5850, the 1GB GTX 460 trails right behind it until we hit 2560, where AMD’s continued advantage at high resolutions helps the card pull away some.

Crysis Warhead - Minimum Frame Rate

Crysis Warhead - Minimum Frame Rate

Crysis Warhead - Minimum Frame Rate

Looking at the minimum framerates, the difference in RAM/L2/ROPs becomes more pronounced. Here the 1GB GTX 460 has a 15% advantage at 1920, and strangely enough even beats a 5850 here. With the greater overhead of SLI this becomes even more of an issue, with our ragtag SLI set of 1GB GTX 460s beats our pair of factory overclocked EVGA 768MB GTX 460s by 33%. Finally the 5830 fares even worse, losing to the 768MB GTX 460 by 35%. In Crysis there is no substitute for more RAM and more ROPs.

The Test BattleForge: DX10
POST A COMMENT

93 Comments

View All Comments

  • san1s - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link

    I hope this is the card that finally brings price drops, they have been stagnant for far too long. Reply
  • JGabriel - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link


    It should. The 768MB version seems to perform about 5% better than the 5830, and the 1GB version comes to ~90% of the 5850.

    Just on a performance per dollar basis, that means ATI should drop the 5830 to $189 max, with somewhere in the $170-$180 range being more reasonable, and the 5850 needs to drop down to about $249. Basically, we should be looking at 10%-20% price cuts for the 5670, 5750, 5770, 5830, and 5850.

    It should force the GTX 470 under $300, too.

    .
    Reply
  • medi01 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link

    Best way to drop prices would be to ramp up production. Now, if what I've heard is true (fab treats nVidia as a preferred customer, unlike AMD) we will get yet another round of unfair competition, which in the end will hurt us, customers. :(

    PS
    Is it me, or articles on this side seem quite a bit to be more positive on what nVidia does, than what would feel neutral? Marketing hints like "it’s not a simple reduced version of GF100 like what AMD did" all over... :(
    Reply
  • jonup - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link

    It is you! Only need to go to the GTX465 review to disptove your point. Reply
  • teohhanhui - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link

    Giving credit where it is due? Reply
  • nafhan - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link

    Ryan said that because the GF104 isn't a simple reduced version of GF100. Did you notice the part of the article where they talked about superscalar processing? That's not only a marketing bullet point, it's a pretty big change from an architecture point of view, too! Reply
  • medi01 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

    And this detail brings what particular benefit to the user? In particular, contrasting it with competitors (otherwise superior, cooler and faster) solution? Someone makes something wrong, then he has to rework it (the competitor, that did it right from the beginning, doesn't) and this somehow makes he deserve "some credit"? Reply
  • Ben90 - Monday, July 12, 2010 - link

    About that "marketing" comment about not a shrink of GF100, its completely true and how does that make this site pro-NVIDIA?

    You should check out the next article; very first paragraph:

    "In 2007 we reviewed NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800 GT. At the time we didn’t know it would be the last NVIDIA GPU we would outright recommend at launch."
    Reply
  • medi01 - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

    It's completely true, yet it is confusing at best. Piece of silicon is "praised" for something, that has no practical value to the consumer.

    And please, don't compare nVidia article to nVidia article, compare it to AMD:

    When 5830 was reviewed, and mind you, it's a nice card that runs cooler, has eyefinity, but is a tad slower than older 49xx, this fact was PUT INTO TITLE, mind you. It was mentioned in the very NAME of the article, that new 200$ card is a tad slower than older ones. (basically the only "bad thing" that one could say about the card)

    In case of 465 it's barely mentioned "oh, it's slower than older 200$ cards".

    =(
    Reply
  • Lonyo - Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - link

    Anandtech is a tech site that often goes more into the under the hood bits.
    On some sites you will see them calculating performance per currency numbers, or performance per watt.
    On Anandtech you will have them discussing things like changes to the architecture, the way the threading works etc.
    That's not a new thing, and it's not a biased thing, that's just what they do here at AT in their reviews. It just so happens that the GTX460 has some of those under the hood changes compared to the earlier cards based on the same architecture, so they are discussed in the article.
    If you don't care too much about that sort of thing, you can just skip to the benchmarks. If you are interested in it, then it's a nice addition.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now