Crysis: Warhead

Up next is our legacy title for 2014, Crysis: Warhead. The stand-alone expansion to 2007’s Crysis, at over 5 years old Crysis: Warhead can still beat most systems down. Crysis was intended to be future-looking as far as performance and visual quality goes, and it has clearly achieved that. We’ve only finally reached the point where single-GPU cards have come out that can hit 60fps at 1920 with 4xAA, never mind 2560 and beyond.

Crysis: Warhead - 3840x2160 - Gamer Quality

Crysis: Warhead - 2560x1440 - Enthusiast Quality + 4x MSAA

Crysis: Warhead - 1920x1080 - Enthusiast Quality + 4x MSAA

With the GTX 980 already falling just short of beating the R9 290XU in Crysis: Warhead, this is the only other instance where the GTX 970 isn’t a completely competitive card. Even the EVGA FTW overclock can’t help it catch up to the R9 290, let alone the R9 290XU. Crysis simply calls for more shader power than what the GTX 970 can realistically deliver.

Crysis: Warhead - Min. Frame Rate - 3840x2160 - Gamer Quality

Crysis: Warhead - Min. Frame Rate - 2560x1440 - Enthusiast Quality + 4x MSAA

The story is much the same with minimum framerates. Although GTX 970 doesn’t fare any worse relatively speaking, it also doesn’t get to close the gap.

Crysis 3 Total War: Rome 2
Comments Locked

155 Comments

View All Comments

  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link

    So you're saying it doesn't matter to say "clocked at 7GHz" when the actual clock is 1.75GHz. Well it matters to me! What if the chip multiplies the core clock by 2 internally; should we then say the core clock is 2.2GHz instead of 1.1GHz?
  • Black Obsidian - Monday, September 29, 2014 - link

    And thus the reporting of EFFECTIVE clock speeds. Not everyone does (or can) understand the complexities of the underlying architecture.
  • jtrdfw - Wednesday, September 30, 2015 - link

    yes. heatsinks on memory are pretty much a scam
  • MagickMan - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    How about a 970 OC vs 290 OC comparison? I don't have a favored GPU, I just care about bang for buck.
  • The_Assimilator - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    What would be the point? 970 already equals or beats 290X, and you don't get much from overclocking Hawaii GPUs, apart from more heat.
  • poohbear - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Thank u for including a full stable of previous gen video cards to compare it to! In particularly the 670 & 770! Gives us a better idea of how it performs!
  • Tetracycloide - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Seconded. Still running a 6950 flashed to 6970 so having the stock 6970 as a point of reference made this the easiest buy ever. Roughly twice the performance with lower power, heat, and noise? Yes.
  • roxamis - Monday, September 29, 2014 - link

    I have the same card (Sapphire 6950 Dirt 3, unlocked to 6970) and one fan of the 2 died last week (hitting 90-100 deg C in games). So with that I went to see what i can replace it with and the 970 ticks all my marks.
  • krazyfrog - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    The price-to-performance ratio is strong with this one.
  • Frenetic Pony - Friday, September 26, 2014 - link

    Certainly, but considering AMD has implemented some of the same things I'd expect an equivalent price to performance ratio from AMD for their new cards. Cut down the 290's bus to 256bit, clock the ram to 7ghz, and with the bandwidth compression you'd get a cheaper card with the same performance.

    Still, nice all around to have choices, been looking at cards myself, and am going to build a system for my brother quite soon. Yay price wars!

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now