has anyone tried crysis warhead yet?

It only comes out next Tuesday last I checked.  I intend on getting it.

Is it an expansion pack or standalone game? I have held off on playing crysis (I got it really late) I was thinking of playing it after I got my 4870 but warhead is supposed to offer better performance so I'm waiting.

SO i read the IGN review, this part looks interesting:

Finally, we get to the part of the review everyone wants to know about:performance. Crytek claims that Warhead is better optimized thanCrysis, and everything I experienced confirms this. In fact, what'samazing is that Warhead not only runs better than Crysis, it looksbetter than Crysis. Keep in mind, a year has passed since Crysisshipped and there still isn't a non-Crytek game that approaches it interms of visuals. Warhead features more definition to the terrain, andthe lighting and particle effects have gotten big boosts. I foundmyself walking through jungle with the morning light piercing thecanopy and had to stop and just absorb the moment. It had a level ofatmosphere that I can't recall from the first game.

I played Warhead on a high-end machine with a quad core CPU and thelatest Nvidia graphics card at high resolution (1680x1050) with all thedetails set to Enthusiast, which is essentially very high. It lookedcutting edge and the frame rate was solid. Next, I checked the game ona slightly older PC with a two-year old 8800GTS and I was still able tocrank it to Enthusiast settings and the same resolution and get solidresults. Finally, I checked it out on the "$700 PC" that Crytek and EAhave been touting. It really is a $700 machine built on the latestmainstream parts (the video card is a 9800GT), and I was able to playthe final boss battle at the same resolution and at Enthusiast settingsand get solid frame rates. I also tried it the Gamer setting, which isessentially high, and the frame rate was buttery smooth. You do losesome visual quality stepping down from Enthusiast, but even at GamerWarhead still looks better than almost every game out there.

I really did not like how crysis performed on my 8800gtx, I'm pretty anal about graphics though, he claims you can play it very well on a 9800GT which is a pretty crappy card, but I wonder, typically IGN's PC game reviewers come off as being pretty NON-hardcore, so I'm not sure I trust his judgement.

So, my sister's friend told her that running a tri-SLI rig with three 512MB cards performs MUCH better that a rig with two SLI at 1GB.  Discuss.

It's possible.  Depends one which cards we're comparing, as well as which games/settings.

However if I assume we're talking about the same GPU only with different memory configuration then this comparison is impossible.  There are no Nvidia GPUs that come in both 512MB and 1024MB configurations and support tri sli.   

This comparison is doable for ATI cards though.  Both their HD 4870 and HD 4850 come in 512MB and 1024MB variants.  In most cases having more raw processing power will beat having 512MB over 1024MB.

So three 4850 w/512MB should beat two HD 4850 w/1024MB when the game scales well with crossfire.  

In general more than 512MB of ram is unneccessary until you reach 1920x1200 and high settings.  I would say you can still get away with 512MB of RAM at 1920x1200, at 2560x1600 you'd want more than 512MB though.  In theory you're friend is right but three graphics cards almost never scale well though.  So it really depends on the games/settings.

If you SLI 2 cards you can still use 4 screens right?  I have an 8800 GTS 640 MB as my main card, then an X1900 as my secondary card.  If I'm not able to max out SC2 with 60+ fps on my 8800 I might consider getting a second one and going SLI.  If you can't I'll just buy a single card that can, or build a completely new PC.  

Not yet but soon.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/hardware.ars/2008/08/01/nvidia-forceware-180-big-bang-ii

So that should be working before SC 2 comes out.  Good to know I have a variety of options. I might have to get that monitor once SC2 comes out as well.

I don't think 640 8800 GTS's are carried by retailers anymore.  I have one laying around, it used to be on my "fuck around" PC, but I replaced it with my 8800gtx when I got my hd4870.   It's so massive for its weak performance, it's the same size as a GTX but like 50% weaker.

I'm trying to sell mine, but I don't understand why you'd want to waste money on that when cheap 8800gt's are better and lighter.

I'll probably just get something a lot faster and put my 8800 in the second slot then.

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

However if I assume we're talking about the same GPU only withdifferent memory configuration then this comparison is impossible. There are no Nvidia GPUs that come in both 512MB and 1024MBconfigurations and support tri sli.  

That's the thing.  She's planning on getting three 8800gt cards.  She was looking at the 1024 version, but you can only sli two cards, and that would give her weaker performance than three 512s.

Before anybody jumps the gun on the "OMG, those cards are whack!" statement, keep in mind that my sister doesn't make very good money, and is perfectly fine with trying to get more bang for her buck.  This is the same girl that still uses a P4 to this day, but is building her own rig, now.  And, yes, she is well aware of the fact that Pentium 4 processors were indeed "whack" at their inception.  She likes tweaking the hell out of her computer, and squeezing performance out of nothing!  She's damn good at it too!  I think she was more than happy with the price/performance ratio of the card she chose, but everybody feel free to chime in with opinions (I know it's coming anyway!)

I would never let a sibling be 1337er than me, especially not my sister.

8800GTs do not support tri SLI at all.  They only have one SLI connector.  You need two for tri SLI.

It would be stupid to get three of these even if they did support tri sli.  Tell her to get a GTX 280 instead for the same money, you can get a GTX 280 for like 400$.  SLI is shit anyways, you have all kinds of problems with micro stuttering, and that's if it works at all.  People have had two 8800GTS and upgraded to a single GTX 280 to avoid the issues and micro stuttering.  Even if the frames look higher on paper (in some cases) with two 8800GTs, a single GTX 280 will always provide smoother gameplay, always.  In higher resolutions the GTX 280 will also get much higher frames too.

If she wants to to have two cards tell her to get two HD 4850s.  Two HD 4850's are much stronger than two 8800GTs.  You can even get three HD 4850's.  Like I said though her best bet is to buy one GTX 280.

The next card up that supports tri SLI are the 9800GTX(+) which are essentially overclocked 8800GTs.  They're in the 200$ range.  If she can spend that much I would get two GTX 260's in SLI (actully I wouldn't get two cards ever).    

There's no point to a GTX280 with a Pentium 4 processor, are you kidding me?$0$0$0$0That's like having a 20 GHZ cpu running on windows 95, there's no point.$0

WTF is wrong with the forums ?

There's no point to a GTX280 with a Pentium 4 processor, are youkidding me?$0$0$0$0That's like having a 20 GHZ cpu running on windows95, there's no point.$0

She's building a new rig.  And kikizo is allergic to Chrome.  Or maybe it's vice versa.

Original: Agent Ghost

8800GTs do not support tri SLI at all.  They only have one SLI connector.  You need two for tri SLI.

Hmmm.  I'll have to talk to her about that one.  That GTX 280 is a little out of her price range, though.  The 8800gt she got cost about $100.  That 280 is $420 for the cheapest one!  Is there anything you'd recommend in the $200 range?

And yeah, she's got a new mobo and processor.  I don't know what kind, though.

The HD 4850 is the best card for 200$.  Two 8800GTs will outperform a single HD 4850 but as I mentioned she's going to have issues with two cards, although probably nothing severe.  People are loving the HD 4850 as the price/performance is amazing. 

I was able to play crysis warhead on enthusiast but the graphics kind of sucked, alot of objects had shitty textures, especially the far away ones, there is also too much texture pop in, you have to be right infront of the textures for them to be high quality, as you move back even just a few step backs the textures get shittier.