Bad Company 2 & Crysis Warhead QUALITY TEST

Unfortunately, youtube compression seems to make this video suffer greatly. I'm going to investigate for a solution!

Testing Fraps recording quality. Gameplay gets a little better as it goes along. recording doesn't fill the youtube box, as my monitor is 3:4.

RECORDING TIP: record to another hard drive for far better frame-rates while recording. secondary internal is recommended, though an external still gives a benefit.

______________________________________________________________

In Bad company 2, average frame-rate (rounded): 59 fps. Max frame-rate: 60fps. Min Frame-rate: 57 fps.

Because I was recording at 60 fps, that is the maximum possible frame-rate.

Settings were all at maximum excluding anti-aliasing (though anisotropic filtering was at max), as I was forced to run under DX9 to avoid severe artifiacting. Sadly, the lack of AA under DX9 is very prominent in this game.
__________________________________________________________________
In Crysis Warhead, Average frame-rate in non ice level (rounded): 36 fps. Max frame-rate: 40fps. Min frame-rate: 28 fps.

Frame-rate was limited to 40fps max, as that was the set recording fps.

Settings were all at a custom ultra-high equivalent, that gives a better frame-rate along with improved graphics. I believe it was one of the CCC mods, though I'm not quite sure.

Al game-play is in real time, and none is pre-rendered.

System specs:

Intel i7 920
GTX 285
12GB DDR3 RAM
1TB Hitachi internal drive (runs game), 500gb Seagate Internal drive (recorded to).
750 PSU
1280x1024 19" monitor (recorded and played at full res)

FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VIDEO, GAME, OR COMPUTER HARDWARE!! I'll do my best to help!

Category:

Gaming

Tags:

• battlefield
• bad
• company
• graphics
• quality
• test
• crysis
• warhead
• ownage65
• sniped
• snipe
• out
• of
• helicopter
• chopper
• fraps
• ultra
• high
• gtx
• 285
• intel
• i7
• 920
• radeon
• 5870

[AeroFix94]

1280x1024 for that kind of PC specs? wtf dude...

[mesothorium]

lol at start of Crysis part ==> i keel you !! :D

[RobertsDigital]

@DonChilenito I will go for battlefield too.....always like the battlefield games

I dont care about graphics....What I care is the style of gaming.

Battlefield BC2 has a better style of gameplay. Crysis has cool graphics but I prefer battlefield because battlefield multiplayer is wicked (huge maps with soooooo much to do, jets <<BF3/BF2,tanks,mines,surface to air missles & much more)

[DonChilenito]

both are diffretn one is better in some certain things. but as a good game i'll go with Battlefield. can't whait for battlefield 3! to PC 64 players. Big maps with air planes! just as BF2 !!! the WAR is about to begin ;P

[Creepz1337]

do you want to know how you can get these ugly black part go away?

[razzp25]

the frostbite enginge sucks when it comes to draw distance...

[Donkens]

@TheDAWinz dude are you crazy? bad company 2 has nothing to do with battlefield in 2002, that was the refractor engine. Now it's frostbite, and the first frostbite engine was originally programmed for console, and that's when bad company 1 was released. PC players got mad and DICE ported the game to PC.

[TheDAWinz]

@Donkens no bc2 is ported from pc to console, where battlefield origintated in 2002.

[xxslayer66xx]

anyone else thing bf2 had by far a superior design and level of detail. It seems to me that as a whole bf2 does have better graphics as a whole. Certain things in crysis look out of place and there is certaintly things that look alot better in crysis that you will see on occasion but come on.

[Donkens]

What people dont know is that Bc2 is ported from console to PC which makes it not able to have so good quality, Crysis is ported from PC to Console which makes the developers able to cut down on graphics in console.