[Hardware Canucks] Crysis Warhead Hardware Performance Review - Overclock.net

AOwpr · 10-14-08

This doesn't seem to have been posted before, and though I am aware that other hardware performance reviews have been, I think this one is pretty comprehensive in its coverage. They examine the performance of a computer similar to the "Crysis PC," several CPUs (no Q6600

), GPUs (fairly limited range, only around seven cards, but the most popular; also, no multi-GPU configurations), RAM and OS (XP and Vista, with 2 and 4 GBs), DX9/10 performance and image quality, and finally the performance between the original Crysis and Warhead. They also conclude that the DX9/DX10 visual difference in Warhead is less noticeable than that of Crysis.

Quote:

For nearly a year, Crytek’s Crysis has retained its position on the podium as not only one of the best games of all time, but for us hardware nuts - one of the best benchmarks of all time. Crysis benchmarks are often sought out in reviews, much like the sacred Futuremark scores; in fact, here at Hardware Canucks, you readers gravitate towards the Crysis pages more than any other benchmark available! It is the unfathomably high system requirements and stunning graphical details that have earned the game its “System Killer” label.

Now Crytek welcomes a new family member, Crysis Warhead. Warhead is the sequel that follows the adventures of the character Psycho, one of Nomad's sidekicks in the original game, moved to fight on the opposite side of the island. While the developers claimed their intentions for Crysis to be a trilogy, Warhead appears to merely be a standalone "expansion-pack". The number of levels has been cut down and the play time required clocks in at a little under six hours. There are very few additions or improvements to the gameplay; a few weapon changes, some additional vehicles and a little nicer scenery. The story line has obviously been altered, but as it runs parallel to the original adventures of Nomad, the course of events is identical. Much like the first, the story is engaging, the graphics plentifully and lovely, and the action even more fast-paced.

When Crysis Warhead was first announced, the issue of optimization for lower-end systems was a critical factor in its creation. Crytek even went so far as to design a "budget" gaming machine that became a focal point for optimization. Along with making the game a little more system friendly, they also worked on improving the graphics quality to keep the CryEngine the king of visual performance. However, questions surrounding a system's ability to tame the beast still remain. Hardware has evolved at a rapid rate in the past year, the best video cards of 2007 are long dead and buried and new challengers have arisen. Will the acclaimed game of the year be relegated to just another shelf title or will Warhead still tantalize even the most elite of systems?

Source/Read more.

GoOffroad · 10-14-08

Good Looks.

ZealotKi11er · 10-14-08

4870x2 scaling pretty well.

Limes · 10-14-08

How is the 8800 series dead and buried?

ryanrenolds08 · 10-14-08

I think they were wrong with the "Very little visual gain.." statement. The lighting and far off textures look much better in DX10. Even trees far off look better in DX10 and half the time are even non-existant in DX9.

nathris · 10-14-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanrenolds08

I think they were wrong with the "Very little visual gain.." statement. The lighting and far off textures look much better in DX10. Even trees far off look better in DX10 and half the time are even non-existant in DX9.

I had to mouse over a few times just to see the differences. Do you honestly think that being able to see a rock on a beach off in the distance is worth the performance hit?

And no 9800GTX+? Come on, get with the times!

Also, they should have really done the cpu tests at the same speed. Like compare everything at 3GHz (if possible).

AOwpr · 10-14-08

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathris

I had to mouse over a few times just to see the differences. Do you honestly think that being able to see a rock on a beach off in the distance is worth the performance hit?

I think the difference is probably more obvious while playing (or in a high-res video, physics and all). Though I've not played, so can't really opine there.

Quote:

Also, they should have really done the cpu tests at the same speed. Like compare everything at 3GHz (if possible).

Yeah, or at least use stock. A bit confusing.