The minimum specifications haven't changed between the two games, so we wondered how significant the optimizations could be. To give the Crysis and the Warhead optimizations an extra edge, we used a computer system that exceeds the game's requirements.

Game Requirements	Test System
OS: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista Processor: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) Memory: 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista) Graphics: 256 MB Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better	OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Premium (DirectX 10) Processor: Intel Core2 Quad 2.66 Ghz Memory: 2 GB RAM Graphics: 768 MB Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX

We started by using the letting the games automatically scan the hardware and configure the optimal settings. Crysis recommends its highest (Very High) graphics setting for our configuration. Warhead, on the other hand, renames the mid to high settings with vague terms that include Mainstream, Gamer and Enthusiast. Hitting the optimal settings button recommends Mainstream (mid-range setting) for Warhead, which clearly stretches the term. We find it hard to believe that the optimizations are so significant that the medium settings in Warhead are equivalent to the highest settings of the original Crysis. It's more likely that the developers adjusted the optimized settings button to suggest mid-range specifications on high end systems, creating the illusion of increased performance.

Still, we put the two games head-to-head to see if there were any significant performance differences between them using medium to high graphics across a series of anti-aliasing settings.

We ran Fraps alongside the game's internal benchmarking system for frame rate comparisons. Resolutions for both games were set to 1920x1080 and tested in conditions where there was heavy action involved. In all instances, we quit out of the game to the main menu before changing the graphics settings and reloading the same scenarios.

** Medium / Mainstream	Crysis	Crysis Warhead
AA Off	25-30 FPS	25-30 FPS
AA 2x	17 FPS	17-25 FPS
AA 4x	15 FPS	17 FPS
AA 8x	13 FPS	15-17 FPS
AA 8xQ	7 FPS	12 FPS

High / Gamer	Crysis	Crysis Warhead
AA Off	15-25 FPS	20-25 FPS
AA 2x	12-15 FPS	15-17 FPS
AA 4x	10-12 FPS	12-15 FPS
AA 8x	10 FPS	5-10 FPS
AA 8xQ	5-8 FPS	3-7 FPS

* Very High / Enthusiast	Crysis	Crysis Warhead
AA Off	10 FPS	13 FPS
AA 2x	8 FPS	8-12 FPS
AA 4x	6-8 FPS	5-9 FPS
AA 8x	6-8 FPS	1-8 FPS
AA 8xQ	3-5 FPS	0-3 FPS

* Recommended setting for Crysis
** Recommended setting for Crysis Warhead

Although Warhead performed better in most instances, the frame rate increases were only slight. Fixing the graphics optimizer to use medium graphics, while reserving the higher settings for some super computer in the future, was the right approach. The performance differences between the two games aren't very impressive, especially given the fact that it's been a year since Crysis originally released.

So, the good news is that Crysis and Warhead gets solid frame rates at medium settings. Unsurprisingly, performance greatly improved when we lowered the resolution and left anti-aliasing off, which suggests that the game should perform well on mid-range systems given the right settings. The bad news is that you won't be able to turn up the graphics to high or maximum without frame rates dipping to unplayable levels, even with some of the best hardware available today.

Download the Crysis Demo (1.76 GB)
Check out all the Crysis and Crysis Warhead Downloads