EA's Crysis Warhead PC can, uh, play Crysis
By Nilay Patel 
posted Sep 9th 2008 8:32PM
posted Sep 9th 2008 8:32PM
[Via CNET]
Read - Article on Warhead PC's development
Read - Tiger Direct info page
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Hopfully, this will put the eternal question to rest. Because if this does not play Crysis.. then EA fails.
I call it a very smart move because it will put down some of the stereotype that gaming PCs always costs $4000
really its the fault of all the major companies always selling those expensive high end systems without a gaming PC in the affordable range
Damn - this is about $300 cheaper than my computer, and it can't even run Crysis decently at the lowest setting.
Btw, props to whoever worked on that computer case - it's so original.
That sucks, my box cost $400 (started with an HDD, dvd drive, PSU and case), and it runs crysis at 45 fps on medium. :)
I have to agree with Carl, I have a 500$ PC that can play crysis decently on Medium, Even on high, though it gets a little crappy on high, but perhaps if I upgrade my graphics card it'll do it on high flawlessly.
So I guess they didn't do a miracle, believe me, customize your own PC , that is better.
my question is does it come with a copy of crysis warhead ??
Its not that it doesn't cost alot of money to buy a computer that runs Crysis.
Its that when Crysis came out, the video cards, memory and other stuff required COST ALOT OF MONEY.
As time progresses, stuff gets cheaper. I could play Quake 3 right now on an Eee PC.
back in the day, you had to pay good money for a VooDoo 3 Video card and SDRAM to play that game decently.
Someday netbooks will run Crysis in VERY HIGH too.
Yeah but will it run OSX86?
That is complete bullshit. Everyone known that "Will it play Crysis?" really means "Will it play Crysis on VERY HIGH settings on DX10?". The above piece of crap, most certainly wont. It will get 15-20FPS max on Very High at a medium resolution without AA.
ahhh, Voodoo 3, those cards were awesome :-)
Slow memory, junk graphics card, tiny harddrive, slow CPU, crappy case, etc.
I doubt anyone in genuinely excited to buy their crap computer. I'm very excited that Warhead will actually run on something that junky though (at high).
@Kurian:
That system is a peg below my current system (I have quad core vs. dual core at the same speed, a 9800GTX instead of a 9800GT, and 4GB of RAM vs. 2GB at the same speed) and my system plays Crysis at 1680x1050 at High settings, 30fps.
I'm waiting for the posts where people say stuff like, "OH I CAN GO TO NEWEGG/(INSERT FAVE SPOT TO BUY HARDWARE ON THE NET)" and build a rig that does a billion times better.
:)
I just spent about $900 (before rebates that'll knock it down to about $800) on a machine not unlike this.
Intel Core 2 Duo 3.0ghz
4gb Kingston Value Ram (On sale at Fry's, reasonable value if slightly less performance)
EVGA 9800GT 512mb (which I think is the exact card they're using, at least in the picture)
Gigabyte low-end enthusiast motherboard (not SLI, eff that noise)
1tb hard drive to round it out.
It runs Crysis on Ultra Fuck Yeah! at, well , I haven't enable the FPS counter but it runs smooth as butter with all the details.
I didn't realize the suits and weapons were slightly shiny until yesterday when I plugged in Vista.
I'm ready, bring on the Warhead!
And why are people bitching about if it's an expansion or not. The point is it's MORE CRYSIS! HOOAH!!
More crysis is never bad (unless its the pointless alien shooter levels)
All i know is that i want to throw some foreign troops through some houses. I cant explain how much time i wasted on my pc overclocking my 8600m to unnatural levels and adjusting nearly every setting just to throw someone through a shanty house and then reload the save to do it all over again over times over 9000 times.
This really made me realize how dated my home built rig from late 2005 is. Everything in this PC is better and the whole thing costs under $700? Makes me wonder what mine is worth...
Yeah, but does it play Cry..... F%&@!!!!!
Why yes, yes it does!
Chrysis Shmysis...can it play Super Sudoku??
Can it play Doom?
Can it play Doom?
Yeah, but can it run Crysis?
On a more serious note, 2GB RAM? To run Vista? They're skimming the bare minimum there aren't they?
Not really, 2GB's is the sweet spot for vista really, but anything less is pushing it if you're looking to game. Plus, if they're running Vista 32-bit, then anything more then 2GB's getting close to useless. Then again, I look at Vista 32-bit as useless in general. The 64-bit version runs better, supports more ram, and should of been the only version made, in my opinion.
@Darkest
"...and should of been the only version made, in my opinion."
I am sort of with you. I mean, I do have Vista installed on a 32-bit machine, but if Vista was 64-bit only, it would have been the hugest driving force in 64-bit adoption ever. From a business standpoint, it would have been stupid. From a tech geek standpoint though, awesome.
With 4GB, you're not really improving much other than the loading times.
Vista definitely should have been 64 bit only. I agree completely, and I think there's millions of others that do as well.
How can they call it ultra-optimized when it runs Vista? *ducks*
@Serial 8Ball
64bit certainly does run better, I have had two machines that had run 32bit vista for a while. I then upgraded the ram to 4GB and reloaded with 64bit. there was a very noticible change in performance of both machines. One is a desktop Q6600, P35 chipset, 8800GT, 2x250GB Raid0. The other was a laptop T7700 C2D, 4GB 667, 8600GS, 320GB WD 54000rpm. Both machines run Vista Ultimate.
@ethana2
Yeah Microsoft got stuck doing the 32-bit version of Vista for legacy reasons. Windows 7 and the next Windows Server will have their main versions be 64-bit with a "legacy" 32-bit version.
@Snapple
Microsoft has already stated that the next version of Windows Server will not be offered as 32bit. Atleast thats what they were saying during the 2008 Server heros happen here launch.
Crysis never played that badly on modern hardware. I can get a consistent 30fps on my 8800 GT at high settings at 1680x1050 with 16x AF. People just need to stop complaining that their four year-old systems can't play new games on the highest settings...
and the game was actually playable at lower frame rates i had like 20-25 on my old ATi X1650PRO and it was tolerable. most games i simply can't play under 30. and that was right when the game cam out and even then that wasn't a card to get excited about.
i should try it on my ATi Radeon HD 3780...
I'm not that impressed, Intel is phasing out the Core 2 Duos anyway for its i7 line. This is no time to upgrade, at least in my opinion. Then again, computers are always getting faster, so who am I to say that you shouldn't spend $700 on a mid-range rig?
Intel is not phasing out Core 2 duos for a while. Not everybody can spend $1000.00 for Ram, Motherboard, and Processor. Also there are going to be WAY more 775 sockets out there to support than there will be Socket (enter number here, I forgot).
yeah... better luck next time.
FAIL.
=/ 30 fps seems pretty low these days... most people want 60 fps. And "high quality settings" doesn't imply the highest settings. I am not impressed. Plus you can probably build a better system for cheaper (although it may not run Crysis as well due to the lack of optimization on Crytek's end).
Apparently they locked the dev team with some stock Dell desktops and said "Make the new Crysis run at 30 fps on these."
And, allegedly, they did.
GTFO EA!!!
HA! This is your second comment ever! You have double-failed!
Average fps of 30 at what resolution? AA or without AA?
They mention in the article that it's high settings so I'm assuming @ least 4xAA
Likely an average resolution (1680).
AA is a tricky subject, simply because the game doesn't use traditional AA. Edge AA, which is used on foliage, is enabled by default, but requires that normal AA be turned off. Given the amount of vegetation in the game, it's generally a good idea to leave the normal AA off.
Uh no. High is just the High default settings. It's probably 0xAA/16xAF or something similar
yes, but can it play doom? (sorry, I couldnt pass this up ;)
Funny thing there, the situation with Vista and OpenGL...
If you do actually want to play doom on this thing, well, you know what to do.
http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/linux/doom/
...oh.
I thought they made it simpler than that..
So it can run Crysis?
Nope, not at all.
(sorry, I had too)
wouldn't he be right because he is the first 'First' comment?
But can it play Doom?
your mom can play doom.
Stop giving my name a bad name!
Actually it's your first 4th comment on this page ever. LOL don't bother trying, it only gets panties in an uproar and they low rank you because that's the Engadget Mentality!!!!
It's hard to get 30fps without a monitor...
lol, maybe we can use the internet
yes, it plays crysis, but does it blend?
It's hard to get 30fps without a monitor...
In the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, EA's Crysis Warhead PC can, uh, play you!
Alright the price is very tempting... BUT you'd think the perfect Crysis rig would have a Quad core, or AT LEAST a Core-2-extreme processor.
To tell you the truth, on paper, this desktop's specs would never seem to play Crysis on ultra high, with AA on, max resolution, with a smooth framerate.
What are Quads, Core-2-extremes, and GTX 200s made for, then?
They did not say ultra-high, full AA and Aniso... however Crysis looks great on High so that's not much of an issue. If they just replaced the 9800GT with a Radeon 4870 I'm sure it could run very high easily though.
No to be one of those guys, but Core 2 Extremes are all quad cores and the cheapest one costs more than this entire system.
but thats not the point the point is to run the game relativily well
and that it should :D
GPU is more important that CPU for a game like crysis.
Graphics aside, the original Crysis was really a crappy game...just ask Zero Punctuation (and he likes everything...oh wait, no he doesn't).
When a company releases a custom built Desktop for a game, it MUST play this game on the highest settings possible in the best for possible. (ultra high, with AA on, max resolution, with a smooth framerate)
But, will it blend?
http://www.eofw.org/bench/
Looks like it, ED :)
My question is how do you install Crysis as there does not appear to be a dvd-rom?
Never mind its listed in the specs I just didn't see it in the pic
Yeah, but does it come WITH Crysis?
I hope it doesnt come installed with DRM, but it seems as of late EA has a hard on for ruining their customers enjoyment.
lamejasper, i thought you went all boo-hoo goodbye cruel world(engadget) last week? guess you're not a lady of your word.
Good LORD, that's an expensive game.
that comp doesnt even have that good of specs...
I was waiting to see how long it would take for Andy's comment to prove true.
Thanks buddy.
So if I hook a monitor up to this and run it at 2560x1600 res then I'm going to get 30fps?
I think they've left out some key information in regards to this claim, like what resolution and graphics settings.
If they're given that information in the read links then forgive me because I never visit them.
I assume it's figured at 1280x1024 but an 8/9800 GT should be good for 1680 x 1050.
Oh, great. Tiger Direct. That means that you actually have to pay $1299, file about twelve or thirteen rebates, and then PRAY that Tiger Direct honors them.
wouldn't this imply that they lowered the standards of crysis?
The same thing occured to me. The specs of this system are equal to that of my 1 year old PC which runs it in medium-high settings. This article gives me the feeling that Crytek aren't making this game to be as graphically powerful as it could be.
These specs are so far from cutting edge by today's standards that this PC can't even see cutting edge on the horizon. I guess that's a good thing for most people (including me) as they won't have to worry about whether their system can run the game or not. However, the days when crysis used to push PCs to the limit and set the bar for graphics quality are pretty much gone now. I'm curious to see if Id comes up to the plate with that new-fangled FPS they're working on - though I'm worried it'll turn into just another Doom 3.
Umm, there's plenty of places to get better gaming rigs, with much better and customizable options here: http://www.ibuypower.com and plenty of other places. This whole attempt by EA is bogus.
but can it play doom?
So does it include Crysis Warhead cause that would be pretty stupid if it didn't, in fact I'd expect both games but they won't because regular Crysis is terribly optimized and won't run good on this even if Warhead will.
You forgot a power supply.
Building your own will always get you more bang for the buck but you leave yourself open to all sorts of headaches. Not everyone has the knowledge, desire or time to research and build a computer.
You forgot a power supply.
Building your own will always get you more bang for the buck but you leave yourself open to all sorts of headaches. Not everyone has the knowledge, desire or time to research and build a computer.
30 x 1.15 = 34.5. NOT 40-50 fps.
not cool...
hoe: Newegg says no power supply.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147065&Tpk=rosewill%20r6422
Don't repeat my mistake, don't spend more than $1500 on a gaming PC. And don't bother with X2 cards (9800GX2, 4870 X2, 3870 X2, 4850 X2, 3850 X2) or SLI/Crossfire configurations, its better to upgrade to a faster single card. 2 or more cards are not worth the effort/money.
Oh, and don't bother thinking of Core i7, its one big disappointment for gamers.
The rig mentioned for $699 is really nice. Yes, it could be better, but the basic setup is really nice.
By "one big disappointment for gamers" do you mean i7s won't be as good as C2Ds in the (virtually) pointless dweeb pissing contest that is overclocking?
Uhm greyscale. Shutup. Just cause you are too dumb to be able to do something simple or are not interested in something does not mean its stupid. If you dont want to learn to be an engineer does that mean that field is stupid?
Shutup child.
Sweet post, Michal G.
That is actually a really freaking nice computer for the money. Good compromise of parts (great video card with inexpensive CPU, RAM, etc.) and it doesn't look like a cheap Chinese toy.
Anyway, most all people who would buy a computer like this would probably have a 1280x1024 full-screen monitor, or a 1680x1050 widescreen at the most. If you want to game on a 24" or even a 30" LCD, you better be ordering a pair of 4870's or 280's.
Size matters not.
...It's about resolution.
Can this thing handle 2560x1600 or not?
Can any other 8/9800 GT?
Just spec'ed the same thing on the egg for $100 cheaper then Tiger.
I think the slightly more important question is, do they include the actual game? Because it can't play Crysis if the game isn't installed...
Actually is over price, if you build your self buy all the parts separet, it won;t cost more than 340, because right now newegg selling that video card for 99.99 cpu about 139.99 the rest won't go over 150. So you are paying twice of the actualy hardware price. Of course you need some work to do to installed it, and doesn't cover same warrantly, but i would build my own in headbit, cause that case is a joke and the cpu isn't good. for 699 you can build qual core and slr 9800gt with 4gb ram. and 500gb hd.
How do you figure a 2.66 Wolfdale "isn't good"? Are you one of those people who would buy a Q6600 over a Wolfdale?
@ass
you also said a 15% more powerful GPU; how does that translate to 50% higher fps?