EA's Crysis Warhead PC can, uh, play Crysis
By Nilay Patel 
posted September 9th 2008 8:32PM
posted September 9th 2008 8:32PM
[Via CNET]
Read - Article on Warhead PC's development
Read - Tiger Direct info page
posted September 9th 2008 8:32PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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?