Crysis Warhead maxed out on a $700 PC

[hanselthecaretaker]

$700 Crysis Warhead PC Specs Revealed | GameCyte


Finally, I checked it out on the "$700 PC" that Crytek and EA have been touting. It really is a $700 machine built on the latest mainstream parts (the video card is a 9800GT), and I was able to play the final boss battle at the same resolution and at Enthusiast settings and get solid frame rates. I also tried it the Gamer setting, which is essentially high, and the frame rate was buttery smooth. You do lose some visual quality stepping down from Enthusiast, but even at Gamer Warhead still looks better than almost every game out there.

- IGN: Crysis Warhead Review

 

[hurricane]

i <3 video games

 

[75th]

I may pick up Far Cry 2.

Even though I never played Far Cry 1.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I may pick up Far Cry 2.

Even though I never played Far Cry 1.

That should run even better. Far Cry 1 was one of the toughest shooters I've ever played btw. Not to discourage you or anything. You do have to use strategy to do well. Far Cry 2 is my pick for the fall season.

 

[mrplunkey]

I think hardware got ahead of software some time ago when it comes to gaming. They'll have to soup-up the software so they can keep people on the hardware upgrade treadmill again.

 

[redsamurai]

I think hardware got ahead of software some time ago when it comes to gaming. They'll have to soup-up the software so they can keep people on the hardware upgrade treadmill again.

You do know that crysis 1 was making 3k rigs tap out on high settings, right? Some company built a "crysis specific" machine that had to have a case that was liquid cooled. It was a giant joke.......

 

[BMK792]

there are so many good games coming out in the next six or so months, most of which are sequels to awesome games like Diablo 3, Red Alert 3, Farcry 2, Dawn of War 2, Fallout 3

 

[swole]

jaws for nintendo is the most advanced gaming i do

 

[Razorguns]

Okay i'll bite. So where's the demo one an dl to see if it'll run fine on your computer?

r

 

[75th]

jaws for nintendo is the most advanced gaming i do

Fucking stabbing that shark with the bow was a bitch.

 

[swole]

Fucking stabbing that shark with the bow was a bitch.

the first time i got it i shit myself

 

[BMK792]

hey swole...... if i pay you $5 can i have your physique?

 

[stosstruppe]

Wow £400 for a "gaming" PC. Doubt it could handle AoC or WAR though & would probably be obsolete in a year or two. Have seen a number of gamers use Crysis as a PC's gaming capability bench mark though.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Okay i'll bite. So where's the demo one an dl to see if it'll run fine on your computer?

r

There's only a demo version of Crysis, and it's less optimized than the retail version. Crysis Warhead has no demo I'm aware of, but it retails for $30, and it's safe to say it runs roughly 25% more efficiently than Crysis. Impressive considering the graphics/physics have also been given a boost. Post up your specs/resolution you use and I can tell you if you can run Warhead on "Enthusiast" setting.

Wow £400 for a "gaming" PC. Doubt it could handle AoC or WAR though & would probably be obsolete in a year or two. Have seen a number of gamers use Crysis as a PC's gaming capability bench mark though.

AoC is more CPU intensive being an MMO. The latest CPU's are about half the price of the latest GPU cards. Core 2 Extreme series is a different story though. No game requires one of those though.

 

[Razorguns]

There's only a demo version of Crysis, and it's less optimized than the retail version. Crysis Warhead has no demo I'm aware of, but it retails for $30, and it's safe to say it runs roughly 25% more efficiently than Crysis. Impressive considering the graphics/physics have also been given a boost. Post up your specs/resolution you use and I can tell you if you can run Warhead on "Enthusiast" setting.




AoC is more CPU intensive being an MMO. The latest CPU's are about half the price of the latest GPU cards. Core 2 Extreme series is a different story though. No game requires one of those though.

intel quad. nvidia geforce 512, 4gigs, vista.

is this just a fps? i like thinking games, not be a navy seal with my kb and mouse.

r

 

[Lestat]

That looks like a good game. I bet it'd fry my PC though, i use the graphics card on my motherboard.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

intel quad. nvidia geforce 512, 4gigs, vista.

is this just a fps? i like thinking games, not be a navy seal with my kb and mouse.

r

What series of GeForce? 8800 and up will run it, but it depends on how clean your Vista is running gamewise. Usually most games still run better on XP.
It's still an fps game, although to avoid getting cooked you do have to strategize often. How you use the nanosuit opens up a wide range of possibilities for completing levels that otherwise might end up frustrating and boring.

 

[Razorguns]

8500

r

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

8500

r

You should get a playable framerate on medium, as long as you're not in 1920x1200 or higher. Then it will start slipping. Hell you do a lot of video editing, might as well swap that out for at least an 8800GT, or 3870HD if you want to go the AMD route. Both cards are cheap now, like 1/4 guitar or something. Maybe even 1/8.

http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=48&name=Desktop-Graphics-Video-Cards

on second thought maybe the 8800gt ain't worth it-
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysiswarhead/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-45498608&pid=946793

 

[redsamurai]

That looks like a good game. I bet it'd fry my PC though, i use the graphics card on my motherboard.

you are correct......crysis will make an integrated graphics chip on a motherboard roll over and play dead in hopes that it'll just be left alone. I'm still skeptical of an "improved" version of crysis being able to run on a $700 machine that has a video card with 512 ram. I understand it's the latest series from nvidia, but those cards haven't been getting the best reviews. And besides, doesn't "maxed" out mean you're playing at high def resolutions?? I didn't think 512 of ram on a vid card was enough to run at those 1900 + resolutions.

 

[Razorguns]

That $700 claim has been debunked to death on boards. It's total b.s. Great if you want to play 14fps at 800x600.

I still prefer the ease of 720p gaming on xbox 360. I don't have to worry about memory problems, slowness, annoynig keyboard controls, screaming to get out of the bedroom for once, etc.

r

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I'm uploading a short video of a side mission in Warhead just to prove you don't need a behemoth pc to play this game maxed out. They've apparently included a "very high" setting for DirectX 9 this time. I can only speak for the XP version.
How long do youtube vids take to get approved?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Youtube embeds are low quality so here's the link instead-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgmR-zitYNY

 

[EnderJE]

That's why I like TF2. I can play it on my laptop. It's the only game that I still play on a regular basis.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

YouTube - Crysis Warhead Destruction pt 1

 

[redsamurai]

YouTube - Crysis Warhead Destruction pt 1

what kind of computer is that trailer running from hansel?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

what kind of computer is that trailer running from hansel?

The specs are in the extended description of this video-
YouTube - Crysis: Warhead propaganda mission

This game beckons to be experimented with!

 

[redsamurai]

The specs are in the extended description of this video-
YouTube - Crysis: Warhead propaganda mission

This game beckons to be experimented with!

it doesn't mention if the AA or AF is turned on???

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

it doesn't mention if the AA or AF is turned on???

That's all off. AA in particular is kinda pointless in fps games unless you like just sitting there staring at the scenery. Ain't worth the dip in performance, considering it still looks great without it.

 

[redsamurai]

That's all off. AA in particular is kinda pointless in fps games unless you like just sitting there staring at the scenery. Ain't worth the dip in performance, considering it still looks great without it.

I kind of like the AA........yeah, from afar it doesn't do much, but the up close kills look alot nicer.

Real quick, pop quiz.......what would you take, those new gtx 280's or two 9800 gx2's in sli?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I kind of like the AA........yeah, from afar it doesn't do much, but the up close kills look alot nicer.

Real quick, pop quiz.......what would you take, those new gtx 280's or two 9800 gx2's in sli?

Personally I'm not a big fan of SLI or Crossfire setups. I'd rather one higher end card than two slightly below it, or even equalivalent. Less strain on the PSU and one less potential headache to deal with as far as compatibility/driver updates/etc go. The performance difference to me is negligible when compared to the cost of the extra card required to get it. But then there's uber geeks like Kano who would probably scoff at this notion, lol.

If you're looking for Nvidia, the 280 is going to be the best bang for the buck. The GX2's in quad SLI have been charted around the web as averaging anywhere from -2 to around 10-12 frames better, so it's a bit of a crapshoot depending on stuff like varying clock speeds of different brands, optimization, etc.

Here's a helpful topic on single card vs. sli; almost a year old but still generally relevant-
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/245926-33-single-card

For ATI (AMD) the Radeon 4870X2 is where it's at, and actually I think is still the single card to beat. It runs hot but you won't have a problem playing Crysis at any resolution maxed out. The game was designed to scale for the future though, so extras like AA thrown in will still bog down any card available. I'm happy getting solid framerates on medium to be honest.

 

[redsamurai]

the gx2's are the best of the 9800 series right??

And why did they go back to the g80 processors with the 280's??

Personally I'm not a big fan of SLI or Crossfire setups. I'd rather one higher end card than two slightly below it, or even equalivalent. Less strain on the PSU and one less potential headache to deal with as far as compatibility/driver updates/etc go. The performance difference to me is negligible when compared to the cost of the extra card required to get it. But then there's uber geeks like Kano who would probably scoff at this notion, lol.

If you're looking for Nvidia, the 280 is going to be the best bang for the buck. The GX2's in quad SLI have been charted as getting about 10-12 frames better on average, but that's up to you on how much you want to spend.
For ATI (AMD) the Radeon 4870X2 is where it's at, and actually I think is still the single card to beat. It runs hot but you won't have a problem playing Crysis at any resolution maxed out.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

the gx2's are the best of the 9800 series right??

And why did they go back to the g80 processors with the 280's??

Yeah the 260's/280's were after the 9800's. No idea why Nvidia changed processors. I've read they haven't been doing too well lately, and AMD is making strides to compete....maybe it's a financial strategy, tough to say.