bit-gamer.net

Crysis Warhead $699 PC unveiled

Crysis Warhead $699 PC unveiled

The Crysis Warhead PC may not look like much, but should be able to handle the game perfectly.

The big problem with Crysis in the eyes of publisher Electronic Arts is that a lot of people weren't confident their PCs could handle the game. Thankfully, EA has come up with a solution thanks to a partnership with Nvidia, Crytek and UltraPC and will be shipping a Crysis: Warhead branded machine later this year.

The machine, which is priced at $699 in the US, is ready for pre-order now and will ship on the same day as the game - September 16 according to BigDownload.

The PC is similar to the machine which Crytek originally specced for playing Crysis, except that this one has been used as a PC benchmark through all stages of development for Crysis Warhead.

Currently the specs for the PC include an Intel Core 2 Duo e7300 processor running at 2.66GHz along with an Nvidia 9800GT based video card (with no mention of a specific brand) and 2GB of RAM. The development team at Crytek claims that this hardware should run the game on high detail without ever dipping below 30 frames per second.

There's currently no word on a UK price, but you needn't worry too much as if you're looking for a slightly more bespoke option to the one-size fits all PC above then we've also specced our own budget gaming PC. Check out the hardware and benchmarks of our machine, as well as a breakdown of price and suggested retailers in the full article.

If you're more worried about the game though then you can check out our latest Crysis Warhead hands-on preview, or our interview with game producer Ben O'Donnell.

What do you think to EA's move to create a licensed gaming PC? Let us know in the forums.

35 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
wuyanxu 9th September 2008, 12:04 Quote
only 2GB of RAM? guess it's designed for maxing out in XP under Dx9. Crysis Dx10 under Vista loves RAM.

isn't 9800GT just rebranded 8800GT? then it won't be able to do 22inch very well even at high.

it's a good value PC for that price, but IMHO bit-tech's £400 PC is better.
DaMightyMouse 9th September 2008, 12:18 Quote
Over 30fps High settings in DX9 or DX10 and at what resolution? Crysis with 2GB under dx10 gave me stuttering game play, and thats running with a 4850 and a Q6600 on a 22'' monitor, until I upgraded to 4GB now its all smooth sailing. I wonder how much optimisation the new game has gone through if at all...
Zut 9th September 2008, 12:24 Quote
Good show EA. Crysis isn't nearly as intensive as people make it out to be. Hopefully this will put a stop to the madness.
kylew 9th September 2008, 12:31 Quote
It's supposed to be optimised quite a bit though isn't it? I hope the requirements go down so it's easily playable on very high with AA. :D
bobak2000 9th September 2008, 13:05 Quote
DaMightyMouse - yes, that's a 4850. You shouldnt expect it to run smoothly on an ATI. Grab a decent nVidia card and it runs just fine. Ran fine on Vista dx10, 2gb ram, 8800GTS 320Mb and Core2 1.86GHz.
bobak2000 9th September 2008, 13:05 Quote
oh... thats on a 32" screen too
[PUNK] crompers 9th September 2008, 13:07 Quote
hands up who saw this coming?

how long before the "console pc" is launched and all games have to adhere to a certain set of standards?
ssj12 9th September 2008, 13:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
only 2GB of RAM? guess it's designed for maxing out in XP under Dx9. Crysis Dx10 under Vista loves RAM.

isn't 9800GT just rebranded 8800GT? then it won't be able to do 22inch very well even at high.

it's a good value PC for that price, but IMHO bit-tech's £400 PC is better.

No the 9800GT is better.
theevilelephant 9th September 2008, 13:41 Quote
I think the important question is, at what resolution?
roshan 9th September 2008, 14:23 Quote
I gave up playing crysis ,since my pc is not capable of playing that.(geforce 7600gs)
knuck 9th September 2008, 15:27 Quote
decent is never good enough
Vash-HT 9th September 2008, 15:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
only 2GB of RAM? guess it's designed for maxing out in XP under Dx9. Crysis Dx10 under Vista loves RAM.

isn't 9800GT just rebranded 8800GT? then it won't be able to do 22inch very well even at high.

it's a good value PC for that price, but IMHO bit-tech's £400 PC is better.

It's supposed to be optimized, so maybe a 9800gt can play it on that screen fine who knows. I can't wait to try it out personally, it's supposed to have a lot more action than Crysis, should be a lot of fun.
Cupboard 9th September 2008, 16:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobak2000
DaMightyMouse - yes, that's a 4850. You shouldnt expect it to run smoothly on an ATI. Grab a decent nVidia card and it runs just fine. Ran fine on Vista dx10, 2gb ram, 8800GTS 320Mb and Core2 1.86GHz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobak2000
oh... thats on a 32" screen too

32", 720P screen? Not too difficult really.

If you take a look at this page, you will see that the 4850 is significantly faster than the 8800GT, sometimes rivalling the GTX 260:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/11/summer-2008-graphics-performance-roundup/8
Star*Dagger 9th September 2008, 18:01 Quote
Gaming is a hobby, one of the least expensive I can think of for an adult.
Golf, Archery, Gambling, Fishing, Shooting all cost alot more.

People need to accept that their old school 7 series nvidia card wont play todays games well, or at all. That dusty dual core at 2.4 ghz isnt going to run Vista, its overhead, a voice program and fed any gpu enough data to keep it happy.

Set aside 1000 euros a year for your hobby and you will be ahead of the game. Build a new system every 2 years with regular mid service upgrades of things like GPU, hard drives and RAM.

The problem is that ALOT of people whine about system specs, and it HOLDS BACK the hobby as a whole. I am playing Crysis right now on my new rig. It is what I want to see more of, in terms of graphics anyway.

Upgrade and Enjoy!

Yours in Quad-core, HD 4870X2 Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Haramzadeh 9th September 2008, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Gaming is a hobby, one of the least expensive I can think of for an adult.
Golf, Archery, Gambling, Fishing, Shooting all cost alot more.

People need to accept that their old school 7 series nvidia card wont play todays games well, or at all. That dusty dual core at 2.4 ghz isnt going to run Vista, its overhead, a voice program and fed any gpu enough data to keep it happy.

Set aside 1000 euros a year for your hobby and you will be ahead of the game. Build a new system every 2 years with regular mid service upgrades of things like GPU, hard drives and RAM.

The problem is that ALOT of people whine about system specs, and it HOLDS BACK the hobby as a whole. I am playing Crysis right now on my new rig. It is what I want to see more of, in terms of graphics anyway.

Upgrade and Enjoy!

Yours in Quad-core, HD 4870X2 Plasma,
Star*Dagger

Totally agree.
Redbeaver 9th September 2008, 18:37 Quote
but what if i have more than 1 hobbies? lol.....
p3n 9th September 2008, 19:10 Quote
The development team at Crytek claims that this hardware should run the game on high detail without ever dipping below 30 frames per second.

Yeah at 320/240

BS
Haramzadeh 9th September 2008, 19:25 Quote
I don't believe them either. I have a quad core cpu 4gb ddr3 ram and a GTX280. I played at 1920X1200 and while 95% of the time it was smooth and above 30FPS it would still regularly dip below that and as low as 10FPS when thing got a bit intense. This is at max settings of course.
frontline 9th September 2008, 19:40 Quote
I guess 'High' settings will be equivalent quality wise ' medium' on the original game. Either that or they have optimised the game engine correctly this time round.
tech3312 10th September 2008, 02:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
only 2GB of RAM? guess it's designed for maxing out in XP under Dx9. Crysis Dx10 under Vista loves RAM.

isn't 9800GT just rebranded 8800GT? then it won't be able to do 22inch very well even at high.

it's a good value PC for that price, but IMHO bit-tech's £400 PC is better.

No the 9800GT is better.


Ya it's only by a bit and it's two card together that's why there's a small advantage
docodine 10th September 2008, 03:44 Quote
IIRC, the 9800GT is just a three-way SLI capable 8800GT.
cc3d 10th September 2008, 03:47 Quote
They've fixed CrysisWH for all the whiners trying to run today's games at 1920 x 1200 on their P3 with a GeForce 6800. We don't get new technology without something to push it!!
Nature 10th September 2008, 06:03 Quote
I've never played Crysis on purpose :D!!!

I'm waiting 10 years so I can play it on integrated motherboard graphics ^.^

Don't expansion packs for games usually have more intense graphics?

Does anyone know when the next generation of Nvidia cards and AMD cards are coming out? Or when the next "GPU" killer game is coming out?

Boback I have to disagree with you about your comment:

"DaMightyMouse - yes, that's a 4850. You shouldnt expect it to run smoothly on an ATI. Grab a decent nVidia card and it runs just fine. Ran fine on Vista dx10, 2gb ram, 8800GTS 320Mb and Core2 1.86GHz."

Q1: Are you running on low or low settings :D?

Q2: Do you watch a movie while Crysis loads?

Q3: Do you really think a 8800GTS 320mb is faster than a 4850 512mb?
docodine 10th September 2008, 06:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature
Boback I have to disagree with you about your comment:

"DaMightyMouse - yes, that's a 4850. You shouldnt expect it to run smoothly on an ATI. Grab a decent nVidia card and it runs just fine. Ran fine on Vista dx10, 2gb ram, 8800GTS 320Mb and Core2 1.86GHz."

Q1: Are you running on low or low settings :D?

Q2: Do you watch a movie while Crysis loads?

Q3: Do you really think a 8800GTS 320mb is faster than a 4850 512mb?

Obviously the 8800GTS is faster, the number is higher!

But really, Boback. You don't think that Crysis can run smoothly on any ATI card? I'm pretty sure that anything since the HD 2900XT can run Crysis at a playable rate at medium or higher settings.
DaMightyMouse 10th September 2008, 08:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobak2000
DaMightyMouse - yes, that's a 4850. You shouldnt expect it to run smoothly on an ATI. Grab a decent nVidia card and it runs just fine. Ran fine on Vista dx10, 2gb ram, 8800GTS 320Mb and Core2 1.86GHz.

Ummm serious Boback I had a 8800GTS 320mb sometimes couldn't play Crysis at medium setting at 1600x1050, sold it for a 4850, not a fan boy of any brand I just love value for my money and 4850 is a gem atm.
wuyanxu 10th September 2008, 09:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Gaming is a hobby, one of the least expensive I can think of for an adult.
Golf, Archery, Gambling, Fishing, Shooting all cost alot more.

People need to accept that their old school 7 series nvidia card wont play todays games well, or at all. That dusty dual core at 2.4 ghz isnt going to run Vista, its overhead, a voice program and fed any gpu enough data to keep it happy.

Set aside 1000 euros a year for your hobby and you will be ahead of the game. Build a new system every 2 years with regular mid service upgrades of things like GPU, hard drives and RAM.

The problem is that ALOT of people whine about system specs, and it HOLDS BACK the hobby as a whole. I am playing Crysis right now on my new rig. It is what I want to see more of, in terms of graphics anyway.

Upgrade and Enjoy!

Yours in Quad-core, HD 4870X2 Plasma,
Star*Dagger
that's thw right way of thinking. we should push the boundary of technology, set aside £500 each year for upgrades (still need to spend mine on the next GPU upgrade)

because of the lack of games such as Crysis, 8800GTX is still one force to be reckoned with. so please, please game developers, develop a game 8800GTX can't max out (i play Crysis at 1400x900 max no problem) at way, we can see 5870 or gtx380 actually worth upgrading to.
CardJoe 10th September 2008, 09:11 Quote
Updated Specs:
EA has sent out final details on the PC. The full specs are as follows:
- CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E7300 @2.66GHz
- Video card: Nvidia GeForce 9800GT 512MB
- Motherboard: G31 mATX
- RAM: 2GB
- Other components: 250GB 7200RPM hard drive, 16X DVD-ROM drive, network adapter, integrated Realtek audio, keyboard, mouse, Ultra X-Blaster ATX Mid-Tower case, one-year parts & labor warranty
wuyanxu 10th September 2008, 10:19 Quote
LOL, G31.

and on TigerDirect, there's also a 500w unnamed PSU.
Xtrafresh 10th September 2008, 10:19 Quote
still no mention of resolution. i bet it's 1280x1024

The idea of a branded PC is nice, just dont rip people off.
impar 10th September 2008, 10:54 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
still no mention of resolution. i bet it's 1280x1024
Lets hope so.
1024*768 would be a disappointement.
[USRF]Obiwan 10th September 2008, 12:58 Quote
Crysis:
HIGH
Medium
Low

Crysis warhead:
High: (in crysis it was medium)
Medium: (in crysis it was low)
Low: (in crysis this would have been very low)
Star*Dagger 11th September 2008, 10:03 Quote
I wonder why people think it is an ADVANTAGE to play Crysis on a computer that is instantly obsolete.
Just say NO to low end hardware, it will save you many headaches later on.

Yours in High-end Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Xtrafresh 11th September 2008, 10:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
I wonder why people think it is an ADVANTAGE to play Crysis on a computer that is instantly obsolete.
Just say NO to low end hardware, it will save you many headaches later on.

Yours in High-end Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Well, not all of us are able to drop 4k on a PC. High-end is high-end for a reason.

For the record: i never understood the problem with Crysis and it's high hardware demands. It scales perfectly well downwards if you just turn down the resolution and quality, so it's still playable for medium PCs. Why does everyone have to sit on the first row? :|
bobak2000 11th September 2008, 12:52 Quote
ooo - good, i had replies.

Yeah I have had ATI and I've had nVidia. I don't think the 4850 could run youtube let alone Crysis. I used to have a 9600XT... couldnt run FarCry!
No.. I don't watch a movie, no I dont run at low resolution.. none of the above. Do i think a 8800GTS is faster than a 4850? No idea...
Put it this way... I played Crysis. It was great. I anticipate any further releases being great too. I played a bit of CoD4 and thought it wasnt good... then bought a PS3.
Contraversial.
docodine 12th September 2008, 00:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobak2000
ooo - good, i had replies.

Yeah I have had ATI and I've had nVidia. I don't think the 4850 could run youtube let alone Crysis. I used to have a 9600XT... couldnt run FarCry!
No.. I don't watch a movie, no I dont run at low resolution.. none of the above. Do i think a 8800GTS is faster than a 4850? No idea...
Put it this way... I played Crysis. It was great. I anticipate any further releases being great too. I played a bit of CoD4 and thought it wasnt good... then bought a PS3.
Contraversial.

You've had replies mostly because you're wrong...

What does the 9600XT have to do with the 4850? The 9600XT could run Far Cry very well, at 1024x768 with no AA or AF... It wasn't the highest end card, but it ran it fine on low settings. Have you read anything about the 4850? The 8800GTS was launched nearly TWO YEARS AGO, while the 4850 not even six months ago. It's far more powerful than the 8800GTS, do you think that the 8800GTS isn't used in any Bit-Tech benchmarks anymore because of some sort of big coverup by ATI? What has led you to believe that the ATI 4850 is such a shit card?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums