Crytek says Crysis Warhead Runs Smoothly at High on $620 PC

Or maybe that the game will come out 2050. A $620 computer can definitely run it well then :)
 
Depending. I personally think it is an honest mix of an unoptimized engine, (Crysis was teh poster boy for REAL DX10) and hardware limitations.

We are quickly eliminating the hardware limitations and bringing to light the fact that the engine MAY not be the next Source engine.
 
That just doesn't make sense to me. Especially after seeing their graph that shows a 9800 on high settings having trouble.
 
They said something similar before.

They specced a $600 machine and showed it running Crysis smoothly on High settings.
 
Just like Crysis runs well on an 8800 GTS at 1280x1024 at maximum settings, right?

It's best to assume that Cevat Yerli is always either lying through his teeth or simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Do yourself a favor and let Brent Justice tell you how Warhead runs when it comes out and pay as little attention to Cevat as possible.
 
Crysis:Warhead will run smoothly on a 600 dollar computer at 800 X 600 resolution, 4:3 ratio.......guaranteed!;) when the character is standing still.
 
phide said:
Just like Crysis runs well on an 8800 GTS at 1280x1024 at maximum settings, right?
Click to expand...

I ran almost all of Crysis well on a machine that (at the time) cost me about $1000 to put together. Right after the Core 2 price drops last year, I put together a Q6600, 8800GT, 2GB of RAM on Windows XP and played through all of Crysis running most of the very high tweaks, EdgeAA set to 2 at 1280x1024 and the only time I got hangups was during the last boss fight. I ran around 30 frames for most of the game until the very end where I saw some single digits (but I think that's to be expected during that fight).
 
The August issue of PC Gamer has Crysis Warhead as the cover story. Among other things they actually list off the specs for the PC that the Crytek devs said would run it well. I thought the specs were optimistic at best.

Cevat in the article blames the piracy of Crysis on the fact that people weren't sure if the game would run on their systems. He does state that they have sold 1.5 million so far (which is pretty decent IMHO).
 
magoo said:
Crysis:Warhead will run smoothly on a 600 dollar computer at 800 X 600 resolution, 4:3 ratio.......guaranteed!;) when the character is standing still.
Click to expand...

Staring at a wall in the basement of a building!
 
krameriffic said:
I ran almost all of Crysis well on a machine that (at the time) cost me about $1000 to put together.
Click to expand...
I ran it at 1680x1050 High settings in XP on my 8800 Ultra and thought it was pretty playable until the ice area/carrier. At that point, I actually had to start scaling a few things back to Medium (when you spend $650 on your video card, having to do that at such a modest resolution is painful ;) ).

I remember that there was a lot of confusion about Cevat's recommendation. At the time, we still had the GTS 640 and the GTS 320, and he didn't specify which he was talking about. The 320 would have really suffered at 1280x1024, especially in DX10 where the maximum settings would have been Very High.
 
Though even the latest video cards can't provide a smooth framerate for Crysis at high resolutions with very high detail settings, Crytek is confident that the game's system requirements did not affect sales.
Click to expand...


Are you serious???....ok lets create a game noone can run.....and talk it up so much, everyone buys it...hopefully that wont affect sales...

wow that pisses me off
 
krameriffic said:
I ran almost all of Crysis well on a machine that (at the time) cost me about $1000 to put together. Right after the Core 2 price drops last year, I put together a Q6600, 8800GT, 2GB of RAM on Windows XP and played through all of Crysis running most of the very high tweaks, EdgeAA set to 2 at 1280x1024 and the only time I got hangups was during the last boss fight. I ran around 30 frames for most of the game until the very end where I saw some single digits (but I think that's to be expected during that fight).
Click to expand...
I ran it on my 8800 GTS at 1280x1024 with everything on High and either 2x or 4x AA (sorry, don't recall right now) with smooth play. Maybe we're the exceptions, but somehow I don't think so. Some people just expect 100+ frames per second no matter what I guess.
 
Fumarole said:
I ran it on my 8800 GTS at 1280x1024 with everything on High and either 2x or 4x AA (sorry, don't recall right now) with smooth play. Maybe we're the exceptions, but somehow I don't think so. Some people just expect 100+ frames per second no matter what I guess.
Click to expand...

More people post hate about it then love. You be the judge. I couldn't get more than 20fps with a quad and 8800 GT, with medium settings.
 
Perhaps the people that liked the game didn't spend quite as much time turning every thread into a Crysis pissing contest (and then accusing the people that defended the game of various unsavory things.) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I liked Crysis; even so, the article sounds like typical marketing BS hype to me--you'd think they would learn to STFU and get on with the game already. The original DX:IW forums (and post-production press releases) should be required reading for game devs everywhere.
 
Monkey God said:
More people post hate about it then love. You be the judge. I couldn't get more than 20fps with a quad and 8800 GT, with medium settings.
Click to expand...

Something wrong with your computer then.

The rig in my sig can play Crysis comfortably at 1280x1024 with mixes of high/very high.
 
Monkey God said:
Yep, im sure its my PC's fault when everything else runs ok.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it is too. If it runs everything else OK, they why you expect Crysis to be ran great? :confused:

I'm playing it (still) with the rig you all can see in my sig at native 1680x1050 resolution with most settings on Very High, some tweaked even higher, and a few tweaked a bit lower in the config file. The performance I get is very acceptable being between 22-28, never decreasing and sometimes being as high as 60 (with v-sync on).

For those of you who call yourselves "enthusiasts", do you actually tweak and configure your systems and games to the point that being called an enthusiast would be valid?

As an enthusiast, my system and every program I install on it is tweaked and configured to the point where I find it exactly as I want it, visuals and performance and stability all kept in mind.

Do you ever hear of a "Console enthusiast"? Me neither. Why? Because you plug everything in and turn it on and there's nothing else you can do to enhance the experience. My point is PC "enthusiasts" who treat their systems as a console taint the industry. It's that reason why we see games ported from consoles with 1 config slider being Low, Medium, High. Cause you all don't wanna do the dirty work for yourself to make your experience what you want it.
 
20-25 FPS acceptable? WTF? Not on my planet. I think thats the difference between people who like it and people who dont. For me to not notice and avoid frustration, I need my FPS's to be above 30fps.
20 is just a slideshow to me. 20-25 avg? that means dips into the teens which is UNPLAYABLE in my book. (for an FPS) I regularly get below 20fps in SupCom, but its an RTS and it doesn't bother me.

Bioshock? ME? Source2? Well into the 60's and higher. Flawless. At top resolutions and top AA/AF for the ones that support it.
 
Monkey God said:
20-25 FPS acceptable? WTF? Not on my planet. I think thats the difference between people who like it and people who dont. For me to not notice and avoid frustration, I need my FPS's to be above 30fps.
Click to expand...

[H] has acknowledge 25fps to be playable.
 
Monkey God said:
Well whoop-dee-doo for the [H]. Its not for me. 25fps average is unplayable in my book.
Click to expand...

Then lower the settings and stop bitching. :rolleyes:

It always amazes me people expect to run Crysis (a game that pushes the graphic fidelity) maxed out with 60 FPS with a $150 graphics card.
 
Monkey God said:
I swear to God the amount of Crysis fanboys running around is insane. You dont like Crysis at 800X600 at 30fps? LOSER.

:mad:
Click to expand...
Fanboys? You yourself acknowledged there are more haters. And guess what, you're one of them. As far as I can see, you're the only one slinging insults around this thread. I can see why you'd self apply the label of loser.
 
Monkey God said:
MEDIUM settings. NO AF. NO AA. 1024 X 768 = 25fps AVG, dipping into the teens. Thats called horseshit.
Click to expand...

Wow sucks to be you. DX10 16x10 all mid and a few highs, AF high and no AA. Had myself a good time. Could have been playing with settings even lower and it wouldn't change the fact that killing koreans was hella fun.
 
Insults and name calling are not necessary here. We're talking about a video game for crying out loud.

The difference I see here are those who want things to work and those who put out the effort to make things work.

Monkey God, I will personally help you optimize the game Crysis for your computer if you so wish. In fact, I extend this offer to anyone. You may reach me on AIM @ base88baller or on xfire @ robobobobo between the hours of 9am to 5pm EST Monday through Friday.

Anybody else find it funny that my $55 CPU system runs better than a $300+ quad core CPU system with the same video card? :rolleyes:
 
Monkey God said:
who said anything about maxed out? douchebag.
MEDIUM settings. NO AF. NO AA. 1024 X 768 = 25fps AVG, dipping into the teens. Thats called horseshit. And just because the 8800GT's can be had for $150 now, is totally irrelevant, isn't it? Its still a damn good card, and was high end when Crysis first came out.

I swear to God the amount of Crysis fanboys running around is insane. You dont like Crysis at 800X600 at 30fps? LOSER.

:mad:
Click to expand...

I am really sorry that you didn't have a good experience. But I do resent the fact that you think because the game did not run well for you, everyone else hated it as well.
 
Dethman said:
Are you serious???....ok lets create a game noone can run.....and talk it up so much, everyone buys it...hopefully that wont affect sales...

wow that pisses me off
Click to expand...
well just to be fair, Crytek did state the fact that they wanted to make a game that wouldnt be graphically outdated for a long time and that it was way ahead of hardware at the time they were making it/when it was released.
 
If they got some optimization I can see that happening. My rig can run the regular Crysis demo at high@1024x768 with no AA or AF with a maintainable 30fps or so. Really I'm a sucker for high FPS so I went with 1280x1024 @ medium settings with 16xAF and 0AA and it ran at 45-60fps nearly all the time. Still looked great and if the full version performed better then the demo then I really should buy it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top