The Crysis Warhead system requirements have been revealed at the EA Store. As expected they are pretty much the same as the Crysis system requirements, the only difference is the required HDD space.
Ummm... Obvious much? It's an expansion pack essentially. Still anyone who has played Crysis will know that their Recommended Spec is seriously lacking if you want to run the game at decent settings/resolutions. My GTX280 still struggles to maintain a stable frame rate. Oh and the specs shown here are the minimum spec. If your PC is equal or below them I wouldnt bother.
I am sorry to say that you obviously either don't have a GTX 280 or something else is severely wrong with your rig, because I have the 260, which has notably less power, and I am running very smoothly in Crysis now dipping below 40 only when in the cutscenes at very high 1680x1050. I am averaging around 55-60 FPS on normal play through. Ignoring post-Core of course, where aparently the color white is a demanding issue in PC gaming... I think you have more problems than just Crysis's optimization issues. I am not a Crysis fanboy, far from it, but I am a person who can see certain things being blow out of proportion. EDIT: Seeing you gave someone advice that they can play at 30 FPS stable with a 8800GT and a Wolfdale, exactly what do you mean by "Stable"?
excuse me? How can you say that? I didnt mention what resolution or settings I'm running so how can you tell me what my PC should be capable of? For your information > 1920 x 1200 8xAA Very High. Oh and I know what I'm doing when it comes to PC's. Please don't talk to me like I'm some sort of noob. What settings are you running, no AA? Because the 260 in benchmarks at that res, no AA scores around 40FPS (high settings, not very high like you claim) is yours seriously overclocked and watercooled or something? Perhaps fairy dust powered? http://www.techspot.com/rev... http://www.tomshardware.com... Why would I lie about what GPU I have? Get a grip.
altered soul you talk nonsense sorry the gtx260 averages around 40fps on high and around 20-25 on very high. i have one (running on a perfect clean system) and your claim is simply not true. that framerate you claim is achieved with 2 gtx260 in sli
8AA? Is that really neccesary? Just go down to 4AA and enjoy 60fps.
Go a little easier on the AA, perhaps? It's nowhere near worth the drop in performance, in my opinion. The difference between 4xAA and 8x is rather trivial, but turning it down would no doubt help you in your performance troubles.
I never claimed you were PC ignorant Fishy, nor did I infer it but if you wish to attack me in response, whatever, I don't need to have people prove their technical intelligence over the internets here. Take my results at face value, and ignore if you want to the question if you actually have a GTX 280. It was not a comment targeted at ignorance but at how some people seem to spew random crap out of their mouths 90% of the time here at N4G. You made it obvious that you aren't now, so I'll take back that comment. I have no AA on, and never will, because the in-engine Edge AA is superior. Regular AA is not worth the performance hit, as to my (according to Ghoul) nonsensical eyes, Edge does a better job than the optional AA. Increasing AA will disable Edge. And yes, those are my values for FPS, and ultimately my point was to really find out what Fishy's definition of stable is, especially since he went on to recommend a system with much lower qualifications than a GTX280 as a "stable" contender. As an added FPS booster in Crysis, you can also try turning off motion blur, which I find horrible looking in any game, and makes performance take a hit along the lines of AA. And no, I have the stated stats with a stock clock 260, air cooling, and all stock clocks on CPU (E6750). I also have XP (very high activated through configs of course), which at least in my circle of known rigs, is a boon.
This is why I just love my 2 4870s and my QX9650. 280 who?
ok altered sould that is something different when your running in xp. i thought your atalking about dx10 under vista couse then your fps claim would be rather impossible with that setup.
Yeah no Vista. In my mind most people complaining about Crysis problems typically mention Vista as a point break, so I generally assume XP is standard for Crysis gaming, since in my own experience, it seems to run much smoother. Thats basically what I was getting at, that it is not ALL Crysis's fault. Post-Core though, Crytek really can't pass the buck.
The install space is odd.. Wonder why it's a third bigger than Crysis? I guess i was under the impression, though it's a standaloone, it'd be smaller (length of play) than Crysis was... But perhaps not. Anyone know what the deal on that side of things is?
Uses all the assets from Crysis, plus more, and it has all the multiplayer maps from Crysis, plus more.
I have 400GB on my computer but having one game suck up 15GB hurts. I'm going to need to delete some of my media. I already moved my 30GB of PSP media to a portable hard drive.
Crysis is an example of a pretty engine killed by bad coding. The engine has no real ability to properly use multi-cpu and gpu setups properly. If coded properly your GTX280 and my 8800GTS (G92) SLI should tear it up!
Got a 4870 in a quad core. Huge chunks of it ran at a reasonable framerate (not great, but reasonable for my expectations) at 1920x1200 even. But then all of a sudden particular scenes would slow down to the point of basically being a slide show unless you culled the resolution by two thirds or more. It was strange - the scenes that crawled were definately more 'filled' but they didn't seem 'that' drastically more filled, or demanding, than the perfectly smooth stuff. Certaiinly not to the point where it was logical for them to cripple my computer like they did. Weakest spots definately felt like a coding rather than technology problem/limitation...
15gb of HDD space required. That's nuts! BTW, that is one pretty looking screenshot! I wonder how my PC would run the original Crysis? OC 8800GT, 3GB of 1066 RAM, 3GHZ Wolfdale Dual Core Processor (Slightly OC'd to 3.2)
Depending on your resolution. Id say at around 1650x1080 High settings no AA (2xAA max!) Dx9, you'll get a good stable 30+ frames. Your specs are good enough, Crysis is just one of those games that takes sometime messing with your settings to see what works best for your PC. Oh and after the install is complete it wont take up anything like 15gb.
I've been thinking of giving Crysis a try, but i've just been wary of buying a game that I have to sit and mess with longer than I should to get it to run stable. However, I heard there is a mod out there that someone made that actually heavily optimizes the game code, thus improving performance dramatically. I can't remember what it was called though, unfortunately. I really need to beat some games that I am currently playing. I recently drug out Painkiller again and started playing it, because I never beat it (my old PC died and I never got the chance to finish it). Currently i'm hooked on STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl. That is one amazing game, for what it manages to accomplish.
Painkiller, lol, good fun title, balls to the wall gameplay but not much more. Stalker is a great game, very under rated in my eyes. Crysis wise, yeah there are quite a few mods out there that can help you optimize somewhat and block some of the memory leaks. Sadly I no longer have the links but I'm sure 10 minutes with google and you'll find them. Or Crysis official forums should provide some useful information. If I was in your position, Id skip Crysis and just pick up Warhead. Crysis was good an all, but graphics aside it became rather tiresome towards the end. Especially the story. But don't forget FarCry 2 round the corner, that shouldnt be quite the resource hog and possibly might provide a better experience all in all. No multiplayer though if thats you bag.
You're at the bottom of the card-chain. You can't even hit 20FPS with that assumin you're running at 16:10. You'd need some mods to make it playable. Of course I'm speaking if you intend to turn on the graphical eye-candy.
At that resolution I think I should be fine, right?
I have played Crisis before, without beating it or getting far. I was running a Qx9650(overclocked to 3.2ghz) cpu on vista, nvidia 8800GTX 700mb, overclocked, watercooled. I have 4 gigs of corsair ram @ 700mhz each stick, but being that I built the rig literally a vew days after Vista came out, the computer remains non-functional at this moment in time. With such issues as Vista asking me to remove my brand new 500 gig sata2 maxtor hard drive, not installing what I want to, installer appearing to be broken even after 3 consecutive clean Vista installs, vicariously going through Microsoft after the first initial time, each additional time, so that I can let them know I am installing once again. Blah - sh**!.. all in all, I enjoyed the game alot, but maybe I didn't do something right with my rig to enjoy the game even more. I will just end up getting XP with SP3 and maybe then I can finally play this properly, because I know I was a Crysis fanboy.. I guess things change, though, like most things.
I'm only running with 2.5 RAM, 2.4 Dual core, and an overclocked 8800 GT. 3 gigs of RAM is minimum...and it's running on full just fine.
Pfff .. my pc: e7200 (OC 3,8 Ghz) , 3,6 GB Ram (x86), HD4850 . in 1280x720 in Vhigh avg fps 26-28 FPS. Soo Rq for this game are bullshitt.. :)
200GHZ Quantum Computer 256 512MB 8800GTs in SLI 20TB HDD
4870 512mb E8400 3.0ghz 4GB RAM 750GB HDD Bring it Crytek!
just proves game really DO expand in size
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.