Crysis Warhead to run well on cheap PCs

What would you say if Crytek’s CEO told you the next installment in the Crysis series will run well with the detail turned up on a $450 PC? Surprisingly enough, that’s pretty much what Cevat Yerli has claimed in an interview with German site PC Games. Roughly translated using my clunky German skills, Yerli’s statement reads:

We wanted players not to be afraid of being unable to play our product. Warhead is a game everyone can play. It will be playable on a €400 PC—and at the “High” detail setting. The game will run at a very good frame rate, I think 30 to 35 FPS on average. . . . That was already partially possible with Crysis. But if you had a poorly configured €2,000 PC, it lost against a better-configured €600-700 PC. That means some people had €2,000-3,000 invested in the wrong configuration. . . . To a certain degree, these optimizations could be patched into Crysis. But that will take a lot of time, because the optimizations go quite far. We are currently getting started with this, but we want to finish Warhead first.

€400 actually works out to $625 at the current exchange rate, but the ~$450 figure I get based on the Economist’s Big Mac index is more appropriate here. In that price range, AMD’s Radeon HD 3850 is probably as good as it gets, and we only squeezed 25 FPS out of that card in our Crysis tests at 1280 x 800 with high in-game detail levels. If Yerli’s predictions come true, eye candy in Crytek’s next game could indeed get a whole lot cheaper. (Thanks to Shacknews for the tip.)

Comments closed
    • gtoulouzas
    • 11 years ago

    Why are we giving any credence to Crytek’s promises? We’ve read their hogwash before.

    2007, August : Four Year Old PCs Can Run Crysis
    §[<http://news.filefront.com/four-year-old-pcs-can-run-crysis/<]§

    • indeego
    • 11 years ago

    I bought a system Feb 2007 using TR’s mid-range guide, Bought crysis the day it came out, played it and turned off motion blur (didn’t like the effect,) and had very few issues. The issues started around the Alien level and the snow/ship levels, but those levels had obvious peripheral issues: they weren’t playtested as much, from what I could tell. The machine just chugged, and the game was a different beast from the first 2/3.

    All in all I had a great time with the game and I question the rants against it. I played through it like 3-4 times and differently each time, most importantly I was having so much fun (again, for the first 2/3. The last third is a different game.)

    I played CoD4 just after finishing crysis and I had a different experience, but could see the quality. That game was just obviously polished with a very clean rag on its release. I didn’t quite have the “fun” factor that I had with crysis. But after I finished the SP campaign and played a few MP matches, I didn’t crave it ever againg{<.<}g

    • StashTheVampede
    • 11 years ago

    All sorts of things will make the next game run better on existing PCs:
    – Lowering textures
    – Reducing stuff on screen
    – Small engine tweaks
    – Date of new game getting released
    – Art direction

    I think the largest item here is: matured drivers and when it gets released. A number of people that played Crysis earlier found it unplayable with that hardware. Many upgrades are abound (yay) and would find that Crysis *could* run on their newer hardware (yet, the game is tossed because it didn’t run then).

    Lowering textures/stuff on screen could be done without too much user intervention. Lock the game’s UI to use LESS detail, overall and let the user unlock the UBER graphics mode that Crysis can do. This change, alone, would allow it more playable across more hardware.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 11 years ago

      The textures are not the issue, neither is the stuff on the screen.
      The date released will only mean that new video cards are out, that doesn’t mean the game is written better.

      The reason for the bloat is because Crysis is coded like a sim, but plays like a FPS.
      Crysis doesn’t take full advantage of its engine gameplay-wise, which is why you don’t easily notice it.
      But since it’s there, it slows the fps to a crawl.

      here is more or less the actual reasons the game runs slow:
      motion blur, full dynamic soft shadows, over the top HDR/shaders, physics, unoptimized AI, the simulated water.

      Basically, the game is just as CPU limited as it is GPU limited.

        • toyota
        • 11 years ago

        Crysis is NOT cpu limited at 1280 and above with high or very high settings.

          • l33t-g4m3r
          • 11 years ago

          duh, I never said it wasn’t.
          Current cards obviously can’t handle the graphics, but even if you had the GTX 280 QUAD SLI, you’d still end up being limited by the cpu.
          The game is too bloated to ever run efficiently.

          When I said that the whole thing is programmed as a sim, I didn’t mean just the code for the cpu, I meant the whole game, graphics and all.

          again, typical reasons for the slowdown:
          motion blur, full dynamic soft shadows, over the top HDR/shaders, physics, unoptimized AI, the simulated water.

            • StashTheVampede
            • 11 years ago

            If the engine is really CPU limited, why aren’t 8 threaded boxes able to crank out better FPS? I’ve got an 8 core box (Mac Pro) and it got the same FPS as my 2 core box (iMac). Same GPU in both (2600XT), but the FPS was barely any faster on the Mac Pro, at the same resolution (10×7).

            So if the engine is bloatware (and I believe there is a ton of truth to that), it isn’t scaling well either.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 11 years ago

            It probably isn’t coded to take advantage of more than 2 cores.
            Crytek obviously hasn’t optimized the engine very well, and even if it supported quad core cpu’s, it probably wouldn’t use them efficiently.

            Same thing with the graphics, there probably are tons of different tweaks they could have used, but instead they programmed it the slowest way possible.

            • ish718
            • 11 years ago

            Conclusion:
            Crysis is an unoptimized bunch of data.

    • aleckermit
    • 11 years ago

    Crysis Warhead? I’ve never even heard of this until now…

    • matic
    • 11 years ago

    Probably he meant that spending those 2000 euros for a octa-core dual socket ‘puter with integrated GPU to play Crysis wasn’t a smart idea…

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      True that, but we know intel is stupid.

        • TheEmrys
        • 11 years ago

        Intel is smart when they get people to buy it…..

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          In a marketing sense, yes, they’re brilliant. I’m referring to the defamatory ad campaign however that claims that a better GPU brings no benefits whatsoever to a system.

    • gargar
    • 11 years ago

    i know i haven’t bought the game in fear of problems running it well on my athlon 3500 with a 8800 320MB card. however, i’ll buy it for my new computer due to arrive in 2 weeks from now.

      • aleckermit
      • 11 years ago

      Crysis Warhead?

      I’ve never even heard of it until just now…

    • rythex
    • 11 years ago

    Wow, Crytek is such an obnoxious company. First they blame piracy for the reason Crysis didn’t sell in stores. Then now they effectively admit that Cryis is just bloatware and thats why it runs like crap but they’d rather get a new product out rather than fix their current one.

    Now I can shove this article in my friends face who said “Crysis is so far ahead of its time and that’s why it doesn’t run well on current hardware blah blah etc etc”
    :rolleyes:

    • stirker_0
    • 11 years ago

    wow… code optimization.. wat did they do, delete the 2000 looped if statements??? go hire some real programmers that actually program, and designers that do their stuff not some program that’s lagged out worse than anything i’ve ever tried

    • [SDG]Mantis
    • 11 years ago

    Other engines do get really nice eye candy without the Crysis overhead. So maybe they did some serious code optimizations.

    Either that or he misspoke and meant it will play well if you spend the money on a graphics subsystem, not on a whole computer. 😉

      • FubbHead
      • 11 years ago

      I have yet to see a game that has such an “alive” enviroment as Crysis.

    • lethal
    • 11 years ago

    “at the “High” detail setting. The game will run at a very good frame rate, I think 30 to 35 FPS* on average.”

    *@ 640×480 :P.

    • wingless
    • 11 years ago

    This is assuming it has a cheap ATI 4850 in the box…

    • bogbox
    • 11 years ago

    Basically yes. Anyone how bought crysis has , not so clever , in the first place.(poor coded)
    Most computers are hp,dell so not well “balanced” in the Nvidia way . I think Crytek means 400 -700 euros with a 90% of total cost being the graphic card (gtx 260)

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      I doubt so since the GTX series wasn’t even a seed when Crysis was going to come out.

    • CapnBiggles
    • 11 years ago

    What the heck does “poorly configured” even mean? Software side with system settings in-game? Hardware selection? I mean if it’s the former the case is pretty cut and try – I’m sure many of us have tweaked and tweaked again to see what worked and what didn’t, particularly apples-to-apples reviews like in [H]ardOCP even said what worked and what didn’t. If it is the latter, than I fail to see how having top-shelf hardware is a misnconfiguration of intent.

    If I buy enthusiast-level hardware, keep my system clean, and configure the game every which way but loose, and I get sub-par framerates, that’s not a failure on my $2,000 PC. That’s a failure of the game to accomodate the efforts I made to make it run the way it supposedly should.

    I see where he’s coming from but I really think the message could be reworked. I just think he’s saying it wrong, but I can see how this could be horribly misinterpreted by gamers thinking it is a slam against them.

    • Meadows
    • 11 years ago

    He told the same thing before Crysis came out.

    • quarantined
    • 11 years ago

    Yeah, he sure told me. I don’t know how to configure my Q6600 + 8800GTS pc. Forget that both the cpu and gpu are overclocked and all drivers up to date. Apparently I just didn’t run regclean and disk defrag enough times, lol.

    What a condecsending load of crap.

      • Saber Cherry
      • 11 years ago

      You probably use air cooling. A computer correctly configured for Crysis has the case submerged in liquid nitrogen.

    • Jigar
    • 11 years ago

    So Crytek means, Hardware reviewers and we enthusiastic don’t know how to configure our computers ??

      • Mystic-G
      • 11 years ago

      No, don’t get it twisted. They aren’t saying Crysis will run on a $450 computer. They’re saying Crysis Warhead will run with the detail turned up on a $450 computer.

      I say tell us what hardware you’re using, how much will the comp cost when 4x AA is turned on, and how many FPS will the 8800GT (the most popular card) get.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This