Crysis Warhead on the cheap: EA's 'Warhead PC' priced at $699

by Christopher Grant { Sep 8th 2008 at 6:20PM }

Hoping to disprove the notion that everything with the word "Crysis" on it requires the latest, greatest supercomputer – and several ounces of irradiated uranium – to run with a framerate in the double digits, EA has teamed up with UltraPC to sell what it's (unofficially?) calling the "Warhead PC" – a single SKU offering that brings some of console gaming's simplicity to the PC gaming world.

In short, the team at Crytek wanted Crysis Warhead to run on far more systems than Crysis did, so they built their own lower-end "Warhead PC" which they used to test the game on throughout its development. Dropping frames on the Warhead PC? Tweak it until it runs smooth as butter. With a "hard cap" to aim for, the developers were able to guarantee a minimum level of performance using the following specs: an Intel Core Duo e7300 running 2.66GHz, an Nvidia 9800GT video card, and 2 gigglebytes of RAM.

The Warhead PC will be available to preorder on September 16 – the game's launch day – for $699, a far cry from the hundreds of bajillions we had saved up for a Crysis rig of our own. We'll spend the rest of that money on tricking out the rather bland box – seen above – with enough blue LEDs to burn our retinas. Ahh, PC gaming ...

[Via Big Download]

Tags: Crysis-Warhead, Crytek, EA, Nvidia, UltraPC, Warhead-PC

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Duke @ Sep 8th 2008 6:24PM

So what your saying is that I actually need to buy a new computer for this? Your computer in fact.

I kid! :P

steve @ Sep 8th 2008 7:25PM

yes, a new computer with a giant tumor growing on the top of it.

(least that's what it looks like from first glance)

Phi Nguyen @ Sep 8th 2008 11:01PM

Yeah, and that new logo for Crysis is the same shape as those annoying pink clouds from super smash bros brawl! Stupid clouds.

Sonic @ Sep 8th 2008 6:30PM

"a far cry from the hundreds of bajillions we had saved up for a Crysis rig of our own."

I see what you did there.

Sam406 @ Sep 8th 2008 6:42PM

Ba dum tish

Tiptup300 @ Sep 8th 2008 11:09PM

May I?

http://www.instantrimshot.com/

Heh @ Sep 8th 2008 6:30PM

Would you look at that EA is trying to sell PC gamers a gaming rig to play a game. EA loves to seel whatever they can huh?

That PC doesn't look like $700 to me.

Heh @ Sep 8th 2008 6:31PM

sell*

Apparently I'm dyslexic today. :D

Erik Stroud @ Sep 8th 2008 6:36PM

It's the insides that count. And based on the specs, it's a decent rig. Though, no telling if it come with an OS or monitor. So really, you could still end up paying over a thousand.

Phil @ Sep 9th 2008 1:59AM

Already got the monitor, speakers, gaming mouse and headset.

IMA GET ONE FO CHRISTMAS. :D

theturtle363 @ Sep 8th 2008 6:36PM

Maybe Id spend 700 dollars on Crysis Warhead if i thought Crysis Warhead was going to be any good

FOXHOUND @ Sep 9th 2008 7:24AM

Or if it could play LEGEND OF SOL'TARE or CLAM DIGGER. ;]

Neebs @ Sep 8th 2008 6:38PM

That's actually a pretty good PC. You could get a weaker one than that and it'll still run.

Marty @ Sep 8th 2008 6:39PM

Sure there wasn't a missing zero in there somewhere, Joystiq?

$6990 sounds more realistic to me.

Erik Stroud @ Sep 8th 2008 7:31PM

For that? Haha, that price sounds about right, but, who knows what comes with it. It could still end up being over $1,000 if it doesn't include a monitor, I mean a good one, and if an OS isn't installed.

Ihavepants @ Sep 8th 2008 8:47PM

You don't include the price of a HDTV with your console, so why include the monitor price for a PC?

Liquidmark @ Sep 8th 2008 10:07PM

@Ihavepants

Because a console can be played on any tv.

Unless you live in a cave, you are bound to have at least one tv in the house.

Ihavepants @ Sep 8th 2008 10:09PM

Ok, and Tv's are free now right?

BIGFAT @ Sep 8th 2008 11:35PM

@Ihavepants

im sorry but you lose that argument. T.V's are not only cheap but also abundant, good monitors on the other hand are neither.

Note: when i say abundant i mean as in everyone having one, not as in not being able to find one.

Bootes @ Sep 9th 2008 12:26AM

And monitors aren't? A good monitor is much cheaper than a good TV.

And it would be easy to get a perfectly good screen for free. I see them on the side of the road, being thrown out, all the time. Sure they're not flat and pretty looking, but neither are your cheap abundant TVs.

Haggard @ Sep 9th 2008 4:55AM

Har har, your original humour kills me every time.

chris @ Sep 8th 2008 6:43PM

This is going to sell like hotcakes. I have friends that want a new PC for Starcraft and for the latest games and they don't believe me when I tell them it's easy to build a great PC and they still have the misconception that you need a $1200+ PC to run crysis.

Geist @ Sep 8th 2008 8:55PM

Hell, you can rummage through a junkyard for the pieces required to play Starcraft on maximum settings.

Unless you're talking SC2, not sure.

IGLAW @ Sep 8th 2008 6:43PM

You know I hate to break it to everyone, but... Crysis doesn't take a very powerful computer to play.

I can run it at 1024x768 with graphical settings set to high on a computer that cost me a total of $360 to pull together. On a 60 dollar graphics card.

I'm tired of hearing that rubbish.. /:

Ichi the One @ Sep 8th 2008 6:48PM

Personally, I'm tired of PC fanboys spreading lies that you can get a good Crysis experience for as low amount of money as you said. My PC can run Crysis on high, but very poorly. Odds are with a $60 graphics card you won't be getting over 5FPS at any point in Crysis on high.

IGLAW @ Sep 8th 2008 6:51PM

I dunno what I can do to make you believe me, but my specs are 2 gigs of RAM, a dual 2.2 processor, and a Radeon HD 3650. And it's perfectly playable with very occasional framerate dips, specifically when zooming in with the binocs.

IGLAW @ Sep 8th 2008 6:53PM

D'oh! I totally meant to say medium settings.

Point is the game still looks gorgeous even set to that, and tuns near flawlessly.

Crysis is not the PC melter everyone seems to think it is. End of story.

Ichi the One @ Sep 8th 2008 6:54PM

That card gets ~20FPS AVERAGE on MEDIUM, high probably rarely escapes the single digits...

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1303/10/sapphire_radeon_hd_3450_and_hd_3650/index.html

IGLAW @ Sep 8th 2008 6:55PM

What reason could I have to lie about this? You're just butthurt.

Erik Stroud @ Sep 8th 2008 7:35PM

Uh... $360 sounds kinda low. Maybe $500, not $360. Though I could be wrong.

bobartig @ Sep 8th 2008 8:01PM

Um, Crysis IS the PC melter its made out to be. The point is to play the game at high settings at 1920x1200 with 4x FSAA, 4xbells+whistles.

You know that "High" tab that's grayed out because your GPU doesn't make the cut? That's where the *GOOD* graphics that Crysis can deliver are hiding. You don't get them. You get the medium textures until you upgrade your system.

The point is, yes, you can *PLAY* crysis on a slow system. I finished it on a (at the time) 2 year old iMac with a Radeon X1900, and the game looked like Half Life 2. Then, I went and played it some more on a Mac Pro with an nVidia 8800GT. World o difference there.

IGLAW @ Sep 8th 2008 9:50PM

Right, but everyone makes it out to seem like you need a 9800 with a quad core processor just to play it at minimum settings. That's what I'm talking about.

BananaBoat @ Sep 8th 2008 11:38PM

Even at medium, you wouldn't get proper framerates. Low? Maybe.

There is always that troll with the 500 dollar computer that runs Crysis at high, with the framerate never dipping, despite hundreds of benchmarks on the same hardware that prove otherwise. The people that spent over a thousand just to play it have a good laugh every time though.

John @ Sep 9th 2008 2:53AM

KNow what else was a pretty game that sucked? Dragon's lair. Who gives a fuck about Crysis?

Bottom line is almost EVERYONE has a computer for one purpose or another, and to upgrade it to play the best games is still less than buying a console.

Crysis was a silk dress on a pig, it didn't even sound fun in the previews, all anyone was doing was hyping graphics. And my 19" flatscreen runs 1440x900, so all you idiots claiming you need a super computer to run crysis would be too cheap to buy a monitor capable of running it in a high resolution anyway.

IGLAW @ Sep 9th 2008 4:47AM

Okay, sure. I'll just be over here, playing Crysis perfectly at medium, regardless of what is said in this comment section.

Have fun over there in i-know-because-the-internet-says-so land.

Haggard @ Sep 9th 2008 10:53AM

@Ichi The One

Note the resolution settings he mentioned.

@bobartig
It's the 'very high' settings that are greyed out.

mindshed @ Sep 8th 2008 6:44PM

doh, 9800GT :(

michas_pi @ Sep 8th 2008 8:08PM

What's wrong with a card that has one of the best price-to-performance ratios on the market?

Zeus.:God @ Sep 8th 2008 8:29PM

The fact that it's an 8800GT with a different clock.

Jeff @ Sep 8th 2008 9:01PM

Agreed. A 9800 GTX is easily worth the cost difference, even if they had to cut the CPU down even worse.

Autopsy15 @ Sep 9th 2008 12:29AM

High five Zeus.

Ichi the One @ Sep 8th 2008 6:46PM

The goal is to have 30FPS average on high settings, which means there will be dips below 30fps and when you stare at a wall you'll get 100fps.

It's kind of a smart idea to set a goal 'specification' in general, which Crytek completely ignored with Crysis. Plus apparently they're optimizing for this PC specs.

Crysis Warhead is said to be much more optimized than regular Crysis, but the overall detail on high versus Crysis high might be lower, who knows.

The thing is, who will care about this? Crysis was hardly a high profile / great game, and this is just an expansion pack.