Crysis Warhead System Requirements Unveiled, Nearly Identical to Original Crysis

Yeah, I think all the whiners are forgetting one thing-YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR COMPUTER.
I got my system in 2004 with:
2.2 Ghz Athlon XP
1/2GB RAM
GeForce 4MX (Ugh...)
Nforce Audio Hardware
Since then I've doubled the memory and fits the min. (I'm gonna get a 2GB Kit) and installed a GeForce 7600
I can get 25 FPS (Mostly Medium settings, High Textures) just by optimizing RAM Usage and adjusting my Graphics Processor Speed about 40Mhz. Crysis dosen't need an AlienWare System to run, it needs a smart player setting up the game up.
The only time it slows down in mid cut-scene to about 18, which still looks like a cut scene.
(Try Downloading and installing Game Booster)

At this point you can pretty much get the hardware you need to run Crysis at high settings with a decent resolution for pretty fucking cheap...PC hardware has a solid mid-low range right now and you can get a decent GPU for 200-300 bucks that can run Crysis fairly well without sacrificing the looks of the thing. People are being fucking drama queens about this.

Note that when I saw a decent resolution I do NOT mean 1920x1200...now I have a CRT so my views on resolutions are a bit different than most people (I have an innate intense hatred of desktop PC LCDs and their native resolutions)...and if scaling bothers you...DON'T buy a fucking high resolution LCD and expect it to be a great gaming solution!!!

As a person who has been playing first person shooters on the PC for 12 years, I'm sure the fresh and dynamic game play and story telling of Crysis: Warhead will make this the must buy of the year...

I may just go back to playing GLQuake on my Radeon 9800 Pro card since my $1200 dual 8800GTXs won't max out Crysis.

Crysis is a fantastic game. The one game that I wanted to play again the moment I was finished.

I played it on a 3 year old system (minus the Video Card I have a 3870 I had to upgrade when my 2 NVidia Cards died on me but that is a different rant). And it looked amazing. The environments felt alive the openness of the game was great too. I felt like I was on a giant island which I could do everyone from any direction. Which is what they wanted.

My Graphics where set to a Cross between Med/High (most on Med). But even then it looked like amazing. I was completely blown away but the visuals.

But the part of Crysis that stand out the most was the gameplay. The Suit, the Weapons, the play style all of which where amazing! The Suit was just fun to use. It took a while to get used too. However once you did it completely changed the way the game played. The Weapons never felt weak and where introduced at a nice pace. I never got tired of using one before I found a new one. The play style being able to move in any direction, completely bypass enemy's by taking the long way or being able to just run and gun right at them. All of which fantastic to a overall great game.

I think a lot of the poo throwing at CryTek is happening because it is the cool thing to do. Just my 2 cents.

My Specs because people will want to call Bullshit on me.
AMD 939 Socket 4400+ @ 2.6GHz
3 Gigs DRR 400 Corsair/OCZ Memory
ASUS 32ASN-SLI MOBO
3870 512 MB Diamond
22 inch Widescreen @ 1680x1050 rez

My guess is, that Crysis high will be Warhead Ultra High, and Ultra High in Crysis can only be achieved by some .cfg twaks. But we should just wait for the initial benchies and IQ of the final build performance accross the platforms, before we state anything of the sort about Crytek actually lying... I mean wtf Shack?! These are only the min specs anyhow. It doesn't really say anything conclusive on how the game will scale on the upper echelons of pc hardware, or how the game will generally perform in the first place.

It's almost as if you're begging for the flaming commentary with these punchlines. The fact of the matter is, that any pc gamer should have enough common sense to take system requirements with a grain of salt, and for a completely fluid experience (constant >60 FPS) at least double the recommended should be applied =)

While I'm aware that the advertised quadcore performance advantage for Crysis was bs, and shader optimization was skewed toward nvidia hardware, I'm still willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt that my 4870X2 will completely destroy Warhead, and come september I will enjoy this game, alot. Whiners can keep whining; that's what jaded pc- gamers mostly do these days anyhow. But it won't kill my gaming pleasure.

My only wish is, that if the engine has truly been optimized, they should patch Crysis as well. After all the performance woes of Crysis, that would be just a decent thing to do.

I'm going to pirate this game to get back at Cevat Yerli! lol

The only reason why peope are getting whiney abouit crysis is it's the first game in a long time that pushes the tech forward. The fact of the matter is if you want better graphics (to compete with consoles), you just need better hardware. I dont know why this concept is so foreign to people.

Crysis is a great game and the specs are perfectly reasonable.

Oh goody, now we get to hear people whine and complain about this all over again.

Please, someone out there, tell me the last time you were able to take a AAA-title, technology-pushing game, install it, crank everything up to HIGH and get 30+fps?

Seriously, shut up about this already. I played "Crysis" at 800x600 LOW and it was fun as hell. I've since upgraded my machine and have been playing back through at 1280x1024 ULTRA and it's freaking awesome.

When Doom2 came out I remember trying to get more than 17fps out of it. I spent $380 on 8 more megs of ram and then $600 on a 486 DX4 100 chip. I was then getting about 28fps.

In Quake I was lucky to get 30fps at 512x384 with a Voodoo1 card.

In Quake 3 I was lucky to get 30fps at 640x480 with a Riva TNT card, with simpleitems on, and all that other stuff.

You can't seriously expect a game like Crysis to run 60fps on an average machine with a high resolution and high detail because of all the technology it's got. I don't seem to remember people bitching this much about any other tech-pushing games like Unreal, Quake, etc. All of a sudden people got this idea in their heads that if you can't install it and turn everything to OMG MAXIMUM ALL then the game is a piece of shit and the developers are morons.

That's only the minimum settings it be interesting to see what the recommended would be and if its changed much. Crysis played well on my system though anyway and looked good with some settings on medium and some on high.

"optimized to run better on a wider range of PCs."

by that they mean instead of getting 15fps you get 19fps.

Yeah, doesn't look like they changed anything. It's all good, I just upgraded my GPU.

Well looks like Cevat Yerli still has shit flowing from his mouth. I don't know if I'll be picking up Warhead anyway, I really don't care to play as Psycho through the same story as the original game. I'd rather just have the sequel to figure out what happens after that awful cliffhanger.

That HDD space requirement seems a bit steep. Maybe it'll be possible to just install the new stuff if you already have Crysis installed, because if not I'm going to have to get a bigger HDD sharpish.

Hopefully they've optimized it better for ATI GPU's. This appears to be the only game that really gets trumped by Nvidia cards.

Maybe it's now actually possible to play the game with the minimum requirements? Or maybe it's possible to play the game with the minimum requirements without looking at terribly scaled-down graphics?

Hahaha. I made a funny.