EA's Crysis-ready PC Specs Unveiled

[Monkeywoman]

EA's Crysis-ready PC Costs $699, Specs Unveiled; Aims to 'Make PC Gaming Convenient'

Following up on word that publisher Electronic Arts was readying a line of Crysis-ready PCs, more details, including pricing and system specifications, have surfaced.

Priced at $699, the one and only Crysis Warhead PC was made with the involvement of EA, game developer Crytek, hardware maker Nvidia, and system builder UltraPC. It will launch alongside Crysis Warhead on September 16, and pack the following:

* CPU: Intel Core Duo e7300 (@2.66GHz)
* Video card: Nvidia 9800GT
* RAM: 2GB

The system actually represents the internal benchmark Crytek Budapest used when developing the stand-alone Crysis expansion, and is said to run Warhead with High settings at an average of 30 frames per second. "For us as a team, that was really valuable," franchise producer Bernd Diemer told Chris Remo. "We had a tangible border we could bump our heads into."

"When we started working on Warhead, we decided performance was a big issue," he explained. "We said, 'Guys, we're going to build a PC which has a maximum price of six or seven hundred dollars, and it has to run Warhead in high spec at an average framerate of 30'...All the milestone presentations we did for EA, for the [founding brothers] Yerlies, for the team, all the new prototypes, we showed on that machine."

While more details aren't slated to arrive until the system is officially announced this week, Diemer was clear that the PC does not signal a new player in the hardware market. "EA's not getting into the hardware business, and Crytek isn't either," he promised.

"The biggest thing for us is convenience," Diemer concluded. "We want to make PC gaming convenient."

source;http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54613

[zerazax]

30fps at what res?

So useless without res

[exhausted mule]

800/600

30fps average is bad though... if it was 30fps minimum, that would be impressive.

[Jamesrt2004]

30 fps average and probably at 1280x1024 lols

I mean min will probs be im guessing mid/low 20's

[Linchpin]

I wouldn't count on the res being higher than 1280x1024 which would mean it performs roughly the same as the original Crysis(if not worse).

[RaZz!]

lol. so useless... all the people who'll buy this pc in the hope to play crysis - just to find out how crap it really runs on it... and this is the way they want to "rescue pc gaming"?

[@@@@]

EA please let other video card makers optimize their video card for your games so that consumers will have more value for their purchase of a specific video card

a good example is this if Video Card Maker (A) allies himself with a specific number of gaming company and won't let Video Card Maker (B) optimize their code then Video Card Maker (B) would do the same, who would be the losers it is the consumers let's not wait for games to be Video Card specific, so what now we need X number of cards to play different games how is it gonna help PC gaming?

[xlink]

all I know is that I was never worried about frame rate on high/vhigh with a 8800GTS 640 and I was doing 1280*1024.

and 1600*900 mostly high some vhigh is doable too.

[Budwise]

very laughable. Warhead is going to suck as bad as the original as par as performance.

[Stanley Pain]

Oddly enough I find Crysis VERY playable at sub 25FPS. Proper Motion Blur FTW :)

[koc]

SLI all the way :)

[zerazax]

Well 1280x1024 might mean CPU bottlenecking becomes a factor

That said, I did get to play Crysis 1920x1200 w/ my 4870x2 on full VH so 2560x1600 full VH is very close..

[y2kbos]

Its true 30fps in Crysis is like 50fps or so in other shooters like Cod4 etc.If they sli'd a pair of 9600gt's or the new 9550gt's they would have got much more impressive performance numbers, it should have gtx 260 or sli two cheaper cards.

If the game was delayed 6 or 8 months, a $120 40nm video card would have done the trick.

[comc49]

all I know is that I was never worried about frame rate on high/vhigh with a 8800GTS 640 and I was doing 1280*1024.

and 1600*900 mostly high some vhigh is doable too.

doable as in 20 fps average?

[y2kbos]

lol. so useless... all the people who'll buy this pc in the hope to play crysis - just to find out how crap it really runs on it... and this is the way they want to "rescue pc gaming"?

The tech just isnt here yet, you cant really blame anyone for that.




Don't forget that 10 years ago a PS1 with a 32" widescreen CRT Tv (640x480 max res!) would have set you back about £2000. For the same price now you could have a GTX 280 almost 3 terraflop 3 billion transistor gaming PC with a XHD display (2560x1600) running Crysis Dx10 vs say Tomb raider 2 in 3d on PS1...

The gaming PC would be say at least 100x more powerful than the PS1 ten years ago...

Now lets say R&D slows down by half and in 10 years time a new PC is only 50X more powerful than a PS3....

50x more powerful than a PS3, and display res jumps by only 3x so 7000x5000 widescreen is the norm...

And its 3D!, even in the worst case, just WOW!

[Zytek_Fan]

I usually got 40-50 FPS average when I played Crysis.
Until you got to a scene with lots of enemies. Then it was more like 20 FPS average :down:

[GAR]

If testing was done at 1280x1024 resolution, it would be a total waste considering everyone now a days who plays high end games and has high end pc parts has atleast a 20-24" widescreen with a resolution of 1680x1050 and up.

[BenchZowner]

LOL.
9800GT and e7300...and only 699$... ROFL.

I wouldn't call anything without a GTX 280 / HD4870X2 a Crysis gaming PC.
Especially if I was to put a "Crysis certified" sticker on it ( well...they might add "Crysis 1280x1024 Medium Settings" to that certified sticker :p: )

[y2kbos]

LOL.
9800GT and e7300...and only 699$... ROFL.

I wouldn't call anything without a GTX 280 / HD4870X2 a Crysis gaming PC.
Especially if I was to put a "Crysis certified" sticker on it ( well...they might add "Crysis 1280x1024 Medium Settings" to that certified sticker :p: )

$999 would allow Gtx 260 sli, which would be enough for sure.

[Mumid]

I wonder how much more optimised than the original this is. There is a review in Total Pc Gaming magazine UK, they give it 9/10 and say performance is much improved. The stats they show are 32fps average running 1680x1050 8x AA, ultra high settings on a stock e8400, 4gb ram, GTX280 and vista 64.

[[XC] riptide]

Bernd - 30Fps? if it isn't at 1900x1280 at full AA/AF, GTFO and stop BSing me.

[villa1n]

If testing was done at 1280x1024 resolution, it would be a total waste considering everyone now a days who plays high end games and has high end pc parts has atleast a 20-24" widescreen with a resolution of 1680x1050 and up.

????
anyone who plays high end games has a computer already capable of playing...high end games... these are directed towards most likely console converts, or people who are just getting into/borderline pc gamers... i don't understand your point?

[Anemone]

Don't be surprised if they do a bit of tuning on the 47xx48xx chips for the sequel. Probably the only reason Crysis didn't get more AMD love was just the amount of Nv chips on the market when they were building it. The 8xxx series was all the rage so they tuned for it. Now that's changed. So you might see better fps on AMD chips this time around.

[Riggs]

For some reason crossfire helped me alot in crysis, i gained 20 fps. and can play on high 1440x900. :)

[Epsilon84]

Poor choice of components IMO, they should have gone with a lower end CPU, say an E5200 and a higher end GPU like a 9800GTX+. It would probably allow them to maintain 30fps up to 1680 x 1050, instead of 1280 x 1024 which I'm assuming is the res they're using for tests.

[safan80]

what a joke.. throw that thing in the trash.

[[XC] hipno650]

Poor choice of components IMO, they should have gone with a lower end CPU, say an E5200 and a higher end GPU like a 9800GTX+. It would probably allow them to maintain 30fps up to 1680 x 1050, instead of 1280 x 1024 which I'm assuming is the res they're using for tests.

keep in mind crysis is more CPU limited than most other games out there. i noticed a nice boost going from a 2.8ghz quad to a 3.9ghz quad. the average was a little higher but the increase in the min's were HUGE. i would guess that this is at 1680x1050 as my 8800gt was almost able to pull high off at that res so if they have made some improvements then it should be doable for 30fps.

[strange|ife]

what a load of bull.

someone buy one of these rigs and benchmark it please

[ColonelCain]

what a load of bull.

someone buy one of these rigs and benchmark it please

I wouldn't even waste your money. Not really worth it.

Though, I still game at 1280*1024, on an NEC 1970GX. Glossy FTW!:yepp:

[strange|ife]

right i know it would be a waste of time

9800GT????


i meant somebody buy one and make a fool out of this marketing campaign.

/just in a bad mood i guess

[jcool]

doable as in 20 fps average?

Naw, he's right. I played the whole game in 1920*1200 on my 8800 GTS 640 with everything set to high (DX9 mode tho) and I had an average of 35-40FPS...
Only problem was that fluidic space crap, I got a few lags in there but otherwise - no problem. As long as you don't use DX10 you don't need an uber card, and seeing as the 9800GT = 8800GT it should handle DX9 mode on a 22" nicely (my 8800 GTS was clocked to 780/1890/2200 which might not be representative :wasntme: )

[Epsilon84]

hipno650;3275574']keep in mind crysis is more CPU limited than most other games out there. i noticed a nice boost going from a 2.8ghz quad to a 3.9ghz quad. the average was a little higher but the increase in the min's were HUGE. i would guess that this is at 1680x1050 as my 8800gt was almost able to pull high off at that res so if they have made some improvements then it should be doable for 30fps.

Crysis is still way more GPU limited than CPU limited though. Sure it needs a relatively fast CPU but a fast GPU is even more important.

An E5200 is ~10% slower than an E7300 but a 9800GTX+ is around ~25% faster than a 9800GT, which I think will help framerates more in Crysis.

[gosh]

Finding Next Gen – CryEngine 2 (http://forum.purepc.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=17558)

It seems that crysis has many draw calls and that could limit performance.

[@@@@]

I wish they would allow ATI to optimize their architecture for Crysis the Crytek engine really loves shaders their was one who use the engine to use as much shader as possible the frame rates increase 10 to 15 frames higher I have been searching for the site for a while now but could not find the site so maybe someone who remembered the site could post a link?

[Calmatory]

I wish they would allow ATI to optimize their architecture for Crysis the Crytek engine really loves shaders their was one who use the engine to use as much shader as possible the frame rates increase 10 to 15 frames higher I have been searching for the site for a while now but could not find the site so maybe someone who remembered the site could post a link?

Crysis is one of the main games made(Crytek's and Nvidias right parthership Far Cry was first a techdemo for Nvidia, then later it turned out a full game) to boost Nvidia sales. The last thing they want is that Crysis runs better on ATI.

Could be said that Crysis is made by Crytek and Nvidia.

[munim]

It's extremely foolish to think that the target market for this computer is the populace of XS. :rofl: That will be all.

[paulhamm]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What he said!

[Nedjo]

Crytek got significant financial support from NVIDA and from Intel, and they need to do more to repay their sponsors, so they came up with this pure marketing idea. This idea will have two outcomes:
1. It’ll boost sales of C2D E7300, and GF9800 GT to some extent (my guess low single digit percentage)
2. It’ll motivate other people to show that by combination of other components you can get better experience for less money, and that those components doesn’t necessarily need to be signed by Intel or NVIDIA…
What’s important is that benchmarking is done in “High Quality” settings, or how they call it in Crytek now “gamer settings” http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=999&page=2
And what experience has shown, significant influence of the CPU isn’t noticeable past “Medium” settings… regardless… let’s see how much does cost this combo of the CPU & GFX:

C2D 7300 - $140: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115132
GF 9800GT - $130: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814122053

So, the budget is $270! Let’s see if it’s possible to build faster Crysis” rig for the same money!

A64 X2 6000+ - $93: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773
Radeon HD 4850 - $170: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102770

There you have it - $263 with guarantied better Crysis “gaming settings” experience!:up:

[STaRGaZeR]

Crytek got significant financial support from NVIDA and from Intel, and they need to do more to repay their sponsors, so they came up with this pure marketing idea. This idea will have two outcomes:
1. It’ll boost sales of C2D E7300, and GF9800 GT to some extent (my guess low single digit percentage)
2. It’ll motivate other people to show that by combination of other components you can get better experience for less money, and that those components doesn’t necessarily need to be signed by Intel or NVIDIA…
What’s important is that benchmarking is done in “High Quality” settings, or how they call it in Crytek now “gamer settings” http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=999&page=2
And what experience has shown, significant influence of the CPU isn’t noticeable past “Medium” settings… regardless… let’s see how much does cost this combo of the CPU & GFX:

C2D 7300 - $140: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115132
GF 9800GT - $130: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814122053

So, the budget is $270! Let’s see if it’s possible to build faster Crysis” rig for the same money!

A64 X2 6000+ - $93: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103773
Radeon HD 4850 - $170: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102770

There you have it - $263 with guarantied better Crysis “gaming settings” experience!:up:

Nice GPU, but no inefficient power sucker barbecue CPU for me or my familiars please ;)

[y2kbos]

Nice GPU, but no inefficient power sucker barbecue CPU for me or my familiars please ;)

E5200 - $88

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116072&Tpk=e5200

9600GSO $50

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130356

FTW

[STaRGaZeR]

9600GSO is a POS, I think no one should recommend it, only if the budget is EXTREMELY low.

[AliG]

honestly, have they not learned anything from the successful half life engine? Half life 2 episode 2 is not only beautiful, but I get well over 100 fps @1920*1200, max details on just a single 4850. Even on my 6600gt I could play (yes that means decent min frames) at 1920*1200 with no aa

[y2kbos]

9600GSO is a POS, I think no one should recommend it, only if the budget is EXTREMELY low.

Your kidding right?

Its $50 and can play any game at medium settings.

Thats better value anyday, over a $550 card ( 4870X2 ) that cant max out some games.

[Nedjo]

E5200 - $88

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116072&Tpk=e5200

9600GSO $50

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130356

FTW
X2 6000+ is faster gaming CPU on default clocks in comparison to that C2D 5200.
wow that's unbelievable rebate for 9600 GSO! From $100 to $50 amazing... and this tells that someone is in a hurry to clear out stock of dying 9600GSO's! (scraped out G92's)

@AliG: honestly Source engine is nowhere near CryEngine 2! ;)

[G0ldBr1ck]

would not surprise me if the game was further optimized for these "Crysis certified" pc's only. Identified by BIOS etc. as yet another Hardware marketing scam that would just bring more money EA's way.

[Sly Fox]

would not surprise me if the game was further optimized for these "Crysis certified" pc's only. Identified by BIOS etc. as yet another Hardware marketing scam that would just bring more money EA's way.

Would not surprise me if you seem to just have a personal vendetta because your reasoning is absolutely asinine.

But nah, I bet you're right, I'm sure they'd do that, makes perfect sense. A completely logical and reasonable theory you have there. :up::up:

Just great that we have such well reasoned posts these days.

[Asgard_thor]

now all they have to sell it at Best buy....

[Katzenschleuder]

Cryteks only mistake was to underestimate the stupidity of the players (as it is being demonstrated in this forum as well).

Most people are apparently unable to comprehend that, just because a game offers the option to offer graphics details which are better than in any other games, it does not mean that the performance efficiency is bad if this amount of details doesn't run well on most current systems!

You can reduce graphics details to the level of most other games and it runs perfectly fine then.
But again - unfortunately this is too much too understand for most people. :shakes:

[y2kbos]

Cryteks only mistake was to underestimate the stupidity of the players (as it is being demonstrated in this forum as well).

You can reduce graphics details to the level of most other games and it runs perfectly fine then.
But again - unfortunately this is too much too understand for most people. :shakes:

I know lol.

9600gso is pos, because it cant play Crysis above medium :rofl:

[G0ldBr1ck]

Would not surprise me if you seem to just have a personal vendetta because your reasoning is absolutely asinine.

But nah, I bet you're right, I'm sure they'd do that, makes perfect sense. A completely logical and reasonable theory you have there. :up::up:

Just great that we have such well reasoned posts these days.

I have nothing against the game Crysis, I can play it just fine on my PC's and find the performance very exeptable in relation to the cutting edge graphics.

However perhaps I do have a little aggraviation twords EA and some of the ways in the past they have pionered to seperate players from there money. one that comes to mind was Battlefield 2, A non-MMO with privatly hosted servers That had to pay EA to run the servers because EA tracked the players stats. And i dont mean a little payment, In the early days of the game a 64 man server would cost upwards of $300. The FPS game cost players $60 and all EA had to do was Track Stats.

So honostly, what I had said would not surprise me.

[Sly Fox]

However perhaps I do have a little aggraviation twords EA and some of the ways in the past they have pionered to seperate players from there money. one that comes to mind was Battlefield 2, A non-MMO with privatly hosted servers That had to pay EA to run the servers because EA tracked the players stats. And i dont mean a little payment, In the early days of the game a 64 man server would cost upwards of $300. The FPS game cost players $60 and all EA had to do was Track Stats.

So honostly, what I had said would not surprise me.

I'll give it to you that perhaps EA themselves would do such a thing. I however think Crytek would tell them no. Making your game only run "optimized" on certain PC's is just plain bad business for a game studio. On top of that, Crytek is one of the few devs left that seem to have some self respect for what they create.

But yes, EA certainly are known for pulling rather shady business practices.

[G0ldBr1ck]

On top of that, Crytek is one of the few devs left that seem to have some self respect for what they create.



Agreed.

[RunawayPrisoner]

X2 6000+ is faster gaming CPU on default clocks in comparison to that C2D 5200.
wow that's unbelievable rebate for 9600 GSO! From $100 to $50 amazing... and this tells that someone is in a hurry to clear out stock of dying 9600GSO's! (scraped out G92's)

4670 is coming, they have no choice.


@AliG: honestly Source engine is nowhere near CryEngine 2! ;)

I'd think otherwise... Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMRj3aUqLmc

So the physics aspects of CryEngine 2 can be simulated with ease on Source engine. With a bit of customizations, I believe one can create a mod in Source engine close to CryEngine 2 quality.

On the other hand, though I am highly unimpressed with the system EA is putting together, I'd still buy Crysis Warhead just for the sake of estimating how much worse/better Far Cry 2 may turn out to be. Plus it's only $20 for me...

[G0ldBr1ck]

What does Far Cry 2 have to do with any of it? Different engine completly

[KoHaN69]

that's case only right?
not like they're using a corsair hx power supply...

i can build a better system even without overclocking using only newegg

i bet they're gonna put XP on it

i'd love to see a review sample, probably [H]ard will get one

[Epsilon84]

X2 6000+ is faster gaming CPU on default clocks in comparison to that C2D 5200.


No it's not. http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core2duo-e7200/crysis.png

At most an E5200 would be ~5% slower than the E7200, which would put it around the same performance as the E6550, or at worst that of the E4700.

Also, we all know ATI/AMD GPUs aren't as good for Crysis, so whilst the HD4850 may be the better card overall at its pricepoint, its not the best for Crysis when compared to a 9800GTX+ for example.

[KoHaN69]

Also, we all know ATI/AMD GPUs aren't as good for Crysis, so whilst the HD4850 may be the better card overall at its pricepoint, its not the best for Crysis when compared to a 9800GTX+ for example.

First of all, that's not true.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/8531/crysis20481536qf0.gif

Secondly, they're using the 9800GT

[Kai Robinson]

He said 9800GTX+, not 9800GTX.

And incidentally, the 9600GSO is a renamed 8800GS, which is actually an 8800GT with parts disabled. They can be re-enabled again, iirc.

[largon]

honestly, have they not learned anything from the successful half life engine? Half life 2 episode 2 is not only beautiful, but I get well over 100 fps (...)You need to update your mental image of the graphical capabilities of modern game engines. Start with Crysis. You'll see Source is horribly outdated. Simply said, HL2:EP2 is several years behind CryEngine 2 and the likes.

[redrumy3]

so if someone actually does buy that and lets say has a resolution of 1680 x 1050 or higher and can't pull 30fps like it says do they sue them for false advertisement lol?

[Epsilon84]

First of all, that's not true.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/8531/crysis20481536qf0.gif


I said a 9800GTX+, and how about some playable resolutions for the card instead of a 15fps slideshow at 2048 x 1536?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_radeon_hd_4850_geforce_9800_gtx+/images/cry1600.gif


Secondly, they're using the 9800GT

Did you read my original post? I suggested a lower end CPU (E5200 instead of E7300) in order to allocate a bigger budget towards a faster GPU (9800GTX+ instead of 9800GT) because Crysis is more GPU dependant, as are most games for that matter. I can assure you an E5200 / 9800GTX+ will get higher framerates than an E7300 / 9800GT.

[STaRGaZeR]

I said a 9800GTX+, and how about some playable resolutions for the card instead of a 15fps slideshow at 2048 x 1536?

22/25fps is not playable either...

[Epsilon84]

22/25fps is not playable either...

Actually 25fps is quite playable in Crysis due to the use of motion blur, but no amount of blurring is going to make ~13fps playable.

[r4gm4n]

Not sure if this has been posted but:



Pre-purchase For Crysis And Crysis Warhead Now Available
September 12, 2008, 7:44 pm - Jason Ruymen - General Announcement
Crysis and Crysis Warhead are now available for pre-purchase on Steam.

[largon]

Motion blur has nothing to do with Crysis appearing smooth even at sub 30fps as disabling motion blur doesn't make it any more choppy. I think "the illusion" is based on an exceptionally stable frame rate. Discernable dips in fps are very rare eventhough the average frame rate is relatively low.

[Epsilon84]

RE: Motion blur, I respectfully disagree. Having tried it both on and off (and at max) I found the default setting just right for my tastes. Too much blur and it looks like you're in a dream, no blur and the game runs noticeably 'choppier', at least to my eyes. YMMV.

[largon]

Err...
Motion blur in Crysis doesn't blur the image except when you quickly turn to another direction?

[STaRGaZeR]

Err...
Motion blur in Crysis doesn't blur the image except when you quickly turn to another direction?

Motion blur works every time you move, even when walking. It's only that it's a lot more evident and more blurry when you do quick movements obviously.


Actually 25fps is quite playable in Crysis due to the use of motion blur, but no amount of blurring is going to make ~13fps playable.

It'd be playable for you... 50+ the feeling is superb. 50-40 the game feels good. Between 40-30 it starts lagging bad, and below 30 is like every other game below 30: a slideshow. But like most things, this is subjetive.

[y2kbos]

Did you read my original post? I suggested a lower end CPU (E5200 instead of E7300) in order to allocate a bigger budget towards a faster GPU (9800GTX+ instead of 9800GT) because Crysis is more GPU dependant, as are most games for that matter. I can assure you an E5200 / 9800GTX+ will get higher framerates than an E7300 / 9800GT.

Anyone that spends big on a cpu for a gaming based pc, who isnt loaded is an idiot.

Intel have been screwing ous over for years and AMD are just hopeless.In pure speed terms think 8800 ultra (untouchable 18 months ago) VS HD4870X2 now.

This would be like a 3 GHZ Dual Core just became a 7 GHZ dual core.GPU's are making the CPu's look like a joke and anyone that funds them for the sole purpose of playing games is an idiot.Paying hundreds of dollars extra for an unlocked multiplier :rofl:

Best thing for games now is an $80 E5200, $70 P35 board and $140 HD4850, everything above that is ott

[Spectrobozo]

Err...
Motion blur in Crysis doesn't blur the image except when you quickly turn to another direction?

I don't know but, try limiting Source engine to 30fps (fps_max 30) it's terrible, crysis at 30fps is very different...

[Epsilon84]

It'd be playable for you... 50+ the feeling is superb. 50-40 the game feels good. Between 40-30 it starts lagging bad, and below 30 is like every other game below 30: a slideshow. But like most things, this is subjetive.

Of course 50fps is better than 25fps, but 25fps on most FPS games would be totally unplayable - not Crysis. I agree it is subjective though, so if 25fps is not playable for someone, they could always turn some details or AA/AF to get it above 30fps.

Anyhow I'll reiterate my original point that at 'playable' framerates a 9800GTX+ would be quicker at Crysis than a HD4850.

[Jaivan]

so if someone actually does buy that and lets say has a resolution of 1680 x 1050 or higher and can't pull 30fps like it says do they sue them for false advertisement lol?

They'll probably have some little piece of paper in the box with really fine print saying the exact settings and resolution this "gaming" computer can play crysis at.