Support NeoGAF

[VictimOfGrief]

Thanks to Shacknews on this one:

* CPU
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
* RAM
1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
* Video Card
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
* VRAM
256MB of Graphics Memory
* Storage
15GB
* Sound Card
DirectX 9.0c Compatible
* ODD
DVD-ROM
* OS
Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista
* DirectX
DX9.0c or DX10

Also if interested, there's a deal over at the EA Store for purchasing both Crysis and Crysis Warhead together for $59.90. Follow the link

 

[Xyphie]

Yeah, that half a decade old 9800 Pro is going to run this well.

 

[TheHeretic]

:lol

 

[Struct09]

Wow, the PC I built back around 2003 exactly meets the minimum specs. 2.8 Ghz P4, 9800 Pro 256MB, and 1GB of RAM.

I've upgraded since then (and my new PC runs Crysis pretty well), but still quite interesting.

 

[Zedsdeadbaby]

Wrong game, wrong game. They must've taken the Farcry specs. Silly Crytek.

 

[Shaheed79]

Can you imagine what kind of games our computers could run if we still used DOS for an OS and games were programmed for openGL? Waaaay too much of system resources goes towards Windows horribly coded OS even Linux is much cleaner in its programming and resource management.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

Can you imagine what kind of games our computers could run if we still used DOS for an OS and games were programmed for openGL? Waaaay too much of system resources goes towards Windows horribly coded OS even Linux is much cleaner in its programming and resource management.

Joke (or uninformed) post?

Many background resources help applications run better. Without them performance (or features) would be lessened.

I mean, now a days what serious PC gamer does not have 2GB of RAM? It's about $30 now. 50-70 from brick and mortar.

 

[JSnake]

Where are the recommended specs?

Still, holy hell.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

Where are the recommended specs?

Still, holy hell.

Probably coming in the next couple of days or so.

 

[Xdrive05]

I hope my system can run it VERY High:

dual core Opteron 165 @ 2.6ghz
2Giggas
8800GT SuperClocked 512mb
Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit
Samsung SyncMaster 220wm

Very high was a slideshow for Crysis on mine @ 1680x1050.. even on half that res. Even High would have its chug moments.

Then again will this game even have a Very High seeing as how it's not DX10'd anymore (it's not, right)?

 

[Bidermaier]

Dont buy anything from the ea store, its more like a long term rent at full price.

Also i hope that they have worked on performance with ATI cards

 

[Shaheed79]

Joke (or uninformed) post?

Many background resources help applications run better. Without them performance (or features) would be lessened.

I mean, now a days what serious PC gamer does not have 2GB of RAM? It's about $30 now. 50-70 from brick and mortar.

I don't think you heard me from the sound of the 757 passing over your head. This isn't about how cheap PC gaming is nowadays you're preaching to the choir. I was speaking about the horrible inefficiency of Windows and if you think it needs that level of resource hogging to write a proper graphical API like OpenGL then you are clueless. OpenGL was originally programmed for DOS as an alternative to windows graphic protocols that would eventually become Directx. Windows is not the end all be all of graphical api's but it is the most resource intensive.

 

[NovemberMike]

I don't think you heard me from the sound of the 757 passing over your head. This isn't about how cheap PC gaming is nowadays you're preaching to the choir. I was speaking about the horrible inefficiency of Windows and if you think it needs that level of resource hogging to write a proper graphical API like OpenGL then you are clueless. OpenGL was originally programmed for DOS as an alternative to windows graphic protocols that would eventually become Directx. Windows is not the end all be all of graphical api's but it is the most resource intensive.

That's because A) DirectX isn't just a graphical API and B)DirextX has a lot more advanced features than OpenGL. Windows is a hell of a lot better than DOS for games because it abstracts away a lot of things that would be hard to work out otherwise. Your system might be 20% faster, but it would take ten times as long to make a game on it.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

good news for a lot of people

 

[No6]

That's because A) DirectX isn't just a graphical API and B)DirextX has a lot more advanced features than OpenGL. Windows is a hell of a lot better than DOS for games because it abstracts away a lot of things that would be hard to work out otherwise. Your system might be 20% faster, but it would take ten times as long to make a game on it.

Plus we don't have to tell a game which IRQ/DMA settings our sound cards use.

edit: I also forgot having to write new ...BAT files (config?) in order to free up that precious, precious 640k of... extended memory? Although it did mean that return policies at Egghead Software were MUCH looser as a result.

 

[Vaporak]

I don't get it, are these lower min specs than Crysis had? I played the demo on a comp that's basically those specs so I don't see what the news is.

 

[MaritalWheat]

I don't get it, are these lower min specs than Crysis had? I played the demo on a comp that's basically those specs so I don't see what the news is.

No kidding, looks: http://www.crysis-online.com/Information/System Requirements/
Exact same min specs.
Edit: Actually, Crysis had lower ones: only needed 12 gigs storage space. :lol

 

[Shaheed79]

That's because A) DirectX isn't just a graphical API and B)DirextX has a lot more advanced features than OpenGL. Windows is a hell of a lot better than DOS for games because it abstracts away a lot of things that would be hard to work out otherwise. Your system might be 20% faster, but it would take ten times as long to make a game on it.

Oh I'm not arguing that DirectX has more familiar therefore easier features for some devs right now (better I'm not so sure people like Carmack would agree) but it's like a trojan horse for developers. You have to accept the good with the bad and the amount of baggage that comes with Windows is ridiculous. Lets take Linux for example. Running in level 3 mode suspends the GUI and concentrates all available resources to the application boosting performance by MUCH more than just "20%". Even Microsoft themselves acknowledge how much of an unnecessary resource hog Windows is so lets not act like Windows needs to be as inefficient as it is in order to have something cool like DirectX for developers to utilize.

EDIT: Again I'm not knocking DirectX of which has come into its own in the past decade from very buggy beginnings. I'm knocking the OS that is required to use it.

 

[otake]

I just hope they optimized for ati cards. just got a 4870.

 

[Shaheed79]

Well the headline to the article on Shacknews does read.

Crysis Warhead System Requirements Unveiled, Nearly Identical to Original Crysis

 

[otake]

my proc barely makes it. 2.6 Ghz core 2 duo, dear god..

 

[MaritalWheat]

Well the headline to the article on Shacknews does read: Almost Identical Specs to Crysis

I just find it funny that some people here were like, OMG, I CAN HAS CRYSIS ON OLD PCZ. Too bad they couldn't look at the specs for the original a year ago and realize the same thing.

 

[Shaheed79]

touche

 

[KHarvey16]

I just find it funny that some people here were like, OMG, I CAN HAS CRYSIS ON OLD PCZ. Too bad they couldn't look at the specs for the original a year ago and realize the same thing.

The quoted specs for Crysis weren't the problem, it was the performance on a computer resembling those specs. We'll have to see how things go before we can really say much.

 

[Kodiak]

I hope my system can run it VERY High:

dual core Opteron 165 @ 2.6ghz
2Giggas
8800GT SuperClocked 512mb
Vista Ultimate SP1 32bit
Samsung SyncMaster 220wm

Very high was a slideshow for Crysis on mine @ 1680x1050.. even on half that res. Even High would have its chug moments.

Then again will this game even have a Very High seeing as how it's not DX10'd anymore (it's not, right)?

I'm eagerly awaiting the recspecs for much the same reason.

Did you DL the patches, though? they help.

 

[otake]

The quoted specs for Crysis weren't the problem, it was the performance on a computer resembling those specs. We'll have to see how things go before we can really say much.

it seems like no computer can run crysis at 60 fps on average at 1680x1050 and above. that engine doesn't seem as great as some people would have you believe.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

it seems like no computer can run crysis at 60 fps on average at 1680x1050 and above. that engine doesn't seem as great as some people would have you believe.

Here's what people need to get over... Crysis is an archived product at this point and I expect Crysis Warhead (Crytek 2.0 Engine) to get patched, and patched and patched and patched.

I would also assume that it will run @ 60FPS on quite a few resolutions based on the code optimization that they have been touting.

People with a proc. within the last 12 months and a graphics card within the past 18-24 months should be able to enjoy the game quite well.

 

[Yoshichan]

9800 PRO MY ASS!

 

[Nikorasu]

* Video Card
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better

wat

 

["God's Beard!"]

hmm... sounds right, I was able to play the original with a 6600 GT. looked like Counter-Strike 1.6: Tree Edition, though.

 

[Shaheed79]

I remember reading in another Warhead topic that they were demonstrating the game on a 8600GT with all settings on high so that alone should tell you how much optimization they've been doing.

 

[otake]

hmm... sounds right, I was able to play the original with a 6600 GT. looked like Counter-Strike 1.6: Tree Edition, though.

at 800x600 and everything set to low?

 

[dark10x]

I just find it funny that some people here were like, OMG, I CAN HAS CRYSIS ON OLD PCZ. Too bad they couldn't look at the specs for the original a year ago and realize the same thing.

The game blows on a slower PC, though. Yeah, you can run it, but due to the way the visuals were designed, the game ends up looking UGLY as sin on an old machine. I swear something like Haze looks superior to Crysis running on the low settings. It's really really bad.

Fortunately, the gameplay is still solid on older machines and the game can be playable, but the horrible visuals do take you out of the game.

That said, I used to have a dedicated laptop hookd up to my TV for basic tasks (before I ran cables from the other room so that I can use my main PC in both rooms) and it only featured a Centrino 2.0 Ghz (single core), ATI X700 mobile, and 1gb of ram. Crysis was actually quite playable on that thing! It was absolutely hideous to look at, but the gameplay worked fine and the framerate was smooth.

Still, Crysis isn't as demanding as people seemed to think. With a little tweaking you can produce visuals superior to the default DX10 Very High settings with great performance on a modest rig (dual core CPU + 8800 class card). On such a machine Crysis will be the single most impressive game you've ever seen.

Warhead is looking a lot less impressive at the moment, but I think that's simply a move to make it seem as if the requirements are lower. The default settings will probably offer smoother performance with missing visual effects. I'm sure all of the original visual effects will be possible by tweaking the config files, though.

looked like Counter-Strike 1.6: Tree Edition, though.

Ha ha, well put. Of course, CS1.6 actually appeared as if it were running correctly. Crysis on the lowest settings literally appears glitched out due to the complete lack of everything.

That said, at least the engine scales well. The same cannot be said of some other PC engines. For instance, the console port "Lost Planet" is COMPLETELY unplayable on underpowered PCs. I remember trying the demo on my 6800 machine and being quite shocked at just how low the average framerate was on the lowest settings (like ~5-10 fps). Yet, the game runs at 60 fps easily on my current rig with the highest settings in DX10.

 

[Tiduz]

i have 2gb ram, but im on a 32 bit os.

do i get any gains if i would put in 4 gig (32 bit will only use 3 gigs right, but will it still run in dual channel mode like my 2gb?)

 

[MickeyKnox]

i have 2gb ram, but im on a 32 bit os.

do i get any gains if i would put in 4 gig (32 bit will only use 3 gigs right, but will it still run in dual channel mode like my 2gb?)

Listing your GPU and CPU would be far more relevant.

 

[Cow Mengde]

* Video Card
ATI HD6800, Nvidia Geforce 98000000000000000GTX or better

Fixed.

 

[dark10x]

i have 2gb ram, but im on a 32 bit os.

do i get any gains if i would put in 4 gig (32 bit will only use 3 gigs right, but will it still run in dual channel mode like my 2gb?)

Crysis really doesn't benefit much from 64-bit in my experience. I have Vista 64 and XP 32 dual booted and, with Crysis 1.2, the performance is the same between them. I am using 4gb of ram, but Crysis doesn't even use 2gb while running so I doubt that would help any.

Actually, the 64-bit version of Crysis doesn't really seem to work well with multiplayer so I've always had to use my XP install for multi games.

 

[aznpxdd]

:lol

Even Far Cry didn't run all that well on a 9800 Pro.

 

[Nikorasu]

As long as they fixed the DX10 mode I'll be happy. DX10 had a horrendous memory leak or something that made the system choke and die during one exact point in the opening cinematic of the "paradise lost" level and the only way to fix it was to quit and restart the whole game. This led to a serious misconception among a lot of people as to how demanding the "snow level" was, but it was actually just a ridiculous bug.

 

[Tiduz]

Listing your GPU and CPU would be far more relevant.

E6600 stock and a MSI HD 4850 Stock.

Crysis really doesn't benefit much from 64-bit in my experience. I have Vista 64 and XP 32 dual booted and, with Crysis 1.2, the performance is the same between them. I am using 4gb of ram, but Crysis doesn't even use 2gb while running so I doubt that would help any.

Actually, the 64-bit version of Crysis doesn't really seem to work well with multiplayer so I've always had to use my XP install for multi games.

Thanks, ill just keep my current config then.

 

[K.Jack]

E6600 stock and a MSI HD 4850 Stock.



Thanks, ill just keep my current config then.

lol you'll be 100% fine with your system

 

[JSnake]

I use 2GB of DDR2 667 RAM, a SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 4850, and an E8400. How well my rig fare against this monster game?

 

[dark10x]

I use 2GB of DDR2 667 RAM, a SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 4850, and an E8400. How well my rig fare against this monster game?

You'll be fine.

 

[bill0527]

Kind of a shocker that my processor doesn't meet the min specs since I just bought it like 15 months ago - Core 2 Duo e6420 2.13ghz. I'm great on everything else - plenty of RAM, and a Radeon HD 4850. I thought games were becoming much more GPU intensive and relying less on the processor. I wonder if this game will even run on my PC :/

 

[BobsRevenge]

Kind of a shocker that my processor doesn't meet the min specs since I just bought it like 15 months ago - Core 2 Duo e6420 2.13ghz. I'm great on everything else - plenty of RAM, and a Radeon HD 4850. I thought games were becoming much more GPU intensive and relying less on the processor. I wonder if this game will even run on my PC :/

I have an e6600 at 2.4ghz and it hasn't been a bottleneck for me on Crysis. Your CPU should be fine.

 

[JSnake]

Kind of a shocker that my processor doesn't meet the min specs since I just bought it like 15 months ago - Core 2 Duo e6420 2.13ghz. I'm great on everything else - plenty of RAM, and a Radeon HD 4850. I thought games were becoming much more GPU intensive and relying less on the processor. I wonder if this game will even run on my PC :/

It will. One of my buddies uses a E6300 with a Radeon HD 3870. He runs Crysis on high settings no prob.

 

[dark10x]

Kind of a shocker that my processor doesn't meet the min specs since I just bought it like 15 months ago - Core 2 Duo e6420 2.13ghz. I'm great on everything else - plenty of RAM, and a Radeon HD 4850. I thought games were becoming much more GPU intensive and relying less on the processor. I wonder if this game will even run on my PC :/

What are you talking about? Your CPU exceeds the minimum requirements. Where did you get the idea that it doesn't?

The game will run fine.

 

[BobsRevenge]

What are you talking about? Your CPU exceeds the minimum requirements. Where did you get the idea that it doesn't?

The game will run fine.

Exactly, it says that the Core 2 minimum requirement is 2.0ghz and his is higher than that.

 

[JSnake]

Exactly, it says that the Core 2 minimum requirement is 2.0ghz and his is higher than that.

Actually it says the CORE minimum is 2.0ghz. His is a Core 2 Duo.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Actually it says the CORE minimum is 2.0ghz. His is a Core 2 Duo.

lol, well he's golden then.