Support NeoGAF

[MickeyKnox]

Less excitement about the specs more anger at the release date bullshit. Friday the 12th for Europe and tuesday the 16th for the US, of all the stupid shit to pull, if EA really was concerned about "loosing sales to piracy" why OH WHY would you not do a simultaneous release?

 

[Demigod Mac]

Crysis runs a hell of a lot better on 64-bit than 32-bit.

You get 20% better framerate overall, and the game chugs a lot less during intense situations.

 

[otake]

i'm running xp with 2 gigs of ddr3 1333 mhz ram, I wonder if the game will benefit from 2 more gigs.

 

[RavenFox]

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

This

 

[dark10x]

Less excitement about the specs more anger at the release date bullshit. Friday the 12th for Europe and tuesday the 16th for the US, of all the stupid shit to pull, if EA really was concerned about "loosing sales to piracy" why OH WHY would you not do a simultaneous release?

Wow, that is stupid. :\

I am happy that it's being released so soon, though. I didn't realize it was september. If the game is of the same quality as the original I will be thrilled. Crysis was one of the finest FPS I've ever played. I don't like the action slant this new game has taken, but it should still be a good time.

Crysis runs a hell of a lot better on 64-bit than 32-bit.

Hmm, really? It wasn't until the latest patch and the most recent nVidia drivers that Crysis actually started running equally well under Vista 64. Most games run great under Vista, but Crysis always ran just a touch smoother in XP 32 for me. That isn't the case anymore, but it seemed that way for a while.

 

[dLMN8R]

:lol :lol :lol

I'm glad that some people already noticed, but it's quite hilarious that these specs are practicaly identical to Crysis' specs, and suddenly, simply because of the great PR EA and Crytek are doing this time around, they're gods among men.

 

[godhandiscen]

Hmm, really? It wasn't until the latest patch and the most recent nVidia drivers that Crysis actually started running equally well under Vista 64. Most games run great under Vista, but Crysis always ran just a touch smoother in XP 32 for me. That isn't the case anymore, but it seemed that way for a while.

I can vouch for what he said dark10x. I get an insane framerate compared to what they tell me I should be getting with my system under vista 32. I use Vista 64.

:lol :lol :lol

I'm glad that some people already noticed, but it's quite hilarious that these specs are practicaly identical to Crysis' specs, and suddenly, simply because of the great PR EA and Crytek are doing this time around, they're gods among men.

Thats true. So far it seems you were correct, it could be that no major performance upgrades were done to the engine.

 

[Oreoleo]

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.

Is this still an issue? I'm playing through Crysis for a 2nd time, this time with a custom config. The first half of the game and the 0-G cave area ran so much better, probably in the high 20's to mid 30's. But as soon as the snow hit there was an even worse frame rate drop than last time I played through. Probably get 5-10 fps now, unless I'm looking at the ground :\

 

[dLMN8R]

Thats true. So far it seems you were correct, it could be that no major performance upgrades were done to the engine.

Hmm? No, I think Crytek was being truthful that Warhead will perform significantly faster. I'm just talking about the specs that are on paper, is all.

 

[otake]

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.

the demonstration they had on ign's on the wire(?) show was very very choppy,,

 

[dLMN8R]

They never said that an 8600GT was running the game on High details. They said that an 8600GT was running the game while looking great and running smoothly.

I thought I remembered the Livewire demo running pretty smoothly.

 

[otake]

They never said that an 8600GT was running the game on High details. They said that an 8600GT was running the game while looking great and running smoothly.

I thought I remembered the Livewire demo running pretty smoothly.

nah, it wasn't. but I hope I'm wrong

 

[Xdrive05]

On the memory issue, my total memory usage with Crysis never went over 1.5Gig on Vista even, and it was much less than that on XP. So I'm not sure how going over 2gig will add much if anything to your performance. Maybe if you like to play with a bunch of apps running in the background or something...

 

[VictimOfGrief]

On the memory issue, my total memory usage with Crysis never went over 1.5Gig on Vista even, and it was much less than that on XP. So I'm not sure how going over 2gig will add much if anything to your performance. Maybe if you like to play with a bunch of apps running in the background or something...

It depends. Memory used in game probably won't hit more than 2GB usable by the game itself (thank the lord....) but having more isn't a bad thing depending on what you want from your system in whole.

Goes to say that games shipping out now with 32-bit and 64-bit extension take use resources a little different and/or efficiently.

 

[MickeyKnox]

On the memory issue, my total memory usage with Crysis never went over 1.5Gig on Vista even, and it was much less than that on XP. So I'm not sure how going over 2gig will add much if anything to your performance. Maybe if you like to play with a bunch of apps running in the background or something...

I tested the shit out of the game last year on my 4 gig 64bit system.

I removed 1 gig at a time and ran the same tests, all the way down to leaving only 1 gig in the system. The most noticeable impact was on load times, with a negligible impact on frame rate over 2 gigs.

 

[otake]

I tested the shit out of the game last year on my 4 gig 64bit system.

I removed 1 gig at a time and ran the same tests, all the way down to leaving only 1 gig in the system. The most noticeable impact was on load times, with a negligible impact on frame rate over 2 gigs.

he he, been wanting an excuse to buy more ddr3, 4 sticks at 1333 mhz here I come!

 

[zon]

It'll be interesting to see how this fares on my new computer, some Crytek guy said they had optimized the engine for Warhead so I hope I'll reach 60 fps or so

 

[Demigod Mac]

Indeed. You will notice a remarkable performance improvement with Crysis if you upgrade to 64-bit. Highly recommended.

I can't vouch for XP, but that's the way it is for Vista.

 

[Chiggs]

:lol :lol :lol

I'm glad that some people already noticed, but it's quite hilarious that these specs are practicaly identical to Crysis' specs, and suddenly, simply because of the great PR EA and Crytek are doing this time around, they're gods among men.

Pretty much. And those inflated screenshots that were re-released in that other thread in no way indicate that Warhead was downgraded.

I just want to let all those people know that they're wrong.

 

[dark10x]

Pretty much. And those inflated screenshots that were re-released in that other thread in no way indicate that Warhead was downgraded.

I just want to let all those people know that they're wrong.

THOSE screenshots (the actual content in them, not the image quality) were downgraded from what I'm used to seeing in Crysis. No question about it. As a PC game, however, we all know that settings can be adjusted and we should have no trouble bringing the game back up to Crysis standards. I simply find it odd that they would release shots demonstrating lesser visuals than the original.

 

[Hazaro]

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)?

Slideshow?

I play on vHigh at that res with my 8800GT and get 24 fps.
I can dumb it down to high and get 30+, but 24 is usually solid.

Also you can enable all the DX10 effects by using a custom config, also boosts your fps by quite a bit. CCC is a popular one.

edit* You have any Opty, but that should cover you. What fps means a slideshow to you?

 

[MickeyKnox]

THOSE screenshots (the actual content in them, not the image quality) were downgraded from what I'm used to seeing in Crysis. No question about it. As a PC game, however, we all know that settings can be adjusted and we should have no trouble bringing the game back up to Crysis standards. I simply find it odd that they would release shots demonstrating lesser visuals than the original.

The one other possibility I'm looking into is that the studio that handled this game simply doesn't have as a good a lighting director as the first. The sky and the the general "offness" of the lighting in the released shots was bugging me until I started looking around for mods and maps, almost all of which have shittier time of day files and lighting/shadow configs than the retail game. Mostly because while the people making maps have certain talents, the majority don't seem to know how to light a scene in a natural yet dramatic way.

I'm guessing it's a bit of both, slightly turned down default settings that can be fixed in 2 minutes and a less outstanding TOD file, which can also be fixed, just takes a little more time and commitment.

 

[Teknoman]

Think there will at least be a Warhead demo? Also the retail version of Crysis + patches performs alot better than the demo did right?

My PC: Athlon 64 x2 6400+, 2GB ram, Radeon HD 2900pro 512MB, Windows Vista 64bit.

 

[dLMN8R]

They'd be smart to release a demo, that is, if the game actually performs better like they say it does.

 

[TheExodu5]

What people don't realize, is Crysis runs just fine on the minimum specs stated. The game is very scalable on lowest settings.

 

[Farnack]

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)?

The bolded says no.

Vista will suck all your available RAM. :lol

 

[Zzoram]

Another super annoying element of PC gaming: Fake minimum specs, fake Recommended specs

the Recommended is usually the "real" minimum, assuming they even list video cards at all. the most deceiving specs say "DX9.0c compatible 256mb video card" which includes a ton of garbage cards.

 

[KHarvey16]

The bolded says no.

Vista will suck all your available RAM. :lol

Please take the time to learn about how Vista works before making comments.

 

[AgentOtaku]

Please take the time to learn about how Vista works before making comments.

this

 

[Jirotrom]

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

whatever mang... im running a 9800xt right now... greatest card ATI has ever sold.

 

[TheHeretic]

What people don't realize, is Crysis runs just fine on the minimum specs stated. The game is very scalable on lowest settings.

Crysis scaled horribly.

 

[Zzoram]

Crysis scaled horribly.

I ran it on a 2GB RAM PC with 6800GS 256mb, and it ran like ass at 1024x768 on Low everything. The minimum specs are a lie.

 

[zoku88]

Please take the time to learn about how Vista works before making comments.

Well, if you didn't say it, I would've :lol :lol :lol

 

[Formless]

whatever mang... im running a 9800xt right now... greatest card ATI has ever sold.

Agreed, the 9800 never had any problems when I had it. This X1900XT I have is great too, but unfortunately my processor can't keep up...

 

[bee]

Please take the time to learn about how Vista works before making comments.

wrong, 4gb makes a huge difference to crysis especially quitting out of it

try this map on 2gb + vista

http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php?fileid=1836&lim=0

 

[TheHeretic]

I ran it on a 2GB RAM PC with 6800GS 256mb, and it ran like ass at 1024x768 on Low everything. The minimum specs are a lie.

Pretty much, though to be fair minimum specs are usually like that. If you can run the game it meeds the minimum specs by most standards.

 

[Zzoram]

I've got an HD4870 512mb GDDR3 now though, so hopefully I won't have to worry about being able to run the latest games decently for a while.

 

[MaritalWheat]

They never said that an 8600GT was running the game on High details. They said that an 8600GT was running the game while looking great and running smoothly.

I thought I remembered the Livewire demo running pretty smoothly.

Dude, I ran original Crysis on an 8600 GT in a Walmart bought $400 PC (Pentium D @ 3.0 Ghz and 2 gigs of RAM) all high except textures (med), and shaders (sometimes I could get high shaders working nicely, but I usually kept them at medium). It didn't look like the bomb diggity from the trailers, sure, but it sure as hell matched up to most things out there. The only really annoying slowdowns came when zooming in, it always hung up a few frames...but hey, thats why the red dot sights are there .

 

[VictimOfGrief]

The bolded says no.

Vista will suck all your available RAM. :lol

Really.... No.... you're serious???

 

[Vaporak]

I ran it on a 2GB RAM PC with 6800GS 256mb, and it ran like ass at 1024x768 on Low everything. The minimum specs are a lie.

Well that's certainly not minimum is it. Is it really so hard to understand that minimum specs means running it at the lowest settings possible. :lol Just because you don't want to accept low resolutions doesn't mean the min spec's are a lie.

 

[Zzoram]

Well that's certainly not minimum is it. Is it really so hard to understand that minimum specs means running it at the lowest settings possible. :lol Just because you don't want to accept low resolutions doesn't mean the min spec's are a lie.

So minimum spec should mean 640x480 Low everything = playable? That's like barely above Smartphone screen resolution.

1024x768 is the new minimum in the minds of gamers, since nobody wants to run at that resolution unless they absolutely have to (plus running below native LCD looks awful and 17" is the smallest LCD you can get nowadays, and even then only with the cheapest budget computers, I actually can't find any on sale, 19" widescreen is the cheapest/smallest at bestbuy). The only people who run 640x480 don't yet have graphics drivers installed, or are playing Starcraft.

 

[Vaporak]

So minimum spec should mean 640x480 Low everything = playable? That's like barely above Smartphone screen resolution.

1024x768 is the new minimum in the minds of gamers, since nobody wants to run at that resolution unless they absolutely have to (plus running below native LCD looks awful and 17" is the smallest LCD you can get nowadays, and even then only with the cheapest budget computers, I actually can't find any on sale, 19" widescreen is the cheapest/smallest at bestbuy). The only people who run 640x480 don't yet have graphics drivers installed, or are playing Starcraft.

They don't "should mean", that's what they do mean. And frankly, your opinion of resolution is only representative for a tiny percentage of PC gamers. Go take a look at steam hardware surveys, the vast majority of PC gamers max resolution is 1280*960 or below. Your "nobody" is a third of valves customers. If games don't run well they don't buy new hardware, like the technophiles do, they lower their resolution.

 

[Enkidu]

1024x768 is the new minimum in the minds of gamers, since nobody wants to run at that resolution unless they absolutely have to

I run every game in 1024x768 whether I have to or not. I'd rather up the graphics a bit than up the resolution. Of course, I don't have an LCD screen so that's probably why I can get away with lower resolutions not looking like crap.

 

[thrasher]

Whats the recommended?

 

[-SD-]

Whats the recommended?

Crytek has not announced the recommended system requirements for Warhead yet.

To people who are saying that it's no use to go from 2GB to 4GB for Vista 64-bit Crysis: I've seen benchmarks that show a decrease in level loading times and increase in the average framerate, especially in the minimum frame rate.

 

[dejan]

I tested the shit out of the game last year on my 4 gig 64bit system.
I removed 1 gig at a time and ran the same tests, all the way down to leaving only 1 gig in the system. The most noticeable impact was on load times, with a negligible impact on frame rate over 2 gigs.

Did you experience any noticeable difference in min fps? I'm asking because of this ...
http://www.corsairmemory.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Performance_Analysis.pdf

 

[ThirdEye]

640x480

 

[otake]

why does crysis require such crazy speeds on the cpu. I would think it would all be on the gpu. anyone know?

 

[BobsRevenge]

why does crysis require such crazy speeds on the cpu. I would think it would all be on the gpu. anyone know?

Physics and AI?

 

[bill0527]

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.

I mis-read the sys requirements. I read it as a Core 2 Duo with 2.2ghz minimum if you're running Vista.