Print 52 comment(s) - last by XtremeM3.. on Sep 5 at 9:02 AM

Getting friendly with the locals  (Source: EA/Crytek)

That thing can't be getting decent milage  (Source: EA/Crytek)

You can break all those things  (Source: EA/Crytek)
Fire up those expensive video cards -- Crysis demo is coming on September 25

For diehard PC gamers, Crysis is the game that best exemplifies the PC’s technological edge over today’s consoles. In times where developers must consider the lowest common denominator when making a game, Crysis sets itself apart by targeting gamers with the latest computer processors and video cards.

EA and Crytek revealed today on its official Crysis website that a single player demo will be released on September 25 (also the day that Halo 3 hits the Xbox 360). The demo will consist of the entire first level in Crysis’ single player campaign, “Contact,” giving gamers first-hand chance to experience the open-ended level design and a chance to put their PC hardware to the test.

Even with the game’s nearing release, the developers have yet to announce official system requirements. From what the developers have let on, though, it is estimated that the lowest-spec PC that will run Crysis will consist of:

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

With the recommended system expected to be:

CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista

Following the completion of the demo, gamers will have a seemingly long wait for the release of the full game. Crysis is set to simultaneously release in retail stores in North America and Europe on November 16, 2007.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By jmke on 8/28/2007 9:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
At what resolution detail will you play the game with

CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)

I wonder.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By Cheapshot on 8/28/2007 10:09:07 AM , Rating: 2

I have a quad core extreme qx6700, a GF 8800 GTX, 4 gigs of Gskill DDR II 800, a raptor 10K 150, and Bioshock gave me some hiccups.

I feel less than optimistic about maxing games out these days... thinking I should get another $500 video card to run SLI... not what I want to do or can afford, but having a game that resembles 2004 graphics defeats the purpose of spending all that friggin money.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By Marlowe on 8/28/2007 11:20:49 AM , Rating: 5
You should really spend those 500 A.S.A.P dude 'cause your system is seriously lacking. I'm sure you can afford it mate, 500 is nothing for some SLI heaven! Heck why not switch 'em out with Ultras. Then you're speaking ;) You're gonna make those suckers in the forums drool at your feet!! ;D

Btw I have a Ferarri and a Porsche and 16 thousand gigabytes of ram.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By Souka on 8/28/2007 12:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
U had probs with Bioshock?

I play at 1024x768 with all settings set to max,including audio. Only with large use of plasmidsd with lots of baddies....otherwise, runs great.

My setup...
....P4 3.0ghz@3.6ghz
....ATI x1950pro AGP (256mb)
....XP Pro
....2x1GB ram (faster timings set, can't remember exact though)

RE: Resolution/Detail
By johnsonx on 8/28/2007 1:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
check your system for spyware or some other problem. My son plays the Bioshock demo no hitches or problems with a single core athlon64, 7900GS.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By lompocus on 8/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Resolution/Detail
By lucyfek on 8/29/2007 1:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
what OS do you run - Vista 32bit? - so much for your 4GB and performance under Vista always disappoints for the money loaded into the equipment

RE: Resolution/Detail
By otispunkmeyer on 8/29/2007 4:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
even my macbook pro played bioshock without issue. ok the FPS wasnt in the sky but it was definately playable.

the 360 plays the game superbly, played it on a sammy 1080p 40incher with a glossy coating, i've never seen a game look so damn good.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By XtremeM3 on 9/5/2007 9:02:18 AM , Rating: 2
1. What OS? Odds are you'd be better off yanking 2 of those gigs of RAM out and run off of 2, especially if you're running XP.

I run bioshock on an E6400 with an 8600GTS and playing at 1600x1200 with max everything it runs...well ok. Looks fine but FRAPS is telling me i'm running 30ish fps...oddly enough it doesn't look choppy or bad at all. Going to probably bring down the res anyway though.

My friend is running a QX6700 with dual 8800GTX XXXs 2GB or RAM and runs average of 180ish fps peaking over problems...also at 1600x1200 max everything.

Check your setup...but I do agree that the min specs will not be running anything pretty at all when it comes to crysis.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By webdawg77 on 8/28/2007 10:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
Probably 640x480.

I have a AMD 64 3000+ with an ATI 9600pro that I could swap out with a nVidia 6800GT. I'll let you know in about 1 month :).

RE: Resolution/Detail
By JazzMang on 8/28/2007 10:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
I would think 800x600 with all detail settings set to 'low'.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By Spivonious on 8/28/2007 10:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
I've never heard of an Intel 2.8GHz. Going strictly by clockspeed that means my E6600 isn't fast enough, which we all know isn't true. I guess they mean Pentium 4?

RE: Resolution/Detail
By therealnickdanger on 8/28/2007 10:29:34 AM , Rating: 2
I guess they mean Pentium 4?

Or the equivalent. Considering my old E6300 (1.8GHz) was faster in most tasks than my old P4 3.0GHz, it's probably safe to say that any C2D will be fast enough...

RE: Resolution/Detail
By NARC4457 on 8/28/2007 11:43:30 AM , Rating: 3
Pretty sure I remember an old P4 Northwood that was clocked at 2.8Ghz

RE: Resolution/Detail
By Procurion on 8/29/2007 8:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
You're giving away your age-or lack of it. The Northwood 2.8 was a great chip and very overclockable if you kept the voltage down. We're talking just 2 or three years ago that it was mainstream.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By RussianSensation on 8/28/2007 10:38:34 AM , Rating: 4
Rule of thumb: Take recommended specs and make that your minimum system specs to enjoy the game :) hehe

RE: Resolution/Detail
By elegault on 8/28/2007 1:10:01 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Resolution/Detail
By PrinceGaz on 8/28/2007 4:40:20 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Resolution/Detail
By Master Kenobi on 8/28/2007 8:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I just ordered an 8800GTX today from Newegg. Shows up Friday. Was hoping to stick it out until January but DX10 games are rolling out now and I guess I just gotta bite the bullet this time.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By DarkElfa on 8/28/2007 12:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
I was able to play the Bioshock demo at 2560x1600 with all of the settings on max but without AA. Then again, at 2560x1600, AA isn't really needed. I'll try the same with Crysis, but I'm not holding my breath that it will work, unlike Bioshock, there aren't any sprawling outdoor areas.

RE: Resolution/Detail
By Rabbitrunner55 on 8/30/2007 5:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
I always use 1024 X 768. Since i have amid range card ( 7600GT with shader model 3.0 and can only use DX9.0c, then i figure that will be good enough. maybe not the best specs but OK. I run quite a few high end games at one notch above that.
Currently, i can play any high end game out now just fine on a 939 chipset board and a X23800 CPU. I will upgrade pretty soon.. to either a X26000 and 2GB DDR2 memory, or possibly change platforms and get the C2D 6750CPU.

I find it funny that the one guy thinks he needs a new video card or just to play this game???? ( are you kidding me?? ) to get two of the highest ones out and run in SLI, when if he knew anything about anything, he should know that one high end VC is good enough for anything put out,esp. with those overall specs.$500.00 more just for 5-10FPS is just plain stupid.

Believe it or not, i can play 'Oblivion on very decnet settings and the game looks perfect, and runs over 30FPS, so i'm not too awful worried.
Remember.. ;game makers want most all gmaers business, and not just the highest specs. users, otherwise profits would fall by the wayside pretty fast...

By ForumMaster on 8/28/2007 10:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
wonder if my good ol'

Athlon XP-M 2500+ @3200

will run this thing. i doubt it will run at my monitor's native rez...(1280x1024)

RE: Heh
By ted61 on 8/28/2007 10:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
You won't even be able to get the welcome screen on that computer. You need to beef up you video card with one of those classic Radeon 9200 128 meg jobs.

RE: Heh
By 3kliksphilip on 8/28/2007 10:38:49 AM , Rating: 3
I guess that my Voodoo 3 is finally obsolete :(

RE: Heh
By rdeegvainl on 8/28/2007 12:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
nah man, i think you can still run ultima 4, or was that 3....

RE: Heh
By StevoLincolnite on 8/28/2007 1:49:46 PM , Rating: 3
I have a "TnL" Software Emulator, which I use to run on my old Voodoo 2 SLI rig!
And I can run FarCry, Doom3, Quake 4 and Half Life 2, although graphics are lacking, performance is acceptable :)

RE: Heh
By MonkeyPaw on 8/28/2007 6:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe if you overclock it a little you will get the FPS you're looking for. I think my V3 2000 does 190/190 if you're interested. That way you don't have to deal with all the driver hassles that come with upgrading.

RE: Heh
By aetherzero on 8/28/2007 10:43:36 AM , Rating: 3
Woo! Minumum system requirements!!

3.0GHz P4 Northwood
1GB DDR400
256MB X800GTO

Maybe i can run it in 256 color mode :-D

RE: Heh
By MrDiSante on 8/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Heh
By achintya on 8/28/2007 1:30:55 PM , Rating: 1
DAMN, my system meets every min req except 4 d cpu!!!!! ive got a athlon64 2800+! DAMN!!!!! and 768 pin procs are real hard to find now.............

buy it now, please
By Pirks on 8/28/2007 3:03:54 PM , Rating: 4
Crytek is one of the few PC high-end friendly game studios left. Majority of studios pretty much gone console way, id is doing Rage for consoles, Valve is doing HL episodes for consoles etc. GSC and some other studios are still PC exclusive tho, but to me it seems that they are too small or young to be considered equal to Crytek. I suggest everyone to make an exception for this game and buy it. I download some games, and buy some games as well, but for this one I bought the collector's edition right away (google search found me a nice deal at

Remember guys, that all your wasted money on 8800 GTX XXX Uber Ultra Killa Edition is nothing if you skip on paying for GAMES. If you wasted a couple of grand for the latest SLI setup - consider paying a little to Crytek as well.

I'm saying this because of the rampant piracy on PC. I know ppl download console games as well, but on PC it's much more serious and widespread phenomenon. This is why we lost id and Valve as exclusively PC studios, and this is a MAJOR blow to PC as a gaming platform. If there are no exclusive PC games like Crysis and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - then there is much less incentive for people to buy expensive gaming PC rigs, since they can buy Xbox and get almost the same experience, and most of them won't care about high PC resolution and stuff. So people start buying Xboxes and shit like that and voila - Crytek and the rest will go console way. Do you want to spend the rest of your life sitting with dumb gamepad and watching console shitty graphics? Yeah, probably PC gaming won't die totally, some little hardcore studios will do PC only little hardcore games, but the big budgets and big talented studios will just move to console like id and Valve did.

I dunno, I'm a bit worried about the state of PC gaming market, I see a lot of very nice Xbox (sometimes PS3 too) exclusives like The Darkness and Gears of War and Halo 3, and I don't know when we see PC versions of those, GeoW probably soon, it's been announced, but others? I dunno.

I just wanted to say to anyone who pirates their big-budget PC games - you guys are pushing yourself in direction of shitty consoles. And you pushing other PAYING PC gamers as well, which is even worse!

I started to download games much less, and buy much more. A couple of years ago I'd buy 1 game a year, the rest I'd ddownload. Now I'm buying beautiful PC exclusives right away, and since there are not so many of them anyway - this is not a big financial hole. At least, I think, spending money for games instead of another SLI card is giving me back more.

After all, nVidia does NOT do any games. Please remember that guys! Remember that when you think about your next purchase.

RE: buy it now, please
By Crowbar77 on 8/28/2007 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
I second that. I admit ive done the same thing before, but a game like this deserves your money.

RE: buy it now, please
By PrinceGaz on 8/28/2007 4:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you say, but it is worth noting that this period of time -- when the next-gen consoles are more powerful than most people's gaming PCs -- is when it is most tempting for developers to produce cutting-edge games for consoles as well as PCs. In two years time, the consoles will be outdated and PC games will be the state of the art.

The death of PC gaming has been predicted twice before after new generations of consoles, but it has always bounced back. Admiteddly PC game piracy was relatively minor two generations ago, but last generation it was as rampant as it is now. If anything, piracy may be lower now than last time because of the growth in online games which require unique validated keys.

There's life in PC gaming yet. There would be more if everyone bought every game they played, though how much more is debatable because most people buy the games they would anyway, and only pirate those they want to play about with but could do without.

We'll probably be having the same conversation in the year 2012 or so after the launch of XB720, PS4, and Revolution, that consoles will kill PC gaming.

RE: buy it now, please
By Pirks on 8/28/2007 8:59:22 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, Prince, I hope you're right. I doubt progress will stop, after all nVidia and other hardware vendors and MS itself are probably interested in PC gaming as well, so... yea, there's a light at the end of the tunnel :-) I just learned eventually that pirating games is doing disservice to yourself, so I'm definitely going to cut down on downloading even more than now. I have to grow up, adults don't pirate, it's teenish shitty trait... well, now, when it comes to MS, Vista and how MS is treating us PC gamers by releasing buggy Halo 2 crap which is Vista only (I know I know, I finished it under XP but anyway) - this is totally different. For treating me, PC gamer, like this - MS will get ZERO of my money. When they start releasing games at least not THAT shitty as Halo 2 (do you guys know about its E key remapping problem? read forums, this is serious stuff!) and when they start treating PC gamers not as shit - THEN I'll think about buying Vista.

For now all my money will go Crytek, Flaship, GSC and other studios who produce quality product. MS, Halo 2 for Vista, Vista itself? No lunch for you pathetic losers :P

RE: buy it now, please
By Heatlesssun on 8/28/2007 11:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
Hunreds of millions of PC’s are sold every year around the world, dwarfing consoles. Yes, a good chunck are not home systems, but still, the PC is the number one gaming platform in terms of units sold. Yes, most of those systems are any good at high-end 3D gaming. That’s the problem for now.

I just got a retail Q6600 system for $750. Had everything in it to game hard EXCEPT a decent GPU (but I fixed that with an 8800 Ultra – now it’s great gaming rig!). That’s the only component that’s missing from even reatil PC’s. Perhaps technology will solve the problem of cheap gaming performance.

Recommended Requirements...
By GTaudiophile on 8/28/2007 1:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
I exceed the posted "recommended" requirements with the exception of DX10/Vista.

And to that I say: No mthrfkn way!

RE: Recommended Requirements...
By codeThug on 8/28/2007 1:45:51 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Recommended Requirements...
By slacker57 on 8/28/2007 4:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
The recommended specs are silly anyway -- they recommend DX10/Vista but the list of recommended cards are DX9...

RE: Recommended Requirements...
By The Jedi on 8/28/2007 8:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Um.. yes... way:

Kinda spoiler-ish if you haven't seen any media of the game lately, but the DX9 vs. DX10 argument is there.

Personally, some stuff about Vista really pisses me off. I'm hoping it'll all get fixed as time goes by. But I have to use Vista for my job, so hey.

All right!
By Etern205 on 8/28/2007 4:08:02 PM , Rating: 3
Luckly I didn't download that bogus Crysis demo
from some stupid website that's lying around
the Internet.

RE: All right!
By Etern205 on 8/28/2007 11:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
And another thing, read this from THG forums
that Crysis will run best on a Quad Core and 64bit OS.

RE: All right!
By jtesoro on 8/29/2007 10:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the interview was with Crytek and Intel. No surprise there's going to be something said there that will promote Intel's latest and greatest processors. I can't imagine them saying "Nah, an E4300 is all you need for the game. Quad cores aren't necessary even for the latest stuff!"

Put NVIDIA in the same room and we'll be hearing that people will be missing out if they don't have 8800 Ultras in SLI.

I'll run this at 1680x1050 in DX9.0c
By wingless on 8/28/2007 10:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
CPU : Opteron 185 @ 3001mhz
Graphics : Diamond 2900XT OC
RAM : 2x1GB DDR500 @ 250mhz
Software : Windows XP x64

The max DX9 setting will probably be relatively easy for most of us. There are also some performance enhancements for 64-bit operating systems. DX10 on the other hand will probably warrant an SLI or Crossfire setup with current DX10 hardware so we'll probably be more than justified to wait for the next generation Nvidia and ATI cards to come out. I've read about the DX10 problems the game has had with Nvidia's multi-threaded drivers so I hope the issues get ironed out. DX10 may be a chore for a modern PC to handle right now.

RE: I'll run this at 1680x1050 in DX9.0c
By QuantumPion on 8/28/2007 11:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
What 64 bit enhancements are you referring to?

By wingless on 8/28/2007 11:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
By sgun on 8/28/2007 12:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I can't help it, but I put on 'bring-it-bitch' smile. Truckload of money called 8800gts hasn't failed me yet. But seroiusly - isn't HDD speed the bottleneck of todays PC games? I mean, don't multi-megabyte textures, extremely complex models etc. take the lot of space (and transfer)?

RE: [Grin]
By Kaleid on 8/28/2007 1:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
If there's enough RAM and bandwith then slow harddrives don't matter, it just creates longer load times.

RE: [Grin]
By KiDDGuY on 8/29/2007 7:33:50 AM , Rating: 2
textures arent loaded directly from the HDD ..., they are cached inside the GPU video memory, thats why having more video memory is a good thing when the game is demanding on the texture loading requirement (DOOM 3, for example, needed a 512 MB video memory to properly load all of its *uncompressed* textures on the ULTRA-setting)
Same caching is done (can be done, dependent on the game developer) on the local RAM as well but the caching is never done DIRECTLY from the HDD (that phenomenon is known as Paging and is used by ur OS when local RAM isnt enough to do the job)

bioshock hiccups?
By Cygus on 8/28/2007 10:44:37 AM , Rating: 3
I have a quad core extreme qx6700, a GF 8800 GTX, 4 gigs of Gskill DDR II 800, a raptor 10K 150, and Bioshock gave me some hiccups.

I suggest checking for another problem with your rig then..i ve got an AMD939 4400+ @ 2550Mhz with 2 GB Kingston Hyper-x and a lowly 7900gt 256Mb - the games runs without any slowdowns or hiccups at 1280x1024 on maximum detail, and fine at 1154x864 on my friend's 7900gs...
Though this is XPSP2 with DX9, haven't seen the DX10 version.

Maybe vista might have some issues..just though you might like to know it is probably not that your rig is underspecced.. unless you're running at some crazy res :)

RE: bioshock hiccups?
By Cheapshot on 8/28/2007 4:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well... more specifically it was that I had some jaggies with lights in the distance, the water effects didn't look as they did in some of the Bioshock Videos I had seen prior.

Thats what I was reffering to when I said Hiccups.

I do have Vista and it could very well be the problem... though I did download the latest Vista driver Beta for the game.

I set everything at max for Bioshock - I just wasn't that impressed with the game as a whole... it felt too consoley.

Ill wait for UT III and perhaps some COD 4.

Who knows
By armagedon on 8/28/2007 10:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
ok please not everybody spits out their config and ask the same question.We don't know yet.
As i remembered Farcry was remarkably balanced when it came out and was playable on a lot of platforms.
Remember that most people in countries other then Nth America has more low/middle class PCs since it's lot more expensive over there. Crysis has to be playable on those as it would kill a big market segment for the developers.

RE: Who knows
By energy1man on 8/28/2007 2:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
In times where developers must consider the lowest common denominator when making a game, Crysis sets itself apart by targeting gamers with the latest computer processors and video cards.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference
Related Articles
Crysis Release Date Set for November 16
August 3, 2007, 8:17 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki