Print 110 comment(s) - last by Martimus.. on Nov 1 at 2:22 PM

With Crysis, they're not just system requirements, they're system demands

Crysis will be the landmark game this year for hardcore PC gamers to prove that their platform of choice is technically superior to the newest consoles. Of course, the required hardware to run Crysis costs far more than a $400 console, but that’s always been the case with the cutting edge of PC gaming.

After months of guess work surrounding the system requirements of Crysis, the official specifications were released today. Gamers running Windows Vista will need slightly faster systems with more memory than those still using Windows XP.

Minimum System Requirements
OS Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster (Vista)
Memory 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card 256 MB
Hard Drive 12GB
Sound Card DirectX 9.0c compatible

Supported Processors:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista) or faster
Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) or faster
AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.

Supported Video Cards:
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT or greater; ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.

Recommended System Requirements
OS Windows XP / Vista
Processor Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory 2.0 GB RAM
GPU NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar

Unfortunately, those with minimum spec machines can expect Crysis to look nothing like what they’ve seen so far in video and screenshots. Crytek’s CEO, Cevat Yerli, explained to GameSpot, “The quality of Crysis running on [minimum spec hardware] does equal the shading and texture quality of games that are about three years old, but with polygonal detail that is bigger then (sic) games from that same generation. The scaling happens in various areas, such as shading-quality, texture-resolution, shadows. View distance and interactivity are close to Far Cry.”

Yerli later added, “I am happy that we managed to scale down Crysis--which is on average 10 times more pushy than Far Cry--down to Far Cry specs. But Crysis is a high-end game that shall define what's now and in the future. Enjoy it as such as much as you can. It's like a concept car available and affordable now. I like also this quote somebody gave: "It's like a sexy blond girl with a PhD degree," upon which I said, "But with curly hair."”

Crysis is set to release to retail on November 16, with the playable demo available on October 26.

Comments     Threshold

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

Stop repeating this stupid lie
By xNIBx on 10/10/2007 4:01:39 AM , Rating: 5
Of course, the required hardware to run Crysis costs far more than a $400 console, but that’s always been the case with the cutting edge of PC gaming.

This isnt true. A 8800gts 320mB costs 280$. That's what you need to play crysis with high details along with any modern dual core cpu. Even if you dont already have a dual core cpu, you can get one for 100$ and still be below the 400$.

People already have a pc. They wont need to buy a new one. They just need to get a damn gpu and a damn cpu. Hell, you can still add some memory into that and be below 400$.

And dont forget, online playing/mods/themes/extra content are free for computers. Which means that for a 4 period of online pc gaming, you save 200$(xbox live gold), plus whatever the extras cost. And pc games cost 20$ cheaper, so if you buy 5 games a year, for a 4 year period, you can save 400$. If you buy 10 games a year, that's an extra 800$ cost for the consoles. All these add up.

Console gaming isnt cheaper than pc gaming. This is a freaking myth. Consoles have relative cheap hardware but they have hidden costs. And even the hardware isnt that cheap compared to computers, because everyone has a computer anyway. So most of the time, the only thing you need to buy to enjoy pc gaming, is a gpu.

And dont give me the bs that "consoles enable you to play games for 4-5 years". Pcs can do exactly the same. A p4@2.4ghz with a 9700pro and 1gB ram was enough to play games for almost 5 years. Pc games can scale. Even if pc games require a better pc to play with full detail, you can always just reduce the resolution/details and play them with your old pc.

So can you please stop spreading this bs about pc gaming? This is a primarily pc site, so i expect you to know better than to spread bs.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By rdeegvainl on 10/10/2007 6:14:56 AM , Rating: 4
Seriously, stop, breathe, then read what he wrote.
What is the cost of the hardware for crysis. add that up, it is more than 400$, much more.
He isn't talking about the price of software, he isn't talking about paying for xbox live gold, (which isn't a requirement to play games) and he isn't talking about all that extra crap you threw in there.
The required hardware to play crysis. You have to get the motherboard, the proc, the memory, hardrive, videocard, keyboard, mouse, couple other things.
If you already had parts then you already paid for them. you don't just drop them out of the equation.
He's not spreading bs, the statement stands.
All the benifits you listed for PC gaming, that is what you call, Getting what you paid for. Notice you still paid for it.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By dflynchimp on 10/10/2007 11:15:15 AM , Rating: 3
what the man is talking about is upgrading.

It really isn't any different from Consoles. You buy one, and in five years or so you spill on another.

With PCs, unless we look at the people with exhuberantly thick wallets who splurge every year on the top of the line product release, an average gamer can spend $400 every five years and be perfectly satisfied with his/her gaming experience. And depending on when in a product life-cycle they upgrade (getting a $750 7800GTX 512MB or $280 8800GTS later) they can be very efficient about upgrading.

You might say "hey, in 5 years that 8800GTS will be a piece of crap and will only be able to run games at the image quality of circa 2007" well guess what, in 5 years time the PS3 and Xbox360 will also be considered out of date and only able to run games at the 2007 standard.

The biggest plus is that PC gamers have near infinite backwards compatibility. No emulation involved, just driver updates that makes older games perfectly viable.

With Crysis, it isn't required for one to toss out all the old hardware. If they already own a dual core cpu then all they need is a video card, and possible some ram if they only have 1GB. Hard-drives and all the peripherals could be saved as well. I've been using the same optical mouse, case and keyboard for 5 years and plan to use them until they wither up and die of old age (which they wont). So you can't compare the pricing of a PC rig since there's so much room for savings/backwards compatibility. I'd love to see you try plugging a Xbox controller into the 360...

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By darkpaw on 10/10/2007 11:41:42 AM , Rating: 2
$400 every 5 years won't get you much of an upgrade. With 5 years difference you'd need to replace everything from the Motherboard up, except the case and optical drives. $400 for a full upgrade will buy a low end system that won't get you 5 years of use, it'll be scraping slightly above minimum specs on current software.

My current system is only two years old this month and due changes in sockets and memory I'd have to replace everything to perform a minor upgrade. That would definatey cost more then $400.

By dflynchimp on 10/10/2007 11:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose $400 is stretching it a little, but one can always frog hop

EG spend $280 on a videocard this year, then in two years upgraded the cpu/mobo/RAM, and wait another two/three years to get a new video card.

Actually, In the end it really is kinda hard to get a PC to price as competitively as consoles, so the main attraction here is really versatility, backwards compatibility and tweaking ability. There's definitely a large market for those three factors, and I'm just one of the many who still endorse PC gaming despite the costs.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By bpurkapi on 10/28/2007 12:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
if you are smart, 5 yrs is practical to wait for an upgrade. Too often we see rehashes of the same product with inflated retail costs. 5 yrs gives you the amount of time to figure out what is a trend, what is worthwhile, and what is a fluke.

I remember when Nvidia released SLI and thinking that it would be a good deal to pick up a mobo that had it, so that later when my vid card got older i could buy another at a cheaper price and get good results gaming wise. 2 years later I've figured out that SLI is only intended for the bleeding edge and offers no real benefit to those looking for a cheap upgrade solution.

As of now i look at the requirements and am glad that the computer I built 3 yrs ago is close in specs to the recommended settings. Also the core 2 upgrade path is cheap!

I recently went on newegg and created a wish list of a mobo, proc, and ram for 300 dollars. The 8 series nvidia gpus are overpriced right now, but that is because ati's problems at being competitive.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Martimus on 10/12/2007 1:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest plus is that PC gamers have near infinite backwards compatibility. No emulation involved, just driver updates that makes older games perfectly viable.

Really? Than why can't I play my old favorite "Under a Killing Moon" under Windows XP. Why can't I pop in "Syndicate" and play a few levels, like I would like to? Because XP doesn't have legacy support for DOS based games. So I need to emulate that support, and amazingly they run very slow. These games are over 10 years old, and my Athlon 64 3500+ can't seem to keep up with the emulation fast enough to make the game playable at an enjoyable rate.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Hieyeck on 10/12/2007 5:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because that's Microsoft diddling you over, not the hardware. Can a Wii play N64 games? Nope. Can the PS3 deal with PS1 games? Roll the dice. Hell, the PS3 has some bugs with some PS2 games, and that's only one generation back. Dos games are what... THREE generations back (XP/2K - 0, 98/95 - 1, 3.1 - 2, DOS - 3) and FIFTEEN years at youngest. We're talking NES old. XP still has emulation for 98/95 which run some of the younger DOS games, and DOSBOX works like a charm if people bother to read the f...*ine* manual. Hell, on a PC, if you REALLY wanted, you could load up a VM of DOS - VMWare has a free version of its software anyone can use privately.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Martimus on 10/14/2007 2:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
DOSBOX is SLOOOOWWWWWW. I can't even play a 15 Year old game at the highest resolutions, because it chunks so bad.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By darkpaw on 10/10/2007 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 3
Seriously, I love PC gaming but trying to say console gaming isn't cheaper is a complete croc.

I bought my PS2 in 2000, will have had it for 7 years in December and it still has had good games come out for it this year. Total cost $300 for system, $50 for extra controller, $40 for memory card. Haven't bought anything else for it buy games since then and game costs are roughly the same.

That same year I built a 1Ghz Athlon system with 512mb RAM and something like a 20gb HDD, and a Nvidia TNT2 for about $1800. That system lasted about 18 months before needing a complete overhaul. If I added up everything I've spent on PC gaming in the past seven years it'd probably be around $5-7K and I don't buy the highest end stuff and I don't upgrade every year. In the same time period I've spent about $1600 on consoles and accessories and I have everything from last gen and everything but a 360 from this gen (hopefully I'll be getting that for xmas so $2100 total by end of the year).

PC games edge out console games in price this generation, but unless you buy a horde of games that won't add up to the price of a single video card upgrade.

Console gaming is very much cheaper then PC gaming, but PC gaming generally is the more satisfying experience.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Kenenniah on 10/10/2007 5:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Overall, this kind of argument depends a lot on the specific user. Unlike a game console, when looking at money spend on a PC you have to look at all its uses. If all you use a computer for is gaming with some internet usage, then the comparison is valid.
However, if you use a PC for a wide variety of applications such as for work/homework, audio/video editing, etc., part of the cost must be attributed to those functions as well. So only a portion of the PC cost can be directly compared.

Also take into consideration the many games that have TONS of fan created content. Neverwinter Nights, The Elder Scroll Series, and a long list of others have enormous amoutns of additional content available free online. For the price of 1 game, you might end up being able to have the equivalent content of 20 or more games.

Console gaming overall is cheaper than PC gaming I agree, but only if gaming is the only real use for your computer. People like me need the high-end parts of our computers for other purposes, so in a way gaming on a PC is cheaper for me since I don't have to buy anything else.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By rdeegvainl on 10/11/2007 10:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
No, the cost doesn't change based on what else you use it for. That just makes it more useful.
That is like saying the PS3 is cheaper than the 360 cause of the blu ray included.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Targon on 10/28/2007 7:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between your standard computer and a game machine that can compete with the PS3(except for playing Blu-ray movies) is $500 at the most($400 for the vid card and $100 for extra memory).

Many people look at the cost to build a computer from scratch, but I consider the cost of your average computer(dual core processor, 2 gigs of memory, 250+ gig hard drive, DVD-RW drive) to be at around the $550 to $600 range. If you then say how much a game machine would cost, add it to the cost of that existing computer and bingo, you have a decent price parity with current generation game consoles.

No one buys a computer ONLY for games, so the cost of the "gaming" components is the cost that you should be looking at in my opinion.

And, when it comes to Blu-ray, since I don't have a $1200 panel for my TV, I wouldn't see a benefit from it anyway.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By mindless1 on 10/29/2007 1:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
The cost definitely changes based on what you use it for, unless you don't plan on owning a PC at all! Otherwise the cost is just keeping modern enough for the game vs buying a whole second gaming console.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Hieyeck on 10/12/2007 6:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
The system you listed 7 years ago wasn't even CLOSE to bleeding edge. Nowadays, you can have a decent systems for $1200. $120 CPU, $100 RAM, $150 GPU, $180 mobo, + parts. Hell, now that I actually price it out, $1200 can get you a rip-roaring system. I've actually built an $800 ($700 after rebates) system for a friend of mine and for all the gaming he does, he hasn't complained a BIT about performance. (On a side note, people don't need more power, they need a cleaner system. My friend's $800 system is going on 3 years now and I go over once in a while to clean up his system (or do a total reformat) to keep it running fast.)

All the same while, consoles are steadily increasing in price. $300 for the Wii (at release)? How much was the N64? $199 (at release). Don't even TRY to bring up the 360 and PS3. MS and Sony LOSE money when you buy a console and only make it back when you buy games. Actually, this is probably what irks me most - NO ONE has brought up the fact that MS and Sony lose out everytime a console is sold, while PCs, even having MORE levels of middlemen, still profit at all levels from each sale of a component. I think the 360 was losing out $150 per console sold at time of release? so the actual price would've been $550 to not make ANY profit on each console. half the price to build yourself a decent rig from scratch. The PS3 isn't even funny. $600 and it's STILL flopping out a few hundred.

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Axbattler on 10/28/2007 3:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you care that MS/Sony lose money for each console sold? From a consumer point of view, that is completely irrelevant. If MS was actually charging $550, then you would have a point about how it is half the price of a decent rig. But it's not, so that's point is moot.

And actually, his system, while not the 'bleeding edge' is pretty good for its time. Seven years ago, that's be 3Q 2000. The 1Ghz T-Bird was released around 2Q 2000, so only months old. The TNT2 would be the weakest link, though only a year old. 512MB of RAM was pretty unusual even when you look at test systems in reviews.

The way I see it, if you play fairly demanding games on PC, yes you will have to pay a premium on hardware (but less on the software; to me, that is the only real argument against consoles when it comes to costs). No matter how many reformatting you do, I do not see a 3 years old $800 play Crysis well. 3 years ago, 6800 Ultra would have been the bleeding edge, setting you back an excess of $400. Even if you go for a 'lesser' version (which -just- makes the minimum spec), it would still cost most of a console (which has a product cycle longer than 3 years on average).

RE: Stop repeating this stupid lie
By Martimus on 11/1/2007 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
This isnt true. A 8800gts 320mB costs 280$. That's what you need to play crysis with high details along with any modern dual core cpu. Even if you dont already have a dual core cpu, you can get one for 100$ and still be below the 400$

Now that the demo is out, I think that has been proven wrong. But the game actually looks very good at the lower settings, so I can't complain that I can't run it at the higher settings.

9800 Pro FTW
By MasterTactician on 10/9/2007 8:55:11 PM , Rating: 5
More than 4 years old and the 9800 Pro is still hanging in there.

RE: 9800 Pro FTW
By darkpaw on 10/10/2007 11:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
The 9500-9800 series I think was by far the best video card generation ever.

RE: 9800 Pro FTW
By JoeBanana on 10/11/2007 10:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
I love my 9500pro :D

RE: 9800 Pro FTW
By rogard on 10/12/2007 11:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
If all goes well and Nvidia stick to their naming scheme, in 6 months you can impress a bunch of 12-year-olds by naming your graphics card. Don't mention "Ati" though. :-)

RE: 9800 Pro FTW
By mindless1 on 10/29/2007 1:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
As they already stated, they have scaled back the game so it's playable. It's no testament to the 9800 Pro, only their work to allow a larger game customer base. If they really wanted to, they could have just kept scaling it back until it was playable on a Riva128, but instead a line had to be drawn somewhere.

It's not like you'd get the same experience running on 9800 Pro, more like playing an older game.

That doesn't make 9800 Pro a bad card for it's time, it just reminds us of that whole fiasco with nVidia's FX series and that every new generation of higher-end cards will remain viable for longer so long as the game designer allows scaling back the eyecandy enough.

RE: 9800 Pro FTW
By SlyNine on 10/31/2007 11:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
the 9700 pro not only allowed for DX9 but was 4X faster then a 4600 at current games at the time (in some tests). In later tests of more demanding software it was like 6-7X faster. I had both. Name one other leep that was as great as the 9700pro over the 4600 in videocards since.

By IcY18 on 10/9/2007 5:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Too picky about something that means very little.

By rogard on 10/9/2007 5:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
I guess by looking at the cpu specs you'll get a rough idea what's needed. I doubt that the program will simply refuse to run on a P4 2Ghz or a 3GHz Quad, even if it does not say so in the specs. At least you get the info that basically every modern cpu will do as bare minimum, the faster the better. Everything else is hairsplitting...

What I find weird with min specs lately is that the minimum AMD/Ati card is always 2 generations older or 2 classes weaker than the nvidia card. Can any of you imagine running this game on a 9800? Sorry, but that's not gonna happen. But that may be hairsplitting too.

By Zoomer on 10/12/2007 12:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
Because ATi actually implements specs properly (fully), not half-assedly like nVidia.

Unfortunately, that's how nVidia get their cooler and cheaper parts.

By defter on 10/9/2007 6:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Now, if a Core Duo 2.0 GHz qualifies

Actually, also Core Solo 2GHz "qualifies" (just like single-core P4 or Athlon64). Recommended CPU is Core 2 Duo however.

Dear Lord
By scrapsma54 on 10/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dear Lord
By defter on 10/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Dear Lord
By scrapsma54 on 10/9/2007 7:01:12 PM , Rating: 4
excluding dx10, the x1950 pro is still fast enough. If it is able to power bioshock and run oblivion, I think this card is up to the task.

RE: Dear Lord
By Lakku on 10/9/2007 11:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis is a different beast then bioshock or oblivion. To run at very high settings or max settings, you will need at least an 8800gts to run at a reasonable resolution, say 1280x1024 (that is indicated by the recommendation by CryTek of the GTS). You'll probably need a gtx or 2900xt for 1680x1050 and above to play at the high settings

RE: Dear Lord
By 1078feba on 10/10/2007 11:35:51 AM , Rating: 1
Running water-cooled dual Ultras on an OC'd FX-60 (3.2, Coolit Freezone) at 1680x1050 with 4 GB of DDR-500 stock volts 3-4-4-8, and I expect that to get an average of 70-80 FPS, I am going to have to turn down some of the settings.

Seems to me that even though NVidia has come out with a new driver every few weeks here lately, they still have quite a way to go before they fully realize max performance of the GTS/X/Ultra.

So we need all that to play 10hrs?
By xantis on 10/9/2007 8:40:45 PM , Rating: 1
Granted i know nothing about crysis playtime but judging from most of the games that come out in the last 4 to 5 years time, do i need those ubber minimum specs just to play 10hrs of game?

I'm also very happy because producers are very happy to say there games are, on the minimum detail level, at the same level of some other game..

Producers could take a look at steam surveys and actually see what hardware specs most gamers have, and judging from the 21.08.2007 survey results, it's not high end cards nor ubber specs, i play hl2 nicely with a gf2mx 400 on a 2000+.

you want to play games, go buy yourself a games console, you get rid of hardware specifications, never ending patches, etc, you buy the game, you pop it into your console and you play the game, no nothing required, no need to look on the back to see if your system is supported and with quality, the game runs and it's pretty, that's it.

Sorry for the rant, gaming on the pc side of things is just a sad excuse for graphics cards and assorted hw vendors to make some money every 6 months or so with every product refresh.

And remember, all the time you have your shiny 8800 Ultra on your OS of choice doing absolutely nothing you get to think, i'm f***ing glad i wasted €700 on this. (your electricity company also thanks you for your cash :P)

By rogard on 10/9/2007 11:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
So why are you playing on a PC then?

By hrah20 on 10/10/2007 1:18:23 AM , Rating: 3
by xantis
(you want to play games, go buy yourself a games console, you get rid of hardware specifications, never ending patches, etc, you buy the game, you pop it into your console and you play the game, no nothing required, no need to look on the back to see if your system is supported and with quality, the game runs and it's pretty, that's it.

Sorry for the rant, gaming on the pc side of things is just a sad excuse for graphics cards and assorted hw vendors to make some money every 6 months or so with every product refresh.

And remember, all the time you have your shiny 8800 Ultra on your OS of choice doing absolutely nothing you get to think, i'm f***ing glad i wasted €700 on this. (your electricity company also thanks you for your cash :P)

To you maybe the same , but for a lot of us is wort the price we pay to have the latest games running at top quality
I like console games (I have a x360 elite) but some pc games (including gears of war with those 5 new levels)will run better on my pc than on my 360, having a 24 inch monitor, and a XFX GeForce 8800 Ultra XXX, 2 gb of DDR 2 800 with good framerate, I certainly can't complain,

It seems that installing patches no dc or dvd fixes, mods, and the like is a chore to you, not to me, I like to find what else I can do to alter my games, so I give them extra life

even halo 3 has slowdowns once in a while (great game nonetheless)
and I can play gears of war with my 360 gamepad on my pc if I want to.

it's ok if you like to play in a console, but don't think that everyone will think the same.

By RobFDB on 10/9/2007 5:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Should be interesting to see how my computer finally handles the first of the truly next gen engines. The MP beta chugs a little in places on my machine with everything maxed (QX6700 / 8800GTX SLi) but then so did the ETQW MP beta, so I'm expecting better things from the release. Also Nvidia will have had time to work on their drivers. Still, should give me some kind of indication of how my computer will do for the next few years.

RE: Performance
By 1078feba on 10/10/2007 11:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
You may want to do some forum surfing once the game hits if you are still having lag issues. I had the same problem in ETQW, and it turns out that the demo had a frame rate cap.

By Spuke on 10/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Figures
By rogard on 10/9/2007 7:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure there are other things you can use a cpu for...
and if you really bought it solely for crysis, it's always good to have something powerful under the bonnet anyway, right?

RE: Figures
By mindless1 on 10/29/2007 1:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, spending more on a video card is the better long term strategy for gaming if there is such a thing as a long term strategy, unless you always want to run games as if they're two years older than they are due to reduced eyecandy.

multi core performance?
By semo on 10/9/2007 6:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
is this game made to take advantage of additional cpu cores?

i'm pretty sure at will answer that question in an article real soon but what are the developers saying?

RE: multi core performance?
By oddity21 on 10/9/2007 6:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
They said once that Crysis can scale to all multi-core configurations, may they be dual, quad or even more.

By rogard on 10/9/2007 7:34:00 PM , Rating: 3
Just wait a few days, download the demo, check out whether your rig is up to the task, and then rush to your local hardware dealer in a frenzy. Chill out, dudes. It's only a game (although it hopefully is a brilliant one).

By spindoc on 10/9/2007 4:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
I can play it on my system.... @ 640*480*16. Yess!!!

Oh, I think chipset should be changed to video card

Very sweet!
By Enoch2001 on 10/9/2007 5:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ is the recommended? Awesome - and here I was thinking about going quad-core. Pfffft! ;-P

not important to me
By dflynchimp on 10/9/2007 10:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
I never really took stock in minimum specs for these games anyways. It's a good thing they started using "recommended" specs a few years ago. Minimum specs really only denote the basic hardware required to *boot* the game, not run it at any playable/enjoyable setting. Even now, some "recommended" listings are starting to denote only low/mid quality settings at mid resolutions.

Well, the day has arrived
By Gholam on 10/10/2007 12:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
My A64 3200/3GB/GF6800GT box is officially "low end". Good thing I have half the parts for my new Q6600/4GB/8800GTS640 box already here, and the other half on order.

By Coca Cola on 10/10/2007 12:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
The opener,

With Crysis, they're not just system requirements, they're system demands

...just thought that was funny, clever, etc.

like a demigod shouting right in the consumers' face the system specs they'll need to have

By JenBell on 10/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: eh?
By mindless1 on 10/29/2007 1:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't recall anyone asking for sympathy. Want to know what the reality is more likely to be? Most people playing this game will do so with XP and a DX9 card. If you're looking down on them for doing so, well it's a shame you feel that way but it's their choice.

Pc hardware
By heedoyiu on 10/29/2007 8:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
Nice thing about pc's is that my 6800 will still play quake wars, my buddy can get on my old athlon with a gig of ram and still play, at least when i upgrade I have to systems that can still play together.

Yerli is right........
By kilkennycat on 10/10/07, Rating: 0
CPU speed is contradictory
By Bigginz on 10/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By noirsoft on 10/9/2007 5:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
No, the general "CPU speed" is clearly based on the older pre-Core architecture standards (note that they match exactly the Pentium4 specs) where one could always assume that "more is better"

With the Core, things have gotten more complex, and I like the fact that they have the Core vs Pentium4 vs Athlon spelled out separately.

RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By Fenixgoon on 10/9/2007 5:11:37 PM , Rating: 3
ghz is misleading - that is for a pentium 4 era CPUs.

a core2duo will typically run slower (clock frequency) than a 2.8ghz P4 but obviously blow it away due to a far superior architecture.

any dual core CPU or high power single core CPU should be fine, especially when talking *minimum* requirements.

RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By TheFro on 10/9/2007 5:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Most of us are savvy enough to figure out what they're talking about in the above text. I'm sure the shipping box will have clearer system requirements and this gives us enthusiasts a good idea on where to start.

RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By kamel5547 on 10/9/2007 5:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree.

Not that I need to worry about system requirements yet, but they might as well not put requirements on the box aside for the video cards and OS. The processor values are meaningless if they are listed as frequencies unless you happen to have a handy P4 to Athlon to x2 to Core2 (without throwing Celeron's, sempron's, mobile chips and P D's in the mix) conversion chart.

Its not that I don't understand the difference, its that what they write on the box is in effect meaningless.

RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By The Sword 88 on 10/9/2007 6:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you need on eof these or better:

Supported Processors:
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista) or faster
Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) or faster
AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.

Why is that hard to understand?

RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By scrapsma54 on 10/9/2007 6:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
Judging by the game requirements having a single core will set you back. I honestly believe that using a HT enabled Pentium 4 might save us a little bit of cpu usage in vista. So if you have quad core that might mean that it only requires just something short of 1.6GHz, but the slowest clocked quad core is 2.13 so I imagine you're safe (even with a x1310 xeon). This game my friends seems to be the first truly Multi-threaded game. I wouldn't fret, just means that you can't really turn up the particle effects too high.

RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By mindless1 on 10/29/2007 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly believe that using a HT enabled Pentium 4 might save us a little bit of cpu usage in vista.

But of course, they don't have access to Pentium 4 CPU or Vista so they had to make up that part about:

Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista)

I honestly believe they tested the performance, that the only remaining question is whether your standards for an acceptible gaming performance level are the same as theirs, higher, or lower.

RE: CPU speed is contradictory
By Bigginz on 10/9/2007 6:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
The first thing listed was minimum processor speed of 2.8 GHz. It did not say "Pentium 4 2.8 GHz." It was not worded very well and the person who wrote it should have included "Pentium 4" in the Minimum Requirements list. If they are not going to list the model of CPU with the processor speed, then it should not be listed at all.

I see the Pentium 4 specs in the Supported Processors list, so I'm not blind.

By goku on 10/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: lame
By Domicinator on 10/9/2007 8:34:24 PM , Rating: 3
You've completely missed the point here. This is NOT going to be another FarCry. If you think that, you obviously haven't seen or heard anything about this game. A really bloated version of FarCry? You can't be serious.

With FarCry, Crytek was a startup developer. They did not have the budget for good voice acting or writing, and they had to rush through the last couple of levels to get the game on store shelves because they were running out of money. They have vowed not to make those mistakes again, and they can afford not to.

RE: lame
By Cogman on 10/9/2007 9:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, are you all right in the head? You basiclly just said that Half-life 2 is really just a more bloated version of Half-life. Sure if you are running a computer that has hardware that was good when half-life was first introduced, you could expect Half-life 2 to look a lot like it (and in DX 7 mode, it does kind of look like half-life). Half-Life 2 Is a DIFFERENT engine then HL 1 was. Crysis is a Different Engine then Far Cry is. Just because at low settings the View distance and interactivity are LIKE far cry, doesn't mean they ARE farcry's.

The Developers first make a game that looks amazing, then they say "What can we cut down and reduce to make it work on slower machines." It is much like making a movie, they make the story the best they can, then to fit it into it's time slot they say "OK, what can we cut out now". If you make a budget movie with crappy actors, no amount of adding on will make the movie a better movie without completely removing the original film.

My point is, you are trying to say Crysis is a bloated version of FarCry. You just can't compare it. You might as well be saying that Crysis is just an extremely bloated version of Doom, because it should be able to run on my Pentium 90!

RE: lame
By goku on 10/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: lame
By Cogman on 10/9/2007 11:48:21 PM , Rating: 3
Nice try Half-Life 2 MINIMUM requirements

"# Processor: [b]1.2[/b] GHz Processor
# OS: Windows, 2000/XP/Me/98
# Graphic card: DirectX [b]7[/b] level graphics card
# Hard Drive: 4.5 GB
# Memory: [b]256[/b] MB RAM
# Other: Internet Connection, DVD-ROM Drive"

Half-life 1 [b]Recommended[/b] requirements
" * Pentium 166 MHz
* 32 MB RAM
* Windows 95/98/NT4
* SVGA video card
* Windows-compatible sound card
* 2x CD-ROM drive
* 400 MB hard-disk space."

Thanks for Playing, but there is no way in hell you could run Half-life 2 on the half-life recommended settings, therefore by your logic it must be bloat ware. (oh, and it is DirectX 7 not 6, it looks like you weren't aware of it either).

It looks like you haven't read anything about crysis, do yourself a favor and watch a few video clips. You are definitely getting new ai and completely different gameplay. It is definitely not like farcry is, it just might LOOK a little like farcry.

Oh, and btw, Just about ANY AI is an improvement on the Half-Life original AI. They where some of the dumbest around. FarCry was harolded for its advanced AI, considering that Cyrsis is NOT just Farcry with some special features added, I can only see the AI improving.

And one more LOL for you trying to say that HL2 could be run with Half-Life 1 Hardware. LOL!

RE: lame
By Lakku on 10/10/2007 6:23:31 AM , Rating: 3
I liked this post, until you started making fun of Half-Life's AI. It may not be great by today's standards, but at the time, it was a helluva lot better then most other games AI. In fact, that was a big reason it won almost every game of the year award. It more or less started the trend of games having AI as a top issue, as opposed to Doom like games with zombie like AI. Everything else in the post seems ok though!

RE: lame
By Axbattler on 10/28/2007 3:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
Off-topicness: Personally, I never quite understood the hype about the AI or enjoyed the game like many gamers and critics have. I wasn't expecting the equivalent of "Deep Blue" for FPS, and I did try to like the game, but it wasn't until the mods (TFC/CS) that I found HL worthy of the money I've paid. I was so put off that I didn't rush to buy HL2 on release (but later found out that it was I game I could enjoy as much as critics have).

RE: lame
By goku on 10/28/2007 9:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
Sure you can't run HL2 on HL1 recommended hardware, however you CAN run HL2 on HIGH END hardware of 1999 which is more or less the time when HL1 came out. That said, could they have done a better job with HL2? Yes... Could they have not hurt my FPS with the release of the HDR update 2 years ago? (HDR Not enabled no less!) Possibly..

My point is, HL2 proves you can make a good looking game and scale it down to work on older hardware, Crysis on the otherhand doesn't seem to do that job very well. I won't know until I try it out my system but from the sounds of things, it doesn't scale nearly as well as HL2 does. Just because Valve could've done a better job, it doesn't mean they didn't do an excellent job of scaling the engine down when you compare it to other games.

And oh one more thing, just because the BOX says minimum requirements, it doesn't mean you can't run it on older hardware without it being playable. That said, I've seen games that state a minimum requirement that are far too generous in the sense that running that game on stated hardware would be a miracle. (GTA III anyone?)

RE: lame
By Cogman on 10/10/2007 12:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
P.S. Half-life was released in the days of Pentium 2 processors, max clock speed of 450 MHZ when a computer with over 256 MB or ram was considered Insane and directx 6 was all the rage (the Original HL had DX 5 on its CDs...)

Your argument is dumb, Im sure your one of those people the would gladly run dos because any modern OS is way too bloated. (Its just that modern programs require "Features" that you don't think you need)

One last time, Crysis has a VAST amount of physics, gameplay, AI, and general apperance improvements far above those of Farcry. Just because it looks kind of like farcry and minimum settings does not mean that it acts like farcry (Which apparently is only ok if you are value by your standards). Honestly I don't know where you are getting that the engine is just farcry with some pretty bells and whistles.

RE: lame
By Cogman on 10/10/2007 12:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
One other thing, The only thing that he said was like farcry was view distance and interactivity (meaning leaves don't bend and flop like they did in the crysis demo). Textures where improved, and you are getting high quality models as well. So you aren't getting a game that looks like farcry in the end, even with minimum system requirements.

RE: lame
By sxr7171 on 10/10/2007 12:28:05 AM , Rating: 3
The leaves don't flop?

Foolish developers
By kinnoch on 10/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Foolish developers
By Ringold on 10/9/2007 8:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
It'll run on older hardware; just not like how everyone would like. I think the article basically says it'll run similar to FarCry, just a bit better.

Meanwhile, those who plop down the cash for the nice gear will be able to take advantage of the latest the gaming industry has to offer.

I for one see no problem.

RE: Foolish developers
By kinnoch on 10/9/2007 9:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe i've never scaled games down enough, but i've never had good luck getting newer games to run well on older hardware.

RE: Foolish developers
By Pirks on 10/9/2007 9:28:05 PM , Rating: 1
Depends on how old was your hardware. Sure you can't run game released in 2007 on hardware you bought in 1997.

RE: Foolish developers
By Pirks on 10/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Foolish developers
By The0ne on 10/10/2007 2:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
The "scaling" technique isn't in all games nor is it entirely new. I believe even Starcraft did not scale properly when it was originally release. By this I mean that the game would run horrendously fast on a much newer machine. Many of the older games have these similar issues, thus you have apps and utilities like DosBox and VMware to run Win95 or something to play your favorite old games :)

Having said that though, it depends on the programmers to either make the game very flexible or not. Some are and I would guess most aren't.

I wouldn't be so quick to "Wow, what woods have you crowled from, dude? ;-)) to others when it appears you don't know what you're talking about as well.

RE: Foolish developers
By rogard on 10/9/2007 10:57:42 PM , Rating: 4
If it wasn't for demanding 3d games, we'd be still stuck in the last century, cpu and gfx power wise. So instead of complaining you could be thankful.

RE: Foolish developers
By sxr7171 on 10/10/2007 12:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, Crytek is one of the few who gives us games that let us use our PCs to the max.

RE: Foolish developers
By thartist on 10/10/2007 3:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how you've made that general conclusion, since it's been only 1 game they shipped before on the PC.

RE: Foolish developers
By kinnoch on 10/10/2007 2:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think most companies do it well. Quake Wars at a moderate detail level looks worse and runs worse on my system than TF2 does. I have an AMD 4200+ X2, 2 gigs of ram, Gefore 7600 GTX.

You don't need the latest tech to look good, you just need good art direction. So it just seems like a bad business decision to drastically limit your market, when you can make a great looking and fun game with moderate technology. I do appreciate the advances in technologies so its not so much complaining, instead its a lack of understand of how companies who target the high end survive in the PC gaming market.

RE: Foolish developers
By Blight AC on 10/10/2007 8:54:58 AM , Rating: 3
Well, the games are... playable on lower end machines still. The experience won't be the same as what's advertised, but you can still play.

The nice thing about it however, is when you later on upgrade your machine down the road, you can really start to crank up the options, helping older games stay appealing.

One of my favorite things to do when upgrading to a newer PC is to break out some of my older games, especially ones that had higher hardware requirements during their release and see how good I can make it look.

Doom 3 is like this, and the original Far Cry. Course.. in Doom 3, once you have to start swapping weapon for Flashlight you remember that the single player campaign still is annoying to play.

RE: Foolish developers
By murphyslabrat on 10/10/2007 1:51:39 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, it's more than the actual enjoyment of better quality graphics: there is also the thrill of seeing exactly how much your system has improved in the past couple years. Kind of like how kids like to measure themselves as they grow, particularly during growth spurts, it's fun to say, "wow, I only got 30FPS on my MX440, and now I get over a gazillion frames at max settings!"

RE: Foolish developers
By Targon on 10/28/2007 7:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but the idea that 3D is the reason why graphics and CPU power have evolved as quickly as they have can easily be shot down just by looking back to the original Wing Commander and Wing Commander 2. These titles were NOT 3D titles but really pushed our computers to the limit and then some.

Game titles will always come in two flavors, those that cater to the mainstream computer user, and those that cater to those who buy the high end parts(and then try to put in options to allow lower end machines to run the game in question). It's not 3D that does it, it is the understanding that those who pay extra for the best toys should find a use for them.

Even Microsoft supports this idea by not charging more for each CPU core in a machine, they go by how many CPU sockets are being used.

Now, it should be noted that all the talk about physics acceleration, either by the GPU or an add-in card or processor has all stopped. There has been no notable improvements to gameplay due to a physics processor, so as a result, development in that area has faded into the background. If something has a notable advantage, THAT is when it gets support and drives development.

RE: Foolish developers
By Omega215D on 10/10/2007 2:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
The specs released are almost the same as Rainbow Six: Vegas.

Anyway, a couple of issues ago MaximumPC had a mini interview with the lead person in designing Crysis. He said that it was supposed to run just fine on systems 3 years old (from shipping date) and that the minimum requirements should be where Far Cry left off. Then again, it did mention the 6800 so I guess that is a few years old.

RE: Foolish developers
By scrapsma54 on 10/10/2007 10:36:47 AM , Rating: 2
With out cutting edge, Human kind will be stuck with crap games like alone in the dark and trespasser. I think you need to realize that 3d games didn't gain popularity over 2d until the 5th generation consoles and 3d has been around longer.
It takes 4 years to completely out phase a mid range computer, 2 to out phase a celeron (but will never be gaming worthy), 5-6 for a xeon. It all depends on what you can upgrade to and how well the pc was made. Nobody needs a Core 2 Quad extreme and an 8800Gtx to play games on max. Those are the people who think they are superman and can see over 72Hz (72Hz is the speed at which the Human eye can see remnants of a frame comfortably even though the human eye is 60Hz). Its all about how a programmer designs the games, and what developers expect you to experience.
Yeah, these system requirements look a little taxing, but its not like Running FEAR on an FX 5500 where every single detail has to be disabled and DX 8 shaders have to be used and Pixel doubling is required. I am sure, as in the developer videos, the game will perform great on last gen hardware.

RE: Foolish developers
By spwatkins on 10/30/2007 10:32:34 AM , Rating: 2
Alone in the Dark was an awesome game.

RE: Foolish developers
By afkrotch on 10/10/2007 8:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't get why game companies push for the cutting edge in graphics for their PC games. They severely limit their market and increase their costs. I love FPS's and RTS's on the PC, but the guaranteed performance on a relatively inexpensive console is really tempting these days.

Thankfully TF2 runs smoothly on a 3 year old system and I hope Starcraft 2 will do the same (which blizzard will probably deliver since their graphics have never been cutting edge...good art direction, hoorah!).

It's not just about the game, but the game engine. They are expecting to sell the game engine to many other developers and to have that game engine last for many years.

Take for example, the Unreal 2 Engine. It's been powering games since 2002. The next Splinter Cell game will be using it next year. That's at least 6 years

The first CryEngine was used from 2004 to now. It wasn't even meant to be a game engine. It's too bad that mainly just Far Cry games used the engine, cause it was very advanced for it's time. Water was amazing.

Also Valve puts a lot into their engines also. It probably costs just as much to make the Source Engine as Crytek is putting into their CryEngine 2. Just that Valve got their engine to scale much better.

By Flunk on 10/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Laptops
By Noya on 10/9/2007 10:29:21 PM , Rating: 3
DX7? Are you kidding me? A 7600gt can be had for $75 while an x1950pro can be had for as little as $120 (though DX9 cards are drying up). Maybe the 8800 320mb will drop down around $200 after rebate soon.

There are gaming laptops out there (but who games on a laptop anyway?), but they cost $2,000+.

RE: Laptops
By Bigginz on 10/10/2007 2:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Many people bring a laptop to LAN parties. It is easier than lugging an ATX case and monitor to a friends house and then hooking up all the cables. Right now most laptops are limited to playing games that are more than 2 years old. Unless you have an Alienware, Voodoo, or Falcon Northwest laptop.

RE: Laptops
By rogard on 10/9/2007 11:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure, sooner or later there will be a cell phone and/or PocketPC version of this game. :-)

Seriously, you can't be talking about notebooks with integrated graphics, or can you? Since the beginning FPS are the most demanding games of all. You can't expect the visually most advanced game ever to run on a notebook with slow graphics. And if your notebook is 2000$ or more, it might be able to run it with reduced settings. Reduced does not necessarily mean crappy.

That notebook graphics are not supported means just that: Crytek are not promising that it'll work, and you get no support. Nonetheless, I see no reason why it shouldn't run on a decent DX9 chip in a notebook.

RE: Laptops
By sxr7171 on 10/10/2007 12:24:15 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah just what I needed, to play Crysis on the subway. Man, seriously why don't you just take your Xbox 360 and Plasma screen everywhere you go so you will never be without the latest games.

RE: Laptops
By probedb on 10/10/2007 6:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
Most people? Since when did most people have laptops? Especially gamers who are going to buy this in the first place?

By thejez on 10/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Resolutions
By thejez on 10/9/2007 5:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
this is pretty cool though:

"GS: When we talked last year it was said that Crysis will ship with 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Is 64-bit still in the box? Does it offer any kind of performance improvements as predicted?

CY: Yes, 64-bit in general runs better than 32-bit. In fact I would recommend gamers run 64-bit only under very high configurations. We ship both 32- and 64-bit out of box."

--- glad i have 64 bit!

RE: Resolutions
By Polynikes on 10/9/2007 6:13:02 PM , Rating: 4
Crap... Maybe I need to upgrade sooner than I thought. (My very good though slightly dated gaming rig fell down in writhing pain in the Crysis beta with full detail.) Damn Crytek for forcing me to upgrade to Vista and DX10!

RE: Resolutions
By rogard on 10/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Resolutions
By Polynikes on 10/9/2007 10:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
I see the sarcasm was lost on you, and everyone who modded me down.

RE: Resolutions
By rogard on 10/9/2007 10:48:18 PM , Rating: 4
Well, you might have intended it to be sarcasm, but tell me honestly you did not mean what you least that's exactly what you are considering. And you wouldn't be the first one. Right? :-)
I've done it twice: when Unreal came out, and then for UT2003. So you see, I am beyond sarcasm.

RE: Resolutions
By ebakke on 10/9/2007 6:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
I need to run 1680x1050 smooth

I wish I had enough money to have such outrageous requirements for my computer. I mean, sure... I'd like to run 1680x1050 smoothly, but I can only afford so much.

RE: Resolutions
By cyriene on 10/9/2007 6:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
I need to run 1920x1200 resolution and I don't think my 7900GS OC is gonna cut it at all. I still think I'll wait until the next gen of DX10 cards hit the shelves before I upgrade though.

RE: Resolutions
By scrapsma54 on 10/9/2007 6:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Just went to system requirements lab, they have updated the specs and It says that Pentium 4 with hyper threading is supported.

RE: Resolutions
By shabby on 10/9/2007 7:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
A x1900xtx with a c2d can get you around 30fps at med detail at that res.

RE: Resolutions
By rerecros on 10/9/2007 7:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
in my case, for the MP Beta; 8800 GTS320 can run half the settings on High and the other Medium for a smooth 1680x1050 of avg 40 fps.

when everything on High, you can only get up to ~22 fps with that card... and there's a 'very high' setting which you cant even choose and I will stay away for in Beta lol

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh
Related Articles
Crysis Demo Delayed Until Oct. 26
September 22, 2007, 12:17 PM
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