Crysis System Requirements Released
Crysis is a highly anticipated PC shooter, mostly because of its stunning visuals. But the better they look, the more demanding they are, any PC gamer will tell you that. An admin posted the hardware requirements on the official Crysis forums. Although pure speculation, the admin claims he has researched a lot in order to get the requirements. Sounds pretty accurate, considering it’s Crysis;
Minimum Requirements
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP
Recommended Requirements
CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista
See also: Crysis gameplay video, Crysis artwork, Crysis graphics
July 24th, 2006 at 1:46 am
Wow, looks like anyone who bought an intel iMac will definatley be able to play this!
July 24th, 2006 at 2:22 am
Ha! An Intel iMac won’t be able to play this without blowing up first.
Anyways, To play this game, I will Definitely need to upgrade lol. I hit the minimum specs perfectly! Except for the graphics card, I have an X800 XT.
And I have 10.9GB left…
July 24th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Looks like its time to upgrade the system now
July 24th, 2006 at 5:13 am
hmmm i meet the minimum perfectly… not quite recommended… ha
July 24th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Hello all,
Thankyou for posting this information, but there are some incorect comments.
These are not official, only an estimate.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:13 am
“An Intel iMac won’t be able to play this without blowing up first”
and why is that? silly jealous winsux users
July 24th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
ITS PC only game
July 24th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Phew , i am in the minimum reqs :p
July 24th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
wel duh, macs do windows too now … and the intel iMac specs are within the mentioned requirements …
July 24th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Does it have to be Athlon 64?
July 25th, 2006 at 1:35 am
hmm i feel like eating some daal of manufacture Haldirams l.t.d.
July 26th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Ha! lol…
I meet the recommended requirements
July 31st, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Gosh those specs r high! I have to upgrade just to reach min!! getting 6600gt and thats barely enough!
August 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Those iMacs get hotter than my Asus laptop with the same specs and bench less in 3dMark. Sure am jealous…
But really, Crysis on a X1600? That is not going to run well, not at 1440×900 and definitly not at 1680×1050.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:03 am
hii all …. please help i have intel 2.200ghz geforce6800 gs/xt
1 giga ram … all the games work cleeeeen for me with that setting
you think my 2.200 will crushes the game or something ?!?! in the minimum says 2800 ! please please !
please! i dont have any money to buy new cpu!….
arrr !
thankx !
kiko
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Dear god, meet the min requirements easily but the recommended… need an extra 512mb ram a new processor and a card that supports dx10, there aren’t any that do out yet.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
MMmm…I cant wait to run this game….Current cards will emulate DX10 by the way so dont worry about your cards not running it…however…if you want some of the special effects…chances are…your card wont support it.
My new system specs:
PD Dual Core 2.8
2GB DDR533 ram
250GB 7200RPM
MSI 1GB GEFORCE 7950 GX2
X-Fi Extreme Music
Dell 24″ 2407FPW
August 12th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
hehe my comp rite now has 256mb ram and an old p4 and no REAL grpahics card…the one im getting7600GT
August 16th, 2006 at 10:04 am
WOW, I guess I won’t be instaling windows vista if I’m going to be playing this game, But on the other hand, I have a mid-range system compared to the minimum requirements.
My new laptop:
Intel Duo Core 2ghz
1GB ram (up to 4GB)
100GB 5400RPM
512MB Geforce go 7300
Harman Kardon sound
Toshiba Satellite 17″
August 17th, 2006 at 4:12 am
oh man cant wait for this game to come out on x360 i know for sure that it will take it cause it says for ati x1800 or higher the 360 gpu is more powerfull than the x1800 xt the 360 gpu rounds up to the x1900 card and ye anyone planin 2 buy nvidia cards dont bother cryengine best on ati
August 17th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
i’ve got a 3.8 Pentium with 1.5 gig ram and 6800 GT. I don’t get the new dual core, puntium D scaling system. Am I screwed?
August 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
sorry, 3.6
August 18th, 2006 at 3:21 am
“david Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
i’ve got a 3.8 Pentium with 1.5 gig ram and 6800 GT. I don’t get the new dual core, puntium D scaling system. Am I screwed?”
No, your system is very good. Pentium 3.8 is a very powerful. Duo core is only useful for multitasking, the thing which many people mistake is that after Pentium 4, Intel started to renumber it’s processors, so if you see Duo core or Pentium D processors with lower numbers don’t be fooled. Other than that your still running at 3.8ghz which is VERY good.
August 18th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Thanks for the response. Yeah, the whole renumbering thing is confusing me like crazy. I still don’t get how AMD numbers compare with Pentium numbers. And I hear its only going to change more, depending on whether or not the dual core catches on.
August 19th, 2006 at 9:28 am
sorry TOM CLANCY, but it wont be coming out on 360, only for PC
August 20th, 2006 at 5:18 am
ha ha ha my new machine is now:
intel pentium 4 cpu 3.001ghz
2.00 gb of ram dual 400
geforce 6800 gs/xt
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:47 pm
thats absurd, i only have a 7800GT… not an X
and i got only 2.0 gbs of RAM and a AMD dual core 4400+
… However recomended only means you can play it on ” Ok ” graphics” i dont want to know what youll need to play it on Full/Maxed out settings
August 24th, 2006 at 1:16 am
Omg………. what do you mean only a 4400+ dual core this game is multithreaded and takes advantage of dual core cpus also 2 gb of ram will be enough to run on high and you 7800 gt should be fine. You will probably be able to run n high settings @ 1024×768 @ 30-40 fps. My pc AMD 3800+ @ 2.4 ghz, 1gb ram, 2x 7600 gt KO.
August 24th, 2006 at 3:21 am
My new laptop:
Intel Duo Core 2ghz
1GB ram (up to 4GB)
100GB 5400RPM
512MB Geforce go 7300
Harman Kardon sound
Toshiba Satellite 17″
With my system, I can probably be able to only run it on mid-low settings. Might add another gig of ram to it.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
I just built new system…why I get highest settings from it…thanks
AMD dual core 4600 x2
overclocked geforce 7900 gt
2 gig ram
300 gig hd 10000 rpm ( i think)
thanks….just curious…
August 24th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Ooops…sorry to double post…..
meant to say – will I get highest settings on game…
thanks
August 24th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
JUST look at the system, of course you can, no reason to even ask. Its like asking “will I survive if I jumped off the CN Tower?”
August 25th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Well, My system configuration is
p4 2.66
1 gig Ram DDR1
Nvidia 7600GS
well Will Crysis work on this configuration? The Graphics is a killer in this game, I was blown away. Gaming graphics has reached a killer level and Crytek is the boss. Super job on that. Well I am planning to upgrade my card to a Nvidia 7900GT and to 1Gb Corsairs RAM.
August 25th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Your current system probably can run it on low-medium settings, but a Geforce 7900GT and another gig or ram will certainty give you the best settings this game can offer on Directx9c settings. This means you still wont be able to experience what the game was intended to offer graphically, to the same extend it was made to offer on Directx10. I say wait for the geforce 8 series with Directx10 support to come out and insted of spending a hell of a lot of money on a pricy 7900, go buy a mid-range Geforce 8600(when it comes out sometime around October or November 2006)
August 26th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
my pc specs,
3800 x2 athlon
1gb ddr400 ram
120gb sata baracuda
ga-k8n-sli board
sli of 76OOGs. !! (equal to 7800gt)..
x-fi creative 7.1
August 27th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Got me a new laptop.
New specs:
AMD Turion 64X2 Duo core
2gig Ram
160gb SATA harddriver
ATI Radeon X1600 512MB
August 27th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
i know,i know
my system :
intel P4 E 3200 (2 MB L2)(Up to 3600 with Easy Tune5)
GIGA 8I15P Dual graphic
Geforce 6600
1 GB ram(533)
LCD 17”
cool,i can play crysis in Minimum seting
August 28th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Are these the actual min requirements? SP double agent is Intel 3.0ghz?
August 29th, 2006 at 5:29 am
just asking well a 3200 athlon 1ghz of ram & a 6800gs play it at 1280-1024 high details
August 30th, 2006 at 7:38 am
i’ve got a 7900gt, and i’m pysched up about crysis, but do you guys think the visual effects that crysis offers (shown in many demo vids) will perform well with my card? (i dont expect perfect dx10 effects, just the emulated dx10 effects with dx9 shown in the demos) i just upgraded and i’m freaked about having to buy another card in 6 months or less. i also heard that an x1900xt was used in the demo and even that card had a hard time. was it because everything was on max?
August 30th, 2006 at 8:52 am
William, I think you can probebly run the game on mostly high settings(depending on your other specs as will) on dx9c settings without problems. Both the Geforce 7900gt and Radeon X1900 are very close in comparison, but the X1900xt performes a little better than the 7900gt.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/geforce-7600-7900/index.x?pg=10
So if the rumors about Crysis and X1900xt are true, then you know what to expect from the 7900gt. (plus the Crysis demo at E3 06 is still a game at development so it still has some problems, which might explain some issues with the X1900xt)
August 31st, 2006 at 3:17 am
My system:
Intel Conroe 6300 OC’d to 3.2ghz
2gb ram
150gb raptor 10,000 rpm HD
Radeon x1800 XT 256mb
19″ 8ms LCD
Can I run this game on low?
September 1st, 2006 at 6:35 am
hey all
i just got my computer a amd 4400 x2
the rest of it is
1gb ram
360 gb hdd (bout 120gb left)
nvidia 6600gt vpertvision the 256mb version not the 128
im also thinin of gettin another coz i can dual the 6600gt
my comp with this and another 1gb ram would be smoooooth to run btlfld 2142, any queries just give us a bell
also if i clock my 4400 up and with my current hardware, what settings should i have bf 2 on and bf 2142 when i get it
September 1st, 2006 at 10:01 am
upcoming…my new system
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
1 gb ddr2 667 mhz RAM
250 gb HDD 7200 rpm 16 mb buffer
256 mb ddr3 256 bit x1800gto
gma x3000(support directx 10)
PSU 450 watt true power
i can run mid set
September 3rd, 2006 at 5:10 am
just wonder if my specs are good enough .
amd 4200 x2 duel core 1.5 gig ram 120 gig hard drive 7600 gt
September 4th, 2006 at 6:21 am
This is what I am getting next week
Intel Core 2 duo E6600 Conroe
EVGA GeForce 7950gx2 1GB DDR2 Dual GPU
2 GB Corsair xms2 Ram DDR2 800
Asus P5N-SLI Deluxe MoBo
I think that might do the trick : D
September 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
lol theres no such thing as a mac anymore, its jus hardware vendor!
(i.e atx)
p chips make for ibm pc. only thing mac got is os now, and you can run that on any real computer now
so stop wasting your money on over priced atx machine and build your own noobs!
September 5th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
ok so you need a geforce 7800/radeon x1800 or a dx10 card?
September 6th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Looks like I need another gig of ram if I wanna get above the default settings. Here are my system specs:
Athlon 64 3700+ 939 pin
Nvidia geforce 7800 gt
Corsair 1 gb twin x
abit kn8 mobo
maxtor 250 gig HD
It’ll Run fine, but I think its time to upgrade soon already.
September 10th, 2006 at 5:06 am
Man this is gonna cost allot of $$ just for a game like crysis but it looks so damn nice glad im gonna buy me a new pc but damn i need more info about the specs because what card of 7800 gt is needed 256mb ram or 512mb ram?
gonna buy 7800gtx anyway 2 gigs of ram and processor amd 64 3800+ but dual core is needed wtf need more info!!!?? dual core what kind of dual core dammit!! its will probelly cost me 1500 euro’s total i think its worth it
LOL i need and must play this game on high resolution and not on the lowest cr_:P
September 10th, 2006 at 5:23 am
im soooooo confused LOL GIMMIE MORE INFO!!!
im gonna buy this i think lol
amd 64 3800+ dual core
2 gigs of ram
7800gtx
that would be enough to play on high settings right……… it must do the trick and if it dont ill bring it back to the shop and says it sucks whant my money back LOL
September 12th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
will this one work ? (i think itl not work)
Intel Celeron D 2.4Ghz
512mb DDR
Geforce 6800GT AGP8x
80gb HDD
i hope itl work
but i dunt think itl work
September 14th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Remember when everyone saw Half-Life 2 previews and were like OMG can my computer handle this? And then when the game came out Valve did an amazing job with the graphics on lower-end computers.
So i guess the morale of my story is, don’t freak out yet because i’m sure you will be able to play this game since they are continueing to tweak it and make it better/play smoother. The graphics will look amazing anyway you play it at this point
September 14th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
LOL!!!!!!!!! ROFL!!!!!!!!!
I MEET THE Recommended Requirements perfect!!!!!
exept for 1 thing
I have
“2x” XFX Geforce 7950 ( O YES 2 OF THEM
)
2 gig ram DDR2
DUAL DVD WRITER
400 gig hard drive
O and of corse my pross. ITS a “AMD 3800+ 939″
But luckely i’m going 2 “4800 dual core” soon
BUT STILL GUYS “this game is ******* harsh!!! on your pc !!!!!”
September 14th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
I have a Amd Athlon 3500+ , 1 gb ram and a GForce 7600GT overclocked..can i run bf 2142 with nice quality ?
September 15th, 2006 at 12:30 am
I’m a little concerned about the requirements and the way my PC will be able to run the game…I have an AMD 3800+ X2, MSI 7900GT and 1GBRam…Considering it’s Crysis that we are talking about, I’m not expecting the game to run like NF:MW, Doom3 or FarCry (lots of FPS)…will I need a really considerable upgrade or am I good to go???
will the upgrade be really worth the while? Thank you for your replies and comments as well…
My email is…
raiderstate@hotmail.com
September 21st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Ha.
I will thrash you all. Is directx 10 gonna make the game run faster or just with more effects?
Im gettin this machine just for crysis:
)
2gb 800mhz
7950gx2 (directx9
Core 2 duo (oc over 3.0ghz per core :-0
September 21st, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Sounds like I gotta wait a few more years till I got a better pc to run crysis then hehee.
Or just buy a ps3 and hook it up on my monitor + usb mouse:P
September 21st, 2006 at 10:46 pm
lol. recomended: dx10
card: a dx9 one. lol. how pointless!
September 24th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Hey yo Thomas dude, everybody here knows what to expect from dx10. Yet, I almost agree with you…almost there with you…check this out…
Recomended: dx10 (not an top requirement)
card: a dx10 (for just a couple of games)
lol…not pointless…..WAY POINTLESS!!!!!.
Note: Discard the previous lines if living, eating, bathing, etc…in front of a PC 24/7.
September 24th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Hey yo Thomas dude, everybody here knows what to expect from dx10. Yet, I almost agree with you…almost there with you…check this out…
Recomended: dx10 (not an top requirement)
card: a dx10 (for just a couple of games)
lol…not pointless…..WAY POINTLESS!!!!!.
Note: Discard the previous lines if living, eating, bathing, etc…in front of a PC 24/7.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:02 am
Hi I need to know if my pc will be able to handle Crysis, my pc has -
Pentium D 3.4ghz
2gb ddr2 ram
Geforce 7900gt
Thanks in advance
September 29th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
ouuuuuch,this game requires a lot,I only have :
Pentium4 Amd Athlon
NvidiaGeforce 5200
Ram 256,1.700 Ghz
I like this game but I cannot play with this config.
September 30th, 2006 at 5:53 am
i wouldnt bother running this game without at least 1 gig of ram.why well i had that much in my pc and got fear.and it was very laggy then i added 512mb and the game was fine.even if your video card sucks still get more ram to help make up for the lag.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:26 pm
yea 65waylon…thats true. The Ram memory is more important then graphics.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:28 pm
heyy..Can anyone tell me a good driver for NVidia G-force 5200 ?
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:42 pm
My curent system is:
AMD Duron 900Mhz
512Mb DDR333
GeForce 4MX440 64DDR 128bits
60GB IBM 7200rpm, ATA133
Im thinking of buying this:
Athlon 64 3500+
new mobo
GeForce 7900gs/gt
1GB DDR400
What do you think about it?
October 4th, 2006 at 4:49 am
My system:
250 gig sata harddrive
evga 7800 gt
amd 3700+ 939pin
450 watt psu
1 gb Corsair twinx ram pc32000
abit kn8
Creative audigy se platinum
Aspire dreamer X 2
My upgrade plan:
550 watt antec truepower psu
2 320 gig segate hardrives in raid
another gig of ram, same kind
Silverstone tj06 case
Do you think if I upgrade to this, will it last for atleast 2 years? Also, I might upgrade my videocard sometime after the upgrade, mabey in the next year.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:08 am
yee um the guy said its not comin out for 360 um ye it mite cause its comin out for ps3 they just need more developers 2 work on the console version and ye if u guys think that 360 cant take it ur wronggg cause x360 runs in Multi core each 3.2ghz thats more powerfull than dual core and it has 1 of the most powerfull gpu its rounds upo to the X1950XTX CARD
October 4th, 2006 at 9:02 am
for romanian dirt
get an am2 mobo with an x2 processor
get 2gigs you’ll need it and the gfx card is fine
October 11th, 2006 at 3:16 am
All i can say is Damn…Game looks sick..
October 11th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
no Man…this game is the greatest that I ever seen a first Person Shooter in my life..
October 12th, 2006 at 8:08 am
what about my rig. will it run ok?
conroe e6600
2g corsair ddr2
7950gx2
October 12th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Yes … of course it will … showoff.
October 12th, 2006 at 11:17 am
for sure the guy wid the GX2 NVIDIA CARD yepp thats pretyy good wat u hav ther youl run it finee wats ur cpu? conroe but how much GHZ??
October 12th, 2006 at 11:23 am
THIS IS MY system lol IBM POWER PC 3 cores runing each 3.2ghz 512MB GDDR3 ATI CUSTOM 10Mb eDRAM. the card is more powerfull than the x1900 and 7900 lol its a 360
October 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
dx 10 is big bullshit. I bet that’s crap comes from the same idiots that cry that windows vista will be better for games.
Pull your heads from the sands people. Watch the tex’s, whatch the framerate, watch the ram/cpu usage, then know that it always gets worse on the sys reqs with silly drivers.
IMO: DX10 SUCKS ! And I havent even used it yet;)
October 15th, 2006 at 2:07 am
My specs are: ATI 1800XT, 500GB 7200, Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.13GHz, Creative SB X-Fi and 2GB of DDR2 667 ram, so I hope my comp will be able to handle this game.
October 15th, 2006 at 2:14 am
I got a amd 3500+..2gb ram..and a Gforce 7600Gt can i run this game with low/mid/hi graphics ?
October 15th, 2006 at 2:22 am
tom clancy= e66oo cpu is 2.4ghz times 2,4.8ghz i had a 360, just sold it, pc kicks it’s ass.
October 15th, 2006 at 2:23 am
I got a amd 3500+..2gb ram..and a Gforce 7600Gt can i run this game with low/mid/hi graphics ? Plz help me :S
October 15th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
u all have an exellent graphics..I’m sure u can play with med and high…I used to play 2005 Pc games with my fucking Graphics LOL…
October 15th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
“# Dave Reynolds Says:
October 15th, 2006 at 2:07 am
My specs are: ATI 1800XT, 500GB 7200, Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.13GHz, Creative SB X-Fi and 2GB of DDR2 667 ram, so I hope my comp will be able to handle this game.”
OMG it won’t man … it’s just not powerful enough … you need a waaay better cpu and gpu and lots more memory .. could you tell I was being extremely sarcastic. What is it with you guys who love to tell the world your PC specs?
Did you even read what the minimum requirements are before you posted? Or did you just feel the need to let everyone know you have a conroe based system? Get over yourself … and that goes for all you people who know your system will run Crysis but just want to blab about how great (you think) your PCs are. Grow up.
READ THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND STOP WASTING PEOPLE’S TIME.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
yea,thats true but dont u think that u couldn’t play this game, its not a big deal.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Thx guys im happy now
October 16th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
I just got my new Dell XPS M1710, I will max this out easily w/ DX9.
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.16
2 gb Ram
Nvidia Geforce 256mb 7900 GS
WinXP
October 17th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Not with that video card.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
maybe he could play it with low res.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:45 pm
helP
igot a compaq pessario
1.6ghz turion 64 x2
1g ram 2max 667mhz
nvidia geforce go 6150 128mb
creative 3D Sound Blaster Pro
im lost ^^
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:17 am
You will need to upgrade … memory, GPU and even your sound card … you probably have a slow Hard drive so you’ll want to upgrade to at a 10,000RPM drive. Hopefully your system is PCI-Xpress as well or else you’ll need to replace your mobo also. Good luck.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:11 am
yo gx2 u wishh bro as iff u dont know wtf ur talkin about u stupid moron 360 has multi core runin each 3,2ghz and 2 hardware threads per core and 6 in total like some games arnt using full power of da 360 like gears of war is only using 1 core and 93% of the 1 core and call of duty 2 is using 1 core wid the 2 hardware threads 1 for a.i and other for gameplay so thers 4 left and that will shit on ur crappy as pc
October 24th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
thanks, i think ill run it on my desktop instead
October 25th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
My system should run it fairly smoothly:
Intel C2D e6600
ATi Raedon x1950xtx 512MB DDR4
4GB OCZ DDR2
Audigy 2 ZS P-Pro on Logitech Z-5500
I might get a DX10 card when it’s worth getting one.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Tom Clancy, there may be 2 threads per core, but that means that two things can be run at the same time on 1 core, it shares performance, it doesn’t double it. The Xenon isn’t as good as everyone makes it out to be, I’m sure my e6600 would eat it. The Core 2’s can do a tonne of instructions per clock.
But don’t get me wrong, the X360 is a good cheap gaming system, and if console gaming is what you prefer, than by all means go and play it. Personally, I don’t care about platforms, and I’ll play a game no matter what platform it’s on. PC’s will always be faster though, as they are always advancing.
October 25th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Another person who knows his UBER PC will run the game but couldn’t wait to showoff and let everyone know he’s got a powerful system … why do people continue to act like this. Damn grow up children. I am so sick of these types and believe me I will call attention to you arrogant puppies everytime.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
hahah, you might want to look at your own attitude Anuban.
Seriously, I used to have pretty shocking PC’s, but I loved seeing other peoples specs, just thinking what they could do with a system like that.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:02 am
These are merely estimates, made by Tom at CrysisOnline. They are in no way official, nor are they likely to be the official requirements for the game upon release.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Yep, they’re not official. I think they are quite high, and they will turn out to be a lot lower. They have some very talented engine designers at Crytek. Far Cry could run fairly easily on a GeForce 2. My estimate for minimum requirements would be 2Ghz, Radeon 9600, and 512MB RAM.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:53 am
That estimate is a lot lower than what I’d think. You’d be able to boot it up and get rendering, but I’m almost positive it would look like mud, and play like mud.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Will my pc run it?
amd sempron 2400 @1667 Mhz and 256mb L2 cache(Socket A)
512 mb ddr ram @333 Mhz
nvidia geforce 6200LE 256mb ddr2 ram
dual layer dvd drive
80 gig 7200 rpm
LOL, wish i had the money to upgrade my compu
October 31st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
srry 256 kb L2 cache
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:34 am
How well does it run Oblivion (without mods)? I would expect Crysis to be slower than Oblivion because it’s twice as graphical, however it’s a much more efficient engine. Crysis’s requirements will be similar to GRAWs probably, but of course it will look alot better. If you can see how it runs on Oblivion and Graw, it should give you some idea.
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 am
Oblivion runs on Gamebryo. An engine that isn’t particularly efficient. Crytek is a team of perfectionists, knowing them they’d probably tweak it until it bleeds, then tweak it again.
You can’t really go comparing Cryengine 2 to Gamebryo and GRAW (GRIN’s engine) engine. They’re all coded by different people, use different software and even different APIs. Comparison between engines won’t get you too far.
Michael Khaimzon said he runs Crysis well on a 7800GTX. That is in the computer he uses, and he’s responsible for making the game look good. He didn’t sound too sure, in that interview, though.
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:55 am
Haha. I just read the article, again. Tom (Crysis-Online) is most definitely not running the official Crysis forums. Those aren’t even operating yet. The closest you’ll get is Crymod.com
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:08 am
Yeah Crysis-Online is often confused for the official site.
I know it was written by other devs, I was estimating how it would run compared to other games, I know there is no way of telling for sure, but judging by how well they write their engines, and how graphical the game is, I think it would be similar or even lower requirements than GRAW.
GRAW is very unoptimized, it ran pretty badly when I had my 7800GS, which is still a great card.
Michael Khaimzon was saying it ran very well on his card, with maximum settings, and that it’s not even optimized yet.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:29 am
If you really needed to go into detail, yes. That is true.
I know what you’re trying to do. I’m just letting people know that game engines don’t run on a sliding scale of performance versus image quality. Not all people know that
I think Crysis will run on a scale similar to Far Cry, personally. Maybe just a bit better, considering Crytek would be wanting to “do it right” this time around. I’m going to try and play it on a 6200, if I still have it, by then =)
Also, we’re forgetting about the processor. It can mean something in the vicinity of 10-30FPS difference between a good processor and a bad one. I recommend Core 2 Duo. That will work very well with Crysis.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:47 am
Yeah they will, there are Core 2 Quads just out too, if you have the money to get them
. C2D’s are more than enough though.
Also, there are some very nice mid-range cards out if you want to get one. There should be enough time between now and when Crysis is released.
The minimum shader spec for Crysis will be 2.0 for sure, and your 6200 will run that, but you know they’re a fair bit slower than a Radeon 9600, so I don’t know how the frame-rate will be.. depends a lot on how far the graphics scale.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 am
I know it will run it. I just don’t know the framerate or settings I will get. No one does, unfortunately. I’ll get a new one, if I can find the money, by then. =)
So I can get it running, but it might be a slide show.
We’re all going to have to wait and see =)
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:14 am
yup, well if Far Cry fan on a GeForce 2, than you could be in luck. Lets just hope it’s not too shader heavy when it’s on minimum, because that’s what your 6200 will likely struggle with. But yes, we’re all going to have to wait and see.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:17 am
Btw, inCrysis is a great website Kizza, do you run it?
November 4th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
i think that the system requirements might be kinda around the GRAW recommended system requirements
November 6th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
NRG: I am an admin at inCrysis. Yes. Thanks for the compliments =) I don’t do it alone, we have Nappy, PE2, matthew, ceramic.wolf and RTsa behind the scenes as well.
I hope you’re right about me being in luck!
ally: Why do you think that?
November 6th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
have you seen the system requirements for rainbow six vegas which is on the unreal 3 engine and the crysis engine is probably needs more power than unreal 3
the system requirements for rainbos six vegas are:
System Requirements:
Supported OS:Windows XP (only)
Processor:P4 3Ghz or AMD equivalent
RAM:1024 Mb
Video Card:128MB, Shader Model 3 and DirectX 9.0c compatible (see supported list*)
Sound Card:DirectX 9.0c compatible
DirectX Version:DirectX 9.0c
CD-ROM:DVD-ROM 4X
Peripherals Supported:
Mouse, keyboard, headsets, Xbox360 Controller, etc.
Multiplay:
Local area network (LAN) and/or 128kbit Cable/DSL connection for online game
these come from the ubisoft website
November 6th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Well, Crysis has Shader Model 2.0 and DirectX 9.0c compatible graphics card.
I’m not sure about RAM, or Processor requirements, but they seem fairly reasonable, for an Unreal Engine 3 game. That’s hardware that would have been released 3 years ago, from now. Not 2 years, like Cevat Yerli is estimating.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Well, My system easily meets the recommended, excluding Windows Vista and DX10 obviously.
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Will a laptop with a 2.0ghz core 2 duo processor, 2gig ram and a 256mb graphics card run Rainbow six vegas?
November 24th, 2006 at 3:21 am
Absolutely..
November 24th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Btw, Core’s and Core 2’s do much more instructions per clock than a P4 or even an Athlon 64, even at 1.8Ghz a Core 2 Duo can flatten a 3.7Ghz P4
November 24th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
This is my rig
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.66Ghz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Hard Drive: 163 GB Total
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800GTX
this wil run it on max settings i think
November 24th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Aww man will this need to improve one’s self-esteem by showing off one’s uber PC ever cease … don’t answer that it is rhetorical because we all know what the answer is. This is why so many people can’t stand PC gamers.
“this will run it on max settings i think” … ahhh grow up glory hound.
November 25th, 2006 at 1:37 am
Yeah, now saying something like “this will run it on max settings i think
November 25th, 2006 at 2:22 am
Kamerplant:
That all depends on whether you want to fork out for Windows Vista or not.
You’ll definitely be running it very well. Let it be noted, though, that Cevat Yerli promised us the game would scale 2 years in the past and 1.5 years in the future; hardware-wise. Keep that in mind.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:16 am
I’m not the one being arrogant. And I told you before when I see blatant crap like that I will speak out so stop asking me the same question over and over. Instead learn to live with the fact that I will always say something about that if I see it. That won’t change and there is nothing you can do about it so if it makes you feel better just ignore me. I am NOT going to explain again. Period.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:49 am
You’re very arrogant, you need to take a look at yourself instead of others.
Why exactly is it that you like “speaking out” about people showing what their rig is like. Isn’t it boring? Seriously, it’s pointless, and a waste of time.. why care about some lousy comment?
November 25th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Okay I asked you too ignore me if I irritated you so much and you couldn’t do so so now I have NOTHING more to say to you. So if you address me any longer it will be a complete and utter waste of your time as I won’t responding to you anymore. You need to learn to accept other people’s POVs and just move on with there is obviously no way an agreement can be reached. Since you seem oblivious to how to do such a thing I will NOW show you how it is done.
November 25th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Hahah, I’m not irritated at all, but you obviously are. You see, I’m showing you my POV, and questioning yours.
November 25th, 2006 at 8:21 am
heres something for ur ass anuban, see the funny thing about all this is that ur bitchin about someone letting other people know how shitty their pc is, for example… my specs are:
AMD Athlon 1500
ATI Raedon 9600
256MB RAM
1 GHz CPU
TOTAL OWNAGE!!!
but to put things a little bit simpler for ur stupid ass Anuban, the point we are all trying to make is that ur full of shit.. i mean, why would someone post some insufficient whining about someones specs in the first place..?
As for arrogant puppies.. WTF?!? its not arrogance, its just letting people know that there will be one more gamer who can play Crysis, lmao… or are u just so arrogant urself that jealousy of other peoples systems are some-what better than yours?
November 25th, 2006 at 8:30 am
heres something for ur — anuban, see the funny thing about all this is that ur whining about someone letting other people know how crappy their pc is, for example… my specs are:
AMD Athlon 1500
ATI Raedon 9600
256MB RAM
1 GHz CPU
TOTAL OWNAGE!!!
but to put things a little bit simpler for ur stupid ass Anuban, the point we are all trying to make is that ur full of it.. i mean, why would someone post some insufficient whining about someones specs in the first place..?
As for arrogant puppies.. its not arrogance, its just letting people know that there will be one more gamer who can play Crysis, lol… or are u just so arrogant urself that jealousy of other peoples systems are some-what better than yours?
November 25th, 2006 at 8:55 am
November 25th, 2006 at 9:00 am
It is very simple PC gamers (oh and I am a HUGE PC gamer … I mod baby … or didn’t know that I was the Project Leader for the HaloUT team … a mod for UT2K% … probably not. All the releases for that mod are thanks to me and my the crack team of devs I along with my co-lead assembled.)
These are the specs:
Minimum Requirements
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP
Recommended Requirements
CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
RAM: 1.5Gb
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX10 with Windows Vista
So you don’t need to post anything … just read and if you don’t come close you have your answer … if you are way over that well you have your answer again. There is simply no need to spout off about how great your system specs unless you need someone to “appreciate” all the money you spent. If you spout off then you’ll be hearing from me at some point. Learn a little humility PC gamers and you will never see me on this thread again. Otherwise …
November 25th, 2006 at 9:00 am
LOL! mate you KNOW you hav lost this sinc the start.. but chin up, things mite turn out better for you in a few years when u realise that listing ur computer specs can actually be helpful for you, cos someone who knows there stuff can put some positiv input to you about what u should save for next…
**points and laughs..** u lost this one, u shouldnt start whining about such things….
November 25th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Anuban – You also seem to have forgotten those aren’t official system specs. You could pretty much say if you’re over either of them that “Tom thinks you can play the game”. Tom knows about as much as the rest of us. Period.
We know for sure that Kamerplant will be playing Crysis due to his monster system.
Take your mountain and make of it a molehill.
November 25th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Will the new vaio VGN-FE31H run R6 vegas?
Spec:
1.66GHz core 2 duo processor
1 GIG ram
120Gig HD
256mb graphics card
November 25th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
More braggarts who apparently can’t help themselves … wow .. you have a great rig … hope that helps your self-esteem issues. Will your system run R6? Of course it will …. just another reason to brag aloud to someone that you have the new Core 2 duo chip. I guess at least here you know some people will be dying of envy.
Let me straighten you all out … I have a great monster rig (no not dual core but the fastest non dual core AMD64 cpu around) and I am never worried about games running on my system. I have the best Single slot GPU you can buy and more then enough memory … these days anything over 2 GB of ram is overkill. So if I … an avid PC FPS player is not concerned nor feel the need to post my specs and get some kind of validation that I am indeed on the cutting edge of technology then none of should either … it is that simple. Of course you will continue to do so … and I will continue to do what I do best … call attention to immature behavior. You want to post your PC specs and be heralded as the next coming then go to guru3d.com … that is what that place is for. But to ask such questions when the answer is obvious is ridiculous.
And I don’t care what you think of me or what you say. It won’t deter me in the least. Actually it only helps to increase my posting count … so please continue to go for it if you are so inclined.
November 26th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Actually anuban i wasn’t showing off my spec or bragging. To be honest i don’t know that much about computers so it was a genuine question. The required spec says a 3GHz pentium 4 processor. How the f**k am i supposed to know that a 1.66GHz core 2 duo processor will run it?!?!
I was just checking so i don’t go out and buy R6 Vegas and then find my computer can’t run. Fair enough there are quite a few people out there who know exactly what they’re talking about and are just trying to show off how good their machine is, but I’m not one of those people, so i’d apprechiate it if you didn’t accuse me being immature and a “braggart who apparenty help themself!!!!!!!”
November 26th, 2006 at 1:44 am
Anuban, now who is being immature? There are some people out there, like Danny boy asking genuine questions. He put “256MB Graphics card” – I put it to you that if he knew what he was talking about he would have told you the brand and model of that graphics card. Sif show off your new system without bragging about the graphics card.
You, Anuban, are the immature one. I think Danny boy deserves an apology from you, due to your disrespect and your cynicism regarding his innocent question. Shame on you, seriously.
Look, have your little crusade but the only one who really cares at all is you. I couldn’t care less about how good your machine, Danny boy’s machine or Kamerplant’s machine is. The fact of the matter is, the only one out of those three that wasn’t bragging is Danny boy. Lay down your ego and GTFO. The simple fact that you’re saying nothing anyone says will stop you proves your immaturity about something so small noone even noticed. Get yourself a life, get a girlfriend, get a dog – but whatever you do GTFO.
@Dannyboy: Your rig should run R6 Vegas as it’s way above the minimum system requirements.
November 26th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Exactly, Anuban, you’re saying we’re arrogant and immature etc, when in fact you are being like that yourself. You seriously need to get a life.
Dannyboy, yeah your 1.66Ghz CPU is actually very nice, it will flatten a 3Ghz P4 because it does way more instructions per clock. Your Vaio should run R6:V quite well, maybe not on maximum, but pretty close. It should also run Crysis fairly well, somewhere in between Medium and Maximum I’m guessing.
November 26th, 2006 at 7:35 am
i swear this whole thing is going no-where.. its obvious that Anuban thinks he is right about all this when clearly he isn’t. the only thing i hav to say about it is that he should really hav a look at the log in his own eye before he attempts to remove the spec of dust in everyone elses… im gettin sic of anuban crapping on about all this stuff that really shouldnt be an issue. if people want to show their specs and ask/inquire about if it will be ok running certain games let them… its not hurting anyone…
November 26th, 2006 at 7:45 am
I have a:
Commodore 64
128KB RAM
Screen
Mouse
Will it run crysis??
November 26th, 2006 at 7:47 am
in fact, posting ur specs is mroe benefit than anything, so u should just relax anuban…
dreamer… erm..??
November 26th, 2006 at 8:37 am
I hope you dont have a go a Dreamer, Anuban, leave the poor guy alone!
November 26th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Dreamer … can you read … at all … oh I get it you are making a pathetic attempt at being witty … I take it at my expense. It’s laughable … thanks I enjoyed it. Well anything to keep people from posting specs and the last five haven’t been like that so maybe I am getting somewhere afterall. You know if you give me all this power to keep the subject off of your specs and on me it is only serving my purpose. You have to be more intelligent than that if you plan of matching wits with me.
November 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Are you truly so idiotic as to think that people won’t ask if their computer can run something if we’re ranting at you because you’re clearly a wanker. Matching wits? Please, give me a break. You’re not getting what you want, because if you did, you wouldn’t be here, anymore.
To conclude – everyone hates you and you’re not getting what you want. Go make your own site/forum that you can police all on your own =)
November 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am
“You know if you give me all this power to keep the subject off of your specs and on me it is only serving my purpose.”
Sounds like some 15yo getting a grasp on egotism.
November 26th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Now, now, NRG… There’s no need to insult the 15 year olds of today by insinuating they’re anything like Anuban.
November 26th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I’d better apologize to all the 15 year olds out there then!
November 26th, 2006 at 11:03 am
My plan is working brilliantly … there have been no mindless posts about system specs for over 12 posts now. All is well on this thread now. That’s it lads … keep the focus on me and off the thread topic … smart guys huh? One thing is for sure … this thread never ceases to amuse me.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:06 am
… and all you can come up with are infantile insults. Damn I expected so much more from such “smart PC gamers” who stay tech savvy and on the cutting edge of PC technology. You may need some lessons on taking on people who don’t agree with you in the real world … away from the monitor if you get my meaning. Or is that too much for you guys.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Sounds like the words of a defeated man.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:28 am
“… and all you can come up with are infantile insults. Damn I expected so much more from such “smart PC gamers
November 26th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
I’m packin a 6200
I have a
P4 3Ghz
512MB RAM
Geforce 6200
Do you call that cutting edge? Yes, yes I am bragging about how crappy my system is. Think it will run the game, NRG? Does anyone know if it will run Medieval 2? I just got it and CBF waiting to install it if it won’t run on my PC. kthx, guys =)
November 26th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Oh it’ll fly on Crysis… on minimum… looking at the ground… lol. Nah, if you have troubles with it, your graphics card may need an upgrade, but the rest of your system should be up to the task. But I think if Crysis isn’t shader heavy on minimum, it’ll run fine. I’m expecting to be surprised at how far back they’ll make it run on lower end systems. They did with Far Cry.
As for Medieval II, it’s requirements are :
1.8 GHz processor, 512MB RAM, 8x Speed DVD-ROM drive, 11.0 GB of hard disk space, DirectX 9.0c, 128 MB video card, monitor must be able to display 1024×768 resolution or above.
So that should run ok, your CPU will probably make up for your graphics card.
November 26th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
I got a Amd 3500+..2gb ram..and a Gforce 7600Gt..can i run this game with low/mid/high graphics ?
November 26th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Minimum Requirements
CPU: Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz
Graphics: Nvidia 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
RAM: 768Mb/1Gb on Windows Vista
HDD: 6GB
Internet: 256k+
Optical Drive: DVD
Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP
Well let’s see … how about yes … Maybe since you seem to be unable to perform your own analysis I can do it for you.
You – AMD 3500+ — Min. – AMD 64 3000 so is your AMD a 64 bit processor? I am sure you can answer that question and then you’ll know where you stand from the CPU Perspective
You – 2 GB Ram — Min. – 1GB … do you really need someone to answer this for you?
You – 7600 GT — Min. – 6600 … AGAIN is it so difficult to think for yourself about this one.
So in answer to your question … yes you can run it on Low or med. But since you obviously don’t meet the recommended requirements it is HIGHLY doubtful you’ll be able to run it on high settings.
Now do you honestly believe you couldn’t have come to these same conclusions yourself given the available information … which don’t even have to search for.
People … just use some logic please and I will go away without a second thought. It’s not that I don’t want to be helpful … but in this case people are either being lazy or arrogant and I cannot stand either so right or wrong I will always voice my opinion. And by now it should be obvious what that should be.
You are all supposed to be at the very least semi-intelligent folks so it is absurd you have to ask these questions. Do some research … I know I did when I decided to dive into the fun filled world of PC gaming. Stop asking everyone to do it for you. Learn to be self-sufficient. It will only benefit you in the long run. Google is not hard to use … AT ALL.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Here is some more info … please read this and understand it and maybe you won’t have to go online and ask the same question again and again. This is straight from the Horse’s mouth so now you really have the full story.
From YouNewb.com
“Hexus.tv has an awesome 20-minute video that shows off Ubisoft’s upcoming title for the PC, Crysis. It has been regarded as the most advanced game ever created with the most realistic graphics, features, interaction, and more. The video is taken in Britain and is a little showcase of the game with a segment of questions and answers.”
“Later in the video they go more into the audience questioning aspect. ”
“Crysis’ minimum pc requirements will supposedly run on current hardware so that much of us can actually play the game (although I highly doubt on highest graphics).”
Now I hope you all get this game and have lots of fun no matter what setting you run it on (and I found this info on the net without spending any real effort looking for it). Personally ANYTHING coming from ANY PART of EA is off-limits to me but that is me. As much I was really REALLY looking forward to this title knowing EA is the publisher is just too huge of a turnoff. You folks can continue to line the pockets of the worst Gaming company in the world but I won’t .. and please don’t be so naive as to think you are only putting money into Crytek pockets … because you are only lying to yourself if you truly believe that.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:00 am
Crytek isn’t owned by EA, their game is just being produced and advertised by EA. It’s only a partnership, an agreement. So if Crysis is a bad game, it’s only going to be Cryteks fault.
Also, as Kizza has being saying, those are not official requirements, and to me they don’t seem accurate at all. I would guess he could run it on somewhere close to medium, if not a little higher. Get a second 7600, and that would likely change..
November 27th, 2006 at 3:09 am
Anuban, it isn’t very wise to compare the “fake” minimum system requirements to give people an idea on how it will run. Those estimates came out a while ago and have absolutely no basis on how the game runs on hardware, in real time. They haven’t even optimised it yet, so Crytek people don’t know. How can you expect Tom to be correct?
NRG: Exactly. As far as EA is concerned, he’s talking about a lot of the money spent on the game going to EA instead of Crytek itself. I agree with him, although it works that way for every developer (with exceptions eg. VALVe). Before now it was Ubisoft, which in my opinion is far worse than EA has been recently. Also, Crytek gave its last publisher the boot and I’m sure they have the power to do the same with EA if they so choose.
In an interview on CrysisOnline Michael Khaimzon told a boy named Vinny that he was running it on maximum settings (DX9) using a 7900GTX. Those details are a little sketchy as he didn’t seem sure. He also pointed out they haven’t done any optimisation, yet.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:25 am
Yeah, afaik, the way it works is that producers will actually pay the developers to make the game before it’s out, then they make the money back by having a larger profit on the game when it’s released.
Also yeah, they were saying things about 6 months ago that you could run Crysis on maximum (of course DX9) with the hardware that was out back then. I wonder if we’ll be able to run DX10 quality graphics with high end DX9 hardware.. it’s very possible as DX10 was mainly written for peformance rather than features, and they’ve said that anything on DX10 is possible with DX9.
When they make DX10/Vista only games, they should be much less bug-free and have much better performace. Currently, developers have to write way too much code to get it running on all different platforms (eg ATi/nVidia), but with DX10, they will only have to write code for DX10, rather than different platforms.
PC gaming should be great 1 year or so down the track.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:33 am
yes, 360 is fucking JUNK compared to the pc, and fyi.. fps games are meant for the pc, NOT FOR THE STUPID CONSOLES
consoles are only meant for fighting games like mortal kombat, and racing games, but the Wii will pwn the lame 360..dont matter about graphics..just about the gameplay..360 lame as shit, pc the dominate in gaming
November 27th, 2006 at 8:26 am
Wow … this is what I mean when I say hardcore PC gamers give the PC gaming industry a really really bad name. Vulgar, uneducated and yet he believes he is an expert in the gaming industry … no hard data … no anything and yet the garbage spews forth like hot ash from an erupting Volcano. What a joke. But at least no mention (yet) of his specs. Should be coming though … I bet.
Newsflash: People who are truly good at FPS games can play them on any platform. PERIOD. PC gamers for the most part are just lazy and love to complain about that one singular thing …. whereas a good console FPS gamer (raises hand) can also easily switch up to any FPS on the PC (again raises hand). Please stop with that ludicrous excuse.
And in any event if you did any research at all before spouting off and looking foolish you would know that a device is coming for the 360 to allow Mouse and Keyboard support for all the PC FPS gamers who can’t make the adjustment to console controllers. Now all you have to do is petition the devs to make sure they include an option to use it. Maybe then all this BS between console and PC gamers/gaming can finally be laid to rest. Maybe but I’m not holding my breath.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:38 am
There’s a lot more than just a controller when it comes to the differences between PC and console. I’ll lay out the other problems I have with consoles for you right now.
I’d rather have a PC, something I can play games on, switch to a project I’m working on, forums, and then back again. I also really like my mods, I like making mods, too. Most of those things can’t be achieved using a console. I’d rather spend $1200 on a PC that will last me 2 years than a console that will be outdated versus the PC in 1 year. I don’t want to have to spend $1800 buying a console and a PC at the same time, if I decide to play console games. That doesn’t include the two different sets of mostly expensive games I have to buy.
One thing I hate and from what I’ve observed it’s true, most of the console gaming community lack any technical knowledge of the pieces of hardware they’re using and to contrast that for some strange reason console games seem far less intelligent as opposed to PC games. I mean, look at Halo, it’s boring for a PC gamer. Then look at something like FEAR, where you actually have to be tactical and outsmart the enemy, instead of twitching your thumb and trigger finger. There’s also one of my favourite genres that will never find a mainstay in the console community – RTS. Company of Heroes will never find its way to success on X360, nor will Medieval 2 Total War. I saw that Halo Wars was X360 only and I laughed my arse off. Good luck trying to rip off yet another PC invention, consolers, it will never work.
November 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I get a lot out of my PC when it comes to games, and it’s my preferred platform, although I’m not biased towards it either, I game on my 360 often, and even my PS2 sometimes too. I’m a very unbiased person, recently I’ve switched from a nVidia/AMD platform to an ATi/Intel platform, I play any genre of game, as long as I enjoy it, I know both ASP and PHP lol, and I also respect OSX and Linux, probably more than Windows. Point is, I think it shouldn’t matter about brand, platform, or game genre, as long as you can afford it, it’s the best deal you can get, or if it’s a game, that you enjoy playing it.
It was wrong of you Anuban to think that anyone who posts their PC specs is a “Hardcore PC gamer”. I also dont believe that the PC gaming industry has a bad name, where is proof of that? I think it’s just as positively looked at as it ever was (well apart from those Hardcore console gamers).
November 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
“One thing I hate and from what I’ve observed it’s true, most of the console gaming community lack any technical knowledge of the pieces of hardware they’re using and to contrast that for some strange reason console games seem far less intelligent as opposed to PC games. I mean, look at Halo, it’s boring for a PC gamer. Then look at something like FEAR, where you actually have to be tactical and outsmart the enemy, instead of twitching your thumb and trigger finger. There’s also one of my favourite genres that will never find a mainstay in the console community – RTS. Company of Heroes will never find its way to success on X360, nor will Medieval 2 Total War. I saw that Halo Wars was X360 only and I laughed my arse off. Good luck trying to rip off yet another PC invention, consolers, it will never work.”
This is probably the last time I will directly address you …
You have just demonstrated yet again why most people detest hardcore pc gamers or even pc gamers who appear to have a strong bias against consoles for NO RATIONAL reasons at all. Everything you said is really a bunch of garbage. You PC only types keep HOPING that things will fail for console gamers. That is not only really negative but it is very very mean spirited. Karma doesn’t like mean spirited people or groups … which is why despite all the outcrys from the PC gaming community Console players are getting just about every goody that was once relugated to PC only players.
Again I own both, several different platforms actually and for me it is all about loving each and every one of them and enjoying them all to their fullest. I am far to logical to start casting dispersion on one or the other. They all give me great gaming pleasusre … but again I have taken the time to become skilled on all my various platforms so I never display an ignorant bias towards any particular one. I know PCs will always be on the bleeding edge and that is cool … that is one thing I love about that platform. I know consoles will always have a single price point and that what runs on one will always run on the other given the uniform nature of console technology …. and I love that about consoles. So for me I would NEVER root for anything to fail on any platform because I want ALL gamers to enjoy AS MUCH GAMING as they possibly can. I’m not a PC snob as clearly the majority of the people on this thread are.
So you keep believing that crap about FPS games on consoles being less than their PC counterparts (what an amazing load that is) and you keep hoping that other genres (RTS being one) fall flat on their face on the consoles … believe me much more intelligent than you are working on just the opposite and I have no doubt they’ll find a way to accomplish what it is they set out to. It doesn’t matter if you choose to accept it and partake in it or continue to look down upon it and keeping your fingers crossed it will fail. It won’t and as the years pass the convergence between the two technologies will become greater and greater. You can’t stop progress and that is exactly what PC centric gamers just don’t seem to fully realize when it comes to console gaming.
And again as leader of a great PC UT2K4 mod who plays just about everything on all platforms I am proud to be very very different than my fellow pc centric gamers. All it takes is an open mind and a willingness to understand the very nature of the gaming business. Something it is apparent from your post you lack. Now I feel that there is nothing left for us to debate … not on my part. Anyone as negative as you about any segment of gaming that doesn’t meet with your tacit approval is not worth my time to debate on a continual basis. One day maybe you will understand … try playing Gears of War on Hardcore without co-op and then tell us all how NON tactical console games are and that all shooter games are just Twich and Trigger games … F.E.A.R. on the 360 is the same in every way … I should know since I have and play both … and don’t even think about playing GRAW on the 360 without having some real solid tactical strategy … so come with your facts straight when you debate this topic with others in the future. It will save you from looking like a biased, uninformed, uneducated gamer … just a tip.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
FYI to all PC gamers …. good, bad, or indifferent. Hopefully this will bring a smile to some of your faces. To me it is excellent that more options will be available to gamers.
” IGN » Games » Xbox 360 » News
Mouse/keyboard for 360
XCM XFPS brings support to games.
by Bennett Ring, IGN AU
Australia, November 26, 2006 – Along with a brilliant selection of shooters just in time for Xmas (GoW, COD3 and Rainbow 6), 360 shooter fans have yet another reason to get excited. It appears that unofficial mouse and keyboard support for the 360 is just around the corner. We all know that keyboards are already supported in the dashboard, but the XCM XFPS 360 promises to allow both a keyboard and mouse to be used in-game. If you’re aching to use an inferior controller, it also allows the use of Dual Shock Controllers on the 360. It must be noted that the XCM XFPS 360 is not guaranteed to work in all games, and a list of compatible titles has not yet been made available.
This could be a godsend of a device, especially for shooter and RTS fans, as the revered mouse/keyboard combo is noticeably more accurate than control pads. Microsoft has gone out of its way to not support these devices on the 360, claiming they would make the playing field uneven. We think it’s more likely that MS doesn’t want to lose players from the PC gaming market, where MS has a vested interest with its Windows platform.
The original Xbox had a similar gadget in the Smart JoyFrag. This allowed full mouse/keyboard support in Halo 2, giving JoyFrag equipped players a definite edge over their competitors. We’ve contacted the makers of the device so we can try it out – we’ll tell you all about it if and when it arrives. ”
These statements are merely a matter of opinion but take them for what you will:
“as the revered mouse/keyboard combo is noticeably more accurate than control pads.” – After some practice this is just not the case … For me anyway. Take away the “noticeably” and I could be inclined to agree.
“We think it’s more likely that MS doesn’t want to lose players from the PC gaming market, where MS has a vested interest with its Windows platform.” – I don’t believe this is the case at all since MS wants so badly to win the console war of this current generation at any cost so great is the rivalry with Sony … I believe they would actually do whatever it takes to gain more market share on the 360 and what better way to do it than to embrace those PC gamers who simply cannot (whatever the reasons may be) game comfortably on console gamepads. But we shall see once Vista and the 360 are on the market simultaneously. This is one area I am not afraid to admit I may be giving MS too much credit … however only time will tell as I believe it is too early to take either side of this debate.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Well I’m getting one for mine..
November 27th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
While I’d love to chat with you about how great X360 games are but the fact is aside from Gears of War, all you’ve talked about so far are franchises that made their success and originated on the PC. Innovations made on the PC, then migrated to console.
I never said I was hoping they fall flat on their arse, I already know they won’t match up to PC. You’re already discussing it as if people are TRYING so hard to emulate on consoles what many have already achieved on PC, without so much effort. I explained to you the reasons why I’m a PC gamer, not a consoler, I was in no way making a personal attack. I just saw you were misinformed as to why there is a debate against consoles and vice versa. You, sir, have made this discussion a personal attack.
Ultimately, you believe the final solution for your beloved consoles is that they become more like PC. It has always been that exclusivity is the advantage for consoles, the only difference being controls in platform/fighting games, with the exception of the Wii, that’s just too far out of the box (meaning it’s original) and I love it. Not just something repackaged in a nice concave silver box.
Why reinvent the wheel? Why do the console owners prefer their console?
November 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
lol, they already flatten consoles, in fact quad cores and DX10 cards are out right now! But even without those, you still have much more RAM in a PC. That’s the problem with current consoles, they have a lot of power, but only half a gig of RAM. But even so, I don’t think graphics are everything, I can still enjoy games on a console, no matter how outdated they are. Hell, I’ve been playing all these SNES games on my PSP!
November 27th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Oh Windows Vista might take 250, 350MB of ram, but then when RAM prices fall, more and more people will get 2GB or more. People running 1GB already have an advantage over consoles. And also consoles only really have 256 of system RAM because they share with the graphics care, unlike almost all PC’s. Windows doesn’t take any power whatsoever, the only thing that -might- take power are programs running in the background while you’re playing a game. Also if you’re running IE, you already have a whole lot of Adware and Spyware slowing down your PC.
We should see quad cores drop by the time the r600 comes out. I might upgrade a month or two after that.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
“And sure you can get quad cores and DX10 cards today, but the price will fall soon, making it far more affordable for the average gamer.”
While the prices will fall … they sure won’t come down in any meaningful way for the masses for some time. Definitely not this first year of Vista. You’ll need a lot more good software applications/games that can make full use of the new technologies before that happens.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I think they will, it wont be long before they have lower-end versions of DX10 cards and Quad CPU’s. I think many applications and probably most games coming out next year will take advantage of them too.
November 27th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
“Hell, you need 2 GB in Windows XP to play FEAR without too much disturbance.”
That is a fact … when running F.E.A.R. on my system I turn everything to max with 1600×1200 res and use soft shadows for a more realistic effect. I can tell you that I use monitoring software on my G15 gaming keyboard and always have the amount of memory being used (in addition to temp reading of my MB and GPU thanks to some utility software) on display. Of all the current PC FPS games (I don’t have BF2 or Oblivion though)this thing takes the most memory I have ever seen and also causes my GPU to become the hotter than when ANY other game runs. It will use 1.92 GB of RAM at its peak if you have a 2GB system.
Now the utilities I use for my gaming Kb are Riva Tuner, SpeedFan, and EzLCD and they do a fine job of constantly keeping me updated of my system status while I am hard at work killing enemy A.I.
November 27th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Yeah some games are poorly optimized for the PC, simply because it’s an open platform, and some lazy developers don’t bother about optimization.
DX10 should bring a lot of change to this though, more and more games should be as optimized as they are on consoles.
Also, I use Vista, and it runs things just as well as XP. If it doesn’t for you, just turn off Aero.. it’s only cosmetic.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:53 am
Yeah they only reason it smokes DX9 graphics is because it’s so much faster than DX9, and they add more to the graphics, such as much better looking water. It’s all possible on DX9 hardware, but it would run slowly.
If they wanted it to run on the 360, they would use the DX9 graphics, and they would also have to lower the textures to run on the r500’s shared RAM.
My PC has 4608MB of ram in total, compare that with 512MB of the 360, you certainly cant get a well optmized game that takes more than a gig of ram down to 256MB.
I think that RAM prices could fall considerably next year, which would make it easier for people to upgrade. If you can’t afford to upgrade your RAM, make sure you have nothing running in the background, minimal visual themes, and have no Malware using resources. Also some malware scanners can take a fair bit of resources as your game is running, so you can turn off on-access protection while you run your game. Turning this off is only a risk if you are browsing the web or reading your emails, especially if you use IE and OE.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:14 am
This game should come out on the 360.
My Laptop
T7200
2g DDR2 ram 667Mhz
Geforce 7900GS
160gigs
Dont know if I should get Vista yet cause of its flaws
December 1st, 2006 at 10:46 am
“This game should come out on the 360.”
You must want to start some arguments and a controversy by saying that on this thread. I hope nobody bites … please.
“My Laptop
T7200
2g DDR2 ram 667Mhz
Geforce 7900GS
160gigs”
Oh wow man … we are all so happy to hear about how great your laptop is … was there a point to posting your stats other than to get me to come here and say something? Because you didn’t even ask any questions … you just want everyone to know “Hey my laptop is pretty hot”. Please grow up and if you want to post your specs find a really good reason.
And again … “Dont know if I should get Vista yet cause of its flaws” Saying this means you must be looking to start a verbal sparring match with many of the people currently running the latest Beta of Vista.
When will people ever learn?
December 1st, 2006 at 11:43 am
That’s a very nice laptop, wish I had one like that. The only problems you’ll have with Vista are the occasional program that isn’t compatible, but other than that, it should run very smoothly on your Laptop. But there isnt really any need to upgrade it until quite a bit into next year. Stick with XP until it’s necessary.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:47 am
Awww see man (Deep) you got the compliment you were fishing for, isn’t that special … hope that boosts your self-esteem to a more sustainable level.
December 1st, 2006 at 11:49 am
just like what you’re doing mate
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:57 am
I like men
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:59 am
Errrr ok, but lets get back on topic.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:59 am
Wow! someone is hacking into the website and using my name just to give me a bad name. Now if someone is willing to go through all that trouble I guess I really have arrived. Jealousy is such a B*tch. Oh well if it makes worthless people feel good then whatever.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:08 am
It must go deeper than that though … someone doesn’t like the fact I have over 500 posts and will soon have 1000. That’s cool … I’ll just let the admins know which comments aren’t mine if they can’t tell. I do have my own unique writing style … as well as a pretty good command of the English language (most of the time :p ) so it should be pretty easy to tell which posts that are labeled Anuban are authentic. This is just so funny to me … really I am not even angry in the least.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 am
Haha. I bet it’s ya mum
“I hope nobody bites … please.”
“Please grow up and if you want to post your specs find a really good reason.”
That’s the kind of stuff we’ve been telling you about all along, Anuban. Nice lap top, by the way, mate. Just wait until it’s released for the general public and we have decent support for it, before making that kind of decision about Vista. It has some nifty features.
“This game should come out on the 360.”
Why?
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:30 am
Yeah, actually I think the PC really needs some strong exclusive games. Most of the PC’s good games are ported to consoles, but the platform needs an exclusive game that sets the bar. Crysis seems to be the one.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Yeah, I agree with you. Xbox360 has had a good run, now it’s our turn, and we have some brilliant games in store. Stuff like STALKER, Bioshock, Spore, Supreme Commander, Crysis, Huxley, Interstellar Marines, Half-Life 2: Portal and Alan Wake will really make next year a good year for PC gamers. Those are a few PC titles I’m looking forward to, even though some will appear on console.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Kizza, check out http://digitalbattle.com/2006/08/01/top-10-most-anticipated-pc-games/
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Yeah, I don’t have any problem with some going to console, that’s fine, more people enjoy the game. But yeah, the PC needs some games that define it once again.
Out of those top 10, I’m mostly looking forward to:
10: Half Life 2: Episode Two
8: Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
5: UT2007
4: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
2: Crysis
Some of those others could very well interest me too.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:14 pm
That’s a good link, Jim.
I like:
10: Half-Life 2: Episode Two
9: Command and Conquer 3
5: UT 2007
4: S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
3: Spore
2: Crysis
1: Supreme Commander
That’s an awesome lineup, even though some of them aren’t really to my taste. Quite a few of them have proven to be extremely innnovative. I’m looking forward to next year. I just need me a decent PC to survive =)
December 4th, 2006 at 4:41 am
hey ..ne1 got the system requirements/recommended for Quake Wars ? :I plz.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
http://www.qwtracker.com/
Look here. This is not the right thread to be asking that. =) Run along, child.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
ty Kizza
December 4th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
My specs just so I can feel like one of the gang:
FX-57
7950 GX2
2 GBs of ram
280 GB total disk storage (though I need to upgrade my HD to a 10,000 rpm version)
22″ inch CRT Viewsonic Monitor P220F
5.1 Logitech Surround Sound system
What I would like to upgrade to when I get some extra money next year:
Quad core Extreme from Intel (though I may wait for AMD and stick with them)
Quad GPUs I would guess the Nvidia GPU for me … not much of an ATI fan anymore
10,000 RPM 500 MB HD
Aegix (spelling?) PPU
7.1 Surround sound system
19″ Flatpanel LCD monitor with at least a 1000:1 ratio
So let me ask you guys this … how much do you think that kind of upgrade will cost me and should I also be taking into account a 1000W Powersupply and some special cooling as well?
I’m thinking that with a system like that I will be able to run anything these crazy devs can throw at me for at least the next two years.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:43 am
~ 1500$ u.s =)..if u have some extra money , plz buy me the same
December 5th, 2006 at 4:37 am
I can afford that but I don’t think it will be that cheap for all the things I mentioned. keep in mind I will need a brand new MB as well. And Four Vid cards unless the new vid cards are dual GPU like my 7950 GX2. Plus the monitor itself will add to the costs and getting the best RAM … 4 Gigs of it. Now how about a new price estimate.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Oh wow Anuban … we are all so happy to hear about how great your computer is, welcome to the gang.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:41 am
Hey do I meet minimum requirements?
CPU: Intel Pentium D 3.0 Ghz dual core Processor
GPU: nVidia 8800GS
RAM: 2gig of XMS gsming ram sli certified
and I got 500gig’s left on my hardrive this enough guys or what?
December 5th, 2006 at 7:48 am
“we are all so happy to hear about how great your computer is, welcome to the gang.”
Glad to be here … you know the saying … I’m only human and if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em … plus I am serious about gettting a price estimate from some hardcore PC gamers. Looks like Jordan is the one with the GREAT system which will run Crysis just fine from what I can tell; (maybe use dual GPUs though Jordan) … that is what I am trying to get to … actually I want to go beyond that if you look at what I am hoping to achieve.
Your thoughts on how much it will cost me to build my monster rig are welcome.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Yeah I was wondering if someone would catch my drift I know i meet the requirements. Anyways Anuban, check out newegg.com. They got monster deals and cutting prices like crazy cause of the holidays.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Cool but I will wait until after I get the Samsung 70″ Consumer LCD 1080p HDTV next year before I spend any more money on my PC. Hopefully by then they’ll be even more powerful components available for the PC. At the moment I am heavily into my 360 and watching HD movies. Maybe UT2K7 will change all of that for me though. Thanks for the suggestion.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Anuban did I catch somewhere that you were from Australia? If so my favourite online stores are AusPCMarket and GameDude. GameDude are cheaper, but AusPCMarket has better support, and all their prices include freight.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Wow!! Hey Fellow PC enthusiasts check out these out …
http://www.custompc.co.uk/readersdrives/gallery/
Wait until next year when I upgrade my system … now that I see my competition I am going to come with it!
December 5th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Nah man … I am from the Sacramento/Bay Area in Northern Calif. … like I said I am waiting until I get my LCD TV first then I’ll see what my finances are like. That 70″ behemoth is probably going to cost around $8-10K.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Crap, that’s massive. I’d just get a HD projector!
December 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Nah … I want the best this time around. At my age I deserve it.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
hahah, well actually they’re about $3k-4k US, so you may as well.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
I don’t think this 70″ LCD 1080p HDTV is going to be that cheap my friend. The prices you are talking about are for the 46″-60″ variety … and this is Samsung we are talking about … the leader in the LCD space.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
yeah, I seen this Sony one, and I assumed Sony are usually pretty expensive
http://www.nextag.com/sony-70-tv-lcd/search-html
December 5th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
My post is awaiting moderation, probably because I posted a link. Google 70″ LCD and check out the 6th one down.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
If you were in Australia, you could check out StaticIce.com.au They offer a list and comparison of prices of many different computer hardware websites. You can find really nice bargains on hardware componenets just by typing it into the search box.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Very nice, thanks Kizza
December 5th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Oh yeah I guess I didn’t say it is a Flat panel .. the kind you hang on the wall. Now you can see why it costs so much. Maybe it will only cost 6-7K … I hope.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Yeah fair enough.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Like I said big K I am not even thinking about doing anything for my Pc until I get this HDTV. It won’t be out until sometime next year. By then who knows what new GPUs and PPUs will be available for the PC. Also prices will have come down even more on the quad cpus.
So I can wait … especially since I am not getting Crysis and Alan Wake isn’t coming out until 2008. I will be able to play most games on medium quality … the only thing I will update though is my GPU but not until I make the move to Vista. Thanks though.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Wait a sec Anuban, that post wasn’t intended to be directed at you, he said “If you were in Australia…”.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Oh btw, out of curiosity, why are you not getting Crysis? So far to me it looks like a killer FPS.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Oh well … free positive karma never hurt anyone as far as I know. Anyway are these new DirectX 10 vid cards dual GPUs like the 7950 GX2 or is it powerful enough without dual GPUs to blow away the 7950 GX2? I am wondering if it really worth the upgrade (other than the fact it is a DX10 card).
December 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
When EA is involved I don’t buy any product … pretty simple. I won’t add NOT ONE PENNY to their bottom line. It’s the same reason I won’t be getting Hellgate:London … purely a personal choice. Believe me I am not pleased at all since I really do like Crytek … I just wish they would have stayed aligned with Ubisoft (or anyone other than EA)
December 5th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Well it’s not the power of the GPU, it’s the platform. DX10 is up to 8x faster than DX9, so if you have a DX10 card that is physically faster than a DX9 card, than a DX10 enabled game would run MUCH faster on the DX10 card. It all depends on what you want to play now, because imo it’ll be about half a year before DX10 cards become more of a must-have.
Also yeah, Crytek has improved vastly since they developed Far Cry, and I don’t see any way EA can stuff it up unless they had EA employees come and purposely write buggy code into Crysis
. I didnt mind Far Cry, but they’ve even said themselves that it’s more like a B-Grade movie, and that Crysis is more of an A-Grade blockbuster. Another point is that because of some issue with EA, they had the release date extended, which will give them some time to improve the game and clean out more bugs.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Cool man .. then you should really enjoy it. I’m sure I’ll hear all about it. Luckily I’ll be pretty busy with UT2K7 and developing a TC Mod so I won’t miss it all that much.
So you are saying that there are currently no Dual GPU DX10 on the market or even planned to appear on the market for at least 9 months? That’s cool … then I really will be waiting for a while to even think about upgrading to Vista since UT2K7 will run just fine with DX9 and my current system setup. 
December 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Actually, NRG. Cevat said it was in no way the decision of EA. He gave a letter to every admin of every fansite in the world, explaining what’s going on. Check it out on http://www.incrysis.com The letter’s quite touching.
But I can see where Anuban is coming from, he could probably pirate the game and send Crytek a cheque, anyway.
That would probably be better than buying the game, outright. The only reason not to get the game with respect to the current discussion, is refusing to support EA in any way. EA is as involved as Crytek likes, and that’s the way it will stay. Why else would Cevat Yerli himself tell us this? It’s because it’s true, that’s why.
December 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemid=2
Here’s the link, proper.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Nah man … I don’t do the pirate thing under any circumstances. I respect the creative process too much … those devs, artists, writers worked to hard. No I simply won’t put any money at all into EAs pockets and they are getting a cut of every copy sold so I have to stay out of that arena as a matter of principle. But it’s not that big of a deal to me. No matter how good it is its a game and better one will always be right around the corner (two years maybe but still you get my point).
And since I plan on developing games I have to keep my Karma as pure and positive as possible. Stealing in any form is anathem to who I am. But again that’s just me.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
I’m not sure but I think you may have misinterpreted. What I was saying was to download the game, then send money to Crytek, just as a donation. That way you credit the developers the full worth of the game, and EA gets nothing. I was told this by an artist (music) who intended to put his first album up on a torrent site, himself, as soon as it was released.
Sure, it’s stealing, or whatever, in the eyes of the law. But moralistically, the ends justify the means. You get to play a game you love, Crytek employees receive a thoughtful donation, and EA gets on their way to paying a debt to society. Karma wins out.
Just an idea. As a fan, it’s about getting the game out there, through whatever means possible.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
And as a note, Ubisoft would have been far worse to Crytek, as opposed to what EA is now. Also, in many eyes, Ubisoft has become the greater evil, with EA taking on board quite a few high profile innovative games, without so much as hindering their development one bit.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Okay that’s cool and I respect your opinion but can we not discuss this any further since it is apparent I feel as I do … I don’t want to get into any debates or confrontations over a video game … not anymore.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Okay
Thanks, man, you’ve been really good about this all, since the unpleasantness during the thread. It’s a nice surprise 
So, what do you think about embryonic stem cell research?
(I’m kidding)
December 6th, 2006 at 1:34 am
lol ahhh well, you could debate over worse things
What’s your take on Vivendi/Sierra? To me they seem like excellent publisher.
Yeah EA has been horrible to gamers and developers in the past. Just check out that Criticism section on Wikipedia! But I think because Crytek has already has an extremely popular game, EA would not bring harm to Cryteks new game. Perhaps something like Crysis could redefine how EA is looked at. But, there has been some very well done games in the past that have been published by EA, many of which are created by Maxis. Other games include NFS and MoH, and C&C.
I’m not standing up for EA, I just really don’t care who the game is published by, as long as it’s a good game, with good reviews.
Btw, I’m also going to become a game developer, I’m currently doing a course at the Acadamy of Interactive Entertainment. I’m doing Cert III in 3D Modelling, and next year I’ll do Cert IV in programming for games.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:50 am
lol@Kizza
December 6th, 2006 at 3:11 am
“Btw, I’m also going to become a game developer, I’m currently doing a course at the Acadamy of Interactive Entertainment. I’m doing Cert III in 3D Modelling, and next year I’ll do Cert IV in programming for games.”
Cool maybe both us will one day end up working on the same title. Who knows … good luck though.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:20 am
NRG: =)
December 7th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
AMD 64 3500
6800 GS
2 gb of Ram
760 Gb hard drive 400 gb+ 300gb+ 60 gb(to run windows on)
and don’t forget to add CellFactor:revolution to the list of games waiting for.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Not a bad system … but I’d definitely upgrade the GPU first … maybe to at least a 7800 model … then go for a CPU upgrade.
December 8th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Will my xps 400 dual core 2.8 run this on high settings?
I have 2 gigs of ram, 150 gigs hd and a radeon x1800xt. good enough?
December 8th, 2006 at 7:36 am
Of course it is, seriously, how much did that cost?, although if you want to run it on maximum you’ll need a DX10 card.
Also many people who have always stuck with Intel don’t know how powerful the Core 2’s are.
Here’s an example, a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo is much faster than a 3.7Ghz Pentium D. Don’t believe me? Check out the benchmarks on Toms Hardware or something. The reason for that is they do much more instructions per clock than the P4’s.
December 8th, 2006 at 8:44 am
While Intel holds the lead now I have confidence in AMDs ability to ultimately make a superior true Quad processor CPU so I am waiting for that product. Though I admit I am very much impressed by all the new Intel CPUs.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Yup, they’re fine processors, and I’m much happier with this than my previous Athlon 3000. We’ll have to see how that quad CPU goes, do you know if it’s 65nm? That’s Intel’s huge advantage at the moment. Also Intel are also planning on making a true quad processor, and it’s not too far from being released. Afaik it should be realeased during the 1st half of next year some time.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
So what if Intel has an advantage at the moment … it’s not like they didn’t have the advantage for all the 80’s and a good deal of the 90s before AMD turned the tables on them. The point is this is race and you don’t count the winner until the race is over. This whole multi-core race is really just getting started.
Berkeley (CA) – AMD yesterday presented the first native quad-core CPU, a processor that combines four cores within one die, to analysts. Few details have been provided at the time of the announcement, but the puzzle is coming together and suggests that AMD may have a shot at trumping Intel by mid-2007, at least until the blue team rolls out 45 nm chips.
Barcelona, technical details
On the technical side, AMD has chosen a very different road to quad-core. Integrating all four cores under one roof, the Barcelona chip will reserve 64 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache for each core, which, according to the company, will avoid access conflicts that can happen in shared caches (Intel claims that its “SmartCache” avoids such conflicts in shared caches as well). Barcelona will also use a shares 2 MB L3 cache, which can be expanded “at the right time.”
The 65 nm – Barcelona will be the first 65 nm Opteron processor – architecture also integrates Hypertransport links with a bandwidth of up to 8 GB, dual 128-bit SSE data interfaces, a new crossbar design, enhanced power management, and support for DDR2 memory. Comparable to Intel’s Core technology, AMD is able to control the load on each processor core. If there is no need to use all four cores, only one, two or three cores will be filled up with data, which causes one or more cores to sit idle. As a result, power consumption can drop dramatically (see slideshow for details).
AMD chief sales & marketing officer Henri Richard compares AMD’s “Barcelona” Opteron quad-core (left) to Intel’s dual-die Clovertown (Xeon 5300) quad-core CPU.
AMD has not provided performance data for Barcelona, but initial presentations let us believe that AMD is not only aiming to match Intel’s Clovertown processor. Barcelona is positioned as a new, scalable platform that could carry AMD for some time. On the desktop side, Barcelona is related to the Agena FX (Athlon 64 FX) and Agena (Athlon 64 X2) processors, which are scheduled to be released in early Q3 2007. Agena cores will be clocked between 2.7 GHz and 2.9 GHz, will be manufactured in 65 nm and also use socket 1207.
Intel’s roadmap, on the other side, could indicate that the company is either in a wait-and-see state or is now focusing all its resources on the 45 nm processor launch, which is scheduled for late 2007/early 2008. The “Penryn” core will end up in a range of new processors, including the desktop processors “Bloomfield” (quad-core, single-die), “Yorkfield” (8-core, dual-die) and Ridgefield (dual-core, single-die). AMD will not be able to match Intel’s 45 nm technology at least until mid-2008. Sources indicate that the Penryn core will bring a substantial improvement in processing performance.
At least from today’s view, AMD has an opportunity to make up lost ground and regain technology lead for at least six months in 2007. The open questions are how strong Intel’s Penryn will be and how AMD’s strategy to integrate ATI technology into its platforms will develop over the next 12 to 24 months.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Intel on the other hand …
The big news for the end of next year will be the first desktop processor product with four physical cores – although these are not going to be on a single die. Kentsfield is expected to hit the market in early or mid 2007.
At this point it is far too early to speculate about products that could be derived from the upcoming chip designs. The product brand, specifications and pricing are discussed as soon as the silicon can be mass produced; usually at least half a year prior to launching a product. The only fact we know for sure is that the Yonah Centrino processor generation will be named Core, replacing the Pentium M brand in many mobility segments. Yet we don’t believe that Intel is going to drop the elfish Pentium brand with the next generation micro architecture.
Then there is the obvious question of how Intel’s new technology is going to influence the current balance of power. We can’t say yet, because there are too many variables that need to be considered. Will AMD be able to take advantage of DDR2 memory? What is the performance difference between a monolithic multi core and others that are composed by distinct dies, especially when it comes to cross-die cache access? Will there be a clock speed penalty when moving to 45 nm and more cores?
Intel is going to focus on its reorientation towards a platform company, but it won’t be able to change the simple fact that performance decides over victory of defeat – whether you simply refer to processing speed by parallelism or clock speed, or you go for the increasingly important performance per Watt benchmark. One thing is for sure, though: The upcoming years will be all but boring.
But the main point I am trying to make is that either one of these will be great for gaming … you just choose the one that for whatever the reason you like better. That is a personal choice and one that must be respected instead of trying to convince a person to swap to the one you think is the best (or current benchmarks for that matter). Like I said I personally love AMD CPUs and they have been great for me so I will stick to that brand unless they really screw up down the line. But of course feel free to stay with Intel … it’s definitely not a bad choice by a longshot.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Hahah, we’re on two threads here
I’m always interested in how the brands are competing, and yeah, it never gets boring. I’m not staying with Intel either, I’m switching to AMD as soon as it’s a better option than staying with Intel.
Socket 1207 should be very interesting too, but why would they bring out AM3 if Socket 1207 will be better anyway? I guess it’ll be like 754 and 939 again.
I’ll have to read up about this a bit more.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Nrg753, alltogether i probably paid 1,100$ for comp, card and extra gig of ram. I bought everything but the ram on Ebay……..great deal i got on the xps.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:09 am
anyone hear any more news about quad sli and quad core cpu’s?
for the quad sli, they need to make it 4 geforce 8800’s
even though you wont need that much power, its still nice to have it
and about the quad core cpu’s
is amd going to do it too?
December 10th, 2006 at 4:57 am
look above … I posted a huge amount of info on AMDs “true” quad and beyond plans … currently they are rolling out 4×4 technology:
“AMD revealed more details on their 4×4 platform, including the fact that 4×4 CPUs would be sold under the high-end FX brand, and that 4×4 CPUs would be sold in pairs, with kits starting “well under $1,000
December 10th, 2006 at 6:25 am
these are the specs on my machine.. how do u guys think crysis will run…
AMD Athlon FX-55 @ 3.0 GHZ
2 x 512MB OCZ Premier RAM
2 x 512MB Ultra Performance RAM
XFX Nvidia 7900 GTX
and a shit load of hard drive space..
ajd
December 10th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Looks to me that it will very well on Medium settings with some things turned up high. Get a multi or dual core CPU and a DirectX10 card and then you’ll be able to run the game on it’s maximum settings. You may need to go to 4 Gigs of RAM but to be honest I doubt you’ll need that much as long as you have the other hardware and a fast (10K rpm) hard drive. Of course it wouldn’t hurt you to invest in an SLI setup if you are able to do so. Maybe even a PPU card.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:32 am
how about this setup..
AMD Athlon 64 4000
2 x 512MB OCZ Premier RAM
2 x 512MB Ultra Performance RAM
XFX Nvidia 7900 GTX
and a shit load of hard drive space..
ajd
December 10th, 2006 at 6:36 am
Not to shabby … still I see your processor and GPU as bottlenecks to run this baby full blown.
“Features
There are a lot of new features introduced with the AMD 64 series. But other than the larger L2 cache, the 4000+ has nothing more to offer over all the other 64-bit processors”
it’s not dual or multi core.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:39 am
- Specifications
CPU Name AMD Athlon 64 4000+
Codename ClawHammer
CPU Core Frequency 2.40GHz (12×200 multiplier)
Built-In antivirus support(SP2 required) Yes
Simultaneous 32- & 64-bit computing Yes
L1 Cache (Instruction + Data) 128KB (64KB + 64KB)
L2 Cache 1024KB
HyperTransport Yes, one 16×16 link @ 2000 MHz
HyperTransport I/O Bandwidth Up to 8 GB/s
Integrated DDR Memory Controller Yes
Memory Controller Width 128-bit
Memory Supported PC3200, PC2700, PC2100 and PC1600 DDR unbuffered memory
Memory Bandwidth Up to 6.4 GB/s
Total Processor-to-system Bandwidth (HTT plus memory bandwidth) Up to 14.4 GB/s
Process Technology 0.13µ, Strained Silicon-on-insulator technology
Packaging 939-pin organic micro PGA
Thermal Design Power 89W
Die Size 144 mm2
Number of Transistors Approximately 68.5 million
December 10th, 2006 at 11:42 am
sick of dis shit about poeple can ma pc take crysis yes it will u just need dual core over and a good card like ATI X1800XTX OR GEFORCE 7800GTX to run it good i was readin that crysis mite head to xbox 360 thats wat 1 of the maiun devolpers said , he said it wont be hard to convert it, asak the same graphics on pc to x360 and i dont find crysis 1 of da best lookin games ive played gears of war and its da best game they r using da best engine unreal engine 3 and the bigest game of all comin out HALO 3
December 10th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
That’s just funny, CryEngine 2 eats Unreal Engine 3. Have you even seen the screenshots? Seriously, check out the ones where they compare it with real life.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
I don’t agree with that … at all. Maybe the water is better but to me that’s it. Wait until UT2K7 and some more UE3 based games get here … it’s not all about one game in one or two settings .. it’s about the power and flexibility of the engine across all types of different backgrounds, lighting, physics, foliage, character models, Enemy AI (which we’ve just barely seen with Gears), Bot AI (which CE2 does not have), Vehicles, weapons, and development tools … and there is just no equal to UE3 at the moment. But I’m not here to even argue this as a person who is studying the UE3 engine and will be modding UT2K7. You think CE2 is better … we’ll see how many people adopt it and how many games come out using that engine in all types of different genres and environment settings. CE2 can’t even handle the Alan Wake remedy engine … but don’t get me wrong it is still extremely impressive and definitely in the top 5 of engines. Sorry but all the way around CE2 just can’t compete with UE3. If it could there would be more than just one game coming out that is based around it.
But to each his own and every opinion matters in some way.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Here’s a thread I posted at Gaming Steve:
http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=7374.0
Technologically, it surpasses UE3, I mean come on, it’s a DX10 engine. But I do agree with the fact that more developers will pick up UE3. CE1 was much better than UE2, yet only 1 developer used the engine.. I think they seem to go for engines that are more popular.
Comparing CE2 and Remedy will be intersting, if one beats the other, it probably wont be by much.
December 10th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
UE3 will be able to take advantage of DX10 as well as Multi not just dual cores … it scales much much better than CE2 as well. Again overall there is no contest in my eyes and in the eyes of most game developers … and of course you have to realize that because the engine is so flexible they will most definitely have a UE3.X engine very soon … that will eat CE2 … but of course I admit I have a strong bias. Remember the 360 uses some DX10 APIs and Epic recently said they have discovered ways to get even more out of the 360. Anyway like I said I will wait until I see both of the FINISHED products … but about CE1 being much better than UE2.X … I won’t agree there either … again it’s not about just looking good in one or two evironments (which was about it for FarCry … the models looked like crap to be honest) it’s about flexibility … not to mention the fact that CE1 came after UE2.X so there were things they did to compete with the Doom3 engine and the Source engine … all of which were finished many months after UE2.x was and after certain technologies were more stable and ready to be used in a gaming environment.
Plus don’t forget about SpeedTree and this:
Unreal Engine 3 Gains FaceFX Support –
Also, you can’t really declare Crysis a DX10 game because the minimum requirement is a DX9 card.
Both CE2 and UE3 are actually DX9 engines with the exception of CryENGINE 2 having a DX10 mode. And again Epic will be able to build in special hooks to take advantage of DX10 … the engine is as modular and pliable as it is for a reason. Just as there was UE2, UE2.5, and UE2.X there will be more than one UE3.
So how long are we going to go round on this before we realize the futility of this whole argument until actual PC based products are available?
December 10th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
And this is not a popularity contest for developers … it’s about being able to develop easier and have games that scale better and tools that can be grasped fairly quickly as well as flexibility of genres. UE3 will be used in FPS, already used in TPS (Gears), RPGs, Action/Adventure, and more down the line so that is really why devs like it … it has unparalled flexibility while still delivering mind blowing visuals or haven’t you seen some of the levels that will be in some of the upcoming UE3 powered games including UT2K7?
December 10th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Okay here is the article (important excerpts)I was searching for … read it thoroughly before you reply please.
Tim Sweeney Q&A
As great as DirectX 10 looks on paper, it’s ultimately up to the game developers to really take advantage of the API’s new features. To get some perspective on DX10 from the developers’ perspective, we turned to Tim Sweeney, one of the founders of Epic Games and technology director on Unreal Engine 3.
FiringSquad: As a game developer who is used to working on the cutting edge, which new features in DirectX 10 excite you the most?
Tim Sweeney: I see DirectX 10’s support for virtualized video memory and multitasking as the most exciting and forward-looking features. Though they’re under-the-covers improvements, they’ll help a great deal to bring graphics into the mainstream and increase the visual detail available in future games.
FiringSquad: Is there anything in DirectX 10 that you couldn’t do in DirectX 9.0?
Tim Sweeney: Realistically, DirectX 10 doesn’t introduce fundamentally new capabilities, but brings many new features that will enable developers to optimize games more thoroughly and thus deliver incrementally better visuals and better frame rates.
If you look at the long-term graphics roadmap, there have only been a few points where we’ve gained fundamentally new capabilities. The most visible was the move from DirectX 6, 7 and 8, which in practice were fixed-function, 8-bit rendering APIs, to DirectX 9 with programmable shaders and support for high-precision arithmetic. Most of the in-between steps have brought welcome but incremental improvements, and DirectX 10 falls into that category.
From here on, there is really only one major step remaining in the evolution of graphics hardware, and that’s the eventual unification of CPU and GPU architectures into uniform hardware capable of supporting both efficiently. After that, the next 20 years of evolution in computing will just bring additional performance.
FiringSquad: A lot has been made about the speed boost DirectX 10 will bring over DX9. In part due to the new driver model and in part due to other efficiencies. In your position you get to work with the latest hardware – can you tell us without violating any NDAs if these speedups are realistic or not? Will we really see a 6X increase in games or is this all theoretical?
Tim Sweeney: We don’t have hard data yet, but it looks like there’s potential to reduce the CPU cost of submitting rendering by a factor of 2-4. Since DirectX9 games are often CPU-limited, this should lead to significant visible improvements in frame rate.
More important, this lower overhead will enable us to render more objects per frame and increase the visual complexity of scenes in a more organic way than simply adding more polygons to existing objects.
FiringSquad: Based on what you’ve seen with DirectX 10, do you think it will be easier for game developers to program for than DirectX 9 was? If yes, which features really stand out?
Tim Sweeney: You can’t really use the word “easier” in conjunction with supporting DirectX 10. Because it’s only available on Windows Vista and not XP, all developers who support it will have to continue supporting DirectX9, and henceforth maintain two versions of the rendering code in their engine. It’s worth doing this, and we’re doing it for Unreal Engine 3. But, far from making our lives easier, it brings a considerable amount of additional development cost and overhead to PC game development,
Tim Sweeney: Unreal Engine 3 will make full use of DirectX 10, and many of our and our partners’ games will ship in 2007 with full support for DirectX 10 and Windows Vista. But, despite the marketing hype, DirectX 10 isn’t all that different from DirectX 9, so you’ll mainly see performance benefits on DirectX 10 rather than striking visual differences.
FiringSquad: What are some of the things you would have liked to have seen Microsoft add to DirectX 10 that aren’t in there currently?
Tim Sweeney: Microsoft made the right key decisions in developing DirectX 10. They invested heavily in a couple of bold operating-system-wide initiatives, including video memory virtualization and support for preemption, and introduced many welcome incremental improvements.
Ultimately, the DirectX 10 feature set resulted from about 7 years of discussion with key game developers. A lot of major ideas were proposed, including a multi-year effort by John Carmack to lobby for video memory virtualization. The features that didn’t make it into DirectX 10 either weren’t particularly beneficial, or clearly weren’t practical for this timeframe.
FiringSquad: We know that the first games that are capable of taking advantage of some of DX10’s features will ship next year. But how long do you think it will take before games require DirectX 10? When should gamers really care about this new API, when will it really begin to affect them?
Tim Sweeney: Requiring DirectX 10 is tantamount to requiring Windows Vista, and we have a lot of historical data we can use as a guide to such transitions. 2006 is the first year where it became economical for developers to ship games that don’t support Windows 98 and Windows ME, which implies that an operating system has a 6-year lifespan.
Vista will ship in 2007, so mainstream games that require it should start appearing in 2012 or 2013. So much can happen in that kind of time period that we ought not even consider it.
DirectX 10 is a good and solid step forward for graphics, but it’s very much an evolutionary thing, and for a game shipping holiday 2007, DirectX10 will represent maybe 10% of a typical game’s customer base, say 35% Xbox 360, 35% PC, 30% PS3 (which will still be ramping up then), with one-third of the PC owners having new computers running Windows Vista with DirectX10 GPUs, and the other two-thirds either running XP or running Vista on DirectX9 hardware. I want to point this out in advance, since the marketing around DirectX 10 exceeds the (good but not revolutionary) reality.
However, the DX10 screenshot is a little misleading, as technically DX9 is fully capable of rendering everything seen in the DX10 shot with a few extra passes. Basically the frame rate would be slower under DX9 (by how much is unknown at this point), but that’s about it. In a lot of ways, this reminds us of the first batch of shader model 3.0 screenshots that went out a few years back with Far Cry. We all saw how that one played out – early on shader model 3.0 was mainly used for performance gains, not improving graphics.
Epic’s Tim Sweeney basically said as much on the previous page: “But, despite the marketing hype, DirectX 10 isn’t all that different from DirectX 9, so you’ll mainly see performance benefits on DirectX 10 rather than striking visual differences.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Read the article I just posted above you my friend. Crysis is still in development so how can you compare the two? That is not logical in my mind. That was just a starting point. When Crysis comes out then look around at the UE3 titles that are available and then while NO ONE is bothering to do anything else with the CE2 watch Epic go beyond what even Crysis has to offer … again it is the entire package … and as far as how it plays … c’mon you should know that UE3 is a far more scalable and better performing engine than CE2 … Tim Sweeney can’t be matched by anyone … not even John C.
But again I’m not going to get into a big argument about this … I’ll just wait for showtime. But let me ask you this … if Crysis and Gears had been released at the same time do you really think it would have matched it in everyway or just done a few things (like the water) better? And remember Crysis has been delayed yet again … probably because they know if they want to be called the best they have to be better than UT2K7 … and there is no way you can tell me the texturing and lighting work in CE2 is better than in UE3. Plus the character models are much better looking. Of course this is just my opinion but we’ll know in about 5 months.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Plus you have to remember what will drive UE3 way past CE2 are the gamers themselves … gamers who want to mod and that is where a ton of creativity comes from in the UT community. You really need to do research on just how many gamers got UT2K4 just to mod .. and my goodness you can’t even begin to count the number of mods and mutators models, skins, levels, weapons, vehicles, gametypes, etc. that have been created by users. That speaks volumes about what gamers want and there is just no other game that can come close to the amount of user-created content you will find in UT2K4 and eventually in UT2K7.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
How can you not judge a game by what engine it runs on? I don’t get that at all.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Actually you can’t judge a game by its engine because all games have their improvments to the engine. Look at COD2 and COD3, that’s the Quake 3 engine, but they have upgraded it to run with DX9 effects, and look at SC:DA, that’s Unreal Engine 2, and it looks just as good as UE3. So you can only ever judge a game graphically by how it looks on it’s own. Oblivion uses the same engine as Morrowind, only it’s built up and customized to have vast view distances, and nice DX9 effects. They also used Speedtree and Havok as middleware.
As for modding and selling CE2, that will all depend on how soon they make Crysis have the ability to make TC mods, and how well they can advertise their engine to developers. They didn’t really do a good job with Far Cry.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Well I don’t agree with that … of course you judge a game by what engine it uses … so what if it is upgraded … the core set of APIs is the same and it dictates just about everything you see on screen. It is then up to the developer to get the most out of the engine … if they don’t get that much from it is not the fault of the engine but rather that of the developer. A good example is Namco killing of F*CKed … or as you know it Frame City Killer. They just didn’t have the talent to do ANYTHING with the UE3 engine .. whereas look at Mass Effect, Bioshock, Gears (though I don’t like the game itself), Stranglehold, etc. etc. and again more is coming and with each one the devs know a bit more on how to continue to push it and make things visually even more compelling. The only one who is pushing CE2 is Crytek so really how far can they alone go … be honest. But look your DX10 argument got blown, your engine argument falls short of logic, and what really is going to determine if devs pick up CE2 is the tools available and so far no other devs or companies have been impressed with that aspect of the engine which seriously undermines it’s ability to make inroads into other areas. Just look at what happened to the Doom3 and Source Engine … even my team looked into using them and we determined for the headaches and hassles associated with developing under those engines it wasn’t worth it. You can’t honestly think all these companies choosing to work with UE3 have unintelligent devs … quite the opposite, many have the best and brightest and if they are leading the way in UE3 dev and really excited about all the possibilites it allows for then how you can honestly argue that. Again UE3 is posed to be the best engine for a long time coming … Sweeney is NEVER to be underestimated. It’s Epic who started the real graphics revolution anyway with GOTY UT99 and they will never surrender that title of having the best overall graphics and models to anyone.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
BTW SC:DA does not in anyway look as good as UE3 … the lighting and shading and facial detail and even general texturing is no where near that level of quality. Let’s not get carried away. And what is this:
“As for modding and selling CE2, that will all depend on how soon they make Crysis have the ability to make TC mods, and how well they can advertise their engine to developers.”
Man that race is already over … or haven’t you noticed. CE2 has had enough time to gather support from devs … it didn’t take all that long from the time UE3 was first shown back at the GDC 2004 to immediately have companies start signing up and let me remind you that CE2 is MUCH further along than UE3 was at the point where Devs had already pretty much been blown away not only by the visuals but the ease of development. I was there at that demo and I can tell you people were amazed at how easy it is to prototype almost your entire game and then get to work on it.
And as far as modding … UScript and Kimset just can’t be matched. Again I mod and have looked at most engines and CE2 just doesn’t have these things. It is very complex to mod for much like Doom3 and Source. Sure people will do it but the numbers won’t even be in the same galaxy as they will for modded UE3 games like UT2K7 to be very specific.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
lol, look I totally agree with you about engine development. But as far as realistic graphics go, I haven’t *yet* seen anything much on UE3 that comes close to anything I’ve seen on CE2.
There is Unreal Engine 4 you know, and I’m sure that will blow us all away.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Look it breaks down to this … there is only CE2 based game so they can work on it forever … they don’t have to have the engine even fully completed since they are not licensing it to anyone. They can also take all the time they want to make it look better than games using the UE3 engine presently that are ALREADY shipping or slated to ship ahead of Crysis. Everytime they … Crytek … sees a UE3 based game they can just further delay the game to make it better and better but at some point it will have to be released.
So let’s wait until it is actually released … whenever that may be and then let’s look at the competition. If it clearly better I will be the first to admit it … but I just can’t see this happening since once it comes out Epic or whoever can always push UE3 even more if that is necessary.
Beyond that we may as well end on this note: Both engines are technological wonders and games made on either of them are going to be amazing. Also remember realism is as much of an artistic style as it is of showing off what the console can do … look at Mass Effect. Gears wasn’t going for a totally realistic look but look at a game like Mass Effect and imagine what that will be like by the time that game comes out.
December 10th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Arrghh forget to add that talking about UE4 is really pointless we are so far away from that and the focus for Epic is definitely UE3 and getting the most out of that engine .. which will mean that the more they work with it on certain platforms it will only get better. Maybe CE3 will match up well but that is also very far away. Just stick to what is out there for now.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Mass Effect is awesome, it’s probably the game I’m most looking forward to, and so far even more than Crysis. Yeah it has the best graphics seen on UE3, it still doesn’t stand up to Crysis though.
Have you seen this? http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled1fd4.jpg
They use Sub-Surface Scattering technology to make the skin and it’s lighting look heaps more realistic.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Because they have yet to show any tools and at this stage in their use of the engine tools should have been shown by now. Again remember Epic’s tools are what blew many devs away over two years ago. By now if they aren’t showing us modders how easy it is going to be to mod then that means it just isn’t going to match the tools of UE3. This has been shown throughout the last 4 years with many different engines and again is the principle reason why so many modders and devs have chosen UE technology time and time again.
Also okay CE2 will get pushed .. but by who .. Crytek alone .. which is pretty much what it is looking like. Meanwhile there are hundreds of devs and many many development houses already working with UE3 and indeed they have already made some major strides …even beyond Gears. I already gave examples of the titles. When Crysis ships it will be the ONLY CE2 game around … and it won’t be able to hang in their with UE3 powered games. It does look better at the moment … in some instances … namely the Jungle environment … okay I give it that .. but texutures, animations, character facial, lighting definition, multi-environment settings other than two or three different settings … there is just no competition because if there was you can bet others would have jumped on their bandwagon since Graphics seem to be so important to this next-gen crowd.
But hey this has been a fun conversation. Let’s just say they are both amazing engines each with it’s own strengths and weaknesses and then let’s let the gamers (not modders who have already spoken) decide which one looks more incredible and which games they prefer to play. The lone CE2 game or the multitude of UE3 powered games.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Also Epic is known for pushing their engines and having multiple engine versions … like I said UE2 –> UE2.5 –> UE2X (Used for UC2) … what did Crytek (or anyone else for that matter) do with CE1?
Finally I will leave you with this:
Unreal Engine 2
The second version of the Unreal Engine got off to a rocky start with the mixed reviews for Unreal Tournament 2003. This generation saw the core code and rendering engine completely re-written and the new UnrealEd 3 integrated. It also integrated the Karma physics SDK, which powered the vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004. Many other engine elements were also updated, with improved and added support for the PlayStation 2 and the Xbox, respectively. A specialized version of UE2 called UE2X, which was used for Unreal Championship 2, features optimizations specific to the first-generation Xbox.
Unreal Engine 3
The third generation Unreal Engine was designed specifically for DirectX 9/10 PCs and next-generation consoles (currently the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3). Its (once again) rewritten renderer supports many advanced techniques including HDR, per-pixel lighting, and dynamic shadows, and builds upon the tools available in previous versions of the engine. Karma support was discontinued in favor of PhysX from Ageia,and additionally FaceFX is included to generate facial animations. Epic used this version of the engine for Gears of War and is using it for Unreal Tournament 2007.”
So really now I am done … whatever you feel now obviously cannot be changed and I respect that. We shall see though … if Crytek stops with the delays and gives us a product with that great new engine of theirs.
Due to aggressive licensing, this current iteration has garnered a great deal of support from several big licensees, including Sony and Electronic Arts. Speaking volumes for its extensibility, UE3 has seen adoption by many non-gaming projects including construction simulation and design, training simulation, driving simulation, virtual reality shopping malls, movie storyboards, continuity, pre-visual, etc., in spite of the fact that the toolset and source code is meant for games.”
December 10th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Oops … that was supposed to be at the end not in the middle.
“So really now I am done … whatever you feel now obviously cannot be changed and I respect that. We shall see though … if Crytek stops with the delays and gives us a product with that great new engine of theirs.” Ignore this above. I interrupted the main issue.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Had to add this for my PC expert pal … NRG:
“Unreal Engine 4
Mark Rein, the vice-president of Epic Games, revealed on August 18, 2005 that Unreal Engine 4 had been in development over the past two years. The engine targets PCs, then the next generation of consoles after. the seventh generation The only person to work on the engine so far is Tim Sweeney, technical director at Epic; however, at the 2006 GDC, Sweeney stated that development will not begin in earnest on the next version until some time in 2008, as UE3 is intended to be sustainable until 2010.”
This shows Epic is always thinking ahead … I can’t wait for UE4.
December 10th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
“Have you seen this? http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled1fd4.jpg
They use Sub-Surface Scattering technology to make the skin and it’s lighting look heaps more realistic.
Nice pic … I can’t deny it looks great … however, let’s see if they can make that work in game at an acceptable frame rate without requiring people to spend 10K on a system because if they can’t then they fail outright. C’mon … you know that. It has to be usable by the masses to be a credible technology … if not then so what. But again I will see if you need a quad core with dual 8800s or equivalent to achieve that and if you will get over 20fps … You don’t think Epic analyzed issues like that? You know they did and a trade off had to be made … maybe that’s why no one else wants that engine and why they are having such difficulty getting it out on time. Let’s see if that technology actually makes it into the game … I’ll be very impressed if they can pull that off but since I don’t see any other developers saying how great it is something strikes me as peculiar.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Absolutely, Epic is thinking ahead, or at least they’re the only ones who make that public. Thats some great info there, I read through the whole lot.
“Also Epic is known for pushing their engines and having multiple engine versions … like I said UE2 –> UE2.5 –> UE2X (Used for UC2) … what did Crytek (or anyone else for that matter) do with CE1?”
Crytek actually did quite amazing things with CE1, they actually upgraded it for things like 64 bit, HDR and SM3.0, and released patches for Far Cry so it would support them.
“Nice pic … I can’t deny it looks great … however, let’s see if they can make that work in game at an acceptable frame rate without requiring people to spend 10K on a system because if they can’t then they fail outright. C’mon … you know that. It has to be usable by the masses to be a credible technology … if not then so what. But again I will see if you need a quad core with dual 8800s or equivalent to achieve that and if you will get over 20fps … You don’t think Epic analyzed issues like that? You know they did and a trade off had to be made … maybe that’s why no one else wants that engine and why they are having such difficulty getting it out on time. Let’s see if that technology actually makes it into the game … I’ll be very impressed if they can pull that off but since I don’t see any other developers saying how great it is something strikes me as peculiar.”
CryEngine 1 could be pushed back to lower end systems right down to a 1Ghz with a GeForce 2 and 256MB of RAM, it still ran fine. They optimize their engines like anything. It was amazing how you could run it on maximum with a 9600XT. They said themselves that they were running Crysis on a single 7800GTX with all the settings maxed out, and it was running smoothly. A DX10 card would only be smoother. They would also upgrade their engine a bit afterwards, in the same fashion they did with Far Cry.
Another thing is that there are more people working at Crytek than Epic. Epic has 83 people employed, which apparently is split up into 2 teams, and Crytek has 135 people, and the only game we know about that they’re working on is Crysis, so most would be working on that. They don’t work on the Far Cry franchise anymore, Ubisoft does that.
Anyway, I do agree that UE3 could eventually look better than CE2, that’s if Crytek don’t get their act together and get a few deals going with other developers.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:21 am
You know what Anuban, I’m sure there’s some people that are really enjoying reading our conversations lol. It’s great to have intelligent discussions about things like this, as long as they don’t start getting personal
.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:13 am
Cool … I’ll never let things get personal again. Basically I said all I have to say on the matter … CE1 did those things you mention true but really it never garnered any real support and the HDR was not all that good imo (I have that 7950 GX2 and I checked that out and was not all that impressed) … also it never was modded all that much … sure there are a few mods but compared to all the mod work done on the UE2 platform and what will be done on the UE3 platform it is miniscule and that is just the honest truth. At this point I’m going to bow out of this and just say I am in the UE3 camp … PERIOD.
And I don’t understand how more people working on something necessarily translates to having a better engine. Sorry but I feel that the Epic engine gurus are the smartest in the biz and they just don’t need as many people to do amazing work … that in and of itself shows the level of brilliance they have working there.
I’ll have to wait and see if CE2 delivers on all its promises (you are talking about how CE1 was optimized but that doesn’t matter since we are talking about a much more sophisticated engine which is attempting to leaps and bounds beyond what CE1 ever was able to do … and do you honestly believe everything you hear from the developers before seeing it in action, now I know you don’t so again we shall see about the performance when it hits the market and has to show itself in the real world, not some controlled lab environment) … UE3 already has with games that have shipped and are getting excellent reviews (even if I don’t agree with all of them).. get RoboBlitz for the PC for example which allows modding with the UE3 engine already, and start playing with Kismet and UScript and I guarantee you won’t look back.
I will say this has been a fun topic to discuss and it was good to talk to someone who has some sense and doesn’t go flying off the deep end when someone disagrees with what is being said. Peace on this topic man.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:38 am
Yeah, I agree with most of that, and I see that modding for UE3 would be a wiser choice. I would still like to see how they do on their second attempt with an engine though, we’ll see how they do. I heard LUA scripting was good, and Far Cry uses that.. I think the biggest reason for modding for HL2 and UT04 instead of a better engine like CE1 was that more people played and modded HL2 and UT04, and Far Cry wasn’t popular enough. They also took too long to bring out the SDK. I haven’t worked on a mod myself however, so I cant really say what it’s like or how hard it is to develop for either engines.
The point I was getting at with CE1, is that everyone thought they would need to upgrade like anything to run Far Cry, much like we’re doing with Crysis, but it turned out that the engine was very well optimized, and it ran smoothly on maximum, even with a Radeon 9550, I’ve seen it myself, so if CE1 was very well optimized, it’s most likely that CE2 will be too. When they said they were running it on a 7800GTX maxed out, they said “and it’s not even fully optmized yet”. But hey, we’ll see how it goes when it comes out.
As far as modding goes though, I really hope they do a better job with mod kits this time around, otherwise yep, everyone will be on UE3. Most will be anyway because of it’s popularity, availability, and most people already know UE2.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:42 am
Although I must say, that you cant really say one engines better than another, you’d just have to push one further and add more features. Just look what Infinity Ward did with Quake 3
.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:16 am
“Although I must say, that you cant really say one engines better than another, you’d just have to push one further and add more features.”
I don’t know about that … I think so far the Marketplace has determined which engine is better … but again we’ll see when an actual CE2 product ships and they make their development tools (including good solid Modding tools) available to the masses. So far neither of these things have happened.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:46 am
Yeah what it comes down to is UE3 was developed with several games in mind, and it seems CE2 has been developed with pretty much just Crysis in mind.
It’s the same as with the XBox 360 and the Playstation 3. The X360 had a years start and is easier to develop for, and PS3 is more powerful but harder to develop for and took too long to come out.
Although we don’t know what developing for CE2 is like. All we know is that they have a very nice easy to use map editor.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:55 am
Their map editor can’t come close to matching UED though .. just look at the number of maps for UT2K4 and you can clearly see that and now with Kismet it is even easier … that is why so many dev houses and modders are having multiple orgasms so to speak.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:50 am
Hey anuban can I run this game on my 10ghz itanium quad core with 8mb L2 cache per processor, 4 x 8800gtx’s (quad sli), 8gb of ddr2 corsair ram (which cost me like 2000), also i have a lian li case with blue leds and some cool fans and lighting. Do you reckon it will run? Thanks man!
December 11th, 2006 at 4:53 am
December 11th, 2006 at 5:06 am
You’re a good son. One day I will buy you a new computer.
December 11th, 2006 at 6:19 am
Nah you’ll need to get quad r700’s, twice as much RAM and a Thermaltake case, that Lian Li cant handle it.
About the unreal editor: I’ve tried that for myself once, and it was a hard program to get used to compared to the others I’ve tried. Perhaps now that I’ve started learning a fair bit of 3DS it would be easier. I’ll learn it some day, all it would take is a couple of tutorials. They also use UE2 at the AIE, so it’s inevitable
.
December 11th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Tell them to teach you UE3 now that it is out. Then you really will be able to work almost anyplace and name your price.
December 11th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Yeah we’ll see. Even if they teach me UE2, I’m a fast learner, so it wouldn’t be a problem.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Reckon I can max out on my new system that Im building in january? (I have already built part of it)
E6600 @ 3.5Ghz
NF 680i Asus Mobo
BFG 8800GTX @ 630/2000Mhz
Antec Gamer Case w/ 9 Fans
Seasonic 600W M-12 PSU
so can I max out – and is it true you can install mac OS on any ATX system now :S
December 19th, 2006 at 2:17 am
Nope, wont run on max, you’ll need dual quad core CPU’s and 4 r600’s.
http://www.osx86project.com
December 19th, 2006 at 2:18 am
http://www.osx86project.org actually
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Yeppy, well…. i got 1 gig ram but i was gonna upgrade that to 2 gigs anyway, and i got a XFX 7600GT so at a push (included upgrade ram) i meet recommended requirements (the computer cost 934.35 dollars(Bought on 17 DEC)
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:40 pm
http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=2
Observe. There is new information. It’s pleasing for those with low end system. Don’t expect for a second that will make it look awesome on your crappy crappy rig, though.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:15 pm
I’m still not getting this game but I will definitely upgrade my system for UT2K7 and Alan Wake. We’ll see in reality how well systems that are NOT multi core and don’t use at least a 7950 GX2 card (Okay now I am just kidding … really DX10 is the way to go) perform. I still think 2 GB of Ram will be fine … provided it is fast Ram … and I know people should be looking at getting a 10,000 rpm hard drive if they really want to up their frames.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:51 pm
hey ..I got a AMD 3500+…2gb of ram .. and a 7600Gt..i will play with low/mid/high graphics >.
December 22nd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
hey ..I got a AMD 3500+…2gb of ram .. and a 7600Gt..i will play with low/mid/high graphics ?
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
More than likely BuZe you will be in the low and mid arena with that hardware setup.
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:23 am
Anuban, I could be wrong, but the only way I can see that RPM on a HDD could affect frame rate in a game, is if you didnt have much RAM and your memory was being stored in virtual memory on your HDD. It definitely affects loading times though.
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 am
Actually you are correct but when you want the absolute best performance you need fast loading times throughout a game and just having lots of RAM doesn’t guarantee that … I can definitely attest to that. All the people who get the best 3DMark scores and who have the absolute best overall fps usually have at a minimum one HD that is 10K rated. Some actually have true RAID storage capabilities.
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:03 am
Yeah 3D Mark tests loading times too. An array of striped RAID-0 10k hard drives would have incredibly fast loading times and would could a lot towards their 3D Mark score. Their in-game frame rate wouldn’t be hardly different though. It would only make some difference in games like Oblivion. In the world, the game is constantly loading things from the HDD, so having a faster HDD would cause less frame rate drops when loading things. But with most games, the frame rate would be hardly different, as everything, or almost everything, runs in the RAM once the level has loaded (given you had enough RAM).
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:08 am
I got a 7900GT, 1GB ram and an Athlon FX 60. I have no plans of upgrading for another year, and i’ll have to run Crysis as best as I can. Perhaps I can get a bit more by overclocking the system.
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:47 am
Getting an extra 1GB of RAM would make a large difference. The rest of your system should run it fine.
December 23rd, 2006 at 2:05 am
Yeah I though of that, might upgrade to DDR 800 at the same time.
December 23rd, 2006 at 4:58 am
Sounds like a good system to me Jim2K … isn’t the FX-60 the last of the non dual core FX models or is it the first of the dual core cpus from AMD? Either way I’d definitely upgrade the GPU and memory if you want to run things in the mid to high range areas. If you get a dual core and a DX10 GPU (or a 7950 GX2) and add more fast RAM you would definitely be able to run most things at their maximum setting.
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:10 am
He said himself he has no upgrade plans, and I think a 7900GS will do just fine, given that he upgrades his RAM, it may be able to handle it on maximum DX9 with no AA/AF.
. Far Cry ran on maximum with a 9550, which was amazing, and relatively speaking a 7900GT is more now than what a 9550 was back then. Imo, I think he’s pretty safe with that card.
It’s incredibly graphical yeah, but as Kizza and I were discussing earlier, the performance depends on how well they write their engine, and Crytek has shown they can write pretty damn optimized engines
It’ll be interesting to see how the game runs when it’s released.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:05 am
I reserve the right to disagree. But it’s all good man.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:16 am
Of course you do, but what’s to disagree with? There’s no telling how it will run on anyone’s system until it’s out. There’s only guessing.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:26 am
I just knew you couldn’t resist saying something … obviously I disagree about the GPU … but like I said before … it’s cool man.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:34 am
Well who knows, I know I could be wrong, who can be right, but that’s my best guess from what I’ve studied. I actually meant his 7900GT, not a GS. The 7900GT is a very nice card, it’s faster than a 7800GTX.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:36 am
You’ve gotta remember, also, that good ole Michael Khaimzon told us he was running it all on high with a 7800GTX. He didn’t seem too sure, but I guess he’s the one with the task of making the game look good
It’s all up in the air at the moment, so I wouldn’t agree or disagree with either of you where the 7900GT is concerned.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:37 am
Actually wait a second, I’m wrong about the 7900GT, I just read a bechmark, it’s about equivalent of two 6800’s.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:41 am
“You’ve gotta remember, also, that good ole Michael Khaimzon told us he was running it all on high with a 7800GTX.”
Yeah, and he also said at the same time that it wasn’t even optimized yet. I believe people will be surprised at it’s performance in the same way we were surprised at Far Cry’s performance.
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:59 am
Really? I remember reading interviews saying Far Cry was optimized poorly, if it could be considered optimisation.
And you’re right about that. He did. I think people being pressured to upgrade from the last generation, and even 2 generations ago is absolute foolishness. There shouldn’t be this much pressure to upgrade, as you won’t need a DX10 system, at all. The game should look ace even on a 6800. Let alone a 7900GT which will kick ass, absolutely.
Perhaps because of games like FEAR and Oblivion requiring pretty high system requirements, and guzzling your gear’s output.
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:11 am
It was very optimized, I’ve ran it on a pretty large variety of systems myself.
I think the reason why people said it wasn’t that optimized was actually because the FX series was out at the time, which in many peoples opinion, including mine, were nVidias worst line of graphics cards. I had an FX 5900XTX, which I regretted buying, I should have got a 9800Pro, which didn’t cost much more.
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:19 am
Agreed. But that isn’t my general point of view. I just read that somewhere. I can’t back it up.
Just because it scales very well doesn’t mean it’s optimised.
December 23rd, 2006 at 7:24 am
yeah, well my old man runs it on maximum with a mere:
AMD 3000+
1GB of RAM (was 512MB before)
9550 with 128MB
Which really impresses me.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I’m getting much too much speculation about CRYSIS…I’m also reading that there’s a lot of people with 7900GT hardware and are worried about the performance the game can have. I too own a 7900GT and I’m not worried at all because it is such a good video card. I don’t think that spending 600$ for just one game is a very good idea. Stick to your current hardware and wait until more games with direct10X become a reality. Besides the first cards of a certain generation (cough! 8800 GTS, 8800GTX cough!)are not the best for that generation. Clocks will get higher, power will increase in the course of time. So to the owners of 7900GT’s … DON’T UPGRADE YOUR VIDEO CARDS, YOU HAVE SUCH A POWERFUL PIECE OF HARDWARE RIGHT THERE. I’m pretty confident that my AMD 3800+ X2, 2GB RAM will run the game fairly good
December 26th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Yeah, I’m not upgrading from my card until at *least* 3 good DX10 games come out, other wise I’ll just run them on DX9. It’ll still look brilliant.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I always upgrade my card and I don’t agree that the 8800 GTX is a waste of money … but do what is best for you … for me getting a DX10 GPU the moment I upgrade to Vista is my no. 1 priority. So you can run fairly good and if you are fine with that then cool. Me … I always like to be at or very near the top when it comes to the GPU … and I own a 7950 GX2 which blows the doors off of the 7900GT anyway and I still see the need to get a more powerful vid card when games like UT2K7 and Alan Wake arrive. But of course as I always say that is just my opinion. If people are satisfied with the performance of their 7900 cards then sure wait for the next generation of DX10 cards. But that is not what I am going to do.
December 27th, 2006 at 3:39 am
Yeah, I think as long as it runs at an acceptable framerate, and it looks awesome, there’s no need to upgrade. I have an x1950xtx at the moment, and there is no reason to get anything better for a long time. I’ll wait until there is a real need to get a DX10 card. Probably an r600 or the next thing nVidia throws out to compete with it.
December 27th, 2006 at 3:53 am
We shall see how long people can actually hold out once Vista and games that take full advantage of DX10 ship. But hey do what works for you is my motto.
December 28th, 2006 at 1:55 am
NRG753…I couldn’t agree more with you.
December 29th, 2006 at 3:09 am
WILL I BE ABLE TO PLAY?????
P 3 866 mghz
30 gig hardrive at 5200 rpm
128 mb SD ram, JUST UPGRADED TOO 256 MB SD!!!!!
integrated 32 mb intel graphics card
JUST UPDATED TO nvidia ti4200 128 mb agp 8x video card!!!!!
my motherboard is only 2x so the video card is wasted
the VIDEO card FRIED so im left with no video card!!!
will i be able to run this game???
December 29th, 2006 at 3:12 am
If what you are sauing is true NO WAY. But I suspect you are just kidding around. If not then you really need to look around at the other system specs posted on this thread.
December 29th, 2006 at 3:19 am
You really must be crazy, dude. That is one ancient ass computer. Get some cash together… $500AUD will do, and get a new computer, ASAP =|
December 29th, 2006 at 4:06 am
I did a quick quote, for $600 AUD you can get:
AMD 3200 AM2
AM2 Motherboard
1Gig DDR
7600 512MB
Which would run crysis decently on medium.
December 29th, 2006 at 4:13 am
I still say this guy is pulling your chains folks. No one could possibly think an outdated system like that could run Crysis on any setting. Good work on looking up just how much $600 bucks can buy you these days NRG. Heck I spent nearly that much on my 7950 GX2 when it first came out (not really because I traded my 7800 GXT to my tech shop guy for much less but you get my point).
December 29th, 2006 at 4:17 am
Is that USD? A 7950-GX2 costs upwards of $800 in AUD.. over here anyway..
December 29th, 2006 at 4:27 am
I always speak in terms of US dollars since I am from Cali man.
December 29th, 2006 at 4:35 am
heheh yeah, we should speak in MS Points or something so we all know what we’re talking about.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 am
my specs are as follows:
Intel Pentium D 3.4*2 (2mb L2)
1gb RAM dual channel
(128+384) MB Nvidia 7300LE
60 GB Free H.D.D. space
i’m running on windows vista Business & XP MCE… guess i wont need to upgrade for now
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:07 am
All I know is that I have DirectX 9.0 thats it. I don’t know anything about my new computer, cuz I just got it. Its an HP Pavilion a1632x. I’m gonna try to run the game anyway. Hope it works. I don’t really know much about computers.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
my system:
Intel P4EE-HT 3.8GHz 2 Mb L2
1 Gb RAM DDR2-533
Geforce 6600 430/610 Overclocked
160 GB hard disk 7200 rpm
i cam play crysis in low settings
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
hey , I got a new system ,
Amd 3500+
2gb ram
Gforce 7950GT (512mb)
I will play low/mid/ high graphics ? PLZ HELP ME
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
33BuZe, you’ll be able to play Crysis on high settings(although no Directx 10 graphics), but it would be better if you upgraded your processor.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Thx cheesemane
, i dont got money for a new cpu 
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 am
specs are:
pentium 3.8ghz
2gb Ram
Radeon x800xt 256mb pci express card
sound blaster audigy 2 zs
I think I should be ok for at least medium settings… Maybe a new card would be decent… anyone have any ideas for a good graphics card that won’t hurt my wallet much?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 am
The 7600’s are probably the best value for money, but I dont know how much better they would be than your x800xt, I’m guessing not heaps. Maybe you should get a low end x1800 or 7800.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 am
7900 GT and GS are far better value than any other card at the moment.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Here is the Q&A session you DX9 folks have been waiting for from Gamespot … and no there is no support for any PPU cards in Crysis and this explains why. In case this is not picked up by any of the authors here for whatever reason I am posting the interview here in its entirety. Enjoy.
Crysis Q&A – Graphics, DirectX, and Windows Vista
Crytek’s Cevat Yerli discusses what’s going under the hood in this graphically impressive PC shooter as well as how the game is shaping up for Direct3D 10 and Windows Vista.
While first-person shooters of yore were arcade-style games that put big guns in your hand and tasked you with dashing around various corridors from a first-person perspective, blasting everything that wasn’t you, times have changed. The kind of gameplay players have come to expect from these games has grown and developed, and technology has definitely advanced. For instance, consider Crysis, the impressive-looking shooter from Crytek and EA Games. This shooter will pack a powerful punch in terms of advanced graphical effects, especially since it’s being developed with Microsoft’s soon-to-be-released Direct3D 10 graphics environment (also known as DirectX 10) and the upcoming Windows Vista operating system in mind. Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli sat down with us to discuss the kind of technology we can expect to see in the game and how Crysis is being geared up for Vista.
GameSpot: Could you give us an update on the game’s development? What parts of the game is the team working on now?
Crysis will make use of advanced graphics technology to create dense and highly detailed outdoor environments like this one.
Cevat Yerli: We are nearing alpha status, which means full feature and content completion on the entire project, with a solid pass on balancing. That is valid for the single-player and multiplayer experience. We are very excited. Crysis is shaping up as we imagined it. Stay tuned, it’s almost there.
GS: Tell us about the special features in Direct3D 10 that Crysis will make use of. For instance, how, if at all, will the game make use of Shader Model 4.0? Where will we see instances of this new technology in the game–enhanced animated reflections on shiny surfaces, more-detailed textures, and so on?
CY: In general, we utilize the new interface of D3D10 to get better performance. We also use geometry shaders with texture arrays to accelerate shadow map and particle generation. We now can develop render algorithms easier because of the big guaranteed feature set of D3D10. For example, with DX9, the limited number of interpolators often prevented shader optimizations. There are many more useful features we want to utilize as well, such as texture lookups in vertex and geometry shader, stream out, and integer math. D3D10 hardware is now required to do high-quality texture filtering, which can result in better shading quality (such as specular effects or reflections).
GS: We understand that as part of Direct3D 10’s development, Microsoft has apparently made compliance requirements stiffer for graphics hardware manufacturers to have their new GPUs Direct3D 10-certified. How, if at all, have these increased requirements helped Crytek optimize the game for first-generation Direct3D 10 GPUs?
CY: It did not make a tangible difference for our development, really. We are used to working through these types of issues, but at the same time, certain simplifications for developers did not impact us too much.
GS: Tell us about how Crysis will continue to make the most of existing DirectX 9 hardware for users who can’t upgrade their computers in time for the game.
CY: If you have a high-end DX9 card with an equal level of CPU and memory–basically today’s “gamer rig”–you will enjoy Crysis with close-to-D3D10 fidelity. Don’t forget that for a long time, we ran the game only on DX9 hardware, even though people thought it was D3D10. You can be sure your high-end gamer rig will satisfy your expectations–but with D3D10, you will surpass them.
GS: Due to various scheduling and ship-date changes, Crysis is in a rather challenging position of being one of the first next-generation PC games to have to straddle the gulf between DirectX 9 and Direct3D 10 (and implicitly, the gap between Windows XP and Windows Vista). Aside from DirectX compliance, what are some of the other hurdles the team has faced, and how are they being addressed?
CY: That indeed is an annoying burden, but a necessary evil. It’s our job to satisfy our gamers. We had similar challenges in the past with DX8, 9, and with 32/64 bit, but this is a much larger step that we have to help bridge. But I am happy to say that we manage to push both to maximum capacity usage; we’re pushing quality in both [DirectX platform] directions.
GS: Since Crysis, Vista, and Direct3D 10 will all be launching in 2007, is Crytek banking on consumers having high-end PC hardware? Any plans, for instance, for Crysis to make specific use of other advanced consumer hardware features, such as dual-core processors or even physics processors?
CY: We have already implemented within CryEngine 2 our multicore technology, so out of the box Crysis does configure itself toward single-core, dual-core, quad-core, or multicore configurations alongside DX9, 10, XP, Vista, 32 bit, and 64 bit. We do not plan to use physics processors at this stage, though, since we did not see the direct beneficial impact in our software. Our in-house physics engine runs fast enough and spreads over multicore CPUs if needed to make Crysis a next-gen experience on that front.
GS: Is Crytek taking advantage of Microsoft’s XNA framework in developing the game? Since one of XNA’s most highly touted features is cross-platform compatibility, could working with the software open the door to console versions of the game?
The game is being optimized for both DirectX 9/XP and Direct3D 10/Vista setups.
CY: One particularly cool aspect we have been using recently is the unified input system, so you will be able to experience Crysis with the Xbox 360 controller on your living room TV attached to a high-end PC rig with D3D10. No console game will be able to stand in comparison against that.
GS: Finally, is there anything else you’d like to add about the technology that’s going into Crysis to prepare it for use with both DirectX 9 and Direct3D 10, as well as for Windows Vista?
CY: Yes. Our high-end DX9 and XP experience was meant to offer you all our goals in terms of a cinematic and realistic experience, with gameplay mechanics pushing choices and freedom to the maximum. I want to reemphasize this is still true. D3D10 is going to take that whole experience and help us exceed those initial goals.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Hmm, sometimes you hit send and it doesn’t send..
Anyway, that’s a great interview, have you seen the related video?
January 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Not just yet … but of course I will check it out very soon. I bet it is pretty awesome … it is getting harder to stick by my guns and say no to anything EA has something to do with thanks to this game. I bet a lot of people are in my same position.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Oh, you’re going to hate this video, then. It’s amazing.
The player scopes out the situation, before bounding about the houses, strategically picking off NK soldiers guarding the small village. First he takes out the sentry in a watch tower, then he runs around the other side, losing the NKs, before finally coming back to bound around a bit, then punching through a roof top to shoot an NK outside of the front window. Some very nice action, there.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I bet there are heaps of people who feel the same way about EA. Not enough to make any difference to EA though. I’m buying this game for Crytek, I don’t give a crap about the publisher
.
And I would really love to see that video at 1080p with a high bitrate… eh..
I’ll have to wait until it’s out.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hm, I think people who don’t follow this game don’t realize that Jake actually has a special suit which gives him all those special abilities.
January 6th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
You better not be referring to me
January 6th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
lol, geez I already know you’re an admin of incrysis!
I was referring to other people who watch the video and think “oh gee, that’s unrealistic jumping/speed/stregth”
January 6th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Yes I did just watch the video on youNewb.com and it was indeed incredible. I don’t see how I can honestly pass on this title (damn you EA for being smart enough to tie yourselves to this fantastic game). It does look that good and that much fun. And yes I also knew about the suit. And if you watch the video only an idiot wouldn’t get that he is wearing some sort of enhancement suit. Pretty cool idea but of course it has been done before in different ways but maybe not all in one. Remember the strength and jumping ability of Master Chief is augmented by his Armor and of course going faster than everyone else is achieved via adrenaline in F.E.A.R. and the time manipulation suit in Timeshift.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I can run this game in Ultra high
Striker Extreme, nVidia nForce680i
Geforce 8800 GTX SLI
Core 2 Quadro Model QX6700 (2.667GHz)
4 Gb Special Ops Edition OCZ
150 Gb raptor Gamer edition.2x 500 Maxtor
SoundBlaster X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS
1000 watt NorthQ Extreme Power
Z-5500 Digital, 5.1 System
January 7th, 2007 at 12:19 am
I’d agree with that.
Not exactly a new idea, but it’s done so very well, as you can see in that video. Bouncing on top of buildings, going stealth and punching through rooftops to hunt down your prey. I’ve never really seen anything play like that before, irregardless of whether players wearing suits is a new idea, or not.
January 7th, 2007 at 2:13 am
That system is amazing … I am green with envy. Wow. I need to upgrade to something like that.
January 7th, 2007 at 3:24 am
will i be able to play with this graphic card
intel media accelorator 3000
January 7th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Nope. I’m pretty sure if it doesn’t say ATi or Nvidia, you’ve done your luck.
January 7th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Yeah the new idea with the suit is the fact that they’ve put used ideas all into one suit. It’s pretty neat.
Also, I really doubt that video is on maximum, it does look awesome that’s for sure, I’d be happy with those settings, but I’ve seen better looking graphics from the game. I bet they were using FRAPS to record it, which would explain it not being on maximum quality, and the occasional frame drops I noticed. It takes a LOT of performance to record a game with FRAPS and have your computer rendering it at the same time. Best to run them on separate cores, but people mostly wouldn’t think of that..
January 7th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Can someon show me Pc Spec?
January 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I reckon ill be able to play it on high
E6600@3.2GHz w/ Tuniq Tower 120 (temps @35C with Orthos)
Nforce 680i Modded Mobo
X-Fi Fatality Sound Card
Trio of 8800’s (soon to be 8900’s with the step up program)
4Gb Corsair Dominator 9136 (1142Mhz Ram)
3x Seagate Cheetas (15k RPM each) in Raid 0
2x 750Gb Seagate Barracudas
1x External 500GB Disc w/ ESATA II connection
24″ widescreen monitor
January 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Wow… people are starting a fake system wars now. Just pretend you have a $5000 setup and people automatically envy you.
No one is stupid enough to get a system with those specs, even if they have unlimited amount of money to spend.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Yeah I rarely ever go for the extreme, the only thing I’ve ever got that was the best at the time was my x1950xtx. But it’s a complete waste of money getting something over $3000, I mean, how fast does price go down on the most expensive hardware! And anyway, for less than $2k, you still get an incredible PC that can play any game on maximum.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
i have 3.0 GHz 2L2cach and geforce 6600 i know that i will play the game but here some ppl think that the game wil be out on XBOX 360 and PS3 nop i don’t think so go to gamespot and read the last reviews u will know the game prouducer sayed that it will not come out on any consol but u can but ur pc neer the tv and get a good game pad and play the game
January 7th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
This is the stuff I was talking about at first folks … when I was complaining about the need to post specs in the first place. I knew the “Spec wars” would get out of hand … even if people aren’t making their specs up the point is why post such extreme specs when you know they will more than run the game and you are not doing anything but trying to make people feel badly about their current setup or envious about yours.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:11 am
No that was different, I never had the intention of making people feel envious, neither did ED or MasterX. We were simply comparing them. What we’re talking about now is whether upgrading to the very highest end of hardware is the right thing to do.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:09 am
That is not what I or Alex is talking about … I don’t think I agree with what you are saying but okay have it your way … obviously I let the issue go … but we see what is happening now … There was really no need for MasterX to post those specs and say he would be able to play the game on the highest settings except to brag … if you can’t see that then whatever. I don’t feel like getting into a big argument about this issue again … not this year.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Perhaps he was bragging, but you can’t make assumptions about people, everyone thinks differently. Several people on this thread who posted their specs were only comparing their specs to the requirements posted and wanted to judge how it would run. Yeah, some are high end, but it doesn’t have to mean they’re bragging.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:14 am
That system is more than just “high end” … it basically goes far beyond any requirements or anything that Crytek has so far put out there remember they have only been showing this on DX9 cards so far and not quad CPUs but dual core … read the interview again and you should see what I mean. But again I am off this topic … in actuality it makes no difference to me … I already know I both need to and want to upgrade when I get the cash. Peace.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Yeah, there is no need to get something that high-end. It’s the same reason why I don’t go for SLI/Crossfire, you may as well get one good card instead of several, because you only have to replace one card when it goes out of date.
You can play things on maximum for much cheaper than that, I mean there is no reason to get two 8800’s, it runs insanely nice with just 1!. Same with Quad Core, there is no need to upgrade until it gets cheaper, and there are games that need it to run smoothly.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Well well … good to see we can still find agreement on things.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:28 am
of course
January 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Sounds like you’re really nothing more than an Unreal/Epic fanbou Anuban, as detailed as your responses may be.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Sounds like you’re really nothing more than an Unreal/Epic fanboy Anuban, as detailed as your responses may be.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Well my name is Anuban isn’t it … but seriously if I was such a fnaboy would I have been making such a HUGE deal about how underwhelming (OVERALL) I feel Gears is? But yes I do think that they make the best middleware around … it is hard not to be fan of UE3 when you are a modder. Still tbh I wouldn’t say I am a fanboy I would say I just really like UT2K4 and hopefully UT2K7 will be as much for me to mod and play.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
stop fighting for your configurations
,,just wait for the game release,,,its gonna be awesome.The best FPS Shooter ever….
January 8th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
“it basically goes far beyond any requirements or anything that Crytek has so far put out there remember they have only been showing this on DX9 cards so far and not quad CPUs but dual core … read the interview again and you should see what I mean.”
Silly boy. We’ve seen plenty of Direct3D 10 powered footage, as well as screenshots. I can’t tell you whether we’ve seen it run on quad core, but that would probably only be a difference in performance. Crysis scales to single core, hyperthreading, dual core, quad core and multi core systems, out of the box. There is a point getting an ultra expensive D3D10 rig, just how much of a point is what should be up for debate.
I don’t think Crysis will need more than a high end C2D and an 8800GTX. Maybe just a tad more. Future proof for 1 and a half years is a risky claim for Crytek to make, these days.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“Silly Boy?” … Hey man I am trying hard to get along with people these days so please don’t show me that type of disrepect again … actually it’s not like we even get along at all so why am I even bothering to be civil with you … azzhole. And no we HAVE NOT seen plenty of DX10 video footage … none of the main footage is DX10 … if you have some links to some post them … otherwise go crawl back under the rock you came out from.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
This week we will FINALLY see some real DX10 footage I concede that:
“Microsoft will letting CES attendants get hands-on time with 15 PC games to show off how well they’ll be running on Direct 10x on the Vista platform. Among those 15 titles will be Crysis and Shadowrun”
And I think there is a clip on youNEWB that shows about 15 seconds on Vista but that is it as far as I know … if there is more substantial footage I would love to see it. But I am sure by the end of the week the majority of us will finally see at least 45 seconds of gameplay footage on Vista and that will be cool.
Please don’t purposely try and piss me off in the future Kizza … it doesn’t do anyone any good. Why not just avoid directing comments my way at all. That would be the best thing.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Anuban. Ahah, I’m really sorry as no disrespect was meant by that. For some reason I’ve said that a lot, lately. It’s not me who has been living under a rock, as I’m aware of a great portion of what goes on in the Crysis community, including and not limited to the release of media.
You said that like we didn’t have any footage running in DirectX 10. However, the 360 (not Xbox, a 360 degree projector) video was in Direct3D 10, as well as the G80 flyover, and the G80 multiplayer gameplay. The first Direct3D 10 video footage was shown on a GDC 2006 demo, I think. I’m not too good with when things were shown, so you’d best ask Doc, if you know where to find him.
http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_dx10_flyover_HD_1.zip
http://www4.incrysis.com/inCrysis_dot_com_e3_dx10_vid.zip
http://www3.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_dx10_demonstration.wmv
http://www3.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_dx10_gamespot_HD.zip
http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.wmv
Here’s some High Res videos. We have a bit more, I’m not sure if they’re quite the resolution you’d want to expect for a video showing Direct3D 10, but I hope it makes you happy. More Direct3D 10 footage is always nice, but it’s no excuse to say we’re finally going to get to see some. It’s right under your nose, already.
Why on this earth would I be trying to piss you off? I’m just letting you know that there is Direct3D 10 footage that you haven’t had the privilege to see. If anything, I think you should be thanking me, as I don’t believe you’ve seen any of this, as it’s quite substantial. I don’t think it’s very respectful to call me an arsehole and make the insinuation I’m a troll after I made quite a neutral comment. “Silly boy” does not justify an implication that I’m a troll, nor does it justify calling me an arsehole. I believe I’m doing you a favour.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:16 am
How much more annoying could that get? Those are extremely hefty high resolution videos… not right for streaming off the server. Ick.
http://www4.incrysis.com/incrysis_dot_com_crysis_gc_2006_360_trailer.xxx
http://www.incrysis.net/incrysis_dot_com_dx10_demonstration.xxx
Forgive my ignorance
To download the videos, replace the “xxx” extension with “wmv” in your browser. Be aware that these are quite large downloads, they take a while even on a high speed broadband connection.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Here’s a few new screens, also from InCrysis
http://www.incrysis.net/screenshots/070109-1.jpg
http://www.incrysis.net/screenshots/070109-2.jpg
http://www.incrysis.net/screenshots/070109-3.jpg
January 9th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Okay cool Kizza … maybe I did over react but it didn’t seem to me quite as innocent as you make it out to be and I was having a really bad day. Black American men don’t like being called boy AT ALL for obvious reasons … just so you know in the future and when you say something like that on the web it is hard to tell what you are trying to imply. And no I hadn’t seen any of the DX10 footage so that is good you attempted to provide me with proof which is all I ask when there is a disagreement that can be easily solved.
Although it’s not working though so there is no way for me to verify it yet. I just don’t get that if this was out why it wasn’t shown more or even mentioned in that interview. The interview made it seem as if there was no DX10 stuff around yet … when was this taken anyway? Recently or a while back?
From the interview: “Don’t forget that for a long time, we ran the game only on DX9 hardware, even though people thought it was D3D10.”
So to me that suggested they hadn’t done any vids with DX10. But if they did cool. I’ll check them up when the server is back up and see how much of a difference there is between the two. But that latest official gameplay vid is DX9 not DX10 is it not?
January 10th, 2007 at 1:53 am
It’s supposed to be DX10 footage, but to me it looks more like DX9. It looks like the game is on high, but not highest. It could be just the video, but some of the textures look like they could have more resolution, and the HDR is a bit over-done which from what I’ve seen doesn’t happen in DX10.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Supposed to be? Someone better get their facts straight … please before showing off video footage and declaring it is DX10 and not DX9 as the developers are leading me to believe from their interview. Is it in fact DX10 Kizza and if so where did you get that info that it definitely is?
January 10th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Hmm, also in other videos (and I think these were even DX9) the vegetation on the ground moved, but it’s just a simple texture in this video. You can see this when he’s prone, sniping the tower guard and the tire of the jeep.
It still looks beautiful despite all this though.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:02 am
I still haven’t been able to get access to those purported DX10 vids Kizza … what gives?
January 10th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Well perhaps this is DX10, but not on maximum, simply because the PC had to record the game with something such as FRAPS and render the game at the same time. The best video footage from crysis is where everything is obviously on maximum, and they must be using an awesome PC.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Here is the DX10 footage, I just looked for anything with G80 or DX10..
http://www3.incrysis.com/inCrysis_dot_com_first_DX10_Crysis_footage.zip
http://tinyurl.com/yz8urx (used this because it had a WMV extension)
http://tinyurl.com/yhdegn
January 10th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Maybe you are right but I still need to see it. And again I didn’t hear the devs talking it up at all … so it leads me to believe otherwise. If I saw something that had a PC booting up into Vista and then they showed the gameplay footage of Crysis I would believe it 100% … that is what I am looking for … some indisputable proof.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:10 am
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
I’ve posted the footage anyway
January 10th, 2007 at 2:14 am
I think comments are held in moderation if they contain a link (because of the darn spammers).
Back to topic: Just seen some screen og Crysis at GDC, could this thing look any more spectacular?
January 10th, 2007 at 2:18 am
On the inCrysis forums, Doc, who I’ve known since moderating the Far Cry forums, has posted comparison shots between DX9 and DX10. They’re not great quality, but they do show there is some difference between them.
The thread is titled “DX10 vs DX9 screenies”. I’ll post another message with the link, but it’ll have to be moderated
January 10th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Thanks Alex.
Here’s the link to the forums:
http://incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=1857
January 10th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Actually YES I forgot!! they must have shown the Crysis footage at GDC by now!
*logs on to GameSpot*
January 10th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Ok it looks like it’s showing live in less than 15 minutes. Apparently Crysis will have some stage performance.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:55 am
You mean CES don’t you … not the GDC which is a ways off … unless you are talking about last year and I don’t recall Crysis being shown off then, definitely not the DX10 stuff … I could be wrong but I don’t think so. I’ll take a look at those links soon.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Yeah I meant CES, just a habit.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:18 am
Well get that footage as well then … since that is surely on Vista/DX10 … it should be interesting to see how much better it is in all respects including fps. I am trying to keep a very open mind about all of this you know.
January 10th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Hey guys , U think I will play Crysis with low/mid/high graphics with my system : Amd 3500+
2GB ram
GeForce 7950GT (512Mb)
January 10th, 2007 at 4:05 am
Hey guys ,I will play Crysis with low/mid/high graphics with my system ?
Amd 3500+
2GB ram
GeForce 7950GT (512Mb)
January 10th, 2007 at 4:07 am
Yes BuZe, I think you can run Crysis. If you’re upgrading one thing though, I’d suggest getting a new CPU, a dual-core one if possible.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:06 am
My guess is High, but not Maximum, they say it runs well on a single core Machine.
I seen the footage from CES, and it is BY FAR the best footage I’ve seen from this game. I was simply amazed at it, I’ll have to get the HD version of it when they release it in an hour or so.. to me, even though it was only a 320×240 video with average bitrate, this looks like DirectX 10, and very likely on maximum. The lighting and shadows in the DirectX10 version seem more photo-realistic.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Cool … I’ll be looking forward to that footage … one question for you mr. harware expert … what is the best AMD dual core processor will I be able to upgrade my FX-57 cpu to without having to switch my current ASUS A8N-SLI Premium? I can do better than a 3800+ right?
And Buze with that GPU and CPU combo I am not so certain you will even be able to run the game in High … I think it will be a mixture of medium settings mostly and certain things on high depending on what resolution you go with. Maybe at 1024×768 res you will get more high settings but anything aboive that and I tend to doubt it unless you upgrade at least the CPU. Is the 7950GT a better gpu than the 7900GTX? Is it just below the 7950GX2?
January 10th, 2007 at 8:21 am
The ASUS A8N-SLI is a great motherboard, I’ve built a computer for a mate with one of those in it. But AMD is killing off 939 this year which is sad, 939 still has life. The best thing for you to do is find the best CPU you can get and be quick about it. I dont think you can do better than an FX-57 without overclocking. Although! The 4800 x2 may be slower, but being a Dual Core CPU, it could very well be faster than the FX-57 when applied to Dual Core optimized software.
As for the BuZe’s system, the reason why I said it could run on High, was because one of the Crytek devs had Crysis running at near-maximum on very similar specs. He also added the game hadn’t even been optimized yet.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Oh really … well maybe you are correct then about the High settings but that would really be amazing to me. It would mean I don’t even have to upgrade my system at all in order to run everything on high. I can live without maximum for now. In that case I can only hope you are correct. But there is nothing better I can get than a 4800+ … how about the FX-60 or FX-62 … or would I have to get a newer motherboard and different memory?
January 10th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Oh yeah are you sure they were using ONE 7950GT and not two (or more) 7900 GTX gpus or a 7950GX2 (or again a pair of those) gpus in their demos though?
January 10th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Yeah I’m sure the FX-60 and 62 are AM2 only. I know you are loyal to AMD, but if I had to upgrade everything right now, I’d definitely make a switch to Intel, or wait to see what AM3 or Socket F has to offer.
And yeah I’m sure it was a single GPU. The dev was explaining how it ran on his own computer. They would have used dual in the demos.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Is this latest DX10 demo on at least a dual core processor … and you are positive the demo we just saw … not the DX10 … the one right before that … was on a single core processor and not a dual core? Hmm that is where I would need to see some proof. How do you the dev doesn’t have a dual core system or am I misunderstanding what you are saying.
I could have sworn the FX-60 was 939 compatible … I will have to look that up … but yes I do remember now that the FX-62 was definitely NOT 939 compatible and did use different/faster RAM. Well in any event I think I will just go ahead and get a decently priced 4800+ then. I’m sure they are on sale or low priced someplace.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Forget what I just said about dual core CPUs in terms of the demo… we are talking about GPUs in this case not CPUs d’oh. Man this gets confusing sometimes. but you are certain that the dev wasn’t doing an SLI configuration because why?
January 10th, 2007 at 10:14 am
“Watching the incredible video of Crysis running in DX10 from a few months ago skepticism just naturally kicked in. It looked so good, and had so dramatic an impact that you couldn’t help but think that there was no way it could actually live up to what you were seeing.
Not only did playing it today in the Microsoft booth at CES confirm that it does, we learned that the video doesn’t do the experience of playing the game justice.”
That is from 1UP … so Kizza you are definitely correct in saying there was some DX10 footage around and what you have must be that footage … wow … I never heard this before now and I never saw any DX10 footage … oh well I was 100% incorrect on this one … sorry I was stubborn but usually I really keep with news of any major shooter … I just wonder how the heck I missed this.
Looks like I really may have to break down and just get this game. Damn it all … not Crytek of course but EA. Why oh why did they have to be involved in this game on any level?
January 10th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
With the devs machine, I meant his own personal machine at Crytek, not one of the ones used for the demos. It was too long ago to remember where it came from, but I’m sure if you hunt around the interviews you’d find it.
Anyway, when you get it, keep a permanant handy
That way you wont have to be reminded of it.
Also, go to the Crysis page on GameSpot, and download “Crysis CES 2007 Stage Demo”, you simply must see this!
January 10th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Oh yeah, *cough* you’ll also have to remove that EA.BIK file so you don’t get the EA video
January 10th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Oh I did the see the DX10 vids from the CES and they are definitely really something … the fps is really incredible … so smooth … I really think I will have to get this game afterall. All I can say is WOW!!! Best looking game I have ever seen aside from Alan Wake of course. Damn you EA … damn you to hell … you are going to get some more of my money afterall … will I ever be completely rid of you? Unfortunately as long as I continue to game probably not.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:01 am
BTW the footage you had on that one link that showed the DX10 was quite simply PURE OWNAGE … I was floored. Anyway the FX-60 IS 939 compatible and I am definitely going to get it (it has come down to $450 on newegg.com) and just keep my 7950GX2 … maybe OC the FX to 3.0 … we’ll see but I feel that I will be able to run Crysis near maximum (definitely everything on High) with that setup. Then later on I will get a DX10 card but atm $600 for a GPU is just a bit too steep for me. So no 8800 GTX in my future anytime soon … hell I haven’t upgraded to Vista Ultimate yet.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Humm… Interesting! Serveral months ago those specs read much differently and included OpenGL. In fact at a developers conference a video of Crysis running at twice the frame rate as the DX10 video was shown. Funny that the more advanced DX 10 with supposedly more advanced memory and resource management actually requires more memory and still runs at such a slow frame rate! Actually Vista itself can’t run games for sh*t with that fat hog Aeroglass and 50 million new services running. What do they do? Hide the extra junk processes and cr*p you can’t touch without GOD’s permission. Now!!! I just use Vista to laugh at on occasion and run my PC games on WinXP. Everything else I do on Beryl/OpenGL Linux “The Future is Now”. That totally obliterate the SP-FX on Vista Desktop any day of the Century!
Of course DX10 was and is still is being optimized er….. a…. re-optimized to compete with the newest OpenGL release! I know… I know… you don’t know about OpenGL or the fact that it is now under control of the Khronos Group (August ‘06). And…. under heavy development by every company in the world of Tech Corporations,… except Microselfish! Look at their contributor and member list. Everyone who hates MS and the proprietary cr*p they produce, is on it! Look at Moto’s newest Cell Phones (millions of other products too). What do they run??? ****LINUX****
What happened to Crysis’s……. “Only on Vista DX10 cr*p, MS was spouting”????? What happened to the “***Crysis***… “Wanted OpenGL and PS3 Developers Wanted”??? Why have they so secretly decided to include “OpenGL” support in the game coding???
The reason and final answer we do not know, but we can suspect that problems and delays in development of DX10 are part of the problem. Plus some money probably crossed palms for a timed exclusive, to prop up the launch of Vista DX10 (not enough to pay the cost of dev..ing on one platform though, that won’t have the peeps to buy it), because neither DX9 or DX10 are capable of running it with 128bit HDR and…. frame rate features included on cards like Nvidia’s 8800.
???Where is Waldo (DX10)???
Oh they have the 128bit HDR on DX10!!! (you say) But…. when you watched those videos, did you just so happen to notice the lag and extremely slow frame rate? Duh… No! Cuz they pulled the video of it running on OpenGL, that could have given you the contrast to judge it by. OpenGL 2.2 does support the 128bit HDR lighting and many other features of Nvidia’s 8800, BECAUSE…… they are on the Khronos board!!! Along with everyone else in the world, besides Microcr*p.
Interesting that way back in E3 2005 it was brought out that the PS3 RSX supports 128bit HDR lighting. How CAN that BE? It’s supposed to be just a 7800 chip only capable of 64bit HDR lighting???? Well I think somebody we know, isn’t spilling their whole bag of secrets just yet, on just WHAT the RSX is!!!! God knows Sony spent a bundle on the RSX and it costs way more than the “Cell” itself ( 30% greater costs 89$ to 129$ just for Sony to build – Not including Nvidia’s Development Costs which were out of this world). We do know that many of Sony’s developers are working on the games (yet to be released) that will be supporting 128bit HDR (Motorstorm, MGS4, FFXIII, to name a few. Oh and yes both IBM and Sony are also on that Khronos Group List!
Hummm….. Can’t find that OpenGL “PS3 Developers Wanted” sign on Crytek’s site anymore or I’d link it. That must mean they aren’t hiring anymore, canceled. Right? Or that they found some Devs to do the work in private and don’t need any more. It will be interesting to see how these things all turn out. I mean OpenGL API is after all known for faster frame rates and extremely well managed resource handling. To the tune of half the resources and twice the frame rates. So in theory we could sometime in the future be running Crysis on much less expensive equipment on Windows XP and PS3! Maybe even X360???NO… MS is too egocentric to allow that. This would be more on the order of the previous hardware requirements list that got taken down.
It will be interesting and now that I’ve riled up the MS Evil Empire Minions in Microslaveland, I can expect to get a pie in the face or hit by a Steve “Monkey Man” Balmer’s thrown chair! LOL
P.S. Watch those videos on YouTube, the Pie in the face is funny, the chair over Google ridiculous, and that Balmer Monkey Man dance is just plain too crazy! Notice Anubus that not once did I insult or ridicule any member’s here. The rest is a matter of doing the same thing you and other members do here, against any company you either don’t like or don’t have stock in. Here’s a video of my Linux desktop from over 9 months ago. Look up Beryl on YouTube and check the SP-FX and resource handling now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lawkc3jH3ws
***Notice too, this is running on my 2nd computer “Minority Report” is running in 720P. All those programs including GimpPhoto, Messenger, Firefox, many folders, picture viewer, graphics heavy png cube and desktop 38mgs alone, Movie, Media Player Music, etc.,etc. are running on a 2.4ghz pentium and 512mgs ram. The Power of OpenGL assisted Desktop!
January 11th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Re: Anubus?
I run Windows Vista Ultimate on my primary PC! Not exactly marvelous, even after putting my new MSI 8800 GTX card in. Nvidia hasn’t released the beta driver for support in Linux yet, so I had to trick it into recognizing it. Supposed to be out sometime next month. Yes it was a pain, i had to actually open up a CLI and do some coding. But it runs sweet as hell!
That is now more affordable. Love all AMd products!
January 11th, 2007 at 9:57 am
AMD is the only CPU for me which I why I have no problem waiting for their single die quad processors. Still I can’t imagine buying a 8800 GTX card at it’s current price point … you must have money to burn. And you already have Vista Ultimate … when did that get released? I hadn’t heard any news about that yet. Isn’t it like $400 … so you spent $1000 already on just the OS and the GPU … nope I don’t have that kind of money to throw around now that I am back in school. I kind of envy you now. But in a good way.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Actually it’s on every disk image you download since RC1. If it thinks your computer can handle it, it puts it on. Otherwise it’s mater of just choosing it during the install. There was a hack available all way back to the 3rd beta release. I can screen shot it for you. But if you want and have the image or disk, I can look up the how it’s done. Like I said mine just installed Ultimate. Not that I’m really that impressed with the extras, but it is nice having the Media Center a click away.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Man that sounds to good to be true … where can I find this disk image to download … Once I install my FX-60 cpu sometime in the next two weeks (once I buy it next week and it ships to me) I know my system will be recognized as being able to run Vista Ultimate … and you saying I will be able to install this without paying $400 … sounds to good to be true. But again where can I buy Vista … I didn’t think it had been released. Do you have a website that is currently selling it (or where I can legally download it)?
January 11th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I should tell you I am considered a developer and have had Vista installed since before it was called Vista and was Longhorn Beta.
But here are some links I just looked up that may help.
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/09/08/download-windows-vista-rc1-direct-from-microsoft-and-product-key-crack/
http://vistaultimate.windowsreinstall.com/
http://www.foldersizes.com/blog/2006/09/vista-ultimate-rc1-disk-space-analysis.htm
Any other questions, let me know. Now I don’t endorse using these links to do anything illegal. But actually there are tons of these sites out there, but I don’t use them. Just so you know, for educational purposes!
January 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Anubin, I thought you said you already had Vista installed! If you did and still had your beta or RC1 key, it would be easy to reinstall it with Ultimate. Those keys we have from that will run at least into May. Then you would have to buy it to continue using it.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Why didn’t you download it when MS offered it as beta free??? Even last May it was offered for free. I thought everybody knew that. If you had signed up as a beta tester or in promotion periods, you’d be fine and your key would still be valid. My key has been valid and will continue for another 4 months and I have the option to pay a highly discounted price direct from Microsoft as an IT in the beta! But I’m really not much interested in it for personal use. I have my own Dell server at home and 5 computers including the Sony PS3!
I was sure you put in you had Vista. Most everybody I know does from beta. Yeah I’m a tech geek and most of my friends are in the industry or it’s a hobby. This is how I make a living. I run and maintain a 100+ computer network spread out over a wide area using VPN and NX Technology over distance and gigabit in house.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I got a question , wich one is the best : Ati X1950XT (256mb) or a Gforce 7950GT (512mb). plz help me.
January 15th, 2007 at 1:10 am
I got a question , wich one is the best : Saphire X1950XT (256mb) or a Gforce 7950GT (512mb). plz help me.
January 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
3000 a64 1.5 gbram 6800 gt think i can run it in 800*600 with ok fps…
January 16th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
LoL min spec is just like my computer
P4 3.0Ghz
1Gb of ram
GeForce 7600 GT
low graphics or mid graphics?
January 16th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Thx man
January 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
So , I will play with low/mid/high graphics with that system : Amd 3500+ , 2GB ram , Ati X1950XT (256mb) .
January 16th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Please help, on August 2006 I upgraded my rig…
AMD 3800+ X2
1GB Ram
MSI Nvidia 7900GT (450/1320)
I always play with 1024*768 resolution in every game I have installed. And I don’t care about direct 10X (not yet). Will I be able to play with all settings high considering the resolution I like to game with???
I’ll appreciate any help I can get.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Alex: I think you can easily run Crysis on moderately high settings with that hardware and resolution. It’s optimized for dual core, so you’re set there, and 7900GT is a great card, I have one myslelf (with only a slightly faster CPU and more ram).
If you’re upgrading anything, I suggest adding an extra 1 GB of ram, it’s less than $100 these days, and you’ll need 2 GB to run Vista and Crysis.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Hey , my FINAL system is : Amd 3500+ , 2GB ram , Ati X1950XT (256mb). I will play Crysis with low/mid or high graphics ? plz help me..thats my last question
January 17th, 2007 at 2:25 am
can some1 tell me wot fps wud i get on
P4 3.0Ghz
1Gb ram
Geforce 7600GT 256mb
i dotn wont to buy the game if i play low graphics with 10fps so plz plz plz tell me ty
January 17th, 2007 at 2:37 am
*rolls eyes*
January 17th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Hey , my FINAL system is : Amd 3500+ , 2GB ram , Ati X1950XT (256mb). I will play Crysis with low/mid or high graphics ? plz help me..thats my last question
..answer me..
January 18th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Jim2k : Thank you very much for your recommendation.
That’s exactly what I had in mind. I’ll add 1 GB of Ram by the end of January and then I’m all set I guess. Well Jim2k thanks again for your help, I appreciate it. 
My email is raiderstate@hotmail.com
Add me if you need any help or recomendations
January 18th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I got a Amd 3500+ , 2GB ram , Ati X1950XT (256mb). I will play Crysis with low/mid or high graphics ? plz answer me.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:44 am
While it is good you upgraded your system ram and your vid card I think you will find that unless you also upgrade to a dual processor cpu that you will more than likely run mostly in the medium space (at 1024×768)with maybe some settings on high.
m4p: You definitely need to upgrade everything you have listed unless you are only to play with things on low. See Alex’s system specs to get an idea of what you really should be looking at minimally. Personally I am trying to get my hands on an FX-60 cpu. If I can get that then I won’t be upgrading anything but my GPU for the remainder of the year.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:25 am
I think i will play on high settings..my x1950xt(256mb) its better then a x1800xt(512mb).My 2gb ram is ok ..and my cpu..who care rofl. What u think about that?
January 20th, 2007 at 7:15 am
I got a Amd 3500+ , 2GB ram , Ati X1950XT (256mb). I will play Crysis with low/mid or high graphics ? answer me plz.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Nagging rarely works BuZe, show some respect, act a bit more mature, and ask questions more intelligently. Constantly saying please is doing more bad than good. “Plz” is just rude.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:36 am
I just want an answer..nobody answer me..so if ure good u can answer ?
January 20th, 2007 at 8:42 am
The only real benefit of DX10 is the offloading of large textures to the system ram. But OpenGL already does this in the newest versions. Most great games still run some kind of combination of OpenGL and DX9 or DX10. What really made me mad is when M$ tried to kick the legs out from under OpenGL and convert all game development to another Monopolistic OS in Vista! They could easily have ported DX10 to WinXP. But being the greedy B*stards they are tried to lock OpenGL out as well.
What happened? Developers and hardware manufacturers wouldn’t have it! So thank God many games will still run in combo mode on Vista and when newest OpenGL versions come out, if you have the hardware on WinXP then you can play them. Some things don’t change DX has always been slow and OpenGL has always been liquid smooth and super fast fps rates.
Crytek has always been a pure hog using DX9 in Far Cry. DX10 will be no different even though that’s what it’s supposed to fix. Engines that use DX10 in combination with some OpenGL will always be better. PS3 running Crysis on pure OpenGL, the Cell, and RSX kicking out those 128bit HDR Lighting will rock pure and simple!
Not many people realise that there is not one game out or coming out that utilizes more than 25% of the power of the “Cell BE” bandwidth available! This game Crysis may push that to 30%!
January 20th, 2007 at 9:59 am
They’re is a slight flaw with the requirements though. Posted as DX9.0c! M$ themselves are passing out a newer DX9.0h to DEVS. There is talk of at least geting WinXP DX9.0 half way to DX10 with a change to the DX9.1 version in the works. Whatever! Only good API’s in DX have been for sound and a few shader models. Now in beta OpenGL versions, they are taking it a step beyond DX10, and still leaving it open for graphics card makers to add their own features. I say F**k M$ and the control freak cr*pware they rode in on! They can’t even decide what version of DX9 they’re at, let alone DX10!
We still don’t have a fully integrated DX10 in Vista even. They are still using a modified DX9. Microcr*p is slower than molasses in January at developing anything. So glad Crysis is no longer a Vista DX10 exclusive! I can’t stand playing games on Vista RC2. The only one that runs half way decent is Microsoft’s own Flight Simulator X! That’s if you aren’t bored by it. On the best hardware, Vista is just meiocre nothing great.
Unreal Engine 3 and 4 can show Crytek a thing or two, with their “In Game Live” editor. The absolute biggest mistake Crytek can make is to fall for M$ bullsh*t and drop supporting OpenGL in their games. No doubt UT2007 will be running on Linux where it can really breathe and run with the full power of the code!
What will Microcr*p do then? When under direct comparisons running on PS3, Linux and Windoz anthing, OpenGL will pwn them and their DXeverything!
Beryl OpenGL Desktop on Linux Fries Vista and eats it for breakfast. Absurdly FAST with the resource handling of a computing monster even on older hardware. Real True Special Effects, no slight of hand bullsh*t wanta be cr*p! NO absurdly ridiculous user controls (that most will just turn off if they can figure out how w/o nags), forced on you like some school child! No hidden processes and 50 million needless services running all the time that bog down game play (this is why cosoles are now better than PC). Unreal engine games run so much better than on DXanything, on the Master Race OpenGL. Khronos Group will put OpenGL so far ahead of DX10 it ain’t funny. Who’s a member or contributor? Everyone except Microcr*p! Thank God! Just not GameGod. LOL
January 21st, 2007 at 3:02 am
“The only real benefit of DX10 is the offloading of large textures to the system ram. But OpenGL already does this in the newest versions.”
Read more about DX10. That is not all it does.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA0NSwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
Read that, and you might be surprised.
The move to emulate OpenGL 1.5 only, on Vista, was a security issue because of the way they had WDDM set up to only allow Microsoft stuff to access it. They fixed it, eventually, after much cooperation with companies supporting OpenGL. Whether they were actually trying to get rid of OpenGL or not is complete speculation. It’s fixed, now.
PS3 WILL? What makes you think Crysis will find its way to consoles? There are no plans to do so, and the kind of stuff Cevat Yerli says (he’s the CEO, remember?) it’s not going to be making it to consoles at all, if any time soon. Furthermore, developers have a hate for the PS3, because those processors are extremely difficult to utilize, since they’re all specialised. Just look at Gabe Newell and Bill Gates bashing the PS3.
The only real flaw in the system requirements is the fact they were completely made up. The game will run on DX9.0c (and up), 32-bit, 64-bit, single core, hyperthreading, dual-core, multi-core, Windows XP and Windows Vista.
Crysis was NEVER a DX10 Vista exclusive.
The fact you bag on an OS that isn’t even finished speaks to everyone just how biased you’re being about all of this. Crytek never supported OpenGL. If you’ll notice in Far Cry, there is an OpenGL renderer available (only if you hack it) and it works no where near as well as DX10. Hell, they started off in their careers making tech demoes for ATi, using DX.
It’s clear to see Crytek prefer DX10 over OpenGL. I’m not surprised they’re only pushing 40fps with an 8800gtx at high resolutions and full detail. But hey, they’re in pre-alpha with a lot of room to move with regards to optimisation. The low FPS is also owing to the fact the amount of processes going on in the game is enormous. So, when I see a game better looking and better performing than Crysis on whatever distribution of Linux, then I’ll believe you.
All of this talk of will, and is. The fact is, you really haven’t seen the true potential of DX10, yet, as you haven’t sat down and played Crysis on full detail with two 8800GTXs on SLi. Or two high end R600s on Crossfire. The fact is we haven’t seen the potential of whatever extension of linux you’re talking about. As for Unreal, way to compare an old version of DX with a new version of OGL, really nice comparison. You’ve got to realise that DX10 is a complete refresh of the API.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:07 am
Another thing I forgot. You can’t attest to how easy (and necessary) ripping apart the kernel of Windows XP, and integrating WDDM and DirectX 10. The real issue is WDDM is part of Vista’s kernel, and not XP’s. A lot of the benefits of DX10 are actually in WDDM as well as the fact DX10 can’t run without it. It just can’t be ported without a huge amount of unnecessary effort, if at all.
January 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“Just look at Gabe Newell and Bill Gates bashing the PS3.”
Of course Bill Gates does lol, but don’t forget John Carmack and Tim Sweeney, who both don’t like how hard it is to develop for.
Also, the way OpenGL used to work, and likely still does work, is that they include the latest version with the latest drivers. What MS was probably talking about was the version of OGL included with their own drivers. OpenGL is open-source, which means hundreds even thousands of developers freely contribute in some way to its code. Most open-source software you’ll find is vastly superior to their closed-source counter-parts, although it can be very different in some cases.
Anyway, OpenGL is already faster than DX10, and being Vista RTM, it seems it’s the final version of DX10. The only thing that could make a difference to DX10 performance now could be driver optimization.
If OpenGL remains the fastest, I dont see why developers should write DX10 games if they can make OGL games that look just as good and run on a wider variety of platforms, including platforms other than windows, and run on both DX9/DX10 hardware.
We’ll see what happens when Vista comes out and nVidia/ATi release better drivers.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
That’s the assumption I was operating under.
As for OpenGL, I’m actually a fan of it. I do like how much faster it usually runs, but I dislike how inferior and outdated the graphics usually appear, to me. It looks like all of the effort from game developers goes into DX, and it’s pretty sad, since most people tend to agree that OpenGL is further ahead and faster. Something just doesn’t add up. It could be that because it’s OS, those type of softwares tend to be more difficult to use, since it’s thousands of people’s ideas blu-tac’d together.
I’ve got nothing against OpenGL, it’s just the guy comes in with a rant that’s misfounded as well as extremely biased.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
i have an ati radeon 9550 256 mb agp 8x 2.8 ghz overclocked to 3.1ghz 1 gig of ram. how am i looking?
January 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
man…I hate the guys who ask if it’ll run on their machines,even though they even exceed the recommended syste requirements.Just dick-enlargement if you know what i mean ~.~
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 am
Remember these aren’t official requirements, but I know what you mean.
Brian, your system is pushing it, I’m not sure how a 9550 will do, I know they ran Far Cry very well, so it may do well on minimum settings.
And yeah, when they make a new OpenGL engine, it’s often quite advanced compared to the DX engines. Quake III lasted years and years, and still is being used in COD 3, and engines such as Doom 3 introduced dynamic lighting, which still is rarely used in todays games. The latest OpenGL itself is just as advanced as DX10, and they’re already working on the next version.
So yeah, it’s up to the developers whether they want to take advantage of OpenGL, and I hope they do. It would help PC gaming a lot, as many gamers feel they don’t want to upgrade to Vista, because it’s just damn expensive. OGL can easily run DX10 quality graphics at the same speed on XP. I’m not biased towards it, but if it’s superior, then I think it should be used.
I good test between the two platforms would be if Crytek includes an OpenGL renderer for Crysis, as they did with Far Cry.
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 am
A good test*
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 am
Re: NRG753
Surprised to see someone as vocal on OpenGL as me. But one thing though on Crysis. A number a months ago Crytek DEVs had run a piece of code from Crysis on OpenGL API. It was at a DEV and producer convention. Around the same time some fresh DX10 er.. whatever M$ has handed out at this time (which is not complete DX10 code). The Buzz was all about how the OpenGL was running Crysis footage at over twice the frame rates. They were actively seeking PS3 developers on their site. Nvidia had prepared the OpenGL beta version in co-operation with Khronos Group contributors. Epic too was testing with these beta API’s with Unreal 3 engine on UT2k7 and whacked out about how it performed. No doubt UT2k7 will be on linux as well!
What I can’t understand is what happened? Now you hear nothing! In fact we’re still waiting to hear about Vista actually getting the full DX10 final code out. Khronos Group that now control OpenGL after SGI turned over control, are pressing forward, full speed with rapid development of OGL2.5 and having 3.0 out by year’s end. But they are an Open Source Group.
What’s going on? Why haven’t we heard anything? Did they stop developing Crysis for PS3? We don’t know! How about Unreal 3 engine’s use of OGL for Linux? Side by side I’ve always (if given the choice) picked OGL over DX anything. Now after M$ caved in on providing full OGL support in Vista, we’ve heard nothing. We know OGL is running every game on PS3, and I believe Nintendo is OGL API’s as well. What’s going on?
M$ is still trying to control and be the center of game development for the future. But massive changes are in the works. Open Source is suddenly propelling everything from Google to Firefox on the net and literally everyone including M$ themselves are jumping on the bandwagon with some Open and some semi-open sourcing of code and applications. Besides the Windows and Linux co-op, Sony recently announced offering to co-operatively develop games with Microsoft. Calling them a non-competitor even!LOL
It is a bizzarre world we live in lately. Apples on Intel, Window’s on Linux, AMD on Dell, Linux on HP and Dell. What’s this world coming to??? SVG’s, MNG’s and PNG’s reborn even on Vista and the new Office aps, running on Beryl, Xgl, and Linux animated Desktops with OGL breaking speed limits along the way and resource handling limits. I’m as mixed up as this world is right now! How about you?
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Here’s the uncensored version of just what John Carmack Said.
Notice all that was left out!!! Like him not developing for DX10 and not liking Vista. Plus the fact that if you really read what he says, you’ll understand that it’s all multicores in general, including M$ Tri-Core, he just states that the asymetric properties of “Cell BE” are really hard to program for.
Well now he has no excuse, because the RapidMind C++ Development Platform has been ported to the Cell BE!!!
They demoed it used to program 10,000 individual chickens all doing different things in just a few clicks. With RapidMind and IBM’s Octopiler developing games becomes child’s play simple. No need to have any knowledge of the “Cell BE” architecture needed. BTW, Carmack uses RapidMind Tools to develop on x86 in Windows XP!
http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/0ca2ace901ba00cd11663072a273c070/index.html
Please Read before commenting to avoid foot in mouth desease!
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Well…
intel core 2 duo 2.13
–
Nvidia 7600gt(POV)(upgrading to 8800(bfg(the liquid cooled one(maby(or XFX))) this xmas)
–
1gig ddr2 (cant rember brand,not gonna open her up now) ram(upgrading next month to 2 gig)
–
getting vista unlimated on release
–
on a 775dual-vsta motherbord
–
I “will” meet the rquierments
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
That’s quite a setup “Mike”! Oh and over half the time, your memory brand doesn’t make any difference. Most all are made by Samsung these days and rebranded! But one thing people are going to find is Crysis will still probably run much better on WinXP till they get the Vista DX10 speed bumps sorted out.
Aeroglass is having the same problems Xgl on Linux were having with their accelerated desktop. They’ve got theirs figured out and now under Beryl and Linux it kicks butt and takes names with it’s special effects and resource handling.
But yeah I have the Nvidia 8800 card and AMD 64 FX-60 w/2gig ram custom cut case with hydralic front lift door touch to activate. The case works fine except I leave it on manual, cuz it’s too slow to open otherwise.
But I think you mean Vista Ultimate! But to tell the truth I wouldn’t get the Ultimate till the bugs are worked out for that Aeroglass conflict with games. I have Ultimate and it’s kinda meh… ok. Slower than hell, even though it both installs extremely fast and boots incredibly fast. Unless you need the included Media Center you may just want to get a cheaper version and either disable Aeroglass for gaming or play games on WinXP.
I have a hybrid drive though so that makes a remarkable difference in booting. Once it gets past the bios boot step it’s 10 to 15 seconds to login! Of course Linux and WinXP can’t touch it there.
Absolutely terible to run games on! Especially older games and ones that use Punk Buster, are a real pain. You must disable User Permissions and give root level access. BF2 or BF2142 suck big time because of this. But they play fine on my WinXP partition except the usual Punkbuster and that stupid in game ad crap. If get a cheaper version of Vista you can always upgrade simply over the net. All version flavors are on the same disk!
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 am
any1 play tell me wot graphics i can have and wot fps u think i wud get
Pentium 4 3.00Ghz
1024MB RAM
GeForce 7600GT 256MB
plz tell me ty i hope some tells me
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 am
Monarky, when you say “All version flavors are on the same disk” does that include both 32bit and 64bit editions?
Clueless, you can ask better than that, bad spelling and saying “plz” instead of please makes people look past your post.
Anyway, do you know what FPS is? it’s Frames Per Second, and absolutely no-one can tell how much you would get, even on average, because no-one has the exact same system as you, and no-one has Crysis to test the FPS because it isn’t even out yet! The only thing anyone can do is guess roughly how well it will run. Even then we could be very wrong.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 am
No! Just flavors like Ultimate or Home! I’ve used both 32bit and 64bit. Blew the 64bit off. You must use a permissions hack to get past the Driver Certification checks. They’re were at the time few drivers for 64bit. I should checked back and downloaded the 64bit RC1 or 2, but it was such a pain, just to get it working with just sound and the ability to use my gigabit card. Wifi had no usable drivers. Actually Vista is still hurting.
Forcing driver certifications only on 64bit was idiotic with a new product. Linux supports 64bit so much better. Both Crysis and UT2k7 support 64bit installs and those games will show you just why you bothered to get 64bit chips in the first place. Used to play UT2k4 in 64bit Linux w/ OpenGL.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:04 am
these are my specs. Will I be able to run on all maximum? I think so, I just want to be sure:
750 watt case
Intel Pentium D 945 Dual-Core CPU @ 3.4GHz 800FSB 2×2MB L2 Cache EM64T
2GB (2×1024MB) PC5300 DDR2/667 Dual Channel Memory (corsair)
2x GeForce 7950 GT 512MB 16X PCI Express (SLI)
Creative Labs X-Fi 24-BIT PCI Sound Card
320 gb 7200 rpm hdd.
will be getting vista…
January 31st, 2007 at 10:38 am
Vista won’t matter to you Crosko! You will need a DX10 certified card to take advantage of Vista and DX10.
But DX9 will be just fine for most of us. Crytech is not going to shoot themselves in the foot just to enable M$ to force an upgrade to Vista. The game is bound to look good on that kind of setup!
Plus Vista is not that great believe me, I have it installed!
There’s a new API coming out that will totally revolutionize multicore cpu and gpus. Called “CTM – Close To Metal”! It means literally putting the gas petal to the metal in game performance! AMD is working with RapidMind along Sony, etc. Monster performance and feature gains close to the hardware optimums!
January 31st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Well clueless your system should run the game at medium settings without AA.
My AMD 3800+ though is much better than a 3.0 Ghz P4 and I also would reccomended upgrading your P4 to a dual core or just wait until the game comes out then upgrade if necessary a single core cpu should be fine though. I also have a 7600 gt EVGA and an sli motherboard. If yours is sli you can always add a second 7600 gt to double your fps.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
rodj… a sempron 2600-512-radeon9250-.. guess, will see only the screens(thinked so)…
February 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Wow! i have only celeron D 2.6 and 512 mb ram. vista is going down! and i don’t say anything about games!
BUT! i like Linuxmint! it’s new great os, and it’s working great on my pc! $-)
so beautiful graphics in this crysis! i’ll play it only for graphics only!
Slava Ukraini!
Слава Україні!
February 8th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Just bought 4200+ X2 AMD 3 months ago and soon enough I will get the 7900GT only for 50 bucks from a friend of mine and then I need an extra 2×512DDR2/800 but that’s no problem at all. I will get the 1 gig soon so crysis will run very well when it comes to my pc that’s what I presume
.
16 naakte VISMANNEN!
February 11th, 2007 at 3:25 am
I’m currently looking at getting a new machine. I want it to play Crysis when it comes out in July. I only have $1500 to spend.
Should I get a Vista machine or XP? What is the cheapest videocard that will run the game relatively smoothley? Is the Intel Duo Core 2 the way to go?
Should I just get a packaged from best buy or future shop?
If anyone can solve this challenge I would be very greatful!!!
February 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
do this game will hold my duo core 1.8 1300 ram and radeon x1300 256mb ?if this game running only with 512 graphic card that will be bad .. becouse it cost 200 euro ;/
July 6th, 2007 at 1:22 am
to bad my comp owns even the top requirments!
Alienware Arura..
CPU;AMD ATHLON 64X2 6000+
GPU;GEFORCE 8800 GTX
RAM;4 GB
HARDDRIVE; 1 TB
BLUERAYDRIVE;
THINK GOD I JUST GOT THIS ALIENWARE AND JUST IN TIME…THE 2 GRAND I SPENT ON IT WILL FINALLY BE TESTED
July 6th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I just bought a new pc, I will no doubt be able
to play this with no problems!!!!
My Pc:
Pentium 4 3.20Ghz with HT(Hyper-Threading)
BFG-Geforce 8800 GTS OC(over clocked) 640mb GDDR3
3GB DDR2 RAM
I can’t wait
July 7th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Just built a pc hoping to be able to play this with at least a little eyecandy, although I think the grfx card is probably a little weak :/
E6600 Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz 4MB cache
2 GB DDR800 dual channel
Sapphire X1950 Pro 512mb
July 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Just bought a pc with these specs:
-intel core 2 q6600 2.4 ghz.
-2048MB 800 mhz RAM
-EVGA GFORCE 8800 GTS 320MB
-500 GB Harddisk
-Windows Vista
Will my pc run this game well on max. settings??
July 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
By the way the internal memory is DDR 2.
And my pc runs colin mcrae DIRT perfectly on ultra settings,so i thought crysis should run rather nice on it as well. Just want to be sure.
THNX
July 10th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Heh I would like to know that answer because I am building that EXACT computer (POV 8800 though)
I doubt MAXIMUM setting but high ish
July 11th, 2007 at 12:29 am
I think I should be able to run Crysis pretty well
e6600 Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
2gb G.Skill DDR2 800
MSI nForce 650i SLI Mobo
EVGA 8800gts 320mb
Thermaltake 500watt
July 11th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
hey, will this work
New macbook pro (running bootcamp with vista)
2.2 ghz processor
2gb ram
8600 gt 256 VRAM radeon card
please respond
July 11th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Hehe Yosmoso, I have almost the exact setup:
e6600 2.4GHz w/ Zalman 9700
2gb G.Skill DDR2 800
MSI P6N Platinum 650i SLI
EVGA 8800GTS 640mb superclocked
OCZ GameXtreme 600W
Hoping to overclock soon to 3GHz. Idle temps right now are in the low 20’s with load not breaking 40. Only hope I won’t have to SLI to max Crysis out. Maybe I’ll get a q6600 when the price drops later this month.
July 11th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
-Spoonman
You should be good to run it, just don’t expect to turn the settings up too high.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:01 am
thnks appolo
July 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am
my specs:
AMD ATLHON 64 4400+ X2 @ 2.3GHZ PER CORE
2 GIGS DDR2 800 MHZ RAM
ATi RADEON X1550 512MB
250 GB SATA2 HD…
IS THIS CAPABLE OF RUNNING AT LEAST MINIMUM?
July 13th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Does anyone know whats better on the (i dont know this) maximum settings on Crysis? 2X nVidia 8800GTS 640MB @SLI (my GPU’s) or 2X ATI Radeon HD 2900XT @Crossfire (is this ATI GPU DirectX10 ready??? i dont know). I think nVidia had more powerfull and ”ready for the feature” cards a long time before some games reach the release date, and ATI comes a few weeks before the games are launcht, and i think, ATI is going for the most ”Smooth” gameplay. Sure thats great, a smooth gameplay, but when you want to play DirectX10 game realtime, that nVidia is better futured (not to taunt ATI). Who know the release date, and how much cost this game?
July 13th, 2007 at 9:12 am
My specs are
EVGA nForce 680i SLI
Core 2 Duo E6300 (in few weeks Core 2 Quad X6600[ no not the Core 2 Extreme QX6800, thats to expensive)
2X nVidia 8800GTS 640MB (SLI)
OCZ PC8500 1066MHz SLI ready mem.(4Gb)
Creative X-Fi xtremeMusic
TFT: 1400X1050
All components are watercooled
(off topic: Alienware just launch their ne notebook, whit nVidia 8700GT 512MB DirectX10)
~Mr45: Good 2 play at the minumum except the graphic card ,doesn´t support DirectX10, but you card is more powerfull than the nVidia 8600/8500/8400(all these cards support DirectX10 but not any1 of these had more than 512MB(only the 8600 has 512MB but less pixel shaders than you card).
July 13th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I blew the recommended requirements with my Mac Pro
July 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
hahaha my computer have more than recommended requirements , och lets say the 8653$ payd of
no just kidding , really my computer is –
Pentium (R) 4 CPU 3.08 GHz
2.512 RAM
XFX GeForce 8800GTS 500M 320MB PCI-E Graphic card (Direct X 10 compatiable)
i think this will work
can anyone with computer knowledge tell wich settings i can play on ?
July 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
OH AND ONE MORE THING!! its far more good do build a new computer and buy part to part, thats what i did and together it all cost me 955.42 USD $ + a dvd burner
July 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
+ i got a 320 Gig Sata hdd
July 13th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I will play low/mid/ high graphics ? PLZ HELP ME , ps read all my messages (YEah)
July 14th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Pentium (R) 4 CPU 3.08 GHz
2.512 RAM
XFX GeForce 8800GTS 500M 320MB PCI-E Graphic card
(Direct X 10 compatiable)
320 Gig Sata hdd
will play low/mid/ high graphics ?
OH AND ONE MORE THING!! its far more good do build a new computer and buy part to part, thats what i did and together it all cost me 955.42 USD $ including a
dvd-burner !
July 14th, 2007 at 6:30 am
MacBook Pro
2.2GHz
2GB RAM
8600M GT 128MB (dedicated)
120GB HDD
will i be able to play it at medium-high settings at 1024×768 (on XP or Vista)?
July 14th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Muwaaahaah
I meet (and exceed) recommended!!!
July 14th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
ok i really hope i can play this game on medium haha
July 15th, 2007 at 3:00 am
My newbie AMD Athlon X2 6000+ (3GHz), 2GB 1066 Extreme DDR2, with Asus EN8800 GTX and Caviar 250/7200/16cache will like it. Thx gods that I bought this computer week ago
and not a year ago ” 
“
July 15th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Oh man , my pc had meet the recommended requirement
My pc system :
AMD X2 4600+
2GB of ram DDR2667
256MB AX 1950 Pro
I think i can play well on windows vista
July 16th, 2007 at 3:06 am
I built my Pc to play this game:
Intel Quad core 2.66Ghz
4GB Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator Ram
2 BFG 8800 Gtx’s
July 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I’ve recently upgraded my machine, and when Crysis is released I will get whatever dx10 card nVidia release!
Currently I’m within the recommend mind you
Antec Nine Hundred Gaming Case (mmm… pretty!)
ASUS A8N32-SLI
AMD Athlon X2 4400+
2x 1Gb OCZ PC3200 EL DDR (@ 216Mhz CAS2)
2x 300Gb and 1x 250Gb SATA2 (with 400Gb free)
BFG GeForce 7800GT OC 256Mb
XP Pro
—-
Responses to above:
* RICH! uber rig btw!
* YEAH! You should be able to play Crysis quite happily on high detail. Although SOME settings may be held back by your lack of Dual-Core.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I just got a new laptop I’m guessing I’ll be able to run it at medium settings.
Dell 1520
Intel T7300 core 2 duo 2ghz 800mhz fsb
2GB ram at 667mhz
256mb Geforce 8600MGT
Windows Vista home premium
July 16th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
My pc had a 1 year old system:
Intel pentium d 3.2ghz
1gb ram at 533mhz
256mb geforce 7600gt
i’m still using windows xp could i play this game i really hopes my pc can support the game however on low default.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I actually think the official requirements from crytech will be higher. But anyways i think my pc will handle it. Hoping for the best
Core 2 Duo E6600 (clocked to 3GHz)
Crucial DDR2 BallistiX PC8000 2GIG
XFX GeForce 8800Ultra
Asus P5W DH Deluxe,I975X Mainboard
Windows Vista Ultimate
July 17th, 2007 at 11:23 am
heheihihihih…. wow I’ll be able to actually play this (next week when I buy some stuff).. (recommended req) … didn’t expect that. What athlon 64 x2 would be enough?? 4200+ ?.. what do you think guys? you can upgrade your system to play crysis on recommended for about
(such as I atm)
300 Euro’s…. for all of you who have medieval systems
July 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Thankx Martyx !
i always wondered hehe
July 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Hi all,
I am a techie, I can say that if you intend to play Crysis on the Vista OS you are better with a GeForce 8500 256MbGDDR3 PCIe-16x @ LOW/MEDIUM graphics than with a GeForce 6800GT 512MbGDDR3 PCIe-16x OR even a 7800GT 512MbGDDR3 PCIe-16x simply because a GF 8xxx-series video card is optimized a LOT for DX10 (Vista), and DX10 allows something crucial to gameplay: you can cut trees in parts, which will probably help a LOT for many strategies, like for blocking roads to vehicles, do “bridges”, etc.. Even more, 8xxx-series have a LOT of shaders optimization over 7xxx-series. You cannot cut off trees like this is on DX9.0c. I suggest, for the least rich gamers: Get Vista version that come with full DX10, get at least a GF 8500 512MbGDDR3 PCIe-16x video card, 1.5Gb RAM 667MHz, a dualcore CPU for multithreading capabilities (anything), and you’re aboard for full Crysis gameplay and quite respectable graphics FX and framerate at 1024X768.
E-Mail: nuganx@gmail.com
MSN only: nuganx@hotmail.com
July 19th, 2007 at 7:10 am
People,
I feel like we re back in 02-04 talking about doom3/half life 2 all over again. I ran doom 3 on medium with a 9600 SE. I remembered hearing, ” Oh, you need a 3000-4000 dollar machine to play DOOM 3 on good settings.”
Overall, I paid 1000 for my machine when I got a 6600 and maxed out doom 3. You only need a 8800(to max out dx9 and 10)now, it will be hard to max out AA,AF and high high resolution. I say 2 gbs of ram is enough, atleast a E6400.. hey I have mined overclocked at 2.8 on stock fan.
If u havent bought a dx10 card wait till the 9800 come out.
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Got it in the bag! its gonna rock!
Core 2 Duo 2.13 x2
2 GB SOE OCZ 667 ddr2
500 GB hd space
8800gts 320MB gddr3
550 true power supply
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 am
my system is: cpu:3.2 (2mb cash) ram:2gb ddr2 bass 667
vga:7600gs silent 512mb(over clock) can i run this game?
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 am
Hopefully this will do it.
8800 gts 320mb x2 (sli)
Q6600 @ 3.4 ghz x4 (quad core)
500gb for storage
500gb for xp 32bit
500gb for xp 64bit
500gb for vista ultimate
1200 watt powersupply
Zalman 9700 NT
4 Gbs of Corsair RAM DDR 2 800
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Will Core 2 Quad Extreme 3.0 GHZ precessor good enough and 8800 GTX graphics thingie?
Sorry i am a new PC owner.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
heres the best answer. On E3 07, the same question was asked. What will be the specs? The guy said “I cant offically say anything. But, the demo u r seeing is being ran on a 8800gts 320mb.”
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
well, i have a good computer i can run it
intel core 2 quad 2.66 ghz
3gb ram ddr2 corsair
evga geforce 8600 gtx 1200 mhz superclocked
160 gb hdd
July 24th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Hey I just bought a hp pavilion laptop with a Intel DC 2.2, 2 gigs at 667mhz ram, dual 7200rpm drives, geforce 8600m gs 256 dedicated and an additional 256 shared if needed, vista ultimate 64 bit, and a screen res of 1680×1050….how do u think crysis in both in dx9 and 10(depending on wat i decide to get…will run on it…benchmarks say the 8600m gs performs at least twice as well as the 7600 go at 256mb…so wat do u guys think and which dx version should i get?
July 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
okay, the best series for the dx9 is the 7900 and up. Hell, I was maxing out rb6 vegas with a 7800gt that sucked ballz. 425 core and slow memory, only 20 pixels. If u have a 7900 expect urself maxing out crysis in dx9, if u have a 8600-8800. See urself maxing out crysins in dx9 with alot of the AA and AF one. And high to max on dx10.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
okay heres one problem I have that idk will affect me on Crysis…In Half-Life 2 only I have a rediculous frame rate compared to what im used to on full graphics…but the kick is theres like a lag-like shifting of the screen like the refresh rate is mismatched with the game…if neone here has had tht same problem or thinks maybe my ultimate 64bit causing my hl2 to run in 64bit mode is the problem…leme know or give suggestions cuza like i said its a non-feelable lag like appearance so it doesnt affect my playign ability, just the picture itself…Plz input would be gr8!!!
July 25th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Well, every computer I ever bought… 6800,7600,7800,7900,8800 always did that in half-life. I always get this lag spike. Half Life 2 was poorly made. Look at DOOM 3, it might not have much physics are HL2 cuz ur in a space station. But, u dont get caught in items, in css a wood pallet and other items push u?
When u grap a shoe,tv or w/e u see the item with no arms?
. You see so much wild life, when u grab objects u see him actually use his arms and hands.
Load points every 5-8 minutes? Crytek is awesome, they’re pouring their soul into this game
Im not bashing half life 2 or anything. I just thought they got way to much credit. Way to much for a game that still used the quake 3 engine. (look it up) doom 3 used a brand new engine never seen before. Half life 2 took the quake 3 engine and built a better engine.
Same with crytek with crysis. Doom3 had some companie’s buy the doom 3 engine and made awesome title’s. Half life 2 not so many either. I see the ut3 and crysis engine selling like hot cakes.
July 25th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Oh I didnt answer ur question. Crysis will be made for that OS mostly. Most people are like dx10 sucks so badly, it doesnt look good at all. Way way way overhyped bastard’s. Now, it’s not true. People think cuz its dx10 its suppose to like x10 better like dx8 compared to dx9.
Well, crysis will fully was built for the dx10 interface. From day 1 that’s what they were aiming for. Im thinking ur 64 bit version might not support it fully for hl2. Im not sure cuz hl2 and css ran on my vista homep 32bit just fine.
Make sure, ur video driver is for 64 bit vista.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Yea…i see what you mean with Half-Life’s engine. They definitely got too much credit. The biggest thing in Hl2 that caught my attention was the decent use of textures. But as for the 64 bit drivers…theres only one version out so far and thats the one tht came with the laptop…I even googled a newer driver version and NL. So i’ll keep my eye out for one but the 8600’s in notebooks r still very new so it may be a lil while b4 they come out with one. O yea…another question, is there ne way to turn off your shared memory so the card is a solid 256 dedicated instead of 512 half ded., half shared. It’s supposed to use the the dedicated first but I have a feeling that the fact that its partly shared depletes its ability to function like a solid dedicated card.
July 25th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Im not sure man. Half life got alot of credit,way to much credit. Its basically built off of john carmack’s engine. I love css source, but that has problems too. Hitboxes lag(google css hitboxes), the headshots are way way to easy to get. You get hit beyond the wall cuz the hitboxes are like a ghost.
It was popular cuz of the physics. I love how it did it. My friend was amazed 3 years ago and now is like it doesnt look real anyone. I still look at doom 3/half life 2 amazed still. Same with doom and half life, I guess cuz it changed everything of gaming and how it was made.
This is why I think crysis will be the next big title.
You have doom,half life, now crysis. They always change something about gaming. Bungie really didnt, they made it where halo made the fps popular on a console. Im talking bout engines,idea’s and how people with adapt and adopt their engines.
July 25th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
hi, quite new to the whole super fast computer crap and frankly don’t have the money to spend on one that i can see to meet the minimum system requirements for his game.
however it looks soooooo good that i would beg for money in the streets to get it
anybody got hints on the minimum laptop i could get to run this on or am i doomed ?
July 25th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Well NOOB, even though ive been asking the questions lately i happen to know a lot about computers so heres my advice. if your hurting for $ and can deal with having a desktop instead of a laptop…then i suggest getting a desktop. You get way more for your money and due to the undersized components and shortage of important elements in the mobile GPU’s, desktops will always perform better. So if you need any help possibly putting together a desktop I’d be glad to help, but if ur looking for a laptop that will play it efficiently ur looking at 2-3 grand (2300 was mine) and i have a geforce 8600m gs, benchmarked slightly below the 7900gs mobile. if you build a desktop you could get a low end 8 series card for cheap and it would run it fine. For performance purposes you may consider getting the dx9 version due to the high strain on ur gpu from the dx10’s high end texturing. Any other q’s jus leme know…:D
July 25th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I’ve heard good things about the alienware m5500 laptop
its in my price range but would need upgrading all the same
do you think i should just sack the laptop plan and go for a desktop ? and if so where would i start
im not really that experienced with these matters as im sure you can tell
really appreciate your advice
July 25th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Well for one wat is your price range? And for two, Alienware is an awsum company but you will pay out the yinyang for wat you want. If you were to buy a laptop from them tht performs as good as my current laptop from hp, It would cost almost 3000$. So If your ok with a desktop, you will definitely get better performance out of it for half the price. To give you an idea of what I coulda got for what I paid for this laptop in a desktop….AMD Athlon DC 2.8ghz cpu, Geforce 8800gtx 768mb GPU, 200gb 7200rpm HDD, High Def audio, 4 gigs of 800mhz memory corsiar, and a gaming mouse and keyboard for like 110$ more than i paid for this thing. That desktop would have been a freakin tank but I needed a laptop so i settled for this. That doesnt include a lcd but i have one so yea. If you wanna build a computer, get the parts from newegg or to save ur self time go to like vigorgamingpc.com or sumthing and build one there…get a 8 series graphics card and a decent dual core cpu and at least 2 gigs of ram and u will get a lot more for ur money. Even the low end desktop 8 series cards will out perform most laptops tht r 3-4 grand so g2 tht site n put one together and see what the price comes out to and if ya got more q’s leme know.
July 25th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
do es that company by any chance ship to the uk
?
it is alot cheaper as you said
and i agree at those prices i would gladly give up the mobility of a laptop
July 25th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Mmm I’m not any more sure about shipping to the UK then you are so maybe give them a call cuz I live in US so idk.
July 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
thanks alot youve been a great help
July 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
no sarcasm
July 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
No prob…:D
July 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Noob give me ur price range and ill love to help u out
July 25th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
What A Misinformed Bunch You Are.Firstly With this ati being best for the game and Nvidia being pointless.There Are Videos on youtube of the developers speakig about multi core support and dx 10.Ati are not mentioned once but nvidias engineers working with the developers,The new g80 series’ dx10 benefits and what new power and technology they bring.Not one mention of ati.Plus the nvidia gefore 8800 gtx and ultra are currently the most powerful gpu’s with the flagship radeon just behind the gtx.Secondly Dual Core Cpu’s Arent only for multitasking.Sure at the moment not many applications have multiple core support but games such as supreme commander have already implemented and intel and crytek have worked together on the project to get the most of dual and especially quad core cpus.T
July 25th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Seriously.. lol not very high system req.. .. my new pc will run this perfectly..
July 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
paddy who the fuck are u talking to?? we knew this awhile ago..
July 26th, 2007 at 2:11 am
i in the reccomnded:D my geforce can run the directx 10:D
my cpu is cor to due
July 26th, 2007 at 6:05 am
yeah, intel core duo rocks…
the e6850 for 266 lol sticks right there on the best quad core. It’s only a few points off, I couldnt believe it. It can run so much faster, I have mine set to 4.2 ghz. When they were doing benchmarks man, it would beat the xtreme’s. It would bounce back and forth but to know that a little duo with a bigger bus stayed right there.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I got
Athlon x2 4200+
2gb ram
bfg geforce 7600gt overclocked.
Not at max settings but itll work
July 27th, 2007 at 9:35 am
HA!
I have a intel core 2 extreme duo, 2gb ddr2-800, and a overclocked 8800gts. lolololololol
July 28th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Core performance parts
-Nvidia 570 chipset
-AMD Athlon X2 4200+ CPU 2,2GHz
-2gb PC4200 DDR2 memory installed in Dual Channel mode
-GeForce 8600 GT PCIe DX10 graphics with 265MB DDR3 memory
Power
-400 watt High Efficiency power
Drives
-250Gb SATA-300 hard drive
-18x SATA DVD-RW optical drive
July 28th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Will i be able to play it?
July 28th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Noob, why ask a dumb question?! Of course.. ull max it out on dx9 for sure!
Here.. I have a gift for u people….
Crytek.. at the E3 demo was asked by gamespot what specs did u use for the crysis demo.
He replied, ” 8800,intel dual core,4 gbs of ram and it ran smoothly for the most part”. “The game wasnt even on the highest but it was pretty high”
It makes u think……
July 28th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
What is the difference between AMD Athlon and Intel ?
Isnt a AMD Athlon 3000 the same as a 2.0 ghz Intel?
July 31st, 2007 at 3:37 am
hi,
on a video when the QX6800 was released, a party of intel Crysis was shown on 1920X1200 on BenQ 24″ LCD, the Quad core Extreem & GTX on SLI, Caliber OC! the game at rughe points- explotions, lots of AI ETC freesed for a sec…. & it was not the best details the game has…
on 1280×1024 a single 8800GTS & a good CPU will look very very nice… the problem is in HD…
i’m going to buy now a new rig…4000$ one…so i hope that on 1920×1200 it will run ok. i hope…
i have the SAMSUNG 275T 27″… so i have to…
July 31st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Oh that’s beauty in writing right there, I max this thing out. Oh I am a happy boy right now.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:30 am
Well, looks like my new MacBook Pro will be able to play this game:
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB Ram
160GB Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256MB SDRAM
Mac OSX + Windows XP with BootCamp
OMG, i’m soooo happy
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
November 15-16 crysis is out, at last
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
hey guys, i was wondering if my machine will run crysis,, here is my spec
p4 3.6
Ram: 2gb
Vga: MSI 8600GTS 256MB DDR3
can i run it at the highest details?
August 4th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Yes lol god yes! Aslong as u have a 7600 video card u can run the game good on dx9. Crysis will be kinda like half life 2. It will have load points, so it wont over kill ur card. I was reading it wont be so frequent but still loads here and there on the map.
If u have a 7800,7900,8600,8800 then yes! You ll be able to run full on dx9 support. Now, dx10 is a different story. Crytek, used a 8800gtx,intel core 2 duo(not quad) and 4 gbs of memory. He said it wasnt the highest but pretty high and ran fairly smooth.
August 4th, 2007 at 4:16 am
This is what I would do if I were You thinking about upgrading. I think this will sound hard but u have to do this “WAIT!”. The 8800gtx is a joke, it’s a weak Dx10 care for 500-600 bucks. It has DDR3 768mb, some go up 650 core(usually the ultr’a) and 128 pixels.
The 9800 gtx that is coming will be x2 faster than the 8800ultra. Same price around 550-600, plus ull have the 8900 and 8950×2 too. I say wait for a true DX10 card, yeah my 8800 rock’s but my 7900 did the samething on the same game’s.
No computer can max out crysis on dx10, with the 9800 they say u probably can max out on 2560×1600 resolution. This card supposely has.. 1024 memory(DDR4, faster than DDR3). PCI e 2.0.. yes its backwards comp to PCI x16! I say just wait if u havent bought a card and waiting on upgrading. They both(crysis,and the 9800 come out in nov)
August 5th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Damn,that requirements are really tough,but it pays off for a game like this and anyways ill need some upgrades for my machine because for other games
August 6th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Q6600 oc @ 3.45
4GB Ram NEW Kingston 1200MHZ
8800GTX OC
Hopefully i will be able to run this game on the highest settings and res at 1600×1200.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
HEY GUYS….
I GOT A MAC PRO INTEL 3.0GHZ (QUAD) WITH 5 GIG RAM BUT IS MY X1900 ATI 512 TO WEEK TO RUN THIS GAME…IF SO ID HAVE TO BUY A NEW ONE =( JUST WONDERING.
PS…I GOT A 30INCH APPLE DISPLAY…HELP!
August 7th, 2007 at 3:38 am
ohh man im so lucky that my pc broke down so i could get a good computer enyway i can just make the min requirements whith kick ass vista!(mac ****s!!!) but what realy ****s is that im gettin halo3 legendary and i cant get it cus it comes out in the same month ohwell i guess im stuck with craptacula halo3
August 7th, 2007 at 3:42 am
i cant beleive its 3:38am(were ever this website came from
August 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’ve decided to base my new pc around the requirements for this game.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Taylor, lol.. if u base ur pc around the specs ull play anything.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
does anyone think my pc will be able to run it like the E3 video shows it-
dual gforce 8800 ultra sli
3.0 intel 4mb cache processor
4 x 1gb ram
1000 w power
2 x 250gb hard drive raid 0
im pretty confident its a dam good pc but i just wanna make sure its gonna be able to run crysis at high end graphics settings.
August 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
That’s sum pretty sick setup in teh GFX department U got there J.
But if ur only have 3GHz CPU, then U might need 2 upgrade your processor for that game, since min sys req is 2.8 Ghz
Cuz that G looks pretty damn power demanding
Even wif’ my rig:
C2D E6600 @ 2.4GHz
P5N32-E SLI Mobo
NVidia 8800 GTS
2Gbs G.Skill heatspreader
320 Gbs HDD
I still rkn I won’t b able 2 pull off max settings in that game. So tempted 2 go Quad right now, cuz my mobo supports it lol ‘n I just might… first I’ll c how I go wif’ da BiOshock!
August 11th, 2007 at 1:52 am
cool cheers for the advise
i agree bioshock will be a good test for it.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am
does this game support quad cpu?
August 13th, 2007 at 1:50 am
lOl ofcause crysis was designed ‘n optimized for quad
If ya need more proof, read this article
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/98121-13-crysis-confirmed-runs-quad-core
Hopefully that will put yo fears to rest dude!
I ma like soooo wanna go go quad now! XD
August 13th, 2007 at 1:53 am
I guess my new system is more then enough
AMD Athlon64 X-2 6000+
GeForce 8800GTX 768MB
4GB DDR II 800MHz Ram
500GB S-ATA 3,5
August 14th, 2007 at 3:01 am
ok i know this probably isnt the place to ask but who rekons they know which is better between and Athlon cpu or an Intel cpu?
August 14th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Yo!
I rkn Intel > Athlon, cuz with Intel what U c is what U get u kno + INTEL CPU’s OC more efficiently. Nywa your GFX setup is pretty schmick, 8800’s ultra’s in SLI config outta run crysis on MAX np, but your CPU is only 3.0 GHz prob gonna choke, cuz it’s rather min in processor department, so if u got nuff dough get a quadcore it’ll run CRYSiS flawlessly…
Cheers dude!
August 14th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
This is retarded. Crysis will NOT need a X800GTO to play Crysis. For real system requirements that aren’t fake go to
http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php/topic,746.0.html
August 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
thanks for the reply, yeah i should be getting a quad core soon (lol overbudget), cant wait to play this game.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
If ur overbudget U can alwayz get a Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, that’s what i’m gettin’, can get one 4 like $300 nowadayz …
Cheers dude! XD
August 17th, 2007 at 5:22 am
wat im actully doing is buying one of those area 51 alien pcs’s in a few weeks and im trying really hard to decide weather to get the quad q6700 or the extreme qx6850, i could buy the extreme but i wont have much money left but scince im gonna spend about £3000 atleast, i thought i might aswell just go for the more expensive cpu lol.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Yer go 4 it, it’ll b worth it trust me, u’ll feel teh difference
BTW QX6850 is 3 GHz ‘n QX6700 only 2.6 GHz? If so I’d say go with 6850, since even if ur only gonna gain like 1.5 Ghz > power, as it seems… I bet it all comes around when ur gonna OC’em!
Cheers man!
August 17th, 2007 at 11:11 am
hey, I’ve been out of the game for about the past two years… just getting back in… so i’m a little unsure about how my video card compares to those requirements…
it’s an ATI x1650 pro 512mb
i know i have the rest covered:
AMD FX 55 2.6 socket 939
3gb ram
Any info on how my video Card stacks up would be greatly appreciated.
August 18th, 2007 at 3:47 am
yeah 1.5 ghz will add up im pretty sure especially wen it comes to crysis and also getting the better cpu will only give it a longer life. also i did wanna get the 3.0 ghz one that was overclocked to 3.33 but it seems they dont do it anymore which is a shame.
and to nolf i dont know my stuff when it comes to ati cards sorry. but id say 512mb is cutting it fine? maybe i dont know wait for someones better opinion.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Dont get the budget(priced) q6600. It has a low bus.. Get the e6850, for 266.. it’s faster than the xtremes priced at 1100 buck’s. People always think if a video card has 1 gb of memory it has to be the best. Or if a processor is a quad over dual it’s auto better. The bus speeds make all of the difference. If I have a quad core with the same bus as the e6850 then I would say get the quad core.
the ones that have the same bus are in the 1500 range. And, this cessor sticks right with them. It even beats them sometimes in game’s. Dont let crytek fool u. You dont need a quad core to crush CRYSIS.. crysis is yesterdays game.. yeah it ll change everything but star wars force unleashed has a better engine. They compared it to crysis, it crushed it.
Crysis will be amazing, but they need to release the game. The technology now is getting old.. SW force unleashed, gta 4.. all have better engine’s. Not the visuals but the physics, the bodies have a nerve system and sense fear and emotions. They re not even scripted, crysis is scripted. The bodies in this new guy will fall like real bodies, the boards will break like real wood.
Far cry 2 already admitted they ll pwn crysis. Watch the trailer. When u see the arm of this guy, u see everything.. it looks like a real arm/hand. What grossed me out was u can see the bone poking out of his arm. They said in far cry 2 u can see clouds form like RL.
Now, crysis will change the gaming for sure. The game is amazing, all of those things I listed doesnt bother me. I play a game to play it. All im saying is that the game is getting outdated by other companies..
go to gametrailers.com.. look up the sw force unleashed trailer
Note, dont just watch the game. Watch the engine clips. They will use this engine for everything.. football,actions..anything.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:57 am
cheers wicker man
i looked at the sw vids too they were cool especially the wood snaping one, defently need a lot of power for that im sure. and i think im gonna be going for the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3.0GHz 8MB Cache 1333MHz FSB . good bus speed right? i can also overclock that one to 3.33ghz i think.
this is were im looking at for a new pc by the way:
http://www.alienware.co.uk/configurator_pages/area-51_7500_r5.aspx?syscode=PC-EU-A51-7500-R5&subcode=SKU-DEFAULT
August 18th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
if u have the cash sure. But, i was talking about the e6850. It pwns the q6600 and its only 266.. plus it barely loses to the x6850 and I overlocked mine to 4.2 ghz on air. IM on 49 c… so yeah 3.0 to 4.2 with a zalman 9700.. for 266 lol im faster than some of the fastest processors. You have to know what ur buying before u buy.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Also, the people waiting on a new video card.. do not buy a 8800.. I regret buying them. They were beta card’s.. theyre completely useless, wow u can play bf2,bf2142,css.. hell a 6800 can play those games.
The 9800 will come out right before crysis.. right before any of the big boys that are coming out for dx10. I would wait till those come out, the 9800 will be stronger then the 8800 ultra.. 2x stronger with 1 gb of ddr 4 ram.. 800 core, 2600 memory.. the card will also have 10.1 x support where the 8800 dx10 cant upgrade to 10.1 dx10.
I would just wait, no need for a 8800 as of yet. I would just play ur games with ur current hw.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
also, do not buy a 8800.. they cant upgrade to dx10.1.. the 9800 will cost 500 same as the 8800 and will be 2x stronger than the 700 dollar 8800gtx ultras.. Plus crysis cant make out on a 8800.. I would just wait till the 9800 come out in nov
August 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
sorry for the double post lol.. didnt think the 1st one showed.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
i heard a bit bout the gforce 9 but not the directx10.1 . lol it sucks that cards cannot upgrade to 10.1 and i think i might wait until the new card comes out but i want it avalable to buy in a package like an alienware computer for example coz i dont wanna get into assembling my own pc i just dont have the time so i wonder how much longer ill have to wait until i can buy it like that. but cheers wicker man you really have given me some important stuff to think about.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
O dude, I do this stuff for a living. MS is releasing a SP1 patch to vista. With that patch it’s dx10.1. Nvidia already confirmed u can upgrade the 8 series to 10.1 and 10.1 is the real dx10. Yeah, kinda like when a rock star retires and hes back 8 months later. I swear, this is wrong u know, give ad’s of the 8800 to play ut3/crysis on the real exp of dx10 and u need a 9800.
Yeah, It shouldnt long bro. When the 8800 came out, they started doing it Asap. If I were u, I would buy the parts, go to a pc shop and for 60 bucks they ll build it for u. Plus, dell over prices their iteams. You can sli 2 9800, get a better cessor/ better ram / more hdd space.
I would just go to a pc shop man, trust me.. alienware isnt worth the 3000 k or 5 k.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
This Game looks Awesome, Finally something to test my Newly upgraded computer:
Intel Quad Core QX6700
Asus Extreme Striker Mother Board
Two XFX 8800 Ultra XXX 768MB GPU’s
4GB Ram in line series 1066Mhz
Vista Ultimate 64 bit
August 20th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Your video card wont max it out on dx10.. it will on dx9 but not 10.. U need a 9800 to max out crysis on dx10.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
hi.my system is: cpu 3.8 full vga:2x 7600 gs silent:1gb. ram:2gb DDR2 can i run this game?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 am
come on, why do people keep posting this. Do u see the specs? Yes, you can.. but not on the highest settings.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Yo Wicker Man!
Y do ya tink that 8800 Ultra’s in SLI config won’t pull off CRYSiS on max in DX10, afaik all 8800 series support DX10 textures, esp. Ultra’s, tho might need Vista 4 that 2 work, but still… ?
I rkn CRYSiS is pretty outdated game nowadays, been in development 4 quite sum time now.
Would ya b kind nuff 2 xplain dude!
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:31 am
wtf? I never said 8800 ultra’s in sli couldnt run crysis to the max.. 1 8800gtx.. or 1 8800gtx ultra.. the ultra is a joke. The card is barely faster..
1 8800 cant max out crysis, crytek even said so. 2 8800’s on a 32x sli board can.
People think you need better processors,more ram 4.. all you need is a great video card. The 8800’s were beta cards from nvidia.. They’re already outdated, the cards came out wayyyyy to early.
Have you u see the specs for the 9800? It’s 2x faster than the 8800 ultra. Cheaper then the 8800, uses less power, smaller..
Yes, 2 8800 ultra’s can max out crysis.. but not many people have 2 8800 ultra’s..
And, when I said about ur processor and ram. ALl u need is 2 gbs and a intel core 2 duo. I a friend who thinks he needs the newest intel chip (series) to pwn crysis.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 am
Is this game just sponsored by intel and nvidia or does a computer truly run better using such hardware. Does it really make a difference if u have an AMD or Intel/ nvidia or ATI?
I have and amd athlon x2 +5600 2.8 ghz each
Saphire HD ATI 2400XT x2
4 gigs of ram 2 of em are DDR2 533 and other 2 are
DDR2 800
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 am
Im just wondering on your opinions, on a scale of 1 to 10 how well can my computer run this game?
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
3 on dx10
7 on dx9
.. the whole system is amazing but the 2400.. get something more powerful
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
As of now intel has the leading chip. Core 2 duo crushes the amd athlon. But, then again either chip rocks. You just have morons that are so defensive on what they buy.
I own both, I cant tell the different. I think the 5600×2 will pwn crysis. Your video card, gross. You went to cheap on the video card.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Will there be any single slot 9xxx series cards? My case is a little cramped and I can only fit a single slot PCI-e x16 card. I wish I could have awesome cards like the 8800, but im stuck with small ones like the 8600. which by the way will an 8600 make crysis look good?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
on dx9
August 24th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Yah, but will there be any single slot nvidia 9xxx series cards?
August 25th, 2007 at 8:04 am
My MacBook Pro will own this baby!
2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB RAM
160GB 7200rpm hdd
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM
August 25th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Decent notebook, but I would be alittle worried on ur gpu in the next 3 months.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
On. I can probaly play this game on max setting and having vista… looks like a award winner this year but who knows:P good luck playing it
August 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Hey Wicker Man!
Yer u never sed 2 x 8800 ultra’s couldn’t ran crysis on max… true. But then ur sayin’ “Your video card won’t max it out on DX10…You need 9800 to max out crisis on DX10″
But there David stated his config:
Intel Quad Core QX6700
Asus Extreme Striker Mother Board
Two XFX 8800 Ultra XXX 768MB GPU’s
4GB Ram in line series 1066Mhz
Vista Ultimate 64 bit
Yet he’s got 2 x 8800 Ultra’s, so obviously he’ll b able 2 run it in pretty high details!
August 28th, 2007 at 5:20 am
No, LOOK. If you have a 570i or a 680i motherboard with 32x sli you can max it out with 2 8800 ultras. Now, if you have a A8N-SLI or any board with 8×8x, then. They already said the game won’t max out on 1 8800gtx ultra alone on dx10.
I never said it won’t on 2 8800 gtx ultras. ALl I said is to wait since your buying a 600 dollar half the speed of a 9800 for the price of 600. So it ends up like this for anyone reading this.
One 9800 = 2 8800 ultras
Two 9800 = 4 8800 ultras, so when I sli 2 of my 9800 together. I’ll have 2 gbs DDR 4 video memory, You automatically get 4AA/4AF free of charge to your charge in games.
Eitherway ashot, you’re gonna max out this game. SO be happy there!
August 29th, 2007 at 6:40 am
thanks wicker man.but i havent money for buy this video card 9800GTX pci-express 2.0.but i have one question.
i have buy this video card. 8800 GTS 320mb Gddr3.memory clock:1700Mhz.how can i run this game whith resulotion? highe ? very highe? medium? tell me.say me.thanks.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:44 am
warning whiker man: i want buy this video card
August 29th, 2007 at 11:55 am
My wife (evander has the 8800 gts 320mb) Yes, it’ll play crysis on high on dx10. I think you can max it out for the graphics. I think when they say you can’t max it out is with AA at 24x and AF at 24x. Either way, the 8800 gts 320mb rocks. I say the highest resolution the card can go is either 1024 or 1024×1024.
The 320mb are faster than the 640mb, but the 640 mb can go higher on resolution then the 320mb. I would choose the 320mb if you don’t care to try the 1900×1200 resolution.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:10 am
3.4Ghz P4(O.C to 3.7Ghz)
2GB DDR pc3200 crucial ram
XFX GeForce 7950 GT 512mb
Well I think im pretty set, not in max settings obviously haha, darn computer technology always comes out, then comes out again only better with bigger numbers. Thus forcing me to make financial decisions. Then again I do get enjoyment out of my games,oh well!
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 am
I think I can run this game, only video card is a bit low I think:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40Ghz(4CPU’s)
2GB RAM
Nvidia Geforce 8600 GTS (256MB) Total memory = 1008mb(dunno why?)
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
You should be fine.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Ah well i can play this game
1.5g ram
512m 7600GT
Plenty of HD space
2.4 processor (only bad thing)
September 4th, 2007 at 5:07 am
hahaha
i am so looking forward to play it on my new comp. , crysis is supposed to be so exciting graphics and gameplay…..
i hope i can play it on high details………but i am not really sure
my system:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
2 Gb ram
512 mb 8500GT (DX 10, pixelshader 4.0)
min. 150 Gb HD space
GigaByte Mainboard (don’t exactly know what kind of them, but a good one!)
September 4th, 2007 at 5:20 am
here i am again i have a question (for the wicker man)
if i play crysis on win xp (dx 9)………how high can i put the specs.????????
please tell me
September 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am
i meant the (game-)settings (not specs.!)
please anyone tell me!!
September 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Model Dell XPS710
Total amount of system memory 2,00 GB RAM
System type 32-bit operating system
Number of processor cores 2
64-bit capable Yes
Storage
——————————————————————————–
Total size of hard disk(s) 298 GB
Disk partition (C:) 220 GB Free (288 GB Total)
Disk partition (D:) 6 GB Free (10 GB Total)
Media drive (E:) CD/DVD
Media drive (F:) CD/DVDCD/DVD
Graphics
——————————————————————————–
Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Total available graphics memory 1534 MB
Dedicated graphics memory 768 MB
Dedicated system memory 0 MB
Shared system memory 766 MB
Display adapter driver version 7.15.11.69
Primary monitor resolution 1280×1024
DirectX version DirectX 10
Will this beat run crysis?????
September 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Will I Be Able To Play?
Ati Radeon X1300Pro 512Mb
Ram 1.5gb
Pentium D CPU 2.8GHz dual
And Hard Drive is 250Gb
September 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Chippo update your VC.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
i really would think for this to run good , i would relly say that recommended requirements is that it should have 2 gigs ram and least, and 2.4 ghz duel processor…for it to run smoothly at least…also, if anyone has windows vista or windows xp on a 32 bit (most ppl have this) the max amount of rams on it will be 3gigs,otherwise a 64 bit windows user can store a lot more.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:02 am
i need to buy a gaming laptop….
should i go in for one with 7950 limiting to dx9 support or one with 8700 with dx10? im not looking to max crysis out at dx10… but it should run with medium-res…
September 7th, 2007 at 10:54 am
On what video setting do you think my rig will run on?
My Specs:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600(2.4Ghz)
2GB RAM
nVidia 8600GTS 256MB
Windows Vista Business
Maybe it will run on medium……
September 9th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
just got my new pc. i beleive it will run at least at mid settings. amd athlon x2 64 4400, 4gb ddr2 ram, gefroce xfx 8600gts, windows vista..
September 9th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Jazziey- you might just barely squeeze by.
Raexaender- now, med-low, you need a better graphics card man the 8500 is bad.
Sakari- high-ultra high.
hrishik64- go with the 8700.
prodirus- high settings.
raven- medium is correct – and i hope you have a 64-bit copy of vista or that 4 gigs will only show up as 3.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Heya!
What aspects of teh game will be affected by CPU, I mean is it really that important 2 go QUAD 4 CRYSiS? I got C2D ‘n ama playin’ BiO on max details np! Gettin’ like 80-90 FPS
Just incase youse wonderin’ what do I ran it with, here’s my current config:
Core 2 Duo E6600 OC’d @ 3.4 GHz
P5N32-E SLI Mobo
GeForce NVidia 8800 GTS 640 MB
2GBS G.SKiLL HEATSPREADER
320 GBS WD HDD
Cheers guys!
September 9th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
you’ll be fine ashot. Crysis was designed around the 7800 for dx9. Im sure ull be fine on dx10 with the 8800.
September 9th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I think my system specs will do fine. what say you guys, will it suppost Crysis on Medium/High Settings??
AMD 64X2 5000+
ASUS M2NPV-VM
Kingston 2Gb DDR2
XFX 8600GT 256MB
250GB SATA + 120GB PATA Seagate Barracuda
500Watt PSU
September 10th, 2007 at 2:48 am
hello again
i just wanted to know what graphicscard i should buy to get better fps and so on…(shouldn’t be more expensive than 150 – 200 € !)
thanks
September 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Ravishing this is The Wicker Man, my wife keeps changing my name so Im Evander for today.
I would get 2 more gbs if you can and you’ll pwn on dx9!! Dx10…. maybe medium to low high. The demo will be out in 2 weeks!
September 10th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Hey Evander a.k.a. Wicker Man
Thx 4 clarifyin’ that 4 me. That’s a relieve that I will be fine on DX9 settings. Is it true that u’ll need vista to run CRYSiS in DX10 GFX?
Cuz I haven’t got Vista ‘n not bout switch over 2 it, I heard it rather sux, might get GF9800 instead
Cheers dude!
September 11th, 2007 at 2:30 am
(i think) you can just run crysis on dx10 in vista because you just CAN’T install dx10 on XP………microsoft just made it uncompatible to XP so anyone who wants to play with dx10 has to get vista……..and i dont like vista….my friend has it on his pc (e6300, 1 gb ram, 7900gs,…)and it is just too slow(for me)!!
i hope i could help you ashot!
cheers too!
September 11th, 2007 at 2:49 am
now to my “old” question nr. 614………what of these two video cards would be better……..pleaso also look on the price!!
1. radeon x1800gto (256mb, 256bit, 500mhz graphics chip, 1000mhz memory, gddr3, shader model 3.0)…..for 77.65 €
or
2. geforce 7900GS(600M) (256mb, 256bit, 600mhz graphics chip, 1600mhz memory, gddr3, shader model 3.0 (pixel-pipelines: 20)……………………for 109.92 €
please tell me!!!