Final Crysis Requirements...Don't kill the messenger for the bad message

dude, if a lot of people out here, including me, can play it 1280*800 medium, i don't see why in the final release we won't be able to at least keep the same settings. got that hope going

 

It's disappointing how developers don't coordinate what their settings mean. For example, minimum specs for most games mean nothing. If gamers actually want to have a semi-enjoyable playable experience with the game, they have to shoot for above minimum. Then, some developers release recommended specs that should really be minimum specs (ie, this is what you need to play min or min/med at playable frame rates) while other developers, such as Crytek, seem to interpret recommended as the hardware needed to play med/high with playable frame rates on a decent resolution. I'm not bashing Crytek per se, but some consistency would be nice...

 

It's not the framerate that's bad, it's the settings. I can average 40-50 FPS in Team Fortress 2, at 1920x1200 (0xAA, 8xAF) and max settings, and yet Crysis at a low resolution and medium settings (except for shadows turned completely off) gets me 30 FPS (can jump to 40 indoors, or drop to 20 outdoors, depending on what I'm looking at). Honestly, TF2 looks better vs. Crysis at playable settings. That's why I say it runs poorly (although it will be optimized by the time it's released, so there's hope yet).

 

?!

A 8600M GT was able to play the unoptimized Beta at 1280 x 800 with Medium settings? Holy shoot! There's hope for the 8600M GT yet!

 

Since a few of us(including me ) have gone all the way as to release information about Crysis MP Beta performance, I'll go one step ahead to release frame rate screenshot on the following settings:

EDIT:// Just realized I'm not suppose to release important info such as media. Sorry, screenys will have to wait until the Demo release.

Even on all low (excluding physics on medium) at 1280x800, an aged/cra*y card such as my X1600 can run it fairly well, so those of you with Geforce 8600M series should be fine I presume . I’m not too sure if DirectX10 is suppose to improve performance on Dx10 cards in comparison to Dx9c mode on Windows XP, but with the results above it is obvious that a much more powerful card such as the 8600M series should be more than enough (at least on Dx9c) to give relatively good performance in Crysis.

PS. The system those screens were taken is the someone included in my signature.

 

I have a..

T7300 2.0GHz
3GB RAM
8600m GT
5400 RPM HDD
Vista

Is there any chance for me to run this at medium and at what resolution? What settings if I used 1440x900?

 

to be honest though, I wouldn't want to touch this game unless I was running with a 8800gts because it looks good, you deserve only play it at its best to make a good judgment of the game.

 

dunno about 1440x900, but as i said a lot of people, include yours truly, run it at 1280*800, medium settings(this is for unoptimized beta 3).

well, to be honest, the game looks pretty kick arse at 1280*800 medium...

 

There's usually minimal difference between Medium and High... (Between Medium and MAX, now there's going to be a difference ).

So if people are saying that 1280 x 800 Medium is do-able with a 8600M GT, I'm thinking that I'm good to go if I play it 1024 x 640 with Medium + some High's.

Or go down to 800 x 500 to have most high and some medium ^_^.

 

i wouldn't suggest lowering the res in crysis, though.... i started playing the game on 1024*768, and was not really happy with it, so i bumped it up to 1280*800, and the difference was very noticeable; looked a lot better.

 

Thank you for the info.

 

That's partially because 1024x768 isn't native 16:10 aspect ratio res... and stretching the screen sideways always make things look bad XD.

I'm sure it'll be alright if the aspect ratio is correct (800 x 500 and 1024 x 640 are both 16:10 aspect ratio resolutions ).

 

^^yup, i concur

 

And I must change my Core Duo 1,73 for faster one... Sad...

I'll have to download demo and try it...

 

that would make sense... since I believe most widescreen laptops have that res. as a default

 

Well has anyone said anything about the beta on a 8700gt? maybe even 8700gt sli?

Any news on new upcoming gpu's?

 

Am I the only one who thinks that Crysis at 1280*800 looks like a nasty piece of ****? This is the first recent game that looks much worse at lower non-native resolutions for me. Oblivion, Bioshock and Splinter Cell Double Agent look great at that resolution on my 17" laptop, but Crysis...no way. I have to set that to mostly low settings to get it playable (less than 30fps btw) at 1440*900, which to me looks better than medium settings at 1280*800. That's on a 8600 GT btw.

 

Exactly when is this ridiculously hyped game slated for release? The sooner it is and the faster forum users get their hands on and report actual gameplay performance the quicker everyone's minds will be put to rest regarding gameplay performance.

 

Gamespot has an interview with a Crysis developer who has some things to say about performance:

CY: Players who have DX10 will get a better-looking experience, with all of our settings dialed all the way up, but this will take up more of your hardware's resources. This is what our "Very High" settings are reserved for, and if you have the hardware, we fully recommend it. Our "High" settings can be used by DX10 and DX9 users, and will perform better in DX10, though our DX9 players will have nothing to worry about because we are really pushing that technology to new levels.

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

 

Release is November 13, demo is October 26.

 

Just over a month before fans get their hands on a product with so much eye candy that most forget is just a souped-up FPS. If you like the genre go for it but some will simply shrug at the graphics hype and move on to the games they prefer.

 

Sadly, despite all the 64-bit CPUs that are out there now, I don't think either 64-bit XP or Vista have really taken off so I think the target audience is pretty small right now. At least they made the effort on getting a 64-bit version out.

On another note, it occurs to me that if EA is the publisher of Crysis, I wonder what the chance of it coming to Mac are? A Cider port should be profitable on Mac given all the hype of the PC version. A wonder if Cider is 64-bit compatible, seeing I don't think there's been a 64-bit game on OS X yet even though there has been 64-bit support in the OS for years now.

 

inCrysis has some killer DX9 versus DX10 screenshots. DX10 looks awesome.

 

i managed to run the beta on:

1024x768
no aa
everything medium except shadows

at about 20 - 25 fps which i think isnt that bad

my specs:
fujitsu amilo xi 1526
core 2 duo 2.0 ghz 667 mhz
1 gb ddr2
geforce go 7600 256 mb ddr2

 

1024 x 768 with everything on low.

 

Yeah and from experience, it does not look like an attractive game.

 

By the way... as I just thought... Isnt everyone looking and basing info on DX9 crysis... I mean maybe DX10 crysis will run way better since the gpu's are technically made for DX10 and crysis too... so shading and stuff will be WAY faster

 

well havent got anything new but i did run battle field 2142 on high settings forced res of 1440*900...a lot of games i can run on high settings with aa x2/4 and af x8/16 but up to around 1440*900...sometimes put them down to 1280*1024...

but i tend to turn off aa and af and jus run then at 1920 *1200 (well wenever i can used to do it with fear mulitplayer) and to be honest cant the game looks good with aa and af off at that res.. getting quake wars next week so will see how it stacks up for that game (once i format my computer...got too much junk)

 

DX10 is a pipedream right now. To enable the special shinyness, you either have to spend $1500+ or else you'll lag.

Besides, I thought this was a interactive game, not a CGI movie.

 

CGI ?! movie?! What the heck is he talking about?

 

Mnimum seems a bit high. 9800PRO=6800GT?

WiC says 6600GT 256MB but I played low (not very low) on the closed beta at 1280x1024 on an OC 6600 128MB fine.

@Dave:Not at all, DX10 new effects ( "real" sun+ clouds + particles) don't requiere more horsepowerm it's just the way it's randered.

 

may i say that these requirements seem a bit obscene? only higher end botique brands could run this without noticable lag...my god...

 

nobody has really commented on how a 7900gs will run. Ive overclocked mine and runs really well, but there are so many mixed opinions. Ive got a 2.16, 2gb RAM and oc'd 7900gs. I would be hoping for medium on a good res?

 

No... why would you say that?!

A 1000$ pc could handle it a med. sett.

 

I think he's reffering to the recommended requirements. Currently only an SLI 8700M-GT system could even come close (in DX10, at least).

 

yes, thank you.

heck, the laptop i'm getting soon (see sig) could run it, just at low detail and with lag.

Crysis is the highest requirement game I've ever seen.

 

It's also the first game to run on the U3 engine.

I play medium fine at 1280x800 on my system. 1680x1050 lags a bit.

 

Yes, if you have a DX10 card ... that can run DX10 with decent performance.

 

In correct.

Gears of War is the first commercially released UE3 game.

And Crysis is running on the Cry2 Engine. NOT UE3.0.

 

I think you made a serious mistake man... Crysis is all about CRYENGINE2...

 

I think Colin Mcrae: Dirt has similar recommended requirements but then again, Dirt is horribly un-optimised.

 

The best thing about the latest ones at least, is that they still are of reasonable quality on lower settings. Have you ever played Battlefield 2 on lowest settings? It looks like Quake I!!

Whereas Dirt, Airborne, Bioshock - they all have fairly high requirements yet look decent at least on lower settings and you can still enjoy the game. Crysis looks to be the same. Graphics on low can't touch medium or high but still good in their own right.

 

ahh.. good to know im set.. My laptop, T7500, 8700GT, etc etc.. will run it fine for when I'm on the go. And my desktop (SLI 8800GTS's, 3.4GHz OCed E6750) for when I'm at home

Too bad I know it wont run on my 8700GT like HL2 ep2 does
I just beat it this morning, I played through the whole episode in 1920x1200 2xAA, 16xAF max everything +mBlur, and averaged 45-50fps throughout most of the game, with some small hickups to 30fps, and some to 140+fps
163.74 Nvidia drivers..

 

Dude why do you call 30fps hickups?! lol the eye can only see approx. 25fps and a laptop can only show about 60-70fps since the hertz/refresh rate doesnt go above that (usually)

Well... if ep2 runs that well hopefully crysis (optimized) in DX10 may run on med/high at 1280*800 with effects/physics and maybe some aa or af (if needed)

My hope is CRYSIS running at all high at 1280*800 with all effects and physics and maybe aa/af at 30+fps on a 8700gt maybe sli if needed...

 

Not a chance in hell I'm afraid.

 

1280x800 with no AA/AF is possible....

 

That eye seeing a certain framerate is useless I don't understand where people got that from. Disregarding science why would people want 40-60 fps if our eye could see only 25. If your eyes could only see 25 fps then why would you want a fps that is higher, woudlnt you want to enable all the settings as high as possible and still get 25 fps.

 

So first your against it then your for it!?

 

Not likely, since Crysis at its highest settings was build for the very best hardware available, and the 8700 GT is not that. But you never know, Nvidia may come up with some really good driver optimizations like they did with Bioshock. At least then you'll be playing some settings at high. Demo is out in about 2 weeks, so finally all shall be revealed!

 

i'm afraid the human eye can see many more frames than 25... around 500fps actually.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm