Minimum system requirements for Crysis leaked!!!

Hi everyone

I found this news:

LINK



quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: These system requirements were released by accident and are not an indication of the final minimum requirements for Crysis. Crytek are still optimizing Crysis and so as soon as they get a clear understanding of what will be able to run this game, they will release the final requirements to the public. I'll leave the unfinalised requirements below for reference only. So at least we know what the minimum requirements are not

CPU: Intel P4 2.8Ghz or AMD equivalent
RAM: 1GB
Video Card: 6800GT (256mb) or ATI/AMD Radeon 9800 Pro (256mb)
HDD Space: 16GB
OS: Microsoft Windows [XP and Vista I imagine]
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think my laptop would be able to play it at miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinimum

What do you think?!!

 

LOL 16GB HD space. These games developers sure are becoming lazy coders these days.

 

I do not think those are right at all.

They wanted the game to scale back two years, so I predict anyone with a

9800
6600
7600
X1600
8600
HD2600

should be able to play

 

I don't think the HD space is so much a sign of lazy development as RAM usage. But yeah, 16GB is a little much

Oh well, at least my laptop should be able to run it

 

Is DX10 even worth turning on on my 8600M GT? Will it handle DX10 without turning everything to minimum even resolution?

 

Bioshock is definitely playable in DX10 on my 8600m GT, so I'd say yes.

 

16GB HDD space? WTF? 99% of that space is probably textures. I would hope that if there are separate DX9 and DX10 textures that if you are in XP it wouldn't load all those DX10 textures.

Does this come on 4 DVD's or what?

 

Two dual-layer discs, maybe.

 

So running Crysis with an 8400 GS is out of the question?

 

We don't know until the official system requirements are released.

What I expect is though that anyone with an ATI X1600/Nvidia 6600 and up will be able to run Crysis fine.

And for the record, Flight Simulator X takes up 15gb of HDD space too.

 

On the lowest possible settings, that is.

 

not necessarily. you'll most likely be able to play it on low settings. just because you dont meet the requirements in one field, doesn't mean you won't be able to play it. your gfx card is under what it should be, but you are also above in ram, and processor specs. those will help make up for your vid card somewhat.

but the thing about a game like crysis, is that it's probably going to be eye candy first, and a good gaming experience second. crysis may not even be worth playing if you can't view the game on med-high settings.

 

I reckon the 7950GTX will be able to run it at most high settings at WSXGA since Gophn said his 7800GTX can run the beta of it at med-high at WUXGA. And I think it would be a bad a idea for people who already have a 7950GTX to switch to a 8700M GT... Even if the 8700 has better shader operations (ie. DX10 gives it more performance) it doesn't change the fact that it is limited / bottlenecked by its 128-bit, which makes it slower than the 256-bit 7950GTX at all resolutions in all current games. Considering Crysis would be optimised for both DX9 & 10, I believe the 7950GTX would not have less performance (if not more) than the 8700M GT.

 

I finally ordered a PC(Desktop XPS 720) check out these pictures of the beta on 1920x1200(I believe 8xAA as well everything on high).

 

6800gt or 9800? 6800GT >>>>>ATI 9800 ,It's ridiculous.

 

I really don't get it. Do you mean that the x1600 is on the same level with the 6600? I tought that the 6600 was much weaker

 

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2552&p=9

On mobile the X1600 is stronger than the 6600. However, on desktop the X1600 and 6600 where pretty close, with the X1600XT just nosing out the 6600GT with newer drivers I believe. The fact is ATI, has had an inability to produce ground-setting mid-range GPUs for a long time. The X600 couldn't compete with the 6600 so ATI redesigned at new X700 which still couldn't compete. The X1600 catched up with the 6600 but was soundly beaten by the 7600, and the HD 2600XT is still uncompetitive against the 8600GTS. ATI has had to use cut down high-end parts like the X800GT, X1800GT, the upcoming X1900GT or wait for late entry redesigned parts like the X1650XT before catching up. This is on desktop of course, mobile isn't as bad.

Anyways, I too believe that the minimum requirement will be a X1600/6600 since that performance level encompasses so many people. The 6600 series in particular was very popular. The funny thing is, if they are accepting the 9800Pro, then that would include the X1600 and 6600 since I'm pretty sure those have similar performance levels. (A 256-bit memory bus really does go a long way). As has already been pointed out the 6800GT is higher performing so unless Crysis is optimized for ATI cards, which seems unlikely seems I thought nVidia was providing a lot of support.

 

sorry please quantify before making such sweeping affirmative statement...

try this for a diff view...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x7aPvedU7cI

anyone got a fair compare for bioshock?? not less crysis...

 

Oh no bro thats not my PC LOL. Mine doesn't get here for a while, since I'm hooking it up to my LCD I'm hoping to get better frames(Resolution on LCD is only 1366x768). My 720 is supposed to ship the 15th.

 

X1600>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>6600
X1600 =almost 7600

 

That is true for mobile versions, but system requirements are quoted in desktop versions. For desktops, the X1600 series is not that much faster than the 6600 series and the 7600 series noticably breaks away.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2812&p=4

The desktop X1600XT barely matches the 7600GS and the X1600Pro ended up being renamed the X1300XT to compete against the 7300GT. ATI had to use cut-down high-end X1800GTOs to compete with the 7600GT until they could design the RV560 core to make the X1650XT. The 6800GS is faster than the X1600XT, but slower than the 7600GT.

 

I'm pretty sure we're talking about mobile versions here. The minimum requirements are stated in desktop cards, yes, but most people on these forums care about mobile performance first and foremost.

 

You are not allowed to post screenshots of the game or anything like that according to the NDA you accepted during the sign-up process.

I will report anyone who posts screenshots, other media, or talks about the beta at all. You're getting a break because I am making an example out of you.

 

Wow, 16 gigs...That's the biggest I've ever seen since Flight SImulator X.

 

Dude those aren't my screenshots LOL. I didn't break the NDA that FOOL did jesus christ calm down.

 

It may be illegal for the Beta tester, but linking to (not your own) screen shots by someone who never signed an NDA is not in anyway illegal. You can still choose to remove it, of course, but I just wanted to mention that.

 

Dude that video is old and the guy didn't even talks about the "real" difference between a 8700 and a 7950...lol All he talks about is how he personally thinks DX10 would benefit modern games. What I'm saying is that even with DX10 giving more performance to the 8700 doesn't necessary make it perform better than the 7950. (explained in my earlier post because the 8700 is only 128-bit)

 

Thank you senor anyway CRYSIS!!!!!! I really can't wait to play this game is everyone here getting it? If so I definitely want to play with some of you folks, been a while since I was on the PC gaming scene.

 

My post was simply precautionary because I don't want to have any trouble on this site because of screenshots. If you want to break the NDA then go ahead, but not here please. Now back to the topic at hand . . .

 

16GB HDD? Thats extreme.

 

This has already been debunked. I think it was never even bunk according to crytek (a little snippet for you seinfeld fans). Crytek said that the info was in no way the final stats.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thu...-minimum-system-requirements-published-or-not

http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_news.phtml?id=092107_2

 

The question is you said..."for ALL games at ALL resolutions" which is not decidedly true...

There are still a lot of debate out there... even from the horse's own mounth!,
and if official word come out from Nvidia to the industry...,
they had better make it happen one way or another...
http://translate.google.com/transla...-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=t02&sa=N

 

3dMark06

7950gtx: 5400

8700gt: 4700

 

Theres more info on this debate in the sticky at top of the page.

 

meh... If you compare the ATI 2900XT 512MB with the nVidia 8800 Ultra 768mb together, (see here & here) you can see that the 2900XT has 320 shader units where the 8800 ultra only has 128. However, we all know that the 8800 Ultra performs better than the 2900XT in real games. And using 3DMark05 to argue one card may be better than the other is hardly accurate since 3DMark is just a simulation rather than a real life gaming example. Hence, those specs released by nvidia doesn't make the 8700M GT better than the 7950GTX...

EDIT:
See here & here
You can see the comparison between 3DMark means nothing...

 

The shader units are different between ATI and Nvidia, so that's not something you can compare on.