NEW GAMES TO BE RELEASED. How will current graphics cards cope??

Hey if been reading reviews on the huge amount of incredible looking new games to be released soon.. Crysis, Brothers in Arms Hells Highway, Armed Assault, Battlefield 2142 etc.. and they seem very graphics intensive!! ESPECIALLY Crisis!

How will current Graphics cards handle such incredible looking games?? I am about to buy a laptop with a Geforce 7600 256mb and i know that it can just about run the likes of FEAR at max settings, but how would it handle these new titles??
Because the graphics in the likes of Crysis look like they are gonna be FAR more demanding on a Laptops specs than FEAR/Oblivion....

I hope the PC games industry isnt gonna start making games that you will need a Dua/Quadl Geforce SLI gpu to play at nice high settings!!??

 

****..they gotta lower the prices for laptops and pcs ..

 

Unless your get a low resolution screen on your laptop (ie NOT 1680x1050) that 7600 wont run it at max settings. My watercooled/overclocked desktop 7800gtx will barely run max and gets slow on some parts. This is also with an opteron 170 @ 3ghz. So a stock (or underclocked) 7600 wont get near max settings. And on the newer games it is going to be even worse. But a laptop isnt a high end gaming machine, so one shouldnt expect it to run current games at high settings when most peoples desktops can barely do that.

 

Armed Assault should run well on modern hardware. It has been in development for a looooong time, and Bohemia have made quite an effort to keep requirements down.

Incidentally, ArmA is the only one of those titles that interests me, the others have been done to death.

 

what do u think the requirement for armed assualt be?

 

Do you think that Crysis will run on my system?

 

I think you are under what people are suspecting the minimum requirements to be i.e roughly an X800 - but you might get away with it, only at very low settings though, which usually totally ruins the experience of a Single Player FPS.

 

I will just pray that C&C3 and SupCommander run good on my lappy at medium - high setting.
FEAR run good , I give up hope on Crysis.
Game dev gotta think of the consumer lappy and PC, new game doesnt really have to mean new hardware.
Maybe that why many people pirate game PC, they save money for hardware for hardware cant be pirate
Just kidding

 

I'll be kind of lucky to play crisys on my x1400!!

 

I hope my 7900gtx will play crisis at good settings

 

It has only been a few years (since the introduction of the ATI Mobile 9600) that notebooks have been able to run newer games reliably if at all. Since that time a lot of improvements have been made in terms of the graphics power of notebooks. I think everyone was caught somewhat surprised by the high demand for gaming notebooks. It was always assumed notebooks where for bussiness use. Right now notebooks are lagging only slightly (relavitvely speaking) behind the desktop top end. Both notebook and desktop cost an arm and a leg though. €500 for the best graphics card has been normal for a while now.

The new releases that I am most excited about are Medieval II: Total Warwhich I will not be able to play decently (for me, meaning huge units) on a notebook (whichever I will choose) and Alan Wake (which might run).

Supreme Commander, as I have remarked on before, will run on most computers. In fact I would be surprised if it would fail to run on X200 type integrated graphics. The technology used is not state of the art and not grphics intensive. The developers believe more in gameplay to sell games then massive graphics.

 

There is no way that the developers of Crysis would allow the game to have such a high minimum requirement of something like an X800.. as they know it would mean that the sales would suffer greatly.
Most of the peope who own laptops/ computers have the low-midrange cards and the developers know this..and so would want to give the public a real oppertunity to play the game ok on a mid range gpu (X1400/7400)

I would imagine that the low to midrange "New Cards" (X1300-X1400/ 7300-7400) would be seen as the realistic minimum cards needed to play the game confortably at low settings. Mid-High Range cards (X700/X1600/7600) would be needed to play the game at med settings with SOME eye candy turned on... High end cards such as X800/7800 X1800/7900 would play at med-high settings with a fair amount of eye candy.. and the extreme high end cards such as 7900GTX/ X1900/SLI cards would play it at max settings.
If the developers dont do this they are fools!

 

This is from the Armed Assault FAQ at the Bohemia forums:

That's not too bad at all for a game that already looks better than BF2.

 

i hope armed assualt have a better customer service than bf2..

bf2 support sux...imo

 

Crysis is not only a new game, its a totally new engine far more advanced then anything yet seen - I still think an X700 might get away with it, but anything below that I can't see running it at an acceptable level. Sure even at the moment Oblivion and a few other titles don't run very well on 7400's/X1300's without turning details all the way down - and Crysis will be an entire generation ahead of Oblivion resource wise. Why would you bother anyway? RTS games I can understand, but playing an FPS title on low settings, low res looks ruins the game - I put FEAR on lowest settings recently, it actually looks like a PSX game from 1999...so pointless.

Alot of games in the past have had fairly big demands resource wise, such as Battlefield 2 when it first came out, and if the title is big, it generally doesn't stop it from flying off the shelves. Nearly all my friends at the time of BF2 release were running machines with 512/768 mb and mid range cards like fx5200's, 9550's etc, and we nearly all had to upgrade to get bf2 running decently, but that didn't stop us.

Crysis will run better under DX10 hardware, and while it'll still work on Dx9 hardware fine (and on high end DX9 like 7800, 7900 X1800 etc quite well), I don't think they'll be overly bothered ensuring it works on low end Dx9 compatiable hardware like 7400's...again, even if it technically did, it would be pointless.

Some of the screenshots for BF2 as well had a habit of making the game look better then it actually did in action. Not that BF2 isn't lovely as it is, but running the game on the minimum spec - 1.7Ghz, 512mb Ram, 128mb fx5200 or 8500 - the game looks like absolute crap. Even though it says 128mb Minimum the game runs on some 64mb cards too. I'm sure Armed Assault, running on the bare minimum spec, would look just as bad!

 

See my rant on the trend of gaming and graphics

 

I concur, TV (hope you don't mind the abbreviation.) What I'd REALLY like is for games to start taking more advantage of dual cores to do more physics processing, and better AI's. Screw all the prettiness. Make it look nice and be playable (I promise, it's possible. Quake 1 still don't look bad, just slightly dated, and it was done before GL was really mainstream.), and make the games worth playing. Make them do something INTERESTING other than just looking all shiny and HDR'y. I get it, you can do that. Nice. Move on to some content now.

 

I agree totally with what you are saying.. It was just that i didnt agree that the X800 would be seen as the "minimum" spec to run Crysis.. Id say the X1300/7300 would be seen as the minimum that would play the game pretty **** poorly...The X1400/7400 should handle it at something like 800x600 at low settings..and hopefully the 7600/X1600 could play at similar res but with some of the eye candy turned on to make the game pretty **** enjoyable..
Im after just getting a laptop with the 7600 256mb gpu and praying that such a card that is relatively new and pretty powerful wont be seen as useless for new games that are to be released in just a few months!...