Crysis Warhead System Requirements Revealed

Well it doesn't look good for those without good PC's. The min requirements for the game are:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 15GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

These requirements are nearly identical to the originals so those who couldn't play the first probably won't be able to play this. The game is more optimized if that's any consilation so it should run better on a lot of computers that can handle it.

I'm a bit dissapointed as I thought they'd learnt their lesson from the first game and realised that a lot of people coudn't run the game. Although I guess some games have to push graphical boundries and set a benchmark otherwise they would never improve.

What does everyone else think?

Well it doesn't look good for those without good PC's. The min requirements for the game are:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 15GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

These requirements are nearly identical to the originals so those who couldn't play the first probably won't be able to play this. The game is more optimized if that's any consilation so it should run better on a lot of computers that can handle it.

I'm a bit dissapointed as I thought they'd learnt their lesson from the first game and realised that a lot of people coudn't run the game. Although I guess some games have to push graphical boundries and set a benchmark otherwise they would never improve.

What does everyone else think?

mracoon

Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead.

[QUOTE="mracoon"]

Well it doesn't look good for those without good PC's. The min requirements for the game are:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 15GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

These requirements are nearly identical to the originals so those who couldn't play the first probably won't be able to play this. The game is more optimized if that's any consilation so it should run better on a lot of computers that can handle it.

I'm a bit dissapointed as I thought they'd learnt their lesson from the first game and realised that a lot of people coudn't run the game. Although I guess some games have to push graphical boundries and set a benchmark otherwise they would never improve.

What does everyone else think?

leper-messiahs

Yes but it could have been a lot more if the requirements were a bit lower. Also I think a lot of the piracy was linked to the system requirements.

Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead.

Yes but it could have a lot more I think if the requirements were lower. I know some people who wanted to play the game but couldn't run it. Also I think a lot of piracy was linked to the system requirements.

[QUOTE="leper-messiahs"][QUOTE="mracoon"]

Well it doesn't look good for those without good PC's. The min requirements for the game are:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 15GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

These requirements are nearly identical to the originals so those who couldn't play the first probably won't be able to play this. The game is more optimized if that's any consilation so it should run better on a lot of computers that can handle it.

I'm a bit dissapointed as I thought they'd learnt their lesson from the first game and realised that a lot of people coudn't run the game. Although I guess some games have to push graphical boundries and set a benchmark otherwise they would never improve.

What does everyone else think?

mracoon

Yes but it could have been a lot more if the requirements were a bit lower. Also I think a lot of the piracy was linked to the system requirements.

Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead.

Yes but it could have a lot more I think if the requirements were lower. I know some people who wanted to play the game but couldn't run it. Also I think a lot of piracy was linked to the system requirements.

Umm, most games the last year had MUCH HIGHER requiremenst and look worse, people would pirate it if it only cost 10 bucks, bull. These are some of the best requirements you can expect for such an advanced game, look at GEars, Creeds requirements in comparison, even mass Effect or Bioshock, all higher and less pretty. How can you expect the best looking engine on the planet go lower then a 9800 Pro? Come on. Piracy had nothing to do with requirements, had everything to do with people wanting it free as opposed to paying, simple as that.

Pretty good bar the 15GB install lol. biggest_loser

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Pretty good bar the 15GB install lol. leper-messiahs

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB.

15GB is still pretty big. Considering Crysis was like...7?

Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead. leper-messiahs

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB. leper-messiahs

Hmm.......

Build me a $850 rig(case, mobo, cpu, HDD, RAM, Dvd drive, gpu, psu, k/m, and O.S.) that can run Crysis at an average of 40FPS without dipping below 30FPS on high settings 2xAA in DX10 at a 1360x768 resolution. No monitor needed.

Provide links to parts, newegg is prefered.

I wonder what the recommended system requirements are. sirk1264

something in the likes of the original prolly, like: 2.4 ghz core 2 duo, 2 gb ram, geforce 8800 series and above i supose

as min. requirement, too high for average gamers, but a none issue for its target customers.

note, min. requirement means that a rig of that sort of specs would "run" the game, not "run well" or "run smoothly" or "run whatevers."

recommended specs would be more telling of how optimized this game is.

[QUOTE="mracoon"]

Well it doesn't look good for those without good PC's. The min requirements for the game are:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 15GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

These requirements are nearly identical to the originals so those who couldn't play the first probably won't be able to play this. The game is more optimized if that's any consilation so it should run better on a lot of computers that can handle it.

I'm a bit dissapointed as I thought they'd learnt their lesson from the first game and realised that a lot of people coudn't run the game. Although I guess some games have to push graphical boundries and set a benchmark otherwise they would never improve.

What does everyone else think?

leper-messiahs

Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead.

The time Crysis was released, the 8800 GT was at least $300. So you fail.

as min. requirement, too high for average gamers, but a none issue for its target customers.

note, min. requirement means that a rig of that sort of specs would "run" the game, not "run well" or "run smoothly" or "run whatevers."

recommended specs would be more telling of how optimized this game is.

teardropmina

Way off, that is even manageable for average gamers the 9800 pro is 5 years old, that is an eternity in Pc gaming. That is not too high for average or any Pc gamer, lower the the majority of games for the last year.

[QUOTE="leper-messiahs"]Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead. CB4McGusto

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB. leper-messiahs

Hmm.......

Build me a $850 rig(case, mobo, cpu, HDD, RAM, Dvd drive, gpu, psu, k/m, and O.S.) that can run Crysis at an average of 40FPS without dipping below 30FPS on high settings 2xAA in DX10 at a 1360x768 resolution. No monitor needed.

Provide links to parts, newegg is prefered.

On high, easy, considering a 8800Gt can play it on high and get 40 FPS, hell a 9800GTX can even better, very high, well no, but high? You can build one for around 6-700 bucks, Crytek even built one on their site over a year ago for $900, and it is cheaper now then 1 year ago.

[QUOTE="leper-messiahs"]Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead. CB4McGusto

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB. leper-messiahs

Hmm.......

Build me a $850 rig(case, mobo, cpu, HDD, RAM, Dvd drive, gpu, psu, k/m, and O.S.) that can run Crysis at an average of 40FPS without dipping below 30FPS on high settings 2xAA in DX10 at a 1360x768 resolution. No monitor needed.

Provide links to parts, newegg is prefered.

Raidmax Smilodon Mid Tower $74.98

MSI P45 Neo-F - $76.47

E8400 - $169.99

Western Digital 500GB HD - $69.99

OCZ 4GB RAM - $49.99

Asus 18X DVD 48X CD DVD-ROM - $28.24

Gigabyte HD 4850 - $149.99

PC Power and Cooling Silencer 610W - $79.99

Kensington Keyboard - $24.38

OCZ Equalizer Mouse - $35.98

Windows Vista Home Basic SP1 64-bit - $89.99

Total - $849.99 after shipping (:lol: I didn't even try to get it that exact, what luck)

Anyway, at the res and settings you want, it should get the frames you're looking for, maybe better. Add another $100 for a 4870 (PowerColor one at Newegg for $249.99) and you should manage all high at 1680x1050, or all/almost all very high at the res you mentioned, and still get the framerate you want.

I advise you to ask the PC Hardware forum to build the system your want for $850. Some people there might do a better job at building you a system than I did.

EDIT - On second thought, use this motherboard instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130181

I didn't realize the other motherboard was OEM, which means you wouldn't have SATA connectors and all that come with it for your HD. This'll put you at about $870, I think, but you can slightly downgrade a few of the less important things if you want to get it back down (smaller hard drive should be enough to do that)

I ran Crysis on a 2.4 ghz AMD, 512 RAM, and NVIDIA 6800 128meg just fine. Lowest settings, but hey - it ran.GodLovesDead

nice 8)

Is this going to be a standalone Expansion pack or what?Makemap

Pretty much.

[QUOTE="mracoon"][QUOTE="leper-messiahs"][QUOTE="mracoon"]

Well it doesn't look good for those without good PC's. The min requirements for the game are:

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 15GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or Microsoft Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

These requirements are nearly identical to the originals so those who couldn't play the first probably won't be able to play this. The game is more optimized if that's any consilation so it should run better on a lot of computers that can handle it.

I'm a bit dissapointed as I thought they'd learnt their lesson from the first game and realised that a lot of people coudn't run the game. Although I guess some games have to push graphical boundries and set a benchmark otherwise they would never improve.

What does everyone else think?

leper-messiahs

Yes but it could have been a lot more if the requirements were a bit lower. Also I think a lot of the piracy was linked to the system requirements.

Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead.

Yes but it could have a lot more I think if the requirements were lower. I know some people who wanted to play the game but couldn't run it. Also I think a lot of piracy was linked to the system requirements.

Umm, most games the last year had MUCH HIGHER requiremenst and look worse, people would pirate it if it only cost 10 bucks, bull. These are some of the best requirements you can expect for such an advanced game, look at GEars, Creeds requirements in comparison, even mass Effect or Bioshock, all higher and less pretty. How can you expect the best looking engine on the planet go lower then a 9800 Pro? Come on. Piracy had nothing to do with requirements, had everything to do with people wanting it free as opposed to paying, simple as that.

[QUOTE="CB4McGusto"]

[QUOTE="leper-messiahs"]Learnt their lesson? 1.5 million copies sold? Those requirement today are pretty good, you can get a 8800GT for $100, or a 9800GTX for $169.00. A 9800 Pro is what 6 years old? Get real, awesome requirements for such a powerful engine, scales way back for hardware. Most games will not run on those low specs, let alone ones that look as nice as Warhead. JP_Russell

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB. leper-messiahs

Hmm.......

Build me a $850 rig(case, mobo, cpu, HDD, RAM, Dvd drive, gpu, psu, k/m, and O.S.) that can run Crysis at an average of 40FPS without dipping below 30FPS on high settings 2xAA in DX10 at a 1360x768 resolution. No monitor needed.

Provide links to parts, newegg is prefered.

Raidmax Smilodon Mid Tower $74.98

MSI P45 Neo-F - $76.47

E8400 - $169.99

Western Digital 500GB HD - $69.99

OCZ 4GB RAM - $49.99

Asus 18X DVD 48X CD DVD-ROM - $28.24

Gigabyte HD 4850 - $149.99

PC Power and Cooling Silencer 610W - $79.99

Kensington Keyboard - $24.38

OCZ Equalizer Mouse - $35.98

Windows Vista Home Basic SP1 64-bit - $89.99

Total - $849.99 after shipping (:lol: I didn't even try to get it that exact, what luck)

Anyway, at the res and settings you want, it should get the frames you're looking for, maybe better. Add another $100 for a 4870 (PowerColor one at Newegg for $249.99) and you should manage all high at 1680x1050, or all/almost all very high at the res you mentioned, and still get the framerate you want.

I advise you to ask the PC Hardware forum to build the system your want for $850. Some people there might do a better job at building you a system than I did.

EDIT - On second thought, use this motherboard instead.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130181

I didn't realize the other motherboard was OEM, which means you wouldn't have SATA connectors and all that come with it for your HD. This'll put you at about $870, I think, but you can slightly downgrade a few of the less important things if you want to get it back down (smaller hard drive should be enough to do that)

HD 4870, $193

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=HIS-4870&c=pw

HD 4870, $193

http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=HIS-4870&c=pw

musclesforcier

Yeah, I saw that earlier on the hardware forum. Pretty amazing. I can only assume the 4800's must cost very little to manufacture compared to the economically poorly designed GTX's.

The time Crysis was released, the 8800 GT was at least $300. So you fail.

sSubZerOo

He said today.

I had a PC better than the minimum requirements in 2005 and Warhead is running in the most advanced FPS engine currently available.

What's the problem here? Those requirements are fine. Anyone expecting lower either has absolutely no understanding at all of computer components or simply wants another trivial reason to attack Crytek.

[QUOTE="leper-messiahs"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Pretty good bar the 15GB install lol. GodLovesDead

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB.

15GB is still pretty big. Considering Crysis was like...7?

Eh, I don't know... Age of Conan is a 25GB install. Seems the norm these days. Of course I have over a TB of HD space so it doesn't matter to me.

Face the fact that the System Requirements is what killed the sales of Crysis. Piracy obviously contributed somewhat to the not so well sales of Crysis. You need to realize most of those people pirating never had any intentions on purchasing the game anyways so it's still 50/50. This is what heppens when you create a game for 5-10% of the PC gaming market. I mean most people couldn't even run the demo so what-do-ya expect??gamer082009

You're right that system requirements were more of a hit to actual potential sales than piracy, but killed they were not. Crysis is pushing on two million unit sales in under twelve months. Half Life 2 sold around four million in two years, so Crytek's sales are pretty damn strong so far.

In fact, given that there are so many people who want to play Crysis but can't because of hardware costs, it's semi-probable that Crysis' sales will pick up as hardware prices drop, so Crysis could end up outselling Half Life 2 by the two year mark.

I think 5-10% is a huge underestimate, too. It's closer to 20%, I think - and that percentage is just getting higher with time.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="leper-messiahs"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Pretty good bar the 15GB install lol. Johnny_Rock

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB.

15GB is still pretty big. Considering Crysis was like...7?

Eh, I don't know... Age of Conan is a 25GB install. Seems the norm these days. Of course I have over a TB of HD space so it doesn't matter to me.

Age of Conan is an MMO, of course they have huge installs.

[QUOTE="gamer082009"]Face the fact that the System Requirements is what killed the sales of Crysis. Piracy obviously contributed somewhat to the not so well sales of Crysis. You need to realize most of those people pirating never had any intentions on purchasing the game anyways so it's still 50/50. This is what heppens when you create a game for 5-10% of the PC gaming market. I mean most people couldn't even run the demo so what-do-ya expect??fatshodan

You're right that system requirements were more of a hit to actual potential sales than piracy, but killed they were not. Crysis is pushing on two million unit sales in under twelve months. Half Life 2 sold around four million in two years, so Crytek's sales are pretty damn strong so far.

In fact, given that there are so many people who want to play Crysis but can't because of hardware costs, it's semi-probable that Crysis' sales will pick up as hardware prices drop, so Crysis could end up outselling Half Life 2 by the two year mark.

I think 5-10% is a huge underestimate, too. It's closer to 20%, I think - and that percentage is just getting higher with time.

Exactly, requirements did NOT hurt Crysis sales much at all, the game is incredibly scalable, and has lower reqs then msot Pc games, it is now nearing 2 million in sales, Pc games sell slower but over a lobger period of time. This Bs about High requirement sis a myth spread by the crysis hate machine. Crysis NEVER sold bad, it sold well.

I had a PC better than the minimum requirements in 2005 and Warhead is running in the most advanced FPS engine currently available.

What's the problem here? Those requirements are fine. Anyone expecting lower either has absolutely no understanding at all of computer components or simply wants another trivial reason to attack Crytek.

fatshodan

Yep, Crytek put a lot of working making this engine scale back to very old hardware, how anyone can complain about these requirements shows they have no clue about Pc hardware.

I believe those are the same as the last Crysis game.

We are entering an era of photorealism with grahics. Don't expect an only 6800 to run the game at all. If you are still running a 6800 and trying to play modern games, you are just fooling yourself.

No denying it. PC gaming is damn expensive, but well worth the money.

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="leper-messiahs"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Pretty good bar the 15GB install lol. SimpJee

15 GB? A 500 GB HD can be had for 60-80 bucks now. That is hardly an issue. Many games take up that now, hell Age of conan took up 28 GB.

15GB is still pretty big. Considering Crysis was like...7?

Eh, I don't know... Age of Conan is a 25GB install. Seems the norm these days. Of course I have over a TB of HD space so it doesn't matter to me.

Age of Conan is an MMO, of course they have huge installs.

Age of Conan is a mess of an MMO. Horribly coded. No way that game and its massive lack of content should take up 25 gigs.

I believe those are the same as the last Crysis game.

We are entering an era of photorealism with grahics. Don't expect an only 6800 to run the game at all. If you are still running a 6800 and trying to play modern games, you are just fooling yourself.

No denying it. PC gaming is damn expensive, but well worth the money.

Wasdie

Um,, no that is a myth, Pc gaming is only slightly more expensive then console gaming if you buy your own stuff. It was cheaper for me to upgrade twice then buy a 360, and the game cost for consols over time is more expensive driving up the price of consoles.

Lol even on low settings Crysis looks like Far Cry maxed out.lowcally

:shock: Crysis on low looks like Pacman maxed out......with all the objects apearing only when you get near...its terrible!

[QUOTE="lowcally"]Lol even on low settings Crysis looks like Far Cry maxed out.TA127

:shock: Crysis on low looks like Pacman maxed out......with all the objects apearing only when you get near...its terrible!

total BS, i tried low just out of curiosity, it isn't that abd at all compared to other games. Very much like Far Cry on high settings. You must have had a driver issue.

Anyone who claims to be a modern PC gamer should have a C2D, an 8 series card, and 2GB ram. That's not asking much. These specs are very friendly, actually. Perhaps too low :)

(Ex E2180, 2GB DDR2-800, 9600GT => That's a very reasonable and solid entry system)

15 gig is a lot imojohan1986

I agree. Someone earlier pointed out that disk drives are dirt cheap now, and that is true, but 15GB still seems like an absurd amount considering Crysis is under 8GB. Hopefully there will be an option for people who have Crysis installed already to perform a minimum install so both games share files, which could cut the file size in half.

Anyone who claims to be a modern PC gamer should have a C2D, an 8 series card, and 2GB ram. That's not asking much. These specs are very friendly, actually. Perhaps too low :)

(Ex E2180, 2GB DDR2-800, 9600GT => That's a very reasonable and solid entry system)

Staryoshi87

What about AMD Dual's/Quad's are they in your definition? Or did you mean Dual cores in general?