Crysis 2 minimum system specs revealed

e we actually seen anything from the PC version?

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

I know the command......it's common knowledge especially for those who use the console to load custom maps.

ferret-gamer

well then go for it... and make sure you are close to some buildings or rocks so we can see the texture detail.

you might be right... but thats about the performance my factory overclocked 8800gtx had... and i was under the impression it was a better card than the 8800gt.

but then again mid 20s fps isnt playable... especially if thats your idle fps. When you are actually in an action scenario... thats going to halve.

EDIT: and again... if we are talking decent configs... thats user created... not crytek created (should use a default setting). This is afterall, a discussion of cryteks prowess. Should we really rely on users to make crysis 2 look good? I guess if you want to wait a couple years...

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="markinthedark"]

well then go for it... and make sure you are close to some buildings or rocks so we can see the texture detail.

markinthedark

you might be right... but thats about the performance my factory overclocked 8800gtx had... and i was under the impression it was a better card than the 8800gt.

but then again mid 20s fps isnt playable... especially if thats your idle fps. When you are actually in an action scenario... thats going to halve.

EDIT: and again... if we are talking decent configs... thats user created... not crytek created (should use a default setting). This is afterall, a discussion of cryteks prowess. Should we really rely on users to make crysis 2 look good? I guess if you want to wait a couple years...

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] according to benchmarks he should be getting in the mid 20s on high 2xAA at 1680x1050, if he uses some decent configs he probably could achieve quality greater than high around 30fps.DragonfireXZ95

you might be right... but thats about the performance my factory overclocked 8800gtx had... and i was under the impression it was a better card than the 8800gt.

but then again mid 20s fps isnt playable... especially if thats your idle fps. When you are actually in an action scenario... thats going to halve.

EDIT: and again... if we are talking decent configs... thats user created... not crytek created (should use a default setting). This is afterall, a discussion of cryteks prowess. Should we really rely on users to make crysis 2 look good? I guess if you want to wait a couple years...

particle effects and physics i believe are entirely GPU based in crysis.... i dont have a clue why crysis would be taxing your ram or HDD....

eh..

I'm covered 2 out of the 3 PCs I have can run it.

my 27' iMac can as well.....I think.. I have to check the GPU, but everything else is fine.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="markinthedark"]

you might be right... but thats about the performance my factory overclocked 8800gtx had... and i was under the impression it was a better card than the 8800gt.

but then again mid 20s fps isnt playable... especially if thats your idle fps. When you are actually in an action scenario... thats going to halve.

EDIT: and again... if we are talking decent configs... thats user created... not crytek created (should use a default setting). This is afterall, a discussion of cryteks prowess. Should we really rely on users to make crysis 2 look good? I guess if you want to wait a couple years...

markinthedark

particle effects and physics i believe are entirely GPU based in crysis.... i dont have a clue why crysis would be taxing your ram or HDD....

EDIT: and again... if we are talking decent configs... thats user created... not crytek created (should use a default setting). This is afterall, a discussion of cryteks prowess. Should we really rely on users to make crysis 2 look good? I guess if you want to wait a couple years...

markinthedark

particle effects and physics i believe are entirely GPU based in crysis.... i dont have a clue why crysis would be taxing your ram or HDD....

markinthedark

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]EDIT: and again... if we are talking decent configs... thats user created... not crytek created (should use a default setting). This is afterall, a discussion of cryteks prowess. Should we really rely on users to make crysis 2 look good? I guess if you want to wait a couple years...

ferret-gamer

particle effects and physics i believe are entirely GPU based in crysis.... i dont have a clue why crysis would be taxing your ram or HDD....

markinthedark

again perhaps correct... but based on the benchmarks ive seen... crysis is one of the least cpu based games of this gen. Its usually used in benchmark comparisons to show how pointless cpus are. I OC'd my cpu to 3.2 because that seemed to be the cutoff for cpu having any effect on crysis for all benchmark comparisons.

but in terms of ram and HDDs (as the original post i responded to).... i dont even think those are considered in benchmark comparisons.

EDIT: actually the 3.2 cutoff for cpu was for all games... i think crysis was significantly lower... since its so gpu dependant.

On the custom map I had to play at 1440x900 due to more demanding settings from map like POM textures.

I got 25-30 fps most of the time which is perfectly playable with Crysis and some areas ran past 30 fps.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And here is a regular Crysis level at 1680x1050.

I posted a pic of one of the more demanding scenes when you overlook from the cliff at the beginning.

I usually get around 30 fps but if it's demanding like the first pic then it might dip down a little.

.

.

.

On the custom map I had to play at 1440x900 due to more demanding settings from map like POM textures.

I got 25-30 fps most of the time which is perfectly playable with Crysis and some areas ran past 30 fps.

.

And here is a regular Crysis level at 1680x1050.

I posted a pic of one of the more demanding scenes when you overlook from the cliff at the beginning.

I usually get around 30 fps but if it's demanding like the first pic then it might dip down a little.

.

Hakkai007

you really went above and beyond the call of duty. And frankly... those crysis pics still look damn good... way better than consoles could imagine. But that actually reminded me of the crysis i see when i play.... and really, its nice to see someone post some honest pics. Granted, I could probably take some pics myself and highlight some of the uglier assets in the game...

but it doesnt matter because crysis looks amazing... far better than anything ive seen on consoles.... and i think you have done an amazing service to this board... by giving folks a realistic expectation of what they might see with a mid end build.

you really went above and beyond the call of duty. And frankly... those crysis pics still look damn good... way better than consoles could imagine. But that actually reminded me of the crysis i see when i play.... and really, its nice to see someone post some honest pics. Granted, I could probably take some pics myself and highlight some of the uglier assets in the game...

but it doesnt matter because crysis looks amazing... far better than anything ive seen on consoles.... and i think you have done an amazing service to this board... by giving folks a realistic expectation of what they might see with a mid end build.

markinthedark

Yah crysis does have some bad looking parts.

The vanilla rock textures are not that good up close and the vanilla plant textures are not that great.

You can add custom textures that are around the same size but better looking and don't really drop performance much.

I am not talking about the heavy hitting Rygel's textures or whatever his name is but these textures.

.

http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php?fileid=4471&lim=20

I did not use those textures in my game though. Well I did a long time back but I just reinstall the game not so long ago and didn't add them in.

.

Oh and if you have a GTX 460 now then you should be fine with Crysis at max with 2-4xaa if you are playing at 1680x1050.

Although your CPU can cause trouble if it's weak.

The easiest way to see if your CPU is bottlenecking the game is to look at your task manager under processes and see if it's hitting 100% usage before your GPU hits 100% usage.

The way I check my GPU is by using a program called EVGA Precision.

Crysis will look great with my new PC build since it's about time to upgrade from my 2007 PC build.

I will still use my 2007 PC for stuff though.

again perhaps correct... but based on the benchmarks ive seen... crysis is one of the least cpu based games of this gen. Its usually used in benchmark comparisons to show how pointless cpus are. I OC'd my cpu to 3.2 because that seemed to be the cutoff for cpu having any effect on crysis for all benchmark comparisons.

but in terms of ram and HDDs (as the original post i responded to).... i dont even think those are considered in benchmark comparisons.

EDIT: actually the 3.2 cutoff for cpu was for all games... i think crysis was significantly lower... since its so gpu dependant.

markinthedark

It has far less to do with the CPU not being used and far more to do with the GPU being overused. GPU is the bottleneck in just about 100% of all cases related to the game(unless you have a Pentium 4 paired with Crossfire Radeon 6970s... But that is the most blatant attempt to be CPU bottlenecked ever). However, if you use a performance monitor to track CPU usage, Crysis is one of the most taxing games on the CPU this gen. It is one of the most taxing games period.

Oh and if you have a GTX 460 now then you should be fine with Crysis at max with 2-4xaa if you are playing at 1680x1050.

Although your CPU can cause trouble if it's weak.

The easiest way to see if your CPU is bottlenecking the game is to look at your task manager under processes and see if it's hitting 100% usage before your GPU hits 100% usage.

The way I check my GPU is by using a program called EVGA Precision.

Crysis will look great with my new PC build since it's about time to upgrade from my 2007 PC build.

I will still use my 2007 PC for stuff though.

Hakkai007

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Oh and if you have a GTX 460 now then you should be fine with Crysis at max with 2-4xaa if you are playing at 1680x1050.

Although your CPU can cause trouble if it's weak.

The easiest way to see if your CPU is bottlenecking the game is to look at your task manager under processes and see if it's hitting 100% usage before your GPU hits 100% usage.

The way I check my GPU is by using a program called EVGA Precision.

Crysis will look great with my new PC build since it's about time to upgrade from my 2007 PC build.

I will still use my 2007 PC for stuff though.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Oh and if you have a GTX 460 now then you should be fine with Crysis at max with 2-4xaa if you are playing at 1680x1050.

Although your CPU can cause trouble if it's weak.

The easiest way to see if your CPU is bottlenecking the game is to look at your task manager under processes and see if it's hitting 100% usage before your GPU hits 100% usage.

The way I check my GPU is by using a program called EVGA Precision.

Crysis will look great with my new PC build since it's about time to upgrade from my 2007 PC build.

I will still use my 2007 PC for stuff though.

04dcarraher

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Talk about reading comprehension fail . There is a diffrence between higher settings and image quality settings. Its also important to note a 7 series of cards isnt going to run any of those image quality settings you just mentioned on DMC4. Stay on topic or dont contribute.

TheSterls

Your argument that DMC4 doesn't look better on PC has fail written over it. FULL HD 1080P with 16X FSAa ANd 16X anistrophic filtering will always look bettern than the trash 720P with low AA that consoles run it on.

Reading comprehension fail yet again , not one thing you said in that post was relevant to what we have been discussing.

LMAO. If you look at the video below even at 720P the PC version has better color contrast, more crisper, overall bettter quality than the consoles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk

Try harder next time.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="DudeNtheRoom"]

Those DMC4 screens look kinda bad.........this time around I think it's the game that doesn't do a gaming rig justice.

Edit: All this (10 pages) from a thread stating minimum spec requirements?

TheSterls

It's look alright for a Jan 2008 game and much better than the console version.

And it runs very good. Even maxed out at 16xQMSAA it will run around 80-90 fps.

The PS3 version in front of my face looks better then your pics bro , You must have lost lots of quality while transferring them.

This is even more COMEDY. You are saying DMC4 on PC with 16X FSAA at 1050P or 1080P somehow doesn't look better than consoles version which is at a looks like crap on a PS3 at 720P with horrible FSAA. So much argument fail.

XP, DDR3 6 gigs Ram, 4870 and mah quad core won't have a problem. If this plays and looks as good as Warhead did on my PC i will be pleased.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

again perhaps correct... but based on the benchmarks ive seen... crysis is one of the least cpu based games of this gen. Its usually used in benchmark comparisons to show how pointless cpus are. I OC'd my cpu to 3.2 because that seemed to be the cutoff for cpu having any effect on crysis for all benchmark comparisons.

but in terms of ram and HDDs (as the original post i responded to).... i dont even think those are considered in benchmark comparisons.

EDIT: actually the 3.2 cutoff for cpu was for all games... i think crysis was significantly lower... since its so gpu dependant.

KingsMessenger

It has far less to do with the CPU not being used and far more to do with the GPU being overused. GPU is the bottleneck in just about 100% of all cases related to the game(unless you have a Pentium 4 paired with Crossfire Radeon 6970s... But that is the most blatant attempt to be CPU bottlenecked ever). However, if you use a performance monitor to track CPU usage, Crysis is one of the most taxing games on the CPU this gen. It is one of the most taxing games period.

It mainly goes by fps. The higher fps your gpu is rendering, the faster your cpu needs to be to keep up. But since gpus render crysis at a much lower fps than most other games. The same system is a alot less likely to be cpu bottlenecked by crysis, than by other games out there.

XP, DDR3 6 gigs Ram, 4870 and mah quad core won't have a problem. If this plays and looks as good as Warhead did on my PC i will be pleased.

xOMGITSJASONx

exactly why do you have 6 GB of ram when.....you have XP? :?

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yea to bad a simliar GPU in a pc isnt going to outperform a console , as i said before it wasnt untill the TI4600 came out when the pc was able to pull ahead.

TheSterls

Can you prove this?

Also you seem to forget last gen games are run at low resolutions like 640x480.

The only time consoles were ahead of PC in hardware was back in 1994.

Most gamers PC last gen games at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 and maybe a few at 800x600 and 1600x1200.

The Dreamcast was also blowing everything out of the water when it came out in 1999.

Not even close. Another example of distortion of the facts. It was using PowerVR GPU that was already outdated by Voodoo 3 that came out in spring of 1999. Dreamcast launched earlier in Japan in 1999 so there were using older tech from 1998. By the time Dreamcast came out in the states nVidia had already released the first Gefore called the GeForce 256 in August of 1999 which absolutely destroyed anything that PowerVR had or 3DFX had for that matter.

GF4 didn't come out until a year after the Xbox, so at the time the Xbox had the most advanced GPU you could buy.

Teufelhuhn

GeForce 4 came out in February of 2002 (I remember Gamespot doing a review of it) only three months after the Xbox was launched. So at most consoles had a lead for AT BEST 3 months.

[QUOTE="xOMGITSJASONx"]

XP, DDR3 6 gigs Ram, 4870 and mah quad core won't have a problem. If this plays and looks as good as Warhead did on my PC i will be pleased.

lespaul1919

exactly why do you have 6 GB of ram when.....you have XP? :?

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Min. Settings are for people who want to play the game on the LOWEST settings possible. As stated above. I can't wait to see the Recommended Specs, I'm scared that I won't be able to max it out =(KingsMessenger

How about this. If you don't have modern high end hardware(the LATEST top of the line card), you won't be able to Max it out. That is how PC gaming works. That is how it has always worked. This generation is freakishly dry on the technical side for PC games. But that doesn't change the fact that when a new graphical benchmark game comes out, to max it, you have to have top of the line hardware...

Do you have top of the line hardware? If No, then you wont be able to max the game.

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]Min. Settings are for people who want to play the game on the LOWEST settings possible. As stated above. I can't wait to see the Recommended Specs, I'm scared that I won't be able to max it out =(deadesa

How about this. If you don't have modern high end hardware(the LATEST top of the line card), you won't be able to Max it out. That is how PC gaming works. That is how it has always worked. This generation is freakishly dry on the technical side for PC games. But that doesn't change the fact that when a new graphical benchmark game comes out, to max it, you have to have top of the line hardware...

Do you have top of the line hardware? If No, then you wont be able to max the game.

[QUOTE="xOMGITSJASONx"]

XP, DDR3 6 gigs Ram, 4870 and mah quad core won't have a problem. If this plays and looks as good as Warhead did on my PC i will be pleased.

lespaul1919

exactly why do you have 6 GB of ram when.....you have XP? :?

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

[QUOTE="xOMGITSJASONx"]

XP, DDR3 6 gigs Ram, 4870 and mah quad core won't have a problem. If this plays and looks as good as Warhead did on my PC i will be pleased.

the_ChEeSe_mAn2

exactly why do you have 6 GB of ram when.....you have XP? :?

64-bit XP will recognize the increased amount. 32-bit will not be able to utilize it.

They said Crysis 2 sill have lower system spec than Crysis 1. All I'm seeing that its higher