Apparently the 9800 series will be overkill for crysis.

I went to system requirements lab and it said my Processor wouldn't run COD4. I have a 1.73 Centrino Duo, at 3.14 or something. That should be better than a 2,4 Pentium 4, so why did I not meet the requirements. EDIT: Would I be able to play COD4 on medium to high with a 7600GS, 1GB DDR1 Ram and a P4 2.4ghz, with possible 1680x1050 resolution?

apparently there are new GTS coming out, I would like Gamespot to do a comparison on the 8800GTS, the 8800GT and these two cards.

apparently there are new GTS coming out, I would like Gamespot to do a comparison on the 8800GTS, the 8800GT and these two cards.

I think we need to pay more attention to the ridiculous prices and backward release dates in mainstream games before worrying about this.

why couldn't the developers just make very high on xp, obviously it can be done if it just requires moving files around and whatnot. i saw absolutely no difference between the very high on xp and vista. This doesn't necessarily mean that they used DX10 to it's max. though, so I wouldn't be complaining about it just yet, it's still early days...

uh i got really confused with the french bit, what was that even about?

i have a laptop with 1gb ram, GF go7300, core duo 1.73, and bioshock(demo) had to run on 800x600 (and ended up getting BlueScreenofDeath). But my desktop with only pentium 4 2.8ghz, 768mb ram, (but with a GF 7600 gs) played bioshock(demo) at the default settings, with great framerate and graphics. Shows how much the PSU and GPU effect it i guess. Mouse and keyboard are better for first person games imo. This game is really good when u can get up close to the screen on a computer. ps: 768 ram is alright to play with, just dont have stuff running in the background. (my motherboard screws up and only takes half 512 ram, it should be 1gb, but it doesnt seem to matter much)