[PC] Crysis system requirements

Discussion in 'Games' started by Haoshiro, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. Haoshiro macrumors 68000

    Haoshiro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Location:
    USA, KS
    #1
    Anyone interested in the new game Crysis might want to know the requirements have finally been speculated:

    Minimum Requirements:
    • Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8GHz
    • Graphics: NVIDIA 6600/X800GTO (SM 2.0)
    • RAM: 768MB/1GB
    • HDD: 6GB; Internet: 256k+
    • Optical Drive: DVD
    • Software: DX9.0c with Windows XP

    Recommended Requirements:
    • CPU: Dual-core CPU (Athlon X2/Pentium D)
    • Graphics: Nvidia 7800GTX/ATI X1800XT (SM 3.0) or DX10 equivalent
    • RAM: 1.5GB
    • HDD: 6GB
    • Internet: 512k+ (128k+ upstream)
    • Optical Drive: DVD
    • Software: DX10 with Windows Vista

    Source

    This will probably never be ported to Mac OS, but if it was... there aren't even any systems that would run it, are there? A top of the line PowerMac or the new "MacTower" would probably be the only way, even with BootCamp... ouch.

    EDIT: I missed the source note that these were still speculation and not official. This edit reflects that and includes the source link.
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #2
    Thanks, it's nice to know what kind of requirements I'll need for games in the future. I've been out of the loop lately.
     
  3. grabberslasher macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Éire
    #3
    The iMacs and MacBook Pros will be able to run it, but looking at the pics from this game I wouldn't want to run it on anything but a dual GeForce 7800 SLI setup on a Mac Pro. It looks brilliant though.
     
  4. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #4
    Wow, those are pretty steep! After seeing the trailers iam not surprised though. Integrated graphics users dont even ask about this one.;)
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Oww, that's high, when's the game due to be released?

    EDIT Found it here, that's hugely high for Vista's release.
     
  6. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #6
    from what I've heard they haven't been offically announced.
     
  7. Haoshiro thread starter macrumors 68000

    Haoshiro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Location:
    USA, KS
    #7
    Yeah, my mistake in not following the original source link... I've edited the OT to reflect that. :) Still, I think it will be close to that in the end anyway.
     
  8. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #8
    That's it? From the looks of it I expected quad-core Woodcrest w/ dual SLI Geforce 7800's as minimum requirements.
     
  9. kinesin macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #9
    One of the reason's I've nearly all but abandoned PC gaming. Graphics are nice, but the cost of keeping up was killing me.
    In the end I couldn't keep paying out for for a better GPU, just to play a few weeks/hours (depending on my free time) the latest and greatest.
    Before I brought my MacBook, I downgraded my graphics card back to Ti4200* and sold the more powerful board.

    *My best PC buy ever!! - Coped for years without too much trouble, even Farcry ran well enough to have the jungle looking hot.
     
  10. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #10
    Yeah, graphics card purchases have gone well for me. I got a Geforce 2 MX-400- that thing was a beast, only until recently did I buy games it couldn't run. My gaming PC has a puny Geforce FX 5200, which I overclocked 20% and I to this day have not purchased a game it couldn't run in at least 1024x768 at medium settings.

    Thing is that the system requirements for Crysis are so high they haven't even announced it for PS3 or XBox 360 yet. I imagine it might eventually make it to PS3 or 360 at lower settings like Far Cry did for XBox.
     
  11. Haoshiro thread starter macrumors 68000

    Haoshiro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Location:
    USA, KS
    #11
    Wow, you must be buying old/weak games or just have very low fps expectations! The most disappointing hardware I have ever purchased was the FX 5200. :'(
     
  12. Sutekidane macrumors 6502a

    Sutekidane

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    #12
    In reality if you're happy with games running at low/medium settings, than you'd be a very happy budget gamer indeed. Games are designed to work well with a wide spectrum of computers, or else they wouldn't sell as well.
     
  13. grabberslasher macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Éire
    #13
    The GeForce 5 (fx) series were the worst performing cards ever. I wouldn't be surprised if a high end GeForce 4 would get better performance. The 5200 was a disaster that should never have made it to the Mac line. Just my opinion :)
     
  14. Haoshiro thread starter macrumors 68000

    Haoshiro

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    Location:
    USA, KS
    #14
    Usually they are, yes. But if you are used to a game performing extremely good then a game that simply runs adequately is not going to feel very nice. Under about 45 fps and I start getting annoyed. I was able to play Prince of Persia on a FX 5200 at 640x480 and it worked well... but that is a pathetic resolution and the game has two sequels now.

    Well the high end GF4's are naturally better then the 5200, there is no doubt there. Just as the high end GF3's beat the budget GF4 (and the jokes that are the crippled MX cards have no chance in any class against an older high end card, even my GF2 Pro usually trumped a GF4MX).

    The biggest problem, I found, with the 5200 performance is that games would detect it as having PS2.0 support, which was accurate. But it's PS2.0 performance was so extremely poor that it couldn't use them and play a game fast enough to be playable. Forcing PS1.1 (or turning off PS altogether) in Halo, for example, made a HUGE impact on performance.

    But in general, yes, the FX was rubbish. Though the 5700 cards weren't terrible. I did love my 6600GT far far more, though... back in my PC days. :)
     
  15. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #15

    I overclocked it quite nicely, my processor performs quite well, and I never turn the resolution above 1024x768 or turn on AA. And I aim for 30 FPS. Thus, I can turn up most of the other settings. :)
     

Share This Page