# Ubisoft's Far Cry 2 System Requirements Published



## malware (Aug 8, 2008)

Publisher Ubisoft issued today the minimum and recommended system requirements for the PC edition of Ubisoft Montreal's open-world first person shooter Far Cry 2. The successor of the original Far Cry game is also due to be released on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 this fall. "It has always been our intention to make Far Cry 2 as accessible to everyone as possible, and we have worked continuously to optimize Far Cry 2 to achieve this goal," said lead technical director Dominic Guay. The full specs follow below.


*Minimum requirements*
CPU: 
Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz, Pentium D 2.66 Ghz
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better
Video card:
NVIDIA 6800 or ATIX1650 or better
Shader Model 3 required
256 Mb of graphic memory
Memory:
1 GB
Media reader:
DVD-ROM
Hard drive space:
~12 Gig or HD space. (tbd)
*Recommended*
CPU:
Intel Core 2 Duo Family
AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
Video card:
NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better
ATIX1900 or better
512 Mb of graphic memory
Memory:
2 GB
Sound:
5.1 sound card recommended
Media reader:
DVD-ROM
Supported Video cards
NVIDIA 6800, NVIDIA 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops.
ATI X1650-1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 8, 2008)

They seem moderate. I guess they optimized it well! But 12gb.. jesus lol


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 8, 2008)

well not as demanding as farcry when it first came out by a long shot, surprised at the reccomended specs, thought they would be a bit more demanding, this is definately good news for most gamers, means most people will be able to run it with all eye candy at reasonable frames


----------



## francis511 (Aug 8, 2008)

Wow, those are pretty low. Wonder if they`re realistic tho`


----------



## twicksisted (Aug 8, 2008)

i doubt they are realistic... have you seen the game footage...
Thats going to eat loads of ram and need a beefy gpu or two... no getting around it.

also they were going on about crysis being able to run well on low hardware before launch...remember that


----------



## zithe (Aug 8, 2008)

Hopefully they didn't pull a bethesda. The 'recommended' requirements could barely run oblivion..


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2008)

The specs seem kind of odd to me.

Why require a 6800, but only an x1650 on the ATi side?  Wasn't the 6600GT about the same performance wise to the x1650?

And why make the x1900 the recommended on the ATi side, but make it a generation higher on the nVidia side?  Why not just make the recommended a 7900GT or something around the same performance as the x1900 from the same generation?


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 8, 2008)

X800's weren't shader model 3, it probably requires it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 8, 2008)

worst thing to do is release a PC series to Console then Release it to PC, UT3 was like this as majority of internal tweaks were for XB360 only.


----------



## CY:G (Aug 8, 2008)

There is no way those requirements are realistic, have you guys seen all the stuff that can go on at once in this game...


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 8, 2008)

I bet that when this game comes out people who can't play it at very high 1920x1080 will complain that it is unoptimised and a crap engine.


----------



## Ketxxx (Aug 8, 2008)

Average specs. Not a fan of how much HDD space will be eaten though. For that kind of space when firing the game up it better be like walking into a new world and make my eyes bleed with all the lush details.


----------



## CY:G (Aug 8, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> I bet that when this game comes out people who can't play it at very high 1920x1080 will complain that it is unoptimised and a crap engine.



That's the thing, when they release this Recommended Settings they never say at what resolution....

For all we now, they may have tried it at 640 * 480...


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 8, 2008)

CY:G said:


> That's the thing, when they release this Recommended Settings they never say at what resolution....
> 
> For all we now, they may have tried it at 640 * 480...



Thats ok for me  I still have an orange monochrome monitor in the back that does that res nicely  Smooth gaming for me.


----------



## chron (Aug 8, 2008)

The screen shots look very cartoony, but still intriguing.


----------



## CY:G (Aug 8, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Thats ok for me  I still have an orange monochrome monitor in the back that does that res nicely  Smooth gaming for me.



Lucky you , i play at 5760 * 1200 with 128 bit colors and nothing runs


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 8, 2008)

chron said:


> The screen shots look very cartoony, but still intriguing.



Looks the same as crysis to me, I just watched the trailer.

@CY:G Must need 1gb video ram just to show the desktop


----------



## Tatsumaru (Aug 8, 2008)

Well it looks nice ! Much Nicer than Crysis came out last year with its Devastating Requiremnets..
they say it will take full advantage of Quad Cpus...
But will it ?
and if so just hof much more diffrense there wiil be between a Quad  and a  Dual cpu in this game ?


----------



## GREASEMONKEY (Aug 8, 2008)

Requirements look about the same as crysis also.


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 8, 2008)

it goes:

*minimum:*          looks crap and choppy as hell but playable
*reccomended:*   looks good, playable on med/high settings at average res
*high spec: *       all eye candy on full, and high res

high spec is probably top end dual/quad core, 4gb ram, crossfire/sli 4870/gtx260/280


----------



## DarkMatter (Aug 8, 2008)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think these requirements are the same that Crysis had. I mean minimum and recommended requirements mean squat nowadays.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 8, 2008)

Looks fine to me,not arsed about 12gb required as i have a 195gb game partition.

Farcry was a beast to run when it came out,wonder if this is gonna be underestimated specs like that was.


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 8, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think these requirements are the same that Crysis had. I mean minimum and recommended requirements mean squat nowadays.



how do they mean squat ? i think its pretty self explanatory, minimum is what you can play the game at on lowest settings, reccomended will give you a nice playable experience whilst looking quite nice, if anything the only way it could possibly be misleading, is people misinterpretting reccomended specs for playing at max settings with all eye candy in which case there should be a high end specs also


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 8, 2008)

I haven't reformatted in 8 months. I think I should get to it  12gb is alot for me.. I only have 72gb free.


----------



## Darknova (Aug 8, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> how do they mean squat ? i think its pretty self explanatory, minimum is what you can play the game at on lowest settings, reccomended will give you a nice playable experience whilst looking quite nice, if anything the only way it could possibly be misleading, is people misinterpretting reccomended specs for playing at max settings with all eye candy in which case there should be a high end specs also



Unless you are epic games, in which case minimum is the minimum spec required to run the game at full detail at 1024x768. 

I think that's what he means, minimum and recommended don't mean a thing anymore because we have no idea what they deem to be a playable minimum.

There will always be people who bitch that the minimums are too low or misleading, because they expect to play the latest game at full on their huge-ass monitor with no slow-down, but we just don't know what the devs say is minimum. *shrugs*


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 8, 2008)

those are decent specs. i really hope farcry 2 is more than just a run and gun. it sounds to me that it is going ot be a lot like crysis (even tho they have different developers.)


----------



## WarEagleAU (Aug 8, 2008)

Nothing my system cant handle with aplomb


----------



## DEFEATEST (Aug 8, 2008)

Man if you guys think that 11gig or whatever it is is alot of HD space, Age of Conan is 32 gig!!!!!!!

And ya I bet those specs wont run anything. 600x400 super low maybey, LOL


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 8, 2008)

no joke, install Half Life 2 and both episodes its 12gb also


----------



## Selene (Aug 8, 2008)

Grid is 10gigs, AOC is 30+gigs, WOW is 8.6gigs.
I can see it being 12+gigs.
Looks good, but yea min and rec system is very very misleading in most cases.


----------



## Triprift (Aug 8, 2008)

Id say my lappy will struggle to run it regardless of the moderate specs maybe 800x600 hmmm :/


----------



## JRMBelgium (Aug 8, 2008)

If you want to know how it will run, you have to compare with other system requirements from Ubisoft Montreal games, and the latest GOOD title is "Assasins Creed" if I am not mistaking.



> Supported OS: Windows XP / Vista (only)
> Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or *AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ *or better recommended)
> RAM: 2 GB (*3 GB recommended*)
> Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (*512 MB video card recommended*) (see supported list)*
> ...



If we compare the FC2 requirements with the AC requirements, there isn't  much difference.

The AMD 5200+ is only 10% faster then the 4400+ they recommended for AC. They must have created some good texture streaming because they still say that 512MB is enough.

I was able to play AC on 2048x1536 without shadows. So I am guessing that 1600x1200 without shadows should be perfectly possible. It's a fact that FPS-gaming requires higher framerates then thirdperson-gaming so wurst case scenario I have to play on 1280x1024 wich is not to bad. I finished Crysis on that resolution.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 8, 2008)

Sheesh how often are the specs right lol...  And it depends on the player what playable is. What they call playable is  it runs..


----------



## J-Man (Aug 9, 2008)

I have a feeling I won't be able to max this game. If not I need to upgrade immediately.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 9, 2008)

The moment of truth is fast approaching.  When FC2 is released it will determine once and for all if Crysis was as unoptimized as many have claimed.


----------



## Triprift (Aug 9, 2008)

I think we all all no the answer to that one crysis was totally brutal on hardware.


----------



## DarkMatter (Aug 9, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> how do they mean squat ? i think its pretty self explanatory, minimum is what you can play the game at on lowest settings, reccomended will give you a nice playable experience whilst looking quite nice, if anything the only way it could possibly be misleading, is people misinterpretting reccomended specs for playing at max settings with all eye candy in which case there should be a high end specs also



Hmm, I could agree with that. In their strict meaning you are right aftel all. But historically low specs granted you more than just playable settings and recommended specs assured you almost the best experience. Nowadays you can barely play with minimum specs (basically it just means it will load) and recommended is what you need to even consider playing the game as something similar to what was expected to be. Also in the past you could play with below minimum specs and the difference between low, recommended and high-end was a lot smaller. Today it's like day and night. Dunno, maybe my expectations are higher now.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 9, 2008)

Far Cry 2 
*Recommended*
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family
AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
Video card: NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better
ATIX1900 or better
512 Mb of graphic memory
Memory: 2 GB

Sound: 5.1 sound card recommended

Media reader: DVD-ROM
Supported Video cards
NVIDIA 6800, NVIDIA 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops.
ATI X1650-1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series.


Crysis
*Recommended Requirements*
CPU:  	Core 2 Duo/Athlon X2 or better
RAM: 	1.5GB
Video Card: 	NVIDIA 7800 Series, ATI Radeon 1800 Series or better
VRAM: 	512MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 	12GB
Sound Card: 	DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: 	DVD-ROM
OS: 	Microsoft Windows XP or Vista
DirectX: 	DX9.0c or DX10

So far so good...


----------



## JRMBelgium (Aug 9, 2008)

Can you guys please stop comparing requirements from different developping teams. It's the stupiest thing you can do. If you want to compare, compare with Ubisoft Montreal games...


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 9, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Hmm, I could agree with that. In their strict meaning you are right aftel all. But historically low specs granted you more than just playable settings and recommended specs assured you almost the best experience. Nowadays you can barely play with minimum specs (basically it just means it will load) and recommended is what you need to even consider playing the game as something similar to what was expected to be. Also in the past you could play with below minimum specs and the difference between low, recommended and high-end was a lot smaller. Today it's like day and night. Dunno, maybe my expectations are higher now.



absolute tish tosh, minimum means you can play the game if it means you dont mind playing a blocky low res visually cut down version, and not just load it??, reccomended, is whats needed to enjoy it at a good visual level (i would consider medium settings on most games to be a good example ), i dont see where the problem is, the only thing that i can see as misleading as ive said before is the game companies not listing a high spec reccomendation, on top of the other 2 as people are obviousley confused about what these mean, i know for a fact i can play crysisi on a comp lower spec than what crysis lists as low spec and at 20fps, but tbh it wouldnt be worth it as it would look like shit with everything turned down to low and res at 800x600, but the keyword is it would be playable framerate and hardware wise, either way both specs have to play it at a "playable" framerate, not just load it. are you telling me you cant run crysis on the minimum specs?  cause i know there are a lot of ppl who do and ppl who run it on lower specs, just because "we can"


----------



## KainXS (Aug 9, 2008)

minimum requirements are always like playing the game a 640x480 with ps1 visuals

but oblivions minimal was by far the worst I have ever seen, it was like, it was horrible

so I just negate the minimum requirements now and substitute reccomended as minimal(if you want to truly play the game)


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 9, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Can you guys please stop comparing requirements from different developping teams. It's the stupiest thing you can do. If you want to compare, compare with Ubisoft Montreal games...



Making a rudimentary comparisons can offer some insight on what to expect. BTW, it's developing not developping... It's never a good idea to call anyone stupid when you failed to proof read your own post for spelling mistakes. 



EastCoasthandle said:


> Far Cry 2
> *Recommended*
> CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family
> AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
> ...


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 9, 2008)

specs are never right let me offer proof from my own experince

Star Trek Elite Force
Tried to run it on a PII 266, Rage TNT 16mb, Windows 98se and 128mb of ram, it ran slow

Tried to run COD on a P3 800, Geforce 2 MX200, Windows XP SP1, 512mb of ram, it ran slow

Tried to run Crysis on Sempron 3400, Geforce 8600GT DDR2, XP SP2, 1gb DDR400, it ran real slow


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 9, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> specs are never right let me offer proof from my own experince
> 
> Star Trek Elite Force
> Tried to run it on a PII 266, Rage TNT 16mb, Windows 98se and 128mb of ram, it ran slow
> ...



Specs are never right based on what? If the specs included, resolution and frame rates and you didn't get that I would agree. But the recommended specs on this and many other games are not that specific.  So the expectation is clearly on you not what's recommended by the game.  In your case you believe the game ran slow.  However failed to see that the game actually ran.  The recommended specs didn't include frame rates.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 9, 2008)

You also have to take into account that the minimum specs are more than likely aquired using optimized computers, defraged, no hardware conflicts, which is a good amount of the time not the case for normal pc's


----------



## DarkMatter (Aug 9, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> absolute tish tosh, minimum means you can play the game if it means you dont mind playing a blocky low res visually cut down version, and not just load it??, reccomended, is whats needed to enjoy it at a good visual level (i would consider medium settings on most games to be a good example ), i dont see where the problem is, the only thing that i can see as misleading as ive said before is the game companies not listing a high spec reccomendation, on top of the other 2 as people are obviousley confused about what these mean, i know for a fact i can play crysisi on a comp lower spec than what crysis lists as low spec and at 20fps, but tbh it wouldnt be worth it as it would look like shit with everything turned down to low and res at 800x600, but the keyword is it would be playable framerate and hardware wise, either way both specs have to play it at a "playable" framerate, not just load it. are you telling me you cant run crysis on the minimum specs?  cause i know there are a lot of ppl who do and ppl who run it on lower specs, just because "we can"



TBH I don't know why do you have to argue with MY OPINION. You made clear (before this last post, here you just repeated the same with different words) that FOR YOU, recommended requirements shown on actual games offer a satisfactory gameplay at satisfactory settings. You also made clear that you consider low settings on low requirements hardwre in recent games something "playable" or may I say, worth playing. I DO NOT (aplicble to both concepts) and I know many if not most of the active people in these forums think the same. What are you trying to demostrate? Whether a setting is acceptable or not is not something objective, is subjective to each player. There is no absolute setting, frame rate, etc. that can be named as acceptable and such there is no absolute hardware requirement that could fit in such low and recommended definitions. 640x480 @ 20 fps could be acceptable for some, but not for me, that's for sure and by a great margin. For me gaming anything below 1024x768 @ 30 fps directly doesn't exist. And same happens with low settings. In the past low settings was something worth trying, today all games look like crap on low, it's not acceptable, FOR ME, remember I'm giving my opinion. Medium settings are devaluated too in comparison to what medium meant in the past. 

And just to finish I want to say that I do have old hardware, so I know which settings are playable on what hardware and what not. But again since it's my opinion, I choose that anything below 30 fps average is unnaceptable, anything below 1024x768 is unnaceptable and low settings as a whole are unnaceptable. Period.


----------



## mullered07 (Aug 9, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> And just to finish I want to say that I do have old hardware, so I know which settings are playable on what hardware and what not. But again since it's my opinion, I choose that anything below 30 fps average is unnaceptable, anything below 1024x768 is unnaceptable and low settings as a whole are unnaceptable. Period.



lol on this "old hardware" have you even played crysis because a lot of people with respectable systems are quite content with playing at 1024x768 and 30fps, cause thats all that crysis offers, but in our minds thats wholly acceptable, and what system are you on about cause the one in your specs shows us a x2 4800+, 2gb ram, a raptor and a 8800gt (please correct me if this is incorrect ) yeah thats really old hardware 

i find it hard that you dont even understand my posts, regarding system requirments, to me its quite simple. let me break it down for you:

minimum = you can run without any eye candy and at a low res, with high enough framerate to PLAY the game (which is the point is it not ????) 

reccomended = you can play the game with acceptable eye candy and at decent res, also with high enough framerate to PLAY the game.

this unfortunately is not a forum based entirely on YOUR opinion, this is a public forum, and unfortunately things dont always go your way, what you call "acceptable" is entirely different to what other people think, and luckily for us we base things in fact here not opinion


----------



## MadClown (Aug 9, 2008)

zithe said:


> Hopefully they didn't pull a bethesda. The 'recommended' requirements could barely run oblivion..



idk, my old pc meet the recomended exactally and it ran it with uper tier quality(not fully maxed) at around 15-25 fps outdoors and 30-60fps indoors


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 9, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Specs are never right based on what? If the specs included, resolution and frame rates and you didn't get that I would agree. But the recommended specs on this and many other games are not that specific.  So the expectation is clearly on you not what's recommended by the game.  In your case you believe the game ran slow.  However failed to see that the game actually ran.  The recommended specs didn't include frame rates.



1024x768 low settings, standard gaming rez when those came out, except crysis which is 1280x1024. Now having said that, my hardware at the time was not in the recomended list but was higher than the min list. So it would reason it would fall inbetween those two cat's and 10x7 @ low shouldn't have been an issue with any of them but it was.

Elite Force and COD averaged about 20FPS for me, which is the Quake3 engine, and we all know 60+ is really need for smooth frame rates with that engine. Crysis got about 25FPS which also isnt playable to me. And a note about FPS, moniters don't interlace like the TV does, not all motion is captured and blurred. Motin blur goes a long way to help out the low framrate effect because it gives the feel of motion that the TV does, but Quake Engine doesnt have even basic blur.


----------



## GSG-9 (Aug 9, 2008)

I guarantee not a single person here with vista x64 and a modern video card can get hexin II (non-o|gl)to run smoothly (go look at the water...oh god the water...) on there computer. (even though you slaughter the minimum requirements) 

(Its actually true, the game was not optimized for a video card and tweaks out in modern operating systems...)


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 9, 2008)

go play Star Trek Borg on a modern computer it won't even start

or COD:UO on a modern computer, the game hitchs and runs badly.

run 3dmark99 on a modern machine, i have and my score isnt much better than 10k explain that.

Hexen II i must try


----------



## GSG-9 (Aug 9, 2008)

It will tweak out as soon as you try to look at water. It runs...a little worse than crysis on my computer (Hexin @ 800x600, Crysis at 1680x1050 High, 0AA)


----------



## savor_of_filth (Aug 9, 2008)

There is no way 8600gts could handle farcry 2 effects,
1024x768 super low with no AA & AF


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 9, 2008)

the screenshots i have seen did not impress me nor did the graphics. Looks like Stalker in sunlight to be totally honest.


----------



## Triprift (Aug 9, 2008)

Yep and i might be able to run it at 800x600 with bugga all detail.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 9, 2008)

think logicly, this is a massive game world, so if they expect it be playable textures ect can't be terribly high unless they use alot of z-optimizations in drivers and in the game


----------



## Wile E (Aug 9, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> TBH I don't know why do you have to argue with MY OPINION. You made clear (before this last post, here you just repeated the same with different words) that FOR YOU, recommended requirements shown on actual games offer a satisfactory gameplay at satisfactory settings. You also made clear that you consider low settings on low requirements hardwre in recent games something "playable" or may I say, worth playing. I DO NOT (aplicble to both concepts) and I know many if not most of the active people in these forums think the same. What are you trying to demostrate? Whether a setting is acceptable or not is not something objective, is subjective to each player. There is no absolute setting, frame rate, etc. that can be named as acceptable and such there is no absolute hardware requirement that could fit in such low and recommended definitions. 640x480 @ 20 fps could be acceptable for some, but not for me, that's for sure and by a great margin. For me gaming anything below 1024x768 @ 30 fps directly doesn't exist. And same happens with low settings. In the past low settings was something worth trying, today all games look like crap on low, it's not acceptable, FOR ME, remember I'm giving my opinion. Medium settings are devaluated too in comparison to what medium meant in the past.
> 
> And just to finish I want to say that I do have old hardware, so I know which settings are playable on what hardware and what not. But again since it's my opinion, I choose that anything below 30 fps average is unnaceptable, anything below 1024x768 is unnaceptable and low settings as a whole are unnaceptable. Period.


I agree here, although I am even more strict. I won't play a game at all if I can't run it maxed out completely w/ 0XAA/16AF 1920x1200 @ at least 40fps average (I'll accept 30fps for Crysis, as it seems to run smoother at lower rates). If I have to, I'll go down to 1440x900 4xAA/16xAF that my second rig offers, but all eye candy must still be on. I'll sacrifice some AA, but I won't ever sacrifice eye candy.

To me, recommended means I should be able to max it out at the most common resolutions available at the time of release.

As such, I still haven't played Crysis for more than 5 minutes. I'll try it again with a couple of OCed 4850's when I get them.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 9, 2008)

my requirements because since i got my 6800GT in 2005 are similar, I have to have at least 4xAA and 8xAF @ 12x10 high or i simply don't enjoy a game, one reason me and Crysis never got along, there are jaggies if you look, and the textures blur far to close.

that and my name isn't Dave so it wouldn't take as much affinty to me as it would a dave


----------



## GSG-9 (Aug 9, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I agree here, although I am even more strict. I won't play a game at all if I can't run it maxed out completely w/ 0XAA/16AF 1920x1200 @ at least 40fps average (I'll accept 30fps for Crysis, as it seems to run smoother at lower rates). If I have to, I'll go down to 1440x900 4xAA/16xAF that my second rig offers, but all eye candy must still be on. I'll sacrifice some AA, but I won't ever sacrifice eye candy.
> 
> To me, recommended means I should be able to max it out at the most common resolutions available at the time of release.
> 
> As such, I still haven't played Crysis for more than 5 minutes. I'll try it again with a couple of OCed 4850's when I get them.



I have the same requirements but 1680x1050 instead of your 1920x1200.


----------



## candle_86 (Aug 9, 2008)

hehe we all have our requirements im still CRT so 12x10 is mine, is why getting the uber card setups never did me much good


----------



## Nitrogliserin (Aug 9, 2008)

my 3 years old 512mb x1800 is still enough


----------



## Darknova (Aug 9, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> lol on this "old hardware" have you even played crysis because a lot of people with respectable systems are quite content with playing at 1024x768 and 30fps, cause thats all that crysis offers, but in our minds thats wholly acceptable, and what system are you on about cause the one in your specs shows us a x2 4800+, 2gb ram, a raptor and a 8800gt (please correct me if this is incorrect ) yeah thats really old hardware
> 
> i find it hard that you dont even understand my posts, regarding system requirments, to me its quite simple. let me break it down for you:
> 
> ...



Don't be an arse.

As I've already said, minimum specifications are NOT your opinion, they are not Dark Matters or anybody elses opinion, they are what the developers feel is the minimum. Before anyone has a go, what I mean is the cold-hard specifications written on the back of the box are what the developers think are the minimum/recommended etc.

But every person has a different opinion as to what they will accept as minimum, and these can differ wildly from what the developers put. As Wile E has pointed out, he expects a pretty high-standard for his minimum, which is fair enough, there are a lot of games that can play at that standard, but there are some he can't.

Me? All I want is 1680x1050 and high settings that is smooth.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 9, 2008)

My minimum for playing a game is it turning on. To be honest and imo I really don't care what the game looks like as long as it is a good game to play which is my basis for being a gamer. I do happen to get the latest hardware because for once I have the chance for once to have the best of the best since I didn't have that chance when I was younger but now that I have a job I can buy what I want.


----------



## MatTheCat (Aug 9, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> minimum = you can run without any eye candy and at a low res, with high enough framerate to PLAY the game (which is the point is it not ????)
> 
> reccomended = you can play the game with acceptable eye candy and at decent res, also with high enough framerate to PLAY the game.



Look Dude.

Minimum Specs = Game runs like utter crap not worth playing.

Recommended Specs = Game runs acceptably but only just, nothing to get excited about.


I always tend to have a fairly up to date system but will not touch resource hogging games like Crysis and possibly Far Cry 2 as I would much rather play older games maxed out to the hilt than modern ones with compromised settings.

In a FPS game (and lets face it, in most other games) a solid 60 FPS is what is really required both for the enjoyment of a high quality gaming experience and in the name of preserving your eyeballs. I think games developers should start being a bit more honest with their 'specifications' aiming for thier listed recommned specs to reflect mostly 60FPS at medium settings and reasonable resolution. If they are worried about frightening away a large section of their potential custom then perhaps they should just lower the performance bar of their games so that a wider span of the worlds home PC rigs can handle their software.


----------



## DarkMatter (Aug 9, 2008)

Thanks Darknova.

@mullered07

You are acting like a moron. Not saying that you are, but you are more dedicated to "win" this "battle" than understanding what the rest are trying to tell you. A battle that really doesn't exist as it's only one sided, yours. What you don't realise is that you are arguing with OPINIONS, not facts, and teling us that our opinions are wrong. Neither you or the developers can say what the minimum or acceptable gameplay is. We are saying (at least I am) that for us, the settings that the recommendations in the box can guaratee nowadays are not acceptable. YOU MADE CLEAR, PLESE DON'T WRITE IT AGAIN, THAT FOR YOU THOSE ARE ACCEPTEBLE, IT'S NOT FOR US. 

All that you are saying besides that, is that because you accept those settings those are the absolute requirements for a game. They aren't, regardless of it is you or the developers themselves who say they are. I'll put a simple example: next ID games, Doom4 and Rage. According to Carmack, requirements for both games will be very similar, but because of the different nature of the game at Rage they will aim at 60 fps, while they will aim at 30 fps for Doom4. See, same requirements different settings. They are deciding what "playable" or "enjoyable" is long before they launch the game, but that means nothing, as is the people who are going to play them who will decide in the end, based on their opinions. That's what has happened with Crysis after all. I did enjoy Crysis a lot and I think that the requirements were acceptable for what it offers. You will have a hard time finding any member that has defended that game more than me, ask others if you don't believe me. But you DO need a lot better PC than what the requirements suggest to play that game. And even though not as pronounced, that's what happens with almost all other high profile games.

Just to satisfy your curiosity I have the following computers (I will list those of my brother, dad and uncle too, as I have access to them and I do play on them a lot, specially for testing games):

1- The one on the specs. It's going to be replaced by a Q6600, P45, 4GB DDR2 really soon. Already have the components, I have to only gather strenght to put it all together.

2- AMD 64 3700+, 2 GB ddr400, 7900 GTX on cheap asrock dual. Going to be replaced by the current PC except the graphics card.

3- P4 2.5 Ghz, 2 GB DDR 400, 6800 GT on a SI655 mobo. Going to replace it too with the spare pieces of the above.

4- Athlon Thunderbird 1000 Mhz, 1GB DDR 266, Ati 9600 Pro. I have it on my town.

5- Asus laptop. 1.6 Ghz Core2, 2 GB DDR2 667, HD 2400.

Now other's PCs:

6- Brother's PC. Athlon X2 4200+, 2GB DDR 400, X1900XT.

7- Dad's PC. Pentium D 950, 8600 GT, 2GB DDR2 667.

8- Uncle 1's PC. Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz, 2 GB RAMBUS, X850 XT.

9- Uncle 2's PC. Penium D 930, 2 GB DDR2 667, 8400 GS.

As you can see, I have a wide range of PCs to test on. I can test on many others ranging from a 486, to a PIII, that are also active and within 3 Km from my home used by my grandma and aunts.


----------



## Ekklesis (Aug 9, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> The specs seem kind of odd to me.
> 
> Why require a 6800, but only an x1650 on the ATi side?  Wasn't the 6600GT about the same performance wise to the x1650?
> 
> And why make the x1900 the recommended on the ATi side, but make it a generation higher on the nVidia side?  Why not just make the recommended a 7900GT or something around the same performance as the x1900 from the same generation?



X1650 was 7600GT rival and 7600GT was better than 6800 and for the second question we can say that on the market it can be found both x1900 and 8600GTS cause 7900GT has disappeared...


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 10, 2008)

wow , seems good , i think far cry2 engine better than crisis engine , i here they working too hard on it , also i seen one of tomshardware team go to e3 game show and see far cray2 run on big screen or maybe not too much big , but it's run in best quality and performance on 2*8800 ultra


----------



## Triprift (Aug 10, 2008)

As long as it looks pretty and can actually run on something other than the latest and greatest hardware ill be happy *fingers crossed*.


----------



## GSG-9 (Aug 11, 2008)

Ekklesis said:


> X1650 was 7600GT rival and 7600GT was better than 6800 and for the second question we can say that on the market it can be found both x1900 and 8600GTS cause 7900GT has disappeared...



Then why did they not say ATi HD2600 vs Nvidia 8600GTS? they are the same generation and meant to compete in performance.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Aug 11, 2008)

GSG-9 said:


> Then why did they not say ATi HD2600 vs Nvidia 8600GTS? they are the same generation and meant to compete in performance.



Because the HD2600 cards suck. The ATI 8600GTS is about equal to the X1900GT, that's why they mention the X1900GT and not the HD2600.

And it's 100% normal that they say Geforce 6800GT or ATI 1650Pro, because overall they have the same performance...

The X1650 was faster then the 7600GT in the beginning, but after the Nvidia forceware 77.30 release Nvidia was faster again.
Nvidia released the 7900GS because the X1650 was winning against the 7600GT in most benchmarks ( in the beginning at least ).


----------



## GSG-9 (Aug 11, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Because the HD2600 cards suck. The ATI 8600GTS is about equal to the X1900GT, that's why they mention the X1900GT and not the HD2600.



They did not mention a X1900GT for minimum (that was recommended) they mentioned a X1650.



Jelle Mees said:


> 100% normal that they say Geforce 6800GT or ATI 1650Pro, because overall they have the same performance...



They do have the same performance but it is strange because the 6800's were released with the x800 series of cards not the x1x00 series, one was released as a high end card and one was released as a midrange. Thats not 100% normal.


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 11, 2008)

X800 is SHADER MODEL 2.5! FarCry2 probably is shader model 3 so the X800 cant even support it!


----------



## ghost101 (Aug 11, 2008)

When did any core 2 duo chip equal a 5200x2? Makes c2d chips look better than they are.


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 11, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> When did any core 2 duo chip equal a 5200x2? Makes c2d chips look better than they are.



Most lower end Core2 E6x00's and E4x00's at stock are on par with similar clocked AMD chips.


----------



## GSG-9 (Aug 11, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> X800 is SHADER MODEL 2.5! FarCry2 probably is shader model 3 so the X800 cant even support it!



Im just making the point its not 100% normal to compare a midrange (x1650) card to a highend (6800) card thats a generation older.


----------



## Trizmatic (Aug 11, 2008)

CY:G said:


> That's the thing, when they release this Recommended Settings they never say at what resolution....
> 
> For all we now, they may have tried it at 640 * 480...



Exactly.  They also don't say at what settings.  At a low rez and all settings at low, my old P4, AGP 6800GT system would run Crysis with good frames.   

The PC version is supposed to look a lot better than the console versions.  As long as that is true and the gameplay is as good as the hype says, I will be happy with it.


----------



## zithe (Aug 12, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Because the HD2600 cards suck. The *ATI 8600GTS* is about equal to the X1900GT, that's why they mention the X1900GT and not the HD2600.



*ATI* 8600gts???

Edit1: How good was the X1900GT? My X1800XT rapes my friend's 8600gt.
Edit2: Oh it's slower than the x1800xt by a little bit.


----------



## Triprift (Aug 12, 2008)

Trizmatic said:


> Exactly.  They also don't say at what settings.  At a low rez and all settings at low, my old P4, AGP 6800GT system would run Crysis with good frames.
> 
> The PC version is supposed to look a lot better than the console versions.  As long as that is true and the gameplay is as good as the hype says, I will be happy with it.



Exactly mon coudnt of put it better myself and with better optimisation will make it more accesable to a larger audience then Crysis did. And Triz compliments on the avvy best on TPU


----------

