I wish these game companies would place a little more work into the "recommended/minimum hardware specs" its not that hard and it would make it alot easier for the noob end consumer to realise it wont work on their system lol.

Eg only listing the reccomended as a 8800 tells me alot...They could at least have put a few different cards. It wouldnt have killed them to do and theres space on the retail box for it.

Should hope mine is OK.....will upgrade to Vista just for DX10.....just wondering how much AA/AF I can have gaming at 16xx x 10xx on this rig......I like mine pretty!

I just hope the demo runs a lot better than the multi player beta did, it should run lots better, i hope.:twitch:

I'll be fine. 1024x768 2xaa med settings probably...
This christmas I will get another 8500GT. They will both be clocked at 660/800/1150 gpu/mem/shader

That is INSANE! I can run it, but i'll need an upgrade.

I wonder how well my rig will cope.

mine is ready but not to play it on max :( maybe with some OCing i will get about 1/2 of everything turned on at a lower res.

I'm ready for this beast!!!

Ive played the betas for a while and Ive tested some of the hardware that I have on hand, and without a proper time demo heres the basic results..

X2 3800 at 2.6 with 2gb ddr500 and Core 2 e6300 at 3.0 with 3gb ddr2 800 both with XP

1920x1200 high detail - HD2900PRO 512 or 8800GTS 640 were very playable, the 8800 felt smoother but the 8800 was not able to play at any higher AA settings than the HD2900. Both cards had lows in the 20-25 range and highs in the 50s, most often FRAPS reported numbers in the 30-45 range, it was very playable. Neither card was able to really go beyond 2x AA without seeing dips into lag. The 8800GTS 320 was playable at these settings, but seemed to become limited by the 320mb of ram very quickly.

The HD2900XT 512 vs 8800GTX was much the same situation but the GTX seemed faster, I dont have a 1gb XT to see the impact of the graphics memory on this game, but if the numbers between the GTS 320 and GTS 640 are any indication, this game is a beast when it comes to sucking down graphics memory. 1gb XT/PRO will likely be nice choices because of this limitation and their price range. The XT 512 was playable with 4x AA, but numbers were lower than the GTX at the same setting. Neither card was what I would call playable at 8x AA.

1600x1200 medium/high detail - Much the same case with the above but certainly a bit smoother. A better match for the GTS 320 but I would still recommend a combination of medium/high setings. SLI or Crossfire 7900 series or x1900 series would probably just as playable as the GTS 320. Overclocking the GTS 320 from 520/1600 to 620/1950 improved the smoothness of the game play, but did not bring it up to the numbers the 640 had been dealing.

1280x1024 medium/high detail - 7900GT and 7900GTX tested, didnt have an x1900 series on hand to test. Both were playable, more so with the core 2 than the X2 though. The difference between the two cards was not drastic and the GT was more so at home at medium with a few settings on low (ie shader detail), and the GTX was certainly more playable. Based on the typical numbers with the 7900 vs x1900 series I would certainly say the x1900 series is going to perform better, but as I said, I dont have one on hand to test. The 512mb cards seem to be the ones to have so for those with the 512mb versions of the GT would seem to be better off. AA was not friendly to the 7900 series and really had an impact on performance.

I dont have any midrange series (HD2600/x1600 or 7600/8500/8600) so I cant have any numbers for those but based on the high end I would say 1024x768 or 1280x1024 would be playable on the upper midrange series, perhaps even with higher detail than the older 7 series. It is kinda hard to compare the older high end to the newer midrange based on the numbers I tested because though the newer architectures are much more adapt to this type of game, they are quite limited compared to the 8800 and hd2900 series so its something I'd rather not speculate on.

The core 2 system was faster than the x2 system (no surprise?) but the video card is still gunna be the bottom line at higher resolutions and details. Dont have any quads to test just yet..or single cores..but 2gb of ram would be my suggestion for XP and 3gb for vista.

The weakest configuration I could put together was somewhat playable. It used a 2.2 newcastle 754 Athlon64, 768mb of DDR400, and a 9600xt. 800x600 on low with texture detail at medium, or 1024x768 with all lows was playable but often dipped into the low teens, average fraps numbers were low 20s. Any gamer would not call this playable at all, but for those of you who think these new fangled parts out today are too expensive, you could probably play the game.

The HD2900 series and 8800 series all scored "medium" detail settings by default by clicking the "optimal settings" button at 1920x1200. "optimal settings" button also defaulted to flat medium on 1600x1200. But I wouldnt say thats the best indication as even 1024x768 optimal settings were medium. It would seem the highest detail settings are reserved for SLI/Crossfire set ups.

But given the beta only contains 1 level to test I wouldnt say these recommendations are set in stone, larger levels contain more detail, but on this level (Power Struggle) in a full 32 man server, they stand pretty well. A slower server with player numbers in the teens or low 20s are not an issue, but a 32 man server with so many vehicles, explosions, and level details its a matter of fine tuning your specific systems and perhaps overclocking your cards. 256mb cards beware, even higher end cards (like the 256mb x1900xt). 512mb+ cards are recommended but remember a highend card with less memory will still be faster than a midrange card with a lot of memory.

I would definitely recommend 8800 or HD2900 series for serious gamers, but people who are more interested in the single player aspect than the multiplayer will probably get by just fine with x1900 series or even 7900 series.
2gb of ram is a must, and I would probably suggest 3gb for vista as well, but I never actually did compare XP 2gb vs XP 3gb now that I think of it.. 1GB is playable but not as smooth, 768 mb on the low end machine I tested was slower than the same machine with 1gb. 512mb was not tested, with 512mb sticks costing $20 used or even $30-$35 retail...you shouldnt have any trouble running at least 1gb.
XP vs Vista was not really tested as the beta was DX9 only so Vista was not really worth trying for its DX10 numbers.

*edit*
Oh and note this game on low looks like farcry :P

malwareThe official system requirements of Crytek's next-generation PC first-person shooter Crysis, were released today. Crysis is set to hit retail on November 16th, with the playable demo available on October 26, 2007.
[---]


Minimum System Requirements:
OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor - 2.8GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory - 1.0GB RAM (XP) or 1.5GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card - 256MB**
Hard Drive - 12GB
Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

* Supported Processors: Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz (3.2GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2GHz for Vista) or faster, AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.

** Supported chipsets: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT or greater; ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.

Recommended System Requirements:
OS - Windows XP / Vista
Processor - Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory - 2.0GB RAM
GPU - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar

Source: EA: Crysis

Nope, not quite :laugh:

it don't run to great on my rig a 1680x1050 either but cpu usage aint too bad i think its vga releated

Well I have beed playing the beta and I have to say its not working for me, It plays but not like I feel it should, for instance I have tryed all on medium and all on high but I get the same problame and that is that it laggs while trying to load up the textures or while in buliding to the point I can't even play:mad:. So based on my system specs do yall think my rig should be able to play the final released version, cause I am very sad with the beta?

Its probably your OEM ram

DaMultaNvidia $$$$


It's funny because the first time we seen this game in 05 at E3 it was shown on Crossfire I believe.

actually i watched that episode and im pretty sure it was sli'd 8800's and i remember laughing cause it would glitch once in a while because the shoot scenes were to intense and i was like wtf 2 8800 cant handle a came with unoptimized source?

o and yes im crysis ready.

hatIts probably your OEM ram

You know what I bet your right, hoping to get enough money by the end of or during December to buy me a new Motherboard, Good quality RAM and if possable a new CPU.

Appreciate the clarafacation their:)

Yep, I am going to be Crysis ready.

E4300@ 3.3GHZ
2GB Ram
HD2900 Pro

According this spec. the game is SM2 compatible (Bioshock;Lost Planet & Stranglehold are SM3) and if is true they we'll have a better market than the others.

Yeah, I am happy about that. A friend of mine has an X850 pro, it still runs great, but this SM3.0 crap sucks.

yay for maxing the game out :D

i meet all the recommended requirements except the 8800 GTS 640 (i only have a 320... price difference was ridiculous!!!)
other than that my specs are good but it ain't gonna run the game really well... (i have a problem for pushing all games settings to max & slowly working my way back... usually i don't need to work back at all coz they all run on max... :D)

this is my DREAM game.... i may have a slightly better rig by the time it comes out...
was looking at maybe 2 8800 GTS in SLI.

but who knows...

have been following this game for a while now & looks like a MASSIVE winner!!!!

Thank you Crytek for FINALLY getting around 2 releasing this soon!!!! :respect:

I overclocked my CPU and GPU JUST for Crysis :D.

Sounds like it'll run fine on my system, how many threads does the game have anyway?

i'm overclocking the lot when it comes out... at the moment im mainly waiting for me 2 save some more money 2 buy my custom water cooling system then i'll overclock it a FCUK load more!!!!!! push it 2 its limits...

who cares about the shorter lifespan.... by the time components blow up i wont have them anymore... will have probably gone through 2-4 upgrades since i had it!!!!

i love being a computer enthusiast!

Water cooling is too much hassle.

yer, thats what i thought at 1st... but then i look at my current temps & performance & look at how much more i can push out with water!
also i have an accrylic case with UV cathodes! so water would look awesome (expecialy with the custom setup i wanna make & purple UV liquid with clear pipes with blue smartcoil around it!)