Crysis 2 minimum specs
- Thread starter opethdisciple
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
But then if that's true, wouldn't that that would make it more like a port than a proper pc version? I see what you're saying, but the pc is a whole different world to consoles.
These are a fair bit higher than crysis minimum specs actually;
Crysis:
CPU: Intel P4 2.8GHz, AMD Athlon 2800+
GPU: NVidia 6800GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Ram: 1GB
Crysis 2:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo with 2Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 x2 2Ghz
GPU: NVidia 8800GT 512Mb RAM, ATI 3850HD 512Mb RAM
Ram: 2GB
Crysis:
CPU: Intel P4 2.8GHz, AMD Athlon 2800+
GPU: NVidia 6800GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Ram: 1GB
Crysis 2:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo with 2Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 x2 2Ghz
GPU: NVidia 8800GT 512Mb RAM, ATI 3850HD 512Mb RAM
Ram: 2GB
to be honest crysis 1 would run alright, probably high settings with those specifications, the only thing i would say is a must improve is the RAM, find crysis hates having too little RAM, discovered thats what causes the jumpy gameplay with some experiments! for me the only improvements crytek can possible make over crysis is 1) improve the shockingly bad foliage quality, the stigma of the first game! 2) superior performance, and for me thats it really. the original would look absolutely stunning if the foliage was smoothed out and not jaggy as hell, also native multi GPU support would be good, without having to do the whole r_MultiGPU = 1 business in the config...!
edit: also the original crysis doesn't seem to take advantage of multi-cored CPUs very well, unless you create a custom config. and tell it too! that would be nice to fix also crytek!
edit: also the original crysis doesn't seem to take advantage of multi-cored CPUs very well, unless you create a custom config. and tell it too! that would be nice to fix also crytek!
I know my machine will meet the specs, all I'm really interested in now is the DRM because EA haven't been very consistent in that regard. I got burned with the DRM on Crysis Warhead so I won't be buying this unless it's on Steam with only Steam DRM like Dragon Age 2.
erm...thought the studio in question (people who made timesplitters, etc.) was working solely on the multiplayer components to crysis II, as far as i know they use the exact same engine, etc. since cryengine3 is meant to be cross-platform, scaling well to allow consoles with their older hardware to run it, as well as letting high end PCs run it in all its glory...?
Two GTX 980 running in SLI
Or
Two ATI Radeon HD 9890 running in crossfire
Note: These GPU's will be release in around 3 years time
Last edited:
erm...thought the studio in question (people who made timesplitters, etc.) was working solely on the multiplayer components to crysis II, as far as i know they use the exact same engine, etc. since cryengine3 is meant to be cross-platform, scaling well to allow consoles with their older hardware to run it, as well as letting high end PCs run it in all its glory...?
That's good news (for consoles at least). Timesplitters was always a polished title.
I reckon the recommended is gonna be quite reasonable, consider for a moment that it is a cross-platform engine designed to run on PC, xbox 360 and PS3, that to me suggests it will be multi-threaded game so quad-core should handle things reasonably well, also consider for a moment another cross-platform engine (unreal engine 3) runs really quite well on the PC with pretty reasonable hardware, yet it still looks stunning, better than cryengine in a few regards! my guess would be: Intel Core 2 Quad / AMD Phenom II, 4GB RAM, GTX 260 or ATI equivelant (or DX11 equal), or does that sound too optimistic? hoping it will run on this system with everything close to maximum, at least till I set up my Bulldozer system a month or two later.
Edit: yeah, Timesplitters was always a fun and well balanced affair, though that evil monkey annoyed the hell out of me! also worth saying that a friend of mine whose a game coder, reckons he has seen Crysis II on the PC and that it is stunning! though I would take that with a grain of salt..! though I am optimistic considering there is quite a bit of stuff about Crysis II being much much better looking on the PC yet running on hardware that would have struggled to run Crysis on very high, so better looking, better performance, thats a win - win situation in my books!
Edit: yeah, Timesplitters was always a fun and well balanced affair, though that evil monkey annoyed the hell out of me! also worth saying that a friend of mine whose a game coder, reckons he has seen Crysis II on the PC and that it is stunning! though I would take that with a grain of salt..! though I am optimistic considering there is quite a bit of stuff about Crysis II being much much better looking on the PC yet running on hardware that would have struggled to run Crysis on very high, so better looking, better performance, thats a win - win situation in my books!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 4,184
crytek say it will be maxed on current high end hardware. they are not taking the same route as the original because of the critisism they received. big interview in edge this month! he clearly states it
I don't know about you but this video here looks AMAZING, graphics look excellent, probably be one of the best graphic games I have seen yet tbph:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLc97cj1VWE&feature=youtu.be
So the only thing that could let it down is if it will be an extremely poor port like some of the games now a days, where you just have awful textures, crap settings menu where you can only change a few things (highly unlikely though) etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLc97cj1VWE&feature=youtu.be
So the only thing that could let it down is if it will be an extremely poor port like some of the games now a days, where you just have awful textures, crap settings menu where you can only change a few things (highly unlikely though) etc.
Yeah it is a more optimized engine, but it is more optimized for the console, which run on ancient hardware.
The minimum specs do seem good, but more intrigued to see what the recommended specs are.
Hopefully it will run perfectly fine on my setup:
- i5 750 stock
- 4GB RAM
- 1920x1080
- HIS turbo 4850 iceQ4 512MB
Can run every game on max setting apart from the AA and have to drop a few things on crysis and metro down to the second highest setting, due to the graphics card and the RAM it has, which isn't ideal for my resolution.
Don't really care about AA, as IMO you don't really need it at 1920x1080 (HD), and plus I don't really notice any difference between having it on max and none at all, don't go looking for jaggies and all as I don't tend to pause the game or stand still looking for poor edges etc.
The minimum specs do seem good, but more intrigued to see what the recommended specs are.
Hopefully it will run perfectly fine on my setup:
- i5 750 stock
- 4GB RAM
- 1920x1080
- HIS turbo 4850 iceQ4 512MB
Can run every game on max setting apart from the AA and have to drop a few things on crysis and metro down to the second highest setting, due to the graphics card and the RAM it has, which isn't ideal for my resolution.
Don't really care about AA, as IMO you don't really need it at 1920x1080 (HD), and plus I don't really notice any difference between having it on max and none at all, don't go looking for jaggies and all as I don't tend to pause the game or stand still looking for poor edges etc.
Last edited:
Hmmm, don't really know, I presume that it will be an nvidia titled game, same as the first one and warhead, so it should favour nvidia cards over ATI cards, which are of similar performance. Although I would say that the 4850 would beat the 8800, not hugely, it all depends on the brand and the amount of RAM etc. that your comparing it to, if it's overclocked etc.
Last edited:
that's my point. In most cases, if you were saying an 8800GT was the minmum nvidia card for a game, the 4850 would be the minimum ATI card. It isn't though, It's a 3850. I've owned all three
- Status