Slashdot Mirror
But Can It Run Crysis 3?
MojoKid writes with Hot Hardware's summary of what it takes to run the newest Crysis: "We've been tracking Crysis 3 for a while, from the trailer a few months ago to the recent alpha multiplayer preview. The game is available for preorder and it will launch in February. Crytek has now listed the minimum system requirements for Crysis 3 and they're as follows: Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8, DirectX 11 graphics card with 1GB Video RAM, Dual core CPU, 2GB Memory (3GB on Vista). Those aren't particularly stringent parameters by any means, but as we all know, 'minimum requirements' rarely are. Crytek suggests upgrading to a quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, with examples of CPU/GPU combinations that include Intel Core i5-750/NVIDIA GTX 560 and AMD Phenom II X4 805/AMD Radeon HD5870."
On private torrent sites at least. Can't find it on TPB.
Just download it yourself and see if you can run it.
IF I had pirated it and played about half the campaign already (which I haven't I'm too moral!), I would say it runs perfectly on my system. Quad core i5 2500k and Geforce 670, but that is fairly high end, no idea how it would run on a lower one. Or mine..since I haven't played it.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Best use of Betteridge's Law of Headlines yet.
These really aren't much in the way of system requirements. Which just shows how this extended console generation has had an affect on PC graphics development. Though I'm not complaining it saves me money in the long run, and forces programmers to learn how to do more with less hardware which isn't a bad thing for the most part.
it seems the game consists of walking/running around with only part of your weapon visible on the screen and shooting stuff with the object to save the planet or the galaxy or something else. anything different then all the FPS games over the last 20 some years?
or are people going to spend close to $1000 upgrading their computers just to be wowed by some extra graphical detail?
This barely qualifies as gossip, it's certainly not news. So when is the rebrand to Sl-ad-dot coming?
Just kidding.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Crytek suggests upgrading to a quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, with examples of CPU/GPU combinations that include Intel Core i5-750/NVIDIA GTX 560 and AMD Phenom II X4 805/AMD Radeon HD5870.
Those seems like pretty low recommendations to me. Certainly relative to what was needed for the original Crysis when compared to the hardware at the time. I haven't replaced my entire system (bumped my ram up from 4 GB to 8 GB two years ago) in several years and haven't had any difficulty with games at all, not that I have time to play them often these days. I have a GTX 250 that I put in the system when I originally built it and still haven't had the time (or need actually) to put in the GTX 465; that's been sitting on my desk for close to two years now.
My guess is that due to the need to run on laptops, most game manufacturers are not pushing the limits of bleeding edge hardware anymore. No one is going to replace their entire laptop every year just to play the latest and greatest game.
It's the next gen console of the moment after all.
This game is so last year.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I was just thinking to myself the other day it used to be every year if not most certainly every other year I found myself dropping anywhere from half to a full grand on upgrades pretty consistently. Its been at least 2 1/2 years now and I'm fairly certain an i7 930, 12g tc ddr3, 2x 6870's, and a SSD blow those recommended specs out of the water. It feels silly posting those specs too as if its some kind of boast, I can only imagine anyone else who builds their own rigs is probably in the same boat. I think the last hardware I'd bought was in 2011 I paid something around $100 for 16gb (4x4) for a spare box, just because it was so cheap. Wild speculation perhaps: While I'm not a game programmer, I have been doing a lot of mobile web interfaces over the last 2 1/2 years. Its been a general observation at least in my area of expertise alone that efficiency is king. I wonder if the explosion of mobile and tablet development has had a similar effect on game programming practices? I base this observation on the near complete death of flash in web interfaces on mobile devices, it wasn't so much about transfer time (as that would be irrelevant here, too) as much as it was about what kind of local resources it took to render the page (flash plugin on mobile/tablets is sluggish at best). The general side effect on desktop versions of web interfaces has been trimmed down markup and much more efficient/optimized CSS/JS (on sites that are properly developed in a mobile first fashion). I can only imagine with all of the recent development of games on the ipad for example have somehow resulted in more efficient practices bleeding into the desktop game development world. Maybe a ./ game developer could chime in?
Ok, while we are at it, let's flip this question too.
Is there any particular game that is your favorite regarding exceptionally good optimization or low system requirements?
I would pick the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series -- should be playable even on the low-end Radeon APUs, while bringing large outdoor areas and a nice amount of detail.
Yeah, PC gaming ain't dead.
PC gaming should be using ray-tracing by now, all these 1000 core GPU's and multi-card colutions should be able to process ray tracing calculations, yet there are no ray traced games out showing that there has been little innovation in PC gaming for the last 10 years. Who cares if you can run a game at 300 fps on a 2560 x 1600 screen?
I would return to PC gaming in a heart-beat if they started using ray-tracing in games and created some truly stunning and realistic graphics. You know, create a platform that game consoles can't touch. We really don't need Linux based Steam boxes playing Diablo clones and HL2 in the living room. I want to be excited about buying a $600 liquid cooled video card again. But when a $300 game console gives mostly the same graphics quality and performance as PC games, meh.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
They don't support my chosen platform, so they must hate *everyone*!
drop the fucking theatrics. It's childish. Attitudes like this are why the US congress can't get a damn thing done.
My guess is that due to the need to run on laptops, most game manufacturers are not pushing the limits of bleeding edge hardware anymore. No
Are you sure it's laptops, or is it consoles? I imagine that companies with the resources to create assets detailed enough to tax an enthusiast PC also have the resources to qualify to be licensed developers on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
According to the Crysis 3 specs, it won't even launch on this system.
Where do you get that it won't launch? It'll launch but Crytek is telling you it probably won't run very well.
According to Wikipedia, Crysis 3 has a low-res texture mode that only needs 256 MB of VRAM. It's called "the PlayStation 3 version".
Is there any particular game that is your favorite regarding exceptionally good optimization or low system requirements?
How about Streemerz, which only needs 0.00013 GB of storage space, 0.00001 GiB of RAM, and an 0.0018 GHz CPU. Fans of Roc'n Rope or Bionic Commando will love it.
You completely missed the point.
Some of us also like to play games using the latest hardware. There are still a lot of games using UT3 engine that will run just fine on older hardware. There is no need for the whole game industry to wait for every single Joe to buy new hardware.
Anyway, it's not like the game will rot or anything, it will still be there when you finally get a new machine and then you can play the game using your new PC at his best.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
those suggested specs.. not the minimum, but the suggested ones... and I can't even play all the way through Crysis 2.
Everything bogs down to an eventual halt during the massive alien attack on the aircraft carrier.
This space available.
just buy a graphics card, sheesh.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
people use onboard graphics for more than flash-based games? really? then whine that CRYSIS won't play on their box? really?!?!
After the piece of shit that was crysis 2.... i really don't give a damm about anymore of their tech demos with no fun gameplay.
consolized shit. fuck crysis.
I wonder what is the minimum system to run Nethack?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
the XBOX 360 is basically Dx 9.1 with a bit of shader stuff from 10. Why would the heck the minimum requirement be DX11 on PC ? I smell a rat here, as I doubt they will make a new DX11 only engine. i think they simply set it so as to avoid supporting XP or Vista.
My first computer had 1kB of "Video RAM" and it wasn't even dual-ported but multiplexed.
Sure, people say "PC gaming ain't dead yet", but if one needed one million times the caloric input to get me moving than when I was sixteen, I doubt that the prognosis would be good.
Those recommended specs are false adverting. Basically theyre saying anyone with a 3 year old computer can run it, but you know thats not the case - youll be lucky to get 30 fps with those specs. Probably closer to 5.
Integrated graphics. Seriously?
Starcraft II is hardly the most graphically-challenging game. Neither is R6: Vegas. And the WEI scores are essentially useless.
The A10 uses a Radeon 7660D which, in "real"-card terms, fits somewhere between 7570 and a 7470. However, the integrated Radeons are known to be extremely memory-bandwidth-bound, enough that they're frequently used in RAM benchmarks. So in practice you're looking at a graphics processor that's already weak, and further crippling it by bottlenecking its memory access.
Look at the benchmarks. 48 FPS in Crysis: Warhead - at 1366x768. 41 FPS in Metro: 2033, on low, at the same low resolution. 68 FPS in Dirt 3. 58 FPS in Battlefield 3, at low quality. For any game that has a reputation for being GPU-heavy, integrated graphics will not suffice.
Yes, the Fusions are pretty awesome chips. I almost got one myself. They're excellent for mobile or light gaming usage. I'm not surprised you sell a lot of them. But (at the risk of sounding like a True Scotsman) they're not the kind of thing a real PC gamer uses. And Crysis 3 is definitely trying to target the "real PC gamer".
I remember it was extremely expensive to get the original Crysis to Maximum settings. I reckon I could run this on Ultra for right around $500. Although my current rig will more than handle it as there has been no need to upgrade anything on any gaming rig since SSD became affordable. Games dont seem to be able to catch up with the hardware... If the new MS and PS consoles offered keyboard controller support, i dont think traditional PC gaming would have a leg to stand on. Why upgrade your pc when you get "good enough" on console. Mods and dedicated servers would be the only reason to still game on a desktop.
Just give all my customers and extra $150 and they will. A better PSU and at least a 550TI are around $150 difference.
They're saying "bare minimum" is 1GB video memory so if it gets stuck in a dump and load loop because total texture size on minimum is 650MB and I have 512, it will not launch or skin everything and will crash. I think they're lying. I don't know if the APUs can grab more memory on the fly like Intel chips though. They do have an absolutely segregated 512MB that the system can't touch instead of 100% on the fly like Intel so who knows.
You do know that they basically took a Radeon graphics card and put the entire GPU into the CPU without changing much, right? So it has 384 cores, direct memory access, and just no GDDR5 (which kinda kills it based on my experience with a GT440 that had DDR3 onboard instead of GDDR5).
But still, they should have a quick and ugly mode so users can play it on BRAND NEW, gaming-oriented systems like this. They're definitely losing customers, seeing as how this can play basically any other game ever made on minimum settings.
APUs are not really integrated graphics. They took a GPU core and put it inside the CPU. It's no different than the actual card itself, except for memory bandwidth and speeds. Those FPSes are not acceptable to me but I just had a customer who was running 20FPS in WoW on a laptop with Intel GMA965 and a core 2 and said it was "fine." To run an older Crysis at 48FPS, this thing definitely has some horsepower so to completely eliminate it from playability seems like a stupid decision to me on the game maker's part.
1- I dont understand why crysis is still considered some uber powerhouse game that cripples even the mightiest of computers. I guess it started with crysis 1 bringing pcs to their knees but guess what, it wasnt because the engine was so powerful. It was because crytek cant code an engine worth a shit. Crysis 1 had like a 20% improvement in performance with a patch, if the engine was so damn powerful then how could such a big increase happen with a small patch? Or how about the custom config file and optimization patch that was released by some random guy that was unofficial that improved performance by like 45%? The gam ran like butter after that custom patch and still looked just as good on a pc that previously it ran like crap on. Bottom line is crytek cant code engines and have no idea how to optimize them properly. So their games run like shit becase of it and then everyone says "Wow this game looks pretty and it runs like shit so it must be really powerful!". You know else I know that cryteks engines suck? Because no one licenses them, thats why. If their engines are so awesome then why out of 3 versions of the cryengine was the biggest named game to use it was sniper ghost warrior 2? No one uses their engines because they are shit and run like shit. Youd think if it really was as powerful and awesome as everyone thinks it is then more developers would license it, but they dont.
2- Crytek cant make a good game that is more than mediocre. They never have and they never will. What have they made? Far cry and crysis. Two games that were only noteable for their graphics. They had disposeable characters, stories, settings, controls, gameplay and everything that had been done dozens and dozens of times better by dozen of different developers. Basically crytek is to gaming what nickelback is to music. You can really tell their creative juices in crysis 3 also because 1 had jungle, 2 had a city and now 3 has a jungle in a city...... but oh wait it has a bow and arrow and Im sorry but when you spend so much time talking about a bow and arrow and use it in every publicity shot and focus on it so much there is something wrong.
The bad part is the "recommended" graphics card is now the upper level of the mid-range, the Nvidia 560 or 660, and the ATI 5870.
This is becoming a real big issue for Graphics cards, far more than video RAM or any other part of the system.
The problem is that the upper-mid-range cards now require *very* significant power. The 560/660 and 5870 above really require TWO 6-pin supplemental power connectors, since they're now pulling 200W under load. The problem there is that this means a 500W+ power supply, and ONLY high-end workstations or custom gaming rigs have those, so you're inherently cutting out the section of the population which games, has a pretty beefy rig, but got a pre-made system from HP/Dell/whomever, none of which have more than a 400W (and usually a 300W) power supply.
I'm a excellent example: I happen to have a HP Z210 workstation - that's a Xeon E3-1200-class CPU (which kicks the crap out of everything consumer-class, including the i7 series), 16GB of RAM, and an SSD. Yet, it was only designed with a 400W power supply, as it was targeted for mid-level pro graphics. I've been looking, and the absolutely fastest GPU I can use is the Nvidia 650 Ti; everything else draws too much power. Consumer PCs are in an even worse situation, since they might have a high-end i5 Ivy bridge CPU, but they've only got 350W power supplies, which probably can't even drive my 650 Ti, let alone a 660. So, you're looking at having to buy a system for $1500 (sans graphics card) rather than $500 to play these games.
Realistically, game makers need to target the lower-mid-range cards - at least, they have to be able to play very well at around 1680x1050 or 1440x900 on one of those lower-power-draw cards (e.g. Nvidia 650 or AMD 7850).
Frankly, I think this is going to be a *big* drag on the PC Gaming industry, since unless they can convince Nvidia/AMD to cut down on the power-draw requirements, or somehow get PC makers to beef up their PS more, new games won't be able to run reasonably on ANYTHING not a custom gaming rig. And that's a *tiny* portion of the market.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
the XBOX 360 is basically Dx 9.1 with a bit of shader stuff from 10. Why would the heck the minimum requirement be DX11 on PC ? I smell a rat here, as I doubt they will make a new DX11 only engine. i think they simply set it so as to avoid supporting XP or Vista.
I assume it requires hardware Tesselation support.
I just hope they do it better than Arkham City did... enabling Hardware Tesselation brought my framerate down to an inconsistent amount around 40fps on a Core i7 2600K with dual nVidia GTX 570s running in SLI. I'm sure I could have lowered the graphics from the "Ultra" setting to make it work, but isn't that missing the entire point of doing things in hardware?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
For a long time I've had the impression that these developers only put marginal effort in optimizing code because the goal is to offer a game that's a resource hog. As long as the game is halfway decent you've given yourself months of free marketing. In an effort to stay relevant publications will immediately include these games in performance testing.
I thought Windows 8 couldn't run any games.
none
You do know that graphics are usually very constrained by their memory bandwidth and that putting in much faster ram will give you better results, but it still will not compare to an actual dedicated card even if it has the same piece of silicon at its heart because everything else is different.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Are they integrated into the CPU or chipset? Then it's integrated graphics. And while they may be the best integrated graphics on the market, and can certainly handle light gaming and media playback, they are far from the level a discrete processor is at.
Yes, the cores on a Fusion processor are essentially identical to those in the discrete card. But they are clocked lower, are heavily memory-constrained, and to put it bluntly, there's just not enough of them. The 7660D in the top-end A10 has 384 shader cores. That sounds like a lot. It isn't. First off, it's based on the old VLIW4 architecture of the Radeon HD 6000 series. The "common" card of that series was the 6770, which had 800 of those cores (with 50MHz higher clock speed, as well). To find comparable discrete cards, you have to go down to the budget section. The $79 6570 has 480 shader cores, while the $55 6450 had 160.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Crytek's marketing position. They deliberately exclude the low end, in order to get better traction with the high end. They sell to the people who are more likely to spend $500 than $50 on a graphics card.
When the original came out, they bragged that there was not a computer on the planet that could run the game at absolute max settings. The whole reason "can it run Crysis?" is a meme is because the answer was almost universally "NO" for a few years after it came out.
Let me explain it to you with one of Slashdot's favorite tropes: the car analogy. Can you compete in a F1 race driving a '98 Toyota Camry? No. Can you compete driving a '13 Honda Civic? No. And it would be absolutely ridiculous for you to try. Similarly, trying to play Crysis on an integrated GPU is likely to end poorly.
That said, I would expect it to at least run. I have found that "minimum requirements" are often higher than they strictly need to be. The game will probably run, it might even be vaguely playable if you can increase the amount of memory and find a low-res texture mod.
Seems like the Surface Pro aught to work, right?
For recommended specs that is pretty low. None of that hardware is cutting edge, comparatively expensive or impressive.
Agreed. Can someone knowledgable chime in on what DX11 provides such that XP is locked out?
Looking here all it mentions is shader tracing & WDDM? I don't follow computer games all that much, but am curious about the technical reasons for the exclusion of XP.
Yes, the minimum for acceptable performance. Not minimum to launch it.
The section you're looking at is for DX 11.1, which isn't the same as DX 11. For one, DX 11.1 is only available on Windows 8.
Also, recall that Windows XP only officially supports DX9 and older... although someone figured out how to get DX 10 working on it.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
And I'll tell you just like I tell MY customers which is "If you wanna game then discrete all the way". Seriously you can get an HD4850 for $35, or an HD6850 for $100, so there really isn't a point in trying to play games on an IGP.
No matter how you slice it its the shared memory that makes those worthless. You just can't pump enough through bog standard DDR 3 to make a killer gaming system with an IGP, its just not gonna do it. Great for video, fine for casual, sucks balls for modern shooters and the like.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Then your customers shouldn't be wanting to play Crysis 3 now should they? this is like bitching that your new econo car won't keep up with a 911 in the quarter, well no shit, you didn't pay 911 money either!
They can play tons of games on that rig, just not Crysis 3. If they want to play even more games they can add a cheap discrete, but for Crysis 3 they should be looking at an HD5850 minimum, HD6850 better. BTW why are you being such a cheap bastard when it comes to PSUs? The only things I put less than a 500w in are the office boxes.
But the planet shouldn't have to wait for you to stop building cheap shit before the numbers go up, sorry. Either keep up or be happy with the tens of thousands of games you can play on those specs, but quit expecting the world to be made around your bottom of the line shit just so you can sell more low end units.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Or how about a geforce 6800 and directx9? Seriously... beautiful games and software can be rendered in that, or one one of the better openGL standards.
Don't need new stinkin hardware, need less bloat and better artists and programmers.
Ah, you're right. Thanks!
No, they don't want you as a customer because if that is all you can afford a normal PC, you can't afford PC games. It is actually a pretty common comment on piracy forums,"I downloaded this but it doesn't run". Turns out some kid is trying to run a bleeding edge game on a decade old dell he got from his daddy.
That is what consoles are for. And then you get to pay the money you save on your PC on the 10-20 dollar console fee instead.
Crysis does want customers, it just wants customers who actually got money to spend. Silly of them really, going for a market segment that can actually buy their game and is willing to spend cash on gaming.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Kid, you are just showing your ignorance. ANYTHING can do 20fps with World of Warcraft. That is one of its strong selling points. If you don't know the difference between WoW and ANY of the Crysis games, then you just don't know what you are talking about. And as I said earlier, you are not in market segment for this game. Go ask your daddy for a raise. Or get a real job and not one that pays in peanuts.
Seriously, WoW as a graphic benchmark...
What next, Doom?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...handle Crysis 3?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nnnnnnooooooooo.
Does a dual Atom with integrated graphics and 3GB ram (1 for video) count?
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in. ===== http://www.sowotrade.com/ ===== Discount Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35, Air max shoes (TN LTD BW 90 180) $36, Nike/shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35, Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $36, T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $20, Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$35, Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$16, New era cap $12, (NFL MLB NBA NHL) jerseys $25, free shipping, Accept credit card and (PAYPAL), ===== http://www.sowotrade.com/ ===== UGG Boots Please login: ===== http://www.swwtbase.org/ =====