CryTek specs a budget machine for Crysis - bit-tech.net Forums

CardJoe · 17th Jan 2008, 08:38

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01...e_for_crysis/1

The developers of Crysis have heard your hardware complaints and designed a basic system which will run the game on high settings without costing the earth.

aau03105 · 17th Jan 2008, 08:46

Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz
EVGA 8800 Ultra Superclocked
2 gigs of Corsair 8500C5D @ 1068Mhz

At 1920x1200 I was getting an average of 25fps on high settings.

mutznutz · 17th Jan 2008, 08:51

Those specs are better for me then I thought they'd be

Once I get the new graphics card I'm pretty much there (Overclock the nuts off my 6300 mind

)

lewchenko · 17th Jan 2008, 09:15

This story is missing some key vital information :

1. What resolution and other graphics settings would this 'crysis approved' machine spec allow you to play HIGH detail on ?

2. How many FPS would that give you ?

3. Whats the typical cost of such a machine ?

I personally dont mind.. my machine is above and beyond the spec and plays the game fine... but people who complain that their uber PC can only get 25FPS at such a high resolution of 1920x1200 need to be more realistic. At that resolution.. your PC is average. For you Sir.. perhaps I would recommend a stonking new QX9770 coupled with 2 8800 Ultras.
Or alternatively... lower your resolution a little.

DXR_13KE · 17th Jan 2008, 09:23

That windows XP part is interesting.... it means i cant get any DX 10 stuff.......

steveo_mcg · 17th Jan 2008, 09:23

At my fairly low res of 1440x900 i can play it on high, averaging about 30fps, it drops off a bit in places but i've only played the demo and the benchmark.

A lowly 939 a64 4600 (?) with a slight overclock, 2gb low latency ram and a 320mb 8800gts.

Aankhen · 17th Jan 2008, 09:24

I'm guessing the "High" setting doesn't include a preset resolution. Not much use having great effects if you're running at 640×480… by leaving out the resolution, they've essentially made this list worthless.

Tim S · 17th Jan 2008, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewchenko

1. What resolution and other graphics settings would this 'crysis approved' machine spec allow you to play HIGH detail on ?

1. I've just added that into the story - 1280x720.

2. It's stated as "smooth gameplay"... so probably 30fps.

3. The price can be found by just pricing up the components in the bit-tech shopping engine.

Orionche · 17th Jan 2008, 09:38

Beside the graphics/physics, Crysis is mediocre at best. Buying a whole new computer cuz of a game that most people won't play more than 2-3 times seems illogical. To me, anyway.

Bauul · 17th Jan 2008, 09:40

Well the standard benchmark for modern games resolution is 1280x1024, so I'd imagine it'd be somewhere around there. Personally, I'd say my 1440x900 resolution is good enough with some AA, and I highly doubt they'd suggest a machine that could only run in 640x480 (is that even an option?). By the way, the Kotaku site lists the machine as $900, so maybe around Â£600 over here?

Glider · 17th Jan 2008, 10:06

Budget and gaming in the same sentence... Isn't that a contradiction? It's like buying a cheap server...

steveo_mcg · 17th Jan 2008, 10:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orionche

Beside the graphics/physics, Crysis is mediocre at best. Buying a whole new computer cuz of a game that most people won't play more than 2-3 times seems illogical. To me, anyway.

True but for many people a new testing game is the catalyst they've been looking for to justify some new shiny kit. Whilst Crysis may not be all that in the next few months all games will start taxing your poor old computer, so you might as well upgrade for this as any other game. One might only play Crysis once but its not like the computer will go in the bin after you're finished with it.

aau03105 · 17th Jan 2008, 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by lewchenko

This story is missing some key vital information :

1. What resolution and other graphics settings would this 'crysis approved' machine spec allow you to play HIGH detail on ?

2. How many FPS would that give you ?

3. Whats the typical cost of such a machine ?

I personally dont mind.. my machine is above and beyond the spec and plays the game fine... but people who complain that their uber PC can only get 25FPS at such a high resolution of 1920x1200 need to be more realistic. At that resolution.. your PC is average. For you Sir.. perhaps I would recommend a stonking new QX9770 coupled with 2 8800 Ultras.
Or alternatively... lower your resolution a little.

Who's complaining? I played at 25fps and loved every minute of it. I played around with the settings ALOT and found that full 1920x1200 resolution was by far the best gaming experience. It looks awsome, removes all the jaggyness from the trees, and most of all makes you feel like you're playing something a little bit special!

Sir

mrb_no1 · 17th Jan 2008, 13:52

that system is better than mine, only slightly though and mine played the game well imo. I only have more ram, as you can see in my tag.

peace

Xir · 17th Jan 2008, 14:07

Maybe it should be considered in tests that most people don't have a 1920x1200 resolution.

Standart 19" is 1280x1024.
Standart widescreen is what? 1440 x 900 (19") or 1680 x 1050 (22")?

These smaller Resolutions could well be included.

cjoyce1980 · 17th Jan 2008, 14:14

budget machine that cost £700+, no wonder users are not buying crysis.

also there budget machine out specs there recommended machine.......

fargo · 17th Jan 2008, 17:06

I don't understand why you need c2d to run crysis, with my old box at 1280x1024 on medium
settings I averaged 30fps according to fraps and the game looked sweet with no lag. what more
could I ask for with my rig!
intel p4 3.2
2 gigs ram
ati 1950 pro

steveo_mcg · 17th Jan 2008, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by fargo

I don't understand why you need c2d to run crysis, with my old box at 1280x1024 on medium
settings I averaged 30fps according to fraps and the game looked sweet with no lag. what more
could I ask for with my rig!
intel p4 3.2
2 gigs ram
ati 1950 pro

Because they (or ea) got paid a lot of money to advertise C2D in there shiny new game.

outlawaol · 17th Jan 2008, 18:31

Crysis is to scale ahead 2 years. That means that even current high end hardware is at about 50% with the game. Hence why everyone and there brother has not even come close to the high settings without any lag. Wait till our graphics cards are pushing 256+ stream processors and watch as Crysis sings!

notatoad · 17th Jan 2008, 19:01

why is crysis to scale ahead two years? the game is out now, people want to play it now. in two years, we will be playing new games.

17th Jan 2008, 08:38	#1
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,975	CryTek specs a budget machine for Crysis http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01...e_for_crysis/1 The developers of Crysis have heard your hardware complaints and designed a basic system which will run the game on high settings without costing the earth. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

17th Jan 2008, 08:51	#3
mutznutz Cos Ive got a beard u label me evil Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Cornwall, England Posts: 249	Those specs are better for me then I thought they'd be Once I get the new graphics card I'm pretty much there (Overclock the nuts off my 6300 mind ) __________________ current rig :: XFX 650i ultra :: Core2Duo E6300 @ 2800Mhz (Artic Cooling Freezer Pro 7) :: 2Gb DDR2-800 Crucial Ballistix 5-5-5-18 :: Ati Radeon x1950xt :: 580W Hiper TypeR PSU :: 250Gig Hitachi SATA HDD current project :: Budget Zero - Can a case be modded for nothing?

17th Jan 2008, 09:23	#5
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,473	That windows XP part is interesting.... it means i cant get any DX 10 stuff....... __________________ *Renegade X - 0.40 Release!* <---- CLICK!

17th Jan 2008, 09:23	#6
steveo_mcg What owl? Join Date: May 2005 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 3,983	At my fairly low res of 1440x900 i can play it on high, averaging about 30fps, it drops off a bit in places but i've only played the demo and the benchmark. A lowly 939 a64 4600 (?) with a slight overclock, 2gb low latency ram and a 320mb 8800gts. __________________ No boom today, boom tomorrow... there's always a boom tomorrow.

17th Jan 2008, 09:24	#7
Aankhen Supermodder Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: India Posts: 406	I'm guessing the "High" setting doesn't include a preset resolution. Not much use having great effects if you're running at 640×480… by leaving out the resolution, they've essentially made this list worthless. __________________ It sure took me a long time to realize I hadn't changed my forum settings since returning from Canadia-land.

17th Jan 2008, 08:46	#2
aau03105 What's a Dremel? Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2	Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz EVGA 8800 Ultra Superclocked 2 gigs of Corsair 8500C5D @ 1068Mhz At 1920x1200 I was getting an average of 25fps on high settings.

17th Jan 2008, 09:15	#4
lewchenko Supermodder Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 322	This story is missing some key vital information : 1. What resolution and other graphics settings would this 'crysis approved' machine spec allow you to play HIGH detail on ? 2. How many FPS would that give you ? 3. Whats the typical cost of such a machine ? I personally dont mind.. my machine is above and beyond the spec and plays the game fine... but people who complain that their uber PC can only get 25FPS at such a high resolution of 1920x1200 need to be more realistic. At that resolution.. your PC is average. For you Sir.. perhaps I would recommend a stonking new QX9770 coupled with 2 8800 Ultras. Or alternatively... lower your resolution a little.

17th Jan 2008, 09:38	#9
Orionche Minimodder Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Croatia Posts: 23	Beside the graphics/physics, Crysis is mediocre at best. Buying a whole new computer cuz of a game that most people won't play more than 2-3 times seems illogical. To me, anyway. __________________ "Sir, we are surrounded." "All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us... they can't get away this time! My center is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack."

17th Jan 2008, 09:40	#10
Bauul Sir Bongaminge Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Godalming, near Guildford Posts: 1,553	Well the standard benchmark for modern games resolution is 1280x1024, so I'd imagine it'd be somewhere around there. Personally, I'd say my 1440x900 resolution is good enough with some AA, and I highly doubt they'd suggest a machine that could only run in 640x480 (is that even an option?). By the way, the Kotaku site lists the machine as $900, so maybe around Â£600 over here? __________________ Pentium 4 CPU 3.4 Ghz \| 1Gb + 2x512Mb Corsair DDR2 667 Mhz Sapphire Radeon HD 4770 512Mb\| WD Raptor 36Gb, Seagate 300Gb \| Asus P5LD2 SE Ibanez RG 470 Japanese Edition \| 1991 Japanese Lo-TRS Tremolo \| V7 S1 Custom V8 HSH Pickups

17th Jan 2008, 10:06	#11
Glider /dev/null Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 4,102	Budget and gaming in the same sentence... Isn't that a contradiction? It's like buying a cheap server... __________________ There Are 10 Types Of People, Those Who Know Binary and Those Who Don't

17th Jan 2008, 13:52	#14
mrb_no1 Pie Eater Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Pyrford, England Posts: 365	that system is better than mine, only slightly though and mine played the game well imo. I only have more ram, as you can see in my tag. peace __________________ Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3600Mhz ¦ Asus Maximus II Formula ¦ ATI Radeon 4890 (1000Mhz Core + 1200Mhz Mem OC) ¦ 2x2G Corsair Dom. PC 8500 @ 1080Mhz ¦ Aquacomputer WC ¦ Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty ¦ 150G Raptor, 2x1500 + 1x750 + 2x500 Seagate (SATA2) ¦ Pioneer DVD burner ¦ Lian Li - PC 73SL Aluminium Silent Server Case ¦ Dell 2007WFP 20" Widescreen ¦ Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Speakers ¦ Sennheiser HD270

17th Jan 2008, 14:07	#15
Xir Supermodder Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Germany Posts: 529	Maybe it should be considered in tests that most people don't have a 1920x1200 resolution. Standart 19" is 1280x1024. Standart widescreen is what? 1440 x 900 (19") or 1680 x 1050 (22")? These smaller Resolutions could well be included. __________________ SN25P A64 3700+ (San Diego) 2 GB DDR400 OCZ Platinum EL 2-3-2-5 1T X1800XT 512mb Sapphire 200GB Samsung SP2004C

17th Jan 2008, 14:14	#16
cjoyce1980 Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK Posts: 344	budget machine that cost £700+, no wonder users are not buying crysis. also there budget machine out specs there recommended machine.......

17th Jan 2008, 17:06	#17
fargo Multimodder Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: new york,usa Posts: 152	I don't understand why you need c2d to run crysis, with my old box at 1280x1024 on medium settings I averaged 30fps according to fraps and the game looked sweet with no lag. what more could I ask for with my rig! intel p4 3.2 2 gigs ram ati 1950 pro

17th Jan 2008, 18:31	#19
outlawaol ▲Operational Hazard Sticker▲ Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Greenbay, WI Posts: 936	Crysis is to scale ahead 2 years. That means that even current high end hardware is at about 50% with the game. Hence why everyone and there brother has not even come close to the high settings without any lag. Wait till our graphics cards are pushing 256+ stream processors and watch as Crysis sings! __________________ 40D\| 350D \| 24-105 f/4L \| 24-70 f/2.8 Sigma \| 50mm f/1.8 \| 75-300 f/4-5.6 Sigma \| 420ex Speedlight 365 Daily Photograph \| Smugmug

17th Jan 2008, 19:01	#20
notatoad pretty fing wonderful Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: alberta, canada Special:very Posts: 3,180	why is crysis to scale ahead two years? the game is out now, people want to play it now. in two years, we will be playing new games. __________________ the old: gigabyte P35, e4300@2.8GHz, 4GB DDR3-1333, 8800gts 512, win7 the new: DFI M3H5 Jr, phenom 810, 4GB DDR-1600, OCZ Vertex, debian notatoad.net fdo eff