News EA releases Crysis 3 system requirements

Is this the return of "Yes, but can it play...."?

 

C3 - the crippler.

 

8GB RAM!

Does that means going to be a 64bit version of it? Or else kinda pointless if is only 32bit.

 

Time to replace the i7 920?

 

Wow!!!!

Hopefully this will look and run smoother than the Alpha on my rig.

The Alpha would only run at 20fps when set to max, at 1920x1080 but at Medium to High it would run at 60fps but be abit stuttery.

I think the new saying when buying a new component or reviewing one will be the "But Can It Run Crysis 3"

 

Wait so no DX10?

 

Erm, am I reading this wrong? because neither the Core i3 530 or the Phenom II X2 565 are quad cores, granted one has hyperthreading, but still. As for the game, I played the Alpha and found it a bit meh. I really enjoyed the original, but never even finished 2, 3 seems more down that avenue.

 

I played through all the Crysis games singleplayer campaigns, and loved them but the multiplayer on Crysis 2 annoyed me because I just seemed to find nothing but cheaters in it.

I just hope Crysis 3 MP doesn't suffer the same problem.

 

This is just PR. Saying a quad-core is 'recommended' does not mean that the game will utilise it. It just means that it's something you 'journalists' can put up as a news feed for extra ad views.

 

FarCry had a 64Bit build released initially... I think it got pulled at some point or something.... No idea why Crysis/2 didn't have 64Bit support...

Judging by Crytek's history, there's a good chance it will use 4+ cores (Crysis and Crysis 2 iirc use upto 4 already)

 

No, you are right, they are both dual cores and I don't see what EA means either. See here for original context, it makes a bit more sense than here.

It came out 32-bit, and a 64-bit patch came out later. But seeing as the only 64-bit OS at the time was XP-64 (which was a bit crap and nobody really had it), and the 64-bit version of Farcry was practically identical (I think draw distance was further...and not much else), nobody needed/wanted the 64-bit patch.

These are not the kind of demanding specifications that make "even the beefiest gaming rig beg for mercy"! They are medium to high-ish, but not enough to make most PC gamers worry too much. Even if I was back on a HD4870 I'd be comfortable at 1050/1080.

I do have to wonder how crap the console version will be, given these requirements.

 

Crysis has 64bit support, but unfortunately, it stopped working (for me atleast), although it seems to be pretty common across the internet too.
I can't play 64bit Crysis for more than about 30mins to an hour without it crashing. 32bit version seems to run fine though.

 

Well there I was expecting to see some ludicrous requirements and my 8 old rig that has only had a couple of upgrades over the years easily meets the minimum and aside from a couple of sticks of ram and a couple of extra cpu cores and an OS upgrade meets the recommended.

No wonder the PC industry is struggling when people have little or no reason to need to upgrade.

 

My bad. Makes sense though...

Hmm... Steam doesn't have it...

 

Quad core X2 CPUs? I missed those!

 

i dont care how shiny the engine is, a **** game is a **** game and Crytek have some major fires to put out if they want it to be successful

 

That's what they said about Far Cry 3 and MaxPayne 3, they both happily run on 4GB

 

Yeah Far Cry 3 seems to have massive issues though.

I cannot get more than 30fps on the game at max settings at 1920x1080 with my rig in my sig, and a bloke at work has a very similar setup to me, but he has SLI'd GTX 680's and 16Gb ram with no overclock on his cpu and he cannot get past 30fps.

Other people are saying they can only get higher fps when they lower the detail, regardless of system spec.

I know with the Crysis 3 Alpha I struggled on my rig, but hopefully that will improve once the game is released and not to mention when I add a 2nd GTX 680.