Just get a dual-core or quad-core 3ghz something and a RadeonHD 5xxx/6xxx something that doesn’t end with the numbers 200, 600 or 650 unless it’s a Geforce GTX.
Also important to the Crysis experience is positional audio. 5.1 or 7.1 is required IMO.
It isn’t hard to have an able Crysis PC these days. If you aim mid-range or high-end these days it’ll be fine
I haven’t upgraded in years because after I could run Crysis, I could pretty much run anything (that isn’t coded like shit) 
I like my own balls to look nice.
No way, man. You need no less than 6x SLI/Crossfire to hit mid.
In all honestly, though, that’s system is not even close to tops in performance anymore.
Crysis was mostly heavy on systems because it was a sloppily coded unoptimized piece of shit.
Fun game though.
I remember running Halo on my 3.2 Ghz Pentium 3 rig and being pretty disgusted with how it still ran like shit. Your comment regarding Crysis just reminded me.
No.
And don’t forget that it’s not going to look the same on XP because you’re limited to DX9.
??
I was playing it on laptops.
Iirc it was coded to scale very well, but enabling everything still kills systems (Crysis and Metro 2033 I believe do this maxed out)
I don’t think you’ve ever played Brink.
To date, it’s the most unoptimized piece of shit i’ve played yet.
Right…that’s why the min frames dip below 20 fps sometimes even on GTX580, dual-SLI 580, 6970, 6990 or even tri-CFX 6990+6970. Also the GPU usage very rarely goes beyond 40%.
Crysis Warhead was a little butter but still unnecessarily heavy, Crysis 2 DX11 shouldn’t be too heavy on systems either but they have tessellated water rendering on scenes that don’t have water which bogs down the system further.
Nope, can’t say I’ve played it yet. Isn’t that idTech4? I thought Carmack engines were always smooth running?
At least I’ll actually get to play it now
I play on console because PC gaming isn’t what it used to be. That is, until Diablo 3 comes out. I was all for PC gaming in the Quake 3 days, the majority of games that ran on the Quake 3 engine are fucking awesome. 2000-2004 were the best times to be gaming on PC, imo.
Diablo 3 and Battlefield 3 are making PC gaming look good again.
Not so when splash damage coders shit on 'em. It’s so bad, I’m surprised it promotes “id tech” in a startup video.
It doesn’t look that good either.
man i remember running it on my 8800 as well, i think i had the GTX overclocked or something, i dont even remember and im still using the same card. i remember running it similar to what you did it was like medium settings with some high, and it ran around 40fps. at that time on medium settings i remember thinking it was visually the best game i had ever seen. i think it is time for an upgrade but im not sure what to, and now might need to upgrade the whole package so the performance of the card isnt bottlenecked…
im outi
Roberth
The water thing seems to also be an issue in regular crysis and warhead, which seems to be a problem with the engine itself (or a way to artificially cripple performance for e-peen purposes, wouldn’t put it past them really). The problem is that no one has actually gone ahead and modified the maps to remove the underwater areas to see how much they actually affect performance (though ANY improvement in performance is welcome). I agree with the tessellation of objects in Crysis 2 though, a lot of it is completely unnecessary and doesn’t do anything for the game. This includes tessellation of water but also tessellation of objects which do not benefit visually from such high levels of tessellation and objects that are tessellated which aren’t even visible. That and the effects they added as well really do take a toll on performance.
The thing with SLI and Crossfire setups is actually interesting because it happens in many other engines as well, but it doesn’t seem like it’s the case for everyone with SLI/Crossfire setups but hopefully this is addressed (whether it’s via drivers or game patches [not likely at this point]).
When I think unoptimized pieces of shit I think Saints Row 2 
ya seriously. have you guys never played an “unoptimized” game before, because if you have there would be no way in hell you would consider crysis unoptimized.
im outi
Roberth
4 gigs of ddr2, geforce 7950 gx2 (specs below) , dual core proc, and you can play crysis on pc easy as fuck (i’d advise a single monitor setup though for obvious reasons). playing crysis on pretty high settings is doable with reasonably priced hardware, but i think people are caught up in that if you have to play it on like everything super maxed out, with bench mark settings and shit when that’s obviously not the case.
video card specs:
GeForce 7950 GX2
Graphics Bus Technology PCI Express
Memory 1GB (512MB per GPU)
Memory Interface 512-bit
Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) 76.8
Fill Rate (Billion pixels/sec) 24
Vertices/second (Billion) 2.0
Pixels per clock (peak) 48
RAMDACs (MHz) 400
edit: off the top of my head i don’t see a system like that would run very much at all, probably manage one for under 500. but i haven’t shopped for hardware too recently so if shaft agent is seeing this, shin agent assist activate! lol
Updated comparison shots…
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_pc_dx10_veryhigh_vs_console.png
Certainly looking better then the first shots we saw in my OP…
Ugly is now too harsh. Now I am impressed that they can do that quality on the current outdated consoles.
But having said that… you can easily see that the PC version looks WAY better.
As is the norm, I’m not overly concerned with graphics, since the current consoles are well into their lifespans. Once the next generation comes, I’ll be back to “omg grafix :D!”
I’m a retired PC gamer. I could afford it, but I am uninterested. It’s worth mentioning that I barely have time for my 360 as it is.
All that said, I’ve heard Crysis kind of sucks, but I’ll cop the demo
and decide for myself if it’s worth my hard-earned MSP.
Another thing to consider is that the consoles and TV have a less precise gamma ramp, so there is a lot of subtle detail compensated off for contrast