Crysis PC requirements: a new PC

by Ludwig Kietzmann { Oct 9th 2007 at 4:25PM }

Because your trusty 486, TURBO MODE and all, simply isn't good enough to cope with the lush forests and cybernetic shenanigans of Crysis. Publisher EA has today chosen to end the tech spec-ulation in order to paint a clear, anti-aliased picture of the system you'll need for optimal first-person shooting. Still, if you think your filthy hobo of a mobo deserves to dine in Crytek's five star restaurant, you'd best try out the demo on October 26th.

Minimum System Requirements

OS: Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor: 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster (Vista)
Memory: 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card: 256 MB
Hard Drive: 12GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible

~~Real~~ Recommended System Requirements

OS: Windows XP / Vista
Processor: Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory: 2.0 GB RAM
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar

Supported Processors: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.

Supported chipsets: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT or greater; ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.

Gallery: Crysis

[Via EA press release]

Tags: BreakingNews, Crysis, EA, FPS

Related From Joystiq

Aliens vs. Predator system requirements de-cloaked
19 days ago
GameStop reveals minimum specs for Modern Warfare 2 PC [update]
109 days ago
Section 8 open beta is go
180 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

venk @ Oct 9th 2007 4:29PM

YIKES! Those are some pretty STEEP System Requirements, I think i will hold off on Crysis until I build a new PC near Christmas 08.

MooseMuffin @ Oct 9th 2007 4:36PM

Its pretty steep I guess, but the recommended specs are basically a top of the line PC from late last year. 2gb ram is pretty cheap these days and serious PC gamers have had an 8800 series card for months already.

connor @ Oct 9th 2007 6:02PM

@muffin
I consider myself to be a "serious" pc gamer, and I do not have an 8800 series card, I have an overclocked 7950 gt. Many of us have held off until Crysis to purchase a dx10 card. Why? Because until now, there has been nothing out that takes advantage of dx10, not to mention the drop in prices as of late. Why pay extra for horsepower you can't use?

Ted @ Oct 9th 2007 6:16PM

Perhaps its unfair to say that 'serious' PC gamers have 8800's (I don't think your dedication to the hobby of gaming is measured by your PC specs) but I too am pleased to see that the requirements aren't as astronomical as I expected (even though they are pretty near the best currently available in terms of graphics cards).

Still...

Reading between the lines, I strongly suspect that we will have a similar scenario to that surrounding the release of 'Oblivion'. Even recommended spec PC's encountered difficulties, and the reality will be that this game's graphics are designed with technology not yet available in mind.

NobleCucco @ Oct 9th 2007 9:05PM

Hey, I think my Laptop could run this. It might be a little sluggish but I'm pretty sure it'd pull it off.

ShortFuse @ Oct 9th 2007 9:04PM

It's not that bad. Then again, I spent $1006 on a Athlon64 X2 6000+, 4GB of Memory, nForce motherboard, new case, geforce gt8500 (i'd have to upgrade), new power supply, new dvd burner. i kept my hard drives.
swap out 4gb for 2gb and get yourself a better video card and get a slower CPU and it'll be around $800.

$800 you say? Well a computer isn't just for games you know... while it's only $200 more than a PS3 minus the bluray.

newegg.com

MosquitoControl @ Oct 9th 2007 9:44PM

I contemplated building a new PC for this. But I haven't done PC gaming in a while. It'll always be my favorite, but I have people in the house with me. Locking myself in my room to play isn't much fun.

So I bought myself a Rolex instead. Funny.

JL @ Oct 9th 2007 4:35PM

"Because your trusty 486, TURBO MODE and all, simply isn't good enough to cope with the lush forests and cybernetic shenanigans of Crysis."

You just had to go and use that word didn't you?

Fernando Rocker (NDF - Water Ring) @ Oct 9th 2007 4:38PM

Shenanigans

NATO_Duke @ Oct 9th 2007 4:30PM

See, thats what I was saying before. The real specs, not minimum ones, are way above what many gamers are going to have. People jumped down my throat for calling the high cost of pc gaming as of late as bs, but c'mon - 2 gigs of ram and a core 2 duo?

This is the kinda jumps in pc specs that made console gaming look better to me as of late.

Ted @ Oct 9th 2007 7:01PM

Actually, those specs aren't as ridiculous as you portray them.

In PC Gamer UK they recently had a feature for 'DX10 PC for £576'. To get an idea of that in dollars, don't use the exchange rate as the UK price includes 17.5% VAT in addition to things being generally more expensive. Compare it as equivalent to the price of PS3: in the U.K. it costs £400.

Basically, for £576 (and component prices in the U.S. are cheaper- so between $600 and $1000 app.) you can get 2Gb RAM, 8800GTS, 700W PSU, 500 GB hard drive, DVD-RW, core 2 duo e6320 CPU, a chassis and an Asus motherboard.

--- That's a PC that can handle Crysis.

And when the next graphically incredible PC-only game comes out (eg Far Cry 2, but it could be anything) those specs are easily and inexpensively upgradeable. What is currently top of the line stuff (like 8800 GTXs and quad core extreme CPUs) will come down drastically in price, and there will be brand new midrange stuff also available. So with a PC you can always be prepared.

I'm not trying to say that PCs are better than consoles, just that PC gaming isn't as unattainable as one would think :)

Matt B @ Oct 9th 2007 7:26PM

There is alway a high price for beauty.

Psaakyrn @ Oct 9th 2007 8:13PM

You know, your arguement would be more convincing if you didn't use the OMG EXPENSIVE PS3 as an example.

3cubed minus 3squared plus1 @ Oct 10th 2007 12:15AM

I don't really think so.
I don't play games on the PC but my average joe computer could run this.
Mine doesn't have the real requirements, but better than the minimum ones.

1600Points @ Oct 9th 2007 4:31PM

I just put together a new compy which meets those requirements (nvidia 8500 though so it might lag) was about 700 bucks overall.

spoo @ Oct 9th 2007 6:56PM

If your video card doesn't meet the specs the rest of your rig doesn't matter. Big difference between a 8500 and a 8800.

GRANTED @ Oct 9th 2007 4:31PM

god why bother with vista.

fischju @ Oct 9th 2007 6:31PM

The whole "DX10" thing? God rays from clouds? Much better smoke and fire? Ect?

LaughingTarget @ Oct 9th 2007 8:52PM

Basically, more pretty without the increased system taxing (thank you, lower DX10 system overhead).

Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 9th 2007 4:31PM

Damn!

Joshua @ Oct 9th 2007 4:31PM

Definitely never pay attention to the minimum requirements. As for the real requirements, yeah, I would definitely need a new PC for this game.

Evan @ Oct 9th 2007 4:32PM

The fact that the same game running in Vista requires a faster CPU than running in XP makes me mad. I want 100% of my CPU resources available for the game, not being chewed up by an inefficient operating system. (I know this is old news.)

Ordeith @ Oct 9th 2007 4:57PM

XP is using DirectX 9
Vista is using DirectX 10.

Crysis has more effects, better textures, better presentation on Vista and the bump in system requirements probably reflects the DirectX 10 enhancements to the engine more than it does the unerlying OS.

connor @ Oct 9th 2007 6:04PM

@Ord

Vista does not make you use DX10, you can still play DX9 Crysis with a DX9 card on Vista.

Srayer @ Oct 9th 2007 6:00PM

I think you would see issues much more severe than a poor framerate if your OS gave up 100% cpu to a single process.

Neebs @ Oct 9th 2007 6:00PM

Ordeith - Everything you can do in DX10 can be done in DX9. In DX10, it is more efficient and easier. If anything the requirements should be LOWER.

Hamled @ Oct 12th 2007 7:49PM

Neebs - Actually, while anything you can do via DX10 can be done on a computer that doesn't have a graphics card at all, it's quite unreasonable. The performance would be far below what you'd need for an interactive application, let alone a 30 or 60 fps video game. The same holds true for DX10 vs DX9 for certain things, such as the geometry shaders. If you wanted to have the same shading effects on DX9, they would have to be done on the CPU, which would incur a major performance penalty.

I would also like to mention that OpenGL can do everything that DX10 does at reasonable speeds, assuming you have DX10 quality hardware.

Arturo @ Oct 9th 2007 4:34PM

I've only got the amd 3800+ single @ 2.4ghz,
soon to be 2GB RAM,
an 8600GTS 256MB....

run at medium settings perhaps?... =/

I can't really do much upgrading b/c of my lack of money lately...poop

Einhanderkiller @ Oct 9th 2007 6:31PM

Yes, around medium. Though that processor may hold you back some.

The latest beta update optimized the game a lot. The game runs incredibly well on my 7900GT on medium settings, but still looks amazing. And with 2 months left in development, I can only assume that even more optimization will be done as they are basically done with the game now, i.e., production is complete and all is left to do is polishing.

SoulBlade @ Oct 9th 2007 4:33PM

woohoo! no probs here... they had originally claimed sometime ago that if there was a core 2 quad that they'd make full use of it.. hopefully that's still the case

Nav @ Oct 9th 2007 4:34PM

Hold up - if you're running Vista the *minimum* is a 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo? So the computer I *just* bought w/ a 2.13GHz C2 Duo is no good? Wow.

LaughingTarget @ Oct 9th 2007 4:36PM

No, the specificatios read a 2.2 GHz processor, non-DualCore model. 2.2 GHz Athlon64X2 or pre-Core2Duo Intel model. The Core2Duo runs on a whole different wavelength and cannot be compared on a clock frequency basis to prior models.

LaughingTarget @ Oct 9th 2007 4:41PM

Just read it wrong myself. Those are the recommended. You're a hair shy of what EA says can run it full-blast.

Konny @ Oct 9th 2007 4:34PM

I dont plan on ever owning another desktop PC, so, i guess I'll have to wait 2 years until laptop specs catch up so i can play this.

Dragoneye @ Oct 9th 2007 5:22PM

2 Years for laptop specs to catch up?
I am planning on playing this game with my laptop as soon as it comes out, I may not be able to play a top quality and resolution but I should be able to play at medium settings fine. I just don't quite meet the recommended processor and my graphics card is only a 8600GT.

LaughingTarget @ Oct 9th 2007 4:34PM

A 2.2 GHz Core2Duo is dirt cheap and so is RAM. The only real expense on that list is the 8800 GTS. Remember, if you have to get a PC anyway, the only real increase in cost is the video card and even an 8800 GTX can be had for around the same price as that PS3.

Anyway, my 3.0 GHz Core2Duo, 4 gigs of RAM and 8800 GTX are ready to tackle this monster.

Fernando Rocker (NDF - Water Ring) @ Oct 9th 2007 4:34PM

I cannot play this game =(

HP Slimline 21" Widescreen Monitor
2GB RAM
Athlon 64 X2 2.0 Ghz
350GB HDD
256MB nVIDIA 6150 =(

Fernando Rocker (NDF - Water Ring) @ Oct 9th 2007 4:37PM

Anyone have tried the new HP's with the Intel Quad processor? I saw one in Sam's Club.

LaughingTarget @ Oct 9th 2007 4:40PM

I'd advise avoiding HP or any other big box PC retailer, they don't configure the software properly and tend to overload their systems with tons of useless junk that kills the performance. If you're not one to build yourself, check out boutique dealers like CyberPowerPC or iBuyPower, which are able to put together decent PCs for not much beyond the retail price of the individual components. They beat the hell out of places like Alienware and Falcon which tend to overinflate the price based on name.

Fernando Rocker (NDF - Water Ring) @ Oct 9th 2007 4:44PM

I usually buy HP computers... I like the design, speacilly in my home bussines.. and yes, I know that the this kind of PC (HP, Compaq, Vaio) have a ton of shitless uselles software and everything is bad configured.

But here in Joystiq, we all are geeks here. The first thing I do is uninstall absolutey everything (and I mean, everything) and then reconfigure the PC (it take only like a day, downloading lates software and cracks).

LaughingTarget @ Oct 9th 2007 4:50PM

Another huge problem with those companies is they also use low-quality components. HP tends to use cheap RAM, a cheap motherboard and cheap power supplies. These cheaper components can cause system instabilities. Which is why I suggested those two companies, they offer up quality hardware that you can custom select and have a full range of good cases which means you could find something that fits your style.

Word of the street(IDF-Digital Ruler). @ Oct 10th 2007 1:15AM

As LaughingTarget said try to build your own rig but if you are in my possition where I can't friggin adquire the components try Gateway,Liverpool was announcing a gateway especially designed for this kind of games,I check the stats and I'm sure it can handle Crysis smoothly.