Far Crysis: PCs will weep at Far Cry 2's system reqs

by Randy Nelson { Aug 8th 2008 at 2:45PM }

Ubisoft has revealed the minimum and respectable suggested system requirements for its upcoming FPS / wildfire simulator, Far Cry 2. Let's just say that if your current rig had trouble running Crysis well, it's a far cry from being able to handle FC2.

Oh, and just because previous series-dev Crytek is currently designing Crysis Warhead to run well on $600 systems doesn't mean that its new caretakers at Ubisoft are giving up the war against two-week-old PC components. You'll find the full shopping list rundown of requirements after the break.

[Via Big Download]

Minimum requirements

CPU: Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, Pentium D 2.66 GHz, AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better
Memory: 1GB
Video card: NVIDIA 6800 or ATI X1650 or better
Shader Model 3 required
256 MB of graphics memory
Media reader: DVD-ROM

Recommended

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family, AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
Memory: 2GB
Video card: NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better, ATI X1900 or better
512 MB of graphics memory

Supported video cards:
NVIDIA 6800, NVIDIA 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops.
ATI X1650 – 1950 series, HD2000 series, HD3000 series, HD4000 series.

Tags: far-cry-2, system-requirements, ubisoft, Ubisoft-Montreal

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

deaftly @ Aug 8th 2008 2:48PM

Hence why consoles are better.

Kevin @ Aug 8th 2008 3:32PM

Which part... the fact that the console owners don't have to upgrade because they won't be able to play it at full quality, or that you will be able to stay in your world of primitive bliss while I rock this game out on my pc with my keyboard and mouse(the way shooters are meant to be played).

borland502 (SDF Macross) @ Aug 8th 2008 3:37PM

...as a Honda is better than a Ferrari. Less maintenance, wider audience, and parts developers can be assured of more sales.

tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 8th 2008 3:51PM

Some people (like me) prefer and use pads better than keyboard and mouse. Not to mention a very slight drop in graphics, but nothing to cry or feel bad about. Also not to mention having friends kick back on the couch and/or beanbag seats in front of a massive HDTV with very nice surround sound.

LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 3:52PM

Except that you don't need to buy a watered down Ferrari to fill in the stuff that a Honda can't do and the full spec Ferarri isn't cheaper than a Honda and a watered down Ferrari put together.

The computer to run this game - $580

A basic e-mail computer and a PS3 - $800.

fred @ Aug 8th 2008 3:59PM

"The computer to run this game - $580"
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

BananaBoat @ Aug 8th 2008 4:03PM

"The computer to run this game, 580 dollars"

Err, where is the starting off point for that figure?

Let's just list some components

Core 2 Duo - 200 Dollars
4850 or 9800 GTX+ - 200 dollars
New mobo for C2D - 150 dollars
New Ram - 100 dollars
New Power Supply - about 80 dollars
New HDD - About 100 dollars
New Case - About 100 dollars (unless you want crap)
New DVD drive - 50 dollars

Soo....about 1000 dollars for a brand new PC (if you build it yourself) if you want any hope of playing FC2 on high at a decent resolution. Sure you can recycle a DVD drive, an HDD, a Case, etc, but it's still a pretty expensive venture, and it's nowhere near the "You only need a 600 dollar PC!" crap that Crytek has been spouting.

I just upgraded to a 4870, and if it can't play Farcry 2 at high/1080p I'm going to be severely pissed.

Duke @ Aug 8th 2008 4:08PM

Neither side will ever win this argument. PC is great, consoles are great, both are great ways to game. Lets just accept it and move on.

brighenne @ Aug 8th 2008 4:17PM

A lot of your numbers are inflated there bananaboat.

melquiades002 @ Aug 8th 2008 4:21PM

@ bananaboat

I would say you are actually low-balling some of those numbers...

borland502 (SDF Macross) @ Aug 8th 2008 4:24PM

"Not to mention a very slight drop in graphics"

That slight drop in graphics exists for a very narrow window of time. Uncharted looks damn good, but the fidelity is no where near Crysis even at reasonable settings.

That said, yes, the console is a more social experience *at home*. Until Live came out, any Internet or LAN social was tilted entirely to PC.

There is no denying that consoles have overtaken PCs in terms of gamers both casual and hardcore (WOW excepted). But insisting that a loss leading platform centered around cheaper parts can outperform a PC? No, not a bit. That $600 PS3 translated into $900 of hardware. The 360 is less dramatic, but still sold at a loss originally. And the control scheme is a handicap both in terms of UI and precision.

That said, I've been playing more console than PC in recent times. And the loss of sales to consoles means that PC games last much longer than before (Crysis and Far Cry 2 included) on purchased hardware.
But there is not a slight difference, because you get what you pay for. Consoles just bring a shit ton of advantages that offset PC power.

Pico Suarez @ Aug 8th 2008 4:26PM

@ BananaBoat

Who pays 100 dollars for a case?!

Only un-recyclables:
Core 2 Duo - 120 Dollars
4850 or 9800 GTX+ - 200 dollars
New mobo for C2D - 60 dollars
New Ram - 40 dollars

$420. Hilarious number, but my point is still valid. It's not that huge of a venture. Sure, for one game... but the upgrades above will bitchslap all your other games.

TomCo @ Aug 8th 2008 4:25PM

You went way over on practially all of those prices, don't blame the platform simply because you're not a smart consumer.

Here are most of the parts you mentioned, some are higher spec.

www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=17971&agid=398
www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=9427&agid=631
www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=22318&agid=717
www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=22505&agid=689
www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=18279&agid=659
www3.hardwareversand.de/articledetail.jsp?aid=10160&agid=409

Q6600 Quad Core - €129
Regular ATX case - €30
ATi 4850 - €133
250GB Hitachi - €34
Gigabyte DS3 derivative - €45
2GB Corsair ram - €30

Total - ~€400

Which I believe is around 600 dollars, you can parts even cheaper than the above if you know what to buy and where to shop.

brighenne @ Aug 8th 2008 4:28PM

Prices from newegg:
Lite-On DVD Burner - 23.99
antec sonata III w/500W psu - 99.99
WD 320GB HD - 64.99
Sapphire HD 4850 - 154.99
2GB Corsair XMS - 37.50
Gigabyte ep45-ds3l - 107.99
e7200 - 119.99

Total: 609.44

Not too far off.

LaughingTarget @ Aug 8th 2008 4:50PM

Not to mention that a 4850 is far above and beyond what is necessary to run the game at respectable levels. You can buy a Radeon HD3850 for $90 and still run the game just fine.

BananaBoat @ Aug 8th 2008 5:37PM

My definition of "at a decent resolution" is probably higher than yours. I play at 1920x1200, but I'd say that for anything above the 20" resolution (1600xwhatever) you'd absolutely need one of the newer cards (4850, 4870, GTX 260/280, etc) to play on high at those resolutions. Sure you can go bargain bin on any of the components, but a good motherboard with SLI or Crossfire is going to cost you about 100-150 dollars. You can similarly buy the crappiest C2D that exists, but if you want one specifically for it's performance in gaming, it's going to be about 200 dollars (on newegg. All of these prices are extremely low ball if you are buying at, say, best buy etc). On top of that, you can recycle ram, but if your computer is a couple of years old, it's probably got very slow ram that is going to limit the performance of your new rig needlessly. The 100 dollar figure for a new case is also for a decently built case (from antec) with proper cooling, proper drive cages, etc. You can get a cheap POS case and it'll cost you 30-40 bucks, but it's also not going to work out very well for you in the end. I did mention that you can recycle the hard drive and the DVD drive, and that it would bring down the cost, but people seem to have skimmed over that part for some reason. You could also recycle the case if you had one that could actually fit the new (ridiculously long) cards from Nvidia and ATI. I mean, you can fudge the numbers all day by going from a 500gb retail HDD (100 dollars) to a 320gb OEM HDD (Cheap as dirt), and going OEM on the processor, and mobo, etc, but I prefer retail items with drivers, cables, etc.

Basically, if all you want is low or med at 720p or less, you can absolutely pick the lowest cost parts you can find, with the least features, and the lowest performance. On the other hand, my figures were for the cost of a quality PC that would be able to handle the game at High, at a resolution that makes PC gaming worth it (as in, higher res than a console game).

Believe me, I know what it's like trying to squeeze performance out of parts that just weren't made for it. Been gaming on an older Micro ATX socket 939 computer with DDR memory and a 4800+ X2 for years now (with a 7900GT graphics card that I got to play Oblivion). Recently upgraded to a GTX 260, and then to a 4870 when it became obvious that it was a better card. I literally ordered the parts listed above (without the HDD, and the DVD drive, which I'm recycling) a few days ago (Core 2 Quad for 200, 2gb DDR2 Ram for 100, Crossfire mobo for 130 after rebate, and an Antec case for 100) and I'm going to build it myself over the weekend (hopefully I won't F that up).

Tiptup300 @ Aug 8th 2008 7:17PM

Whoohoo I exceed the recommended specs!

Azerael @ Aug 8th 2008 11:19PM

My Macbook Pro meets the recommended requirements...

D:

ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Aug 9th 2008 2:23AM

JUST GET OVER WITH IT.

I prefer the PC for FPS and RTS, so what? I prefer consoles for racing games and fighters. It's about the game dammit, not the platform.

Why does EVERYONE keep forgetting about it: we're GAMErs dammit.

Abscissa @ Aug 9th 2008 3:25AM

"Why does EVERYONE keep forgetting about it: we're GAMErs dammit."

Because we're not made of money.

JCD @ Aug 9th 2008 8:41PM

I'm with laughing target here. I just recently upgraded my pc for around $500 and it exceeds the recommended specs for this game. The Nvidia 8xxx series and the core 2 duo series have both been around for awhile now.

That being said, I also prefer consoles, not for the cost factor so much as the convenience factor--after 8 hours of hunching over a desk, the last thing I want to do is come home and do the exact same thing. I wanna chill on the couch.

Triforceowner @ Aug 9th 2008 10:30PM

I don't understand why there are these PC fanboys that fight to the death about how cheap a PC is. I play PC games. I'm a PC gamer. Consoles are better. (Sins of a Solar Empire, Half-Life 2, Portal) The real sad thing is I can say my computer is finally out dated. I can't run this game. I have the RAM and GPU but not the CPU (PIV 3.0 GHz). Even Crysis could have "run" on my computer. Oh well, I might be getting a laptop soon, which will run anything...

Justhadtocomment @ Oct 21st 2008 11:34AM

"Some people (like me) prefer and use pads better than keyboard and mouse"

I think i speak for all pc gamers when i tell you that you would never manage to kill me twiddling your n00b sticks...lol

Vegnagun bwf @ Aug 8th 2008 2:48PM

I can run that, the minimum at least.

Haggard @ Aug 8th 2008 4:32PM

Yeah, Joystiq must be running some ancient clunkers if that's "harsh".

Mr Khan @ Aug 8th 2008 5:30PM

My CPU is too slow, but i skimped on that in favor of beefy RAM

Either way, it's not too far out of the league of what a fairly modern computer can do

Haggard @ Aug 8th 2008 10:09PM

Beefy GPU is basically all you need these days. Modern games don't really benefit from having extra pure computing power, since you can only really compute a game up to a point, whilst the frame rate or resolution etc can always be taken a bit higher.

Abscissa @ Aug 9th 2008 3:25AM

My system is a 1.7 GHz Celeron with 1 GB of ram, and I don't even remember what GPU (But I know it's just *slightly* better than a GeForce2MX).

That system does everything I need it to do perfectly fine. With that in mind, there's not a chance in hell I'm spending hundreds of dollars on a new computer just to play a few games made by a bunch of graphics whores.

Jimiisama @ Aug 9th 2008 12:31PM

Absicca, why are you even in this conversation if you don't play PC games?

rocc553 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:49PM

I don't believe Crytek is developing Far Cry 2. It's a separate studio at Ubi.

The_Punisher @ Aug 8th 2008 2:49PM

I can run it decently, and Crysis only lagged at huge moments (alien world, ending). If it looks better on PC, i'll get it there.

GreyFox @ Aug 8th 2008 8:19PM

Yet they've learned nothing about games and high requirements since the first game. Regardless this will likely rock as hard or harder then the first.

Anticrawl @ Aug 9th 2008 1:09PM

When did anyone say Crytek was developing Farcry 2? They didn't is the correct answer. Crytek is developing a new version of Crysis though. Ubisoft owns the rights to Farcry and is developing Farcry 2 in house.

Raiden104 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:50PM

WOW

Huey2k2 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:50PM

As far as I know Crytek isn't developing Far Cry 2...

Christopher Grant @ Aug 8th 2008 2:56PM

Correct! I've updated the post and fed Randy to the lions.

äsdf @ Aug 8th 2008 7:29PM

Can you also go ahead and fix the senseless PC flame bait. There isn't enough of it.

Bobby Ensminger @ Aug 8th 2008 2:52PM

Woot, I can run it on recommended! Go me. (E-peen grows th-------------------------------------------------is big!)

Trunks @ Aug 8th 2008 2:52PM

Oh man, I'm stoked. My new PC could actually run this.

If only it were a fun game worth installing.

Pete @ Aug 8th 2008 3:13PM

How do you know it won't be? Did you not like Far Cry? While the sequel isn't developed by the original developers, which does usually spell trouble, the original Far Cry is one of the best single-player FPS experiences of all time.

XLM @ Aug 8th 2008 3:53PM

"the original Far Cry is one of the best single-player FPS experiences of all time."

until the mutant apes show up.

I loved it up until it devolved into your typical run of the mill mutant/zombie/alien shooter.

Shignami @ Aug 8th 2008 4:20PM

Far cry was never fun, the AI could see further than your draw distance, and could put bullets in your skull from a mile away, not being able to beat a level until you know exactly where everything is is a basic indicator of bad design.

Also, leaping mutants that could 1-hit you from across the room with their invisible claws and heavily armored rocket-toting mutants that take 30 bullets to the skill to kill.

Fuck Far Cry.

Duke @ Aug 8th 2008 5:16PM

Shignami, thanks for the memories. Those were the good ol days.

Haggard @ Aug 8th 2008 8:31PM

Far Cry 2 bears pretty much no resemblences to FC1. Looks more like Stalker.

Huey2k2 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:53PM

Also, this is one of the games that is pretty much forcing me to build myself a new computer. I am very excited.

Iceman346 @ Aug 8th 2008 2:56PM

The suggested requirements are actually quite low imo. You can buy a pc without a monitor for under 500€ nowadays which is less than some people willingly paid for a PS3 ;)

Erik Stroud @ Aug 8th 2008 7:21PM

I agree. I have 2 comps, ones with an 8600GT and another with 8800 GT. So I'm good. The comp I use is able to play Crysis pretty good. So, I think everyone over reacts when they see an 8 in the card name. The system needed to play this recommended is pretty easy to get for a good price.