Lowest Spec Crysis Can Run On?

[Tiranasta]

What's the slowest computer that you've run Crysis on.

I ran it on all low settings on my Dad's PC:

Intel Pentium 4 3.2ghz
ATI Radeon X300 SE 128mb
512 mb RAM

It ran on all low settings... playably. I had an 8 FPS average, which is certainly playable, but hardly ideal.

So what's the slowest computer you've run it on?

[Phait]

1.8 GHz AMD Athlon
2 GB PC3200/DDR 400 RAM
GeForce 7900 GS 256 MB

Maybe 20 - 25 FPS on medium settings, with a few on high actually if I remember (demo)

[peoplessi]

8 FPS is not playable, you wouldn't be able to finish the game if you encounter 8FPS before the end.

[Mr.Fibbles]

I played the demo on:
Pentium D Dual Core
1 GB RAM
GeForce 7600 GT.

I think I was running it on mostly low~medium at like 1024*768. I was pushing it though.

[Tiranasta]

8 FPS is not playable, you wouldn't be able to finish the game if you encounter 8FPS before the end.

Sorry, I should have specified. This was on the demo, so I can't speak for the full game, but I found 8 FPS to be adequate, at least for the demo areas.

[peoplessi]

It will drop down to 0 FPS in the last few levels/sections/areas ;)

[Damien_Azreal]

For playable smooth gameplay the minimum is thirty frames per second.

Anything under that is considered unplayable. But several games today are finding ways to make low frame rates seem smoother than before.
And while low frames may be more playable than they were in the past... it still isn't acceptable to most.

[Mountain Man]

I'm happy with 20 these days. When you have an ancient system, you learn not to be picky. ;)

[Paroxysm]

For playable smooth gameplay the minimum is thirty frames per second.

Rubbish. Games can certainly be playable at lower than 30. Geez most people struggled through around half that when quake came out and we still managed to kicks arse.

[Phait]

When you run at 50+ its so fluid it feels like a new experience, it's great esp. with flight and racing.

[Damien_Azreal]

Rubbish. Games can certainly be playable at lower than 30. Geez most people struggled through around half that when quake came out and we still managed to kicks arse.

The market standard playable frame rate is 26 to 30, yes games are very playable under this.
But most developers, hardware developers, etc will state that 30 is good, 60 is ideal.

I'm happy as long as it's above 26.

[Destroyer]

8 FPS is not playable, you wouldn't be able to finish the game if you encounter 8FPS before the end.

agreed. I would say a consistent 20FPS is playable.

[Damien_Azreal]

Yep.

When Doom 3 was released I played it from start to finish, a few times (along with FarCry) with around 20 FPS... sometimes less. And enjoyed it greatly. Also has this issue with FEAR when it was released.

But I do notice a difference now, being able to run Doom 3 at higher settings with better frame rates.

[Little Conqueror]

I don't like the exponentially growing requirements for system specs. I'm afraid to even try Crysis on my system:

2 GB RAM
AMD Athlon X2 64 4400+
128 MB ATI Radeon X1300

Hell. It barely runs TF2 in a playable manner.

[Phait]

Then it's your card.

[IHerman]

An X300 and X1300 are low-end. I don't think they were even meant to run games.
512MB of RAM is also quite low.

I have a X1650 and it runs Bioshock with good detail, not sure about specifics but the game looks awesome.

A $200 videocard should give you enough power to run any game.

[MAT]

Playing a game with 15-20 FPS is one thing, but playing the same game with 30+ FPS is a totally different experience. Hence, why any FPS lower than 30 is considered "unplayable". The fun you get from the game is exponentially reduced as the FPS drops, and that contradicts the developers' intention of 30+ FPS for maximum fun.

[Talos]

It barely runs on my:
Ati x700
Pentium M 1,73 Ghz
1 Gig Ram

[IHerman]

It sucks you have to spend $2000 on a PC that'll run a game properly.

Somehow the game industry is so focused on delivering the best visuals only rich people can play new shooters in full glory, which sucks.

Crysis totally f-ed everyone in the A when it comes to graphics. Yes, the screens and videos look awesome, unfortunately only a percent or 2 of us can actually achieve those visuals.

[Pontiaction]

I noticed Crysis taking a big bite out of my system too. It's the first game to really tax the bejeezus out of it. It's a midrange setup, though, so I wasn't surprised.

For the record, I'm running:

Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz
GeForce 7600 GT Silent (passively cooled)
2 GB RAM

I'm figuring that bumping up the video card would make the most difference, but I have no idea what to get. I love passive cooling, but it looks like the best I can do while maintaining that silence is an Asus 8600 GT w/512 MB. Anyone know if that would make enough of a difference to be worth the purchase, or should I be looking at an 8800 GT? What's the GeForce's sweet spot on performance/cost ratio these days, anyway?

[Hudson]

I tried it on this rig and just uninstalled it, the performance was terrible and it looked horrible. I'll just wait a month until my new rig is done:

A64 (single core) 3500+
2gb PC-3200 DDR
7600GT 256 AGP

should I be looking at an 8800 GT?

Yes! Definitely get an 8800GT (preferably a 512mb version). EVGA has one superclocked as well.

[Damien_Azreal]

Actually, Gainward has made a 1GB 8800GT with a dual slot cooler heatsink. I want so damn bad.

But I can't find a seller in the US that handles Gainward GPUs.

[seregrail7]

I ran it on my laptop, Core2Duo 1.8GHz, 3GB(Factory mistake :D) RAM and an x1400 Mobility. Everything on low bar textures and normal maps, they were set to medium. Ran in 1024*768 in the 20 - 30 FPS region.

[Destructor]

Crysis runs perfectly on my system on most settings at low, and a couple on medium, on a resolution of 1440*900 (my monitor's native resolution). However, it does freeze on the long cutscenes sometimes. My specs are:

-P4 3.2 GHz
- 1 GB RAM
- 8600GT 256MB

[Pontiaction]

Hmm, looks like an 8800GT would be the sweet spot. I'd definitely want at least 512 MB on it. Thanks guys!

[Little Conqueror]

Then it's your card.

Tell me where I can get a high quality graphics card to fit a slimline PC and I'd be much obliged, then.

I agree with IHerman that the push for better visuals is not a good thing for consumers... the lack of downward scalability in games is killing the PC industry more than anything.

[MegaMustaine]

I agree with IHerman that the push for better visuals is not a good thing for consumers... the lack of downward scalability in games is killing the PC industry more than anything.

Well it is a big reason why I am getting a 360. I cannot afford to keep my comp up to date to play the games I want. And I do want to play DNF when it comes out, and while it is not confirmed I think the 360 is a safe bet to be able to play it.

[Destructor]

I agree with IHerman that the push for better visuals is not a good thing for consumers... the lack of downward scalability in games is killing the PC industry more than anything.

I thought Crysis was very downward scalable. I was surprised to see it run so well on my system.

[Mountain Man]

It sucks you have to spend $2000 on a PC that'll run a game properly.

Somehow the game industry is so focused on delivering the best visuals only rich people can play new shooters in full glory, which sucks.
I agree. This need to develop beyond the average system and push realism at all costs is annoying.

I still like my idea of a 5-year freeze on hardware development (except for drivers) in order to give developers time to truly maximize the potential of current hardware and to give consumers a chance to catch up. Of course, convincing the hardware manufacturers that this is a good idea might be tricky.

Alternatively, developers could form some sort of independent panel and decide on a baseline system (taking into account all hardware vendors) that will be the "standard" for the gaming industry, and they focus their efforts on that hardware. That way developers won't have to chase a moving target, consumers will know exactly which hardware the games are developed for, and hardware manufacturers will still have an incentive to improve on existing hardware.

[Little Conqueror]

I thought Crysis was very downward scalable. I was surprised to see it run so well on my system.

In all fairness, I think your system, besides the RAM, isn't "average."

[Pontiaction]

As a follow-up to this, I installed a BFG 512 MB 8800 GT OC today (replaced a passively-cooled 7600 GT) and fired up the Crysis SP demo again...ran auto-detect...the game set everything on "high" (with AA off). I set the resolution at 1680x1050 and started playing.

This is a complete 180 on performance. The game is smooth -- not buttery smooth, but way more than playable. On my 7600 GT, I had almost everything set on "Low" and performance wasn't even this good.

Even better, fan noise from the card is almost nonexistent. Only when it gets hot while playing -- north of 95 C -- does the fan ramp up and keep the temperatures under control.

Guys -- thanks for convincing me to get the 8800 GT; these kinds of results are what I was looking for.