×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

But Can It Run Crysis 3?

timothy posted about a year ago | from the why-I-can't-get-into-video-games dept.

Graphics 182

MojoKid writes with Hot Hardware's summary of what it takes to run the newest Crysis: "We've been tracking Crysis 3 for a while, from the trailer a few months ago to the recent alpha multiplayer preview. The game is available for preorder and it will launch in February. Crytek has now listed the minimum system requirements for Crysis 3 and they're as follows: Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8, DirectX 11 graphics card with 1GB Video RAM, Dual core CPU, 2GB Memory (3GB on Vista). Those aren't particularly stringent parameters by any means, but as we all know, 'minimum requirements' rarely are. Crytek suggests upgrading to a quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, with examples of CPU/GPU combinations that include Intel Core i5-750/NVIDIA GTX 560 and AMD Phenom II X4 805/AMD Radeon HD5870."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

182 comments

Crysis 3 leaked some time ago (4, Funny)

anethema (99553) | about a year ago | (#42179747)

On private torrent sites at least. Can't find it on TPB.

Just download it yourself and see if you can run it.

IF I had pirated it and played about half the campaign already (which I haven't I'm too moral!), I would say it runs perfectly on my system. Quad core i5 2500k and Geforce 670, but that is fairly high end, no idea how it would run on a lower one. Or mine..since I haven't played it.

Re:Crysis 3 leaked some time ago (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#42180305)

Or mine..since I haven't played it.

So...what are your unopinions? Have you enjoyed not playing it? Could you non-tell us if the storyline is any good?

Re:Crysis 3 leaked some time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180439)

If it's anything like the first one, you kill, in order:

A bunch of Koreans
Aliens
More Koreans
More Aliens
A boss
The second boss, right after the first boss.

Re:Crysis 3 leaked some time ago (1)

Verunks (1000826) | about a year ago | (#42180457)

I never heard of a crysis 3 leak, I think you are confusing it with crysis 2, there was an almost open multiplayer alpha(nvidia would give away key to pretty much everyone) at the beginning of november, but the performance was quite awful on my system(3930k @4.4ghz and GTX580), I think it was around 18fps with everything maxed out but I guess it was probably a debug build so it's hard to say how it will run when it gets released

Re:Crysis 3 leaked some time ago (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year ago | (#42180743)

There's no Crysis 3 leak, you are mistaken.

Re:Crysis 3 leaked some time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42181037)

There was a Multiplayer Alpha leak for 3 but you needed to have a key. Other than that you are right, there was no Crysis 3 leak.

Re:Crysis 3 leaked some time ago (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#42181353)

On private torrent sites at least. Can't find it on TPB.

Just download it yourself and see if you can run it.

IF I had pirated it and played about half the campaign already (which I haven't I'm too moral!), I would say it runs perfectly on my system. Quad core i5 2500k and Geforce 670, but that is fairly high end, no idea how it would run on a lower one. Or mine..since I haven't played it.

There was NOT a crysis 3 leak.

There was a multiplayer alpha which I was part of, and the game ran at 60fps highest settings on my i7-920 and a Nvidia GTX460.

So take that as you will.

These really aren't much (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about a year ago | (#42179791)

These really aren't much in the way of system requirements. Which just shows how this extended console generation has had an affect on PC graphics development. Though I'm not complaining it saves me money in the long run, and forces programmers to learn how to do more with less hardware which isn't a bad thing for the most part.

Re:These really aren't much (2, Informative)

edxwelch (600979) | about a year ago | (#42180173)

Yes it is. Only pretty high end GPUs have 1GB Video RAM. Not sure, but I don't think consoles have that much

Re:These really aren't much (4, Informative)

futuresheep (531366) | about a year ago | (#42180199)

Re:These really aren't much (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about a year ago | (#42180343)

right. I was thinking more of old low end GPUs.

Re:These really aren't much (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year ago | (#42180721)

The 200 series is 4 generations old. I'd call that fairly old, at least in computer hardware terms.

Re:These really aren't much (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about a year ago | (#42181155)

This says it only has 512 mb:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2939 [anandtech.com]
"Coupled with the GT218 GPU on the G210 is 512MB of DDR2 RAM, using the customary 64bit memory bus. Interestingly, unlike most other entry-level products, the G210 only comes in 1 memory configuration: 512MB."

Re:These really aren't much (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#42181553)

This says it only has 512 mb: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2939 [anandtech.com] "Coupled with the GT218 GPU on the G210 is 512MB of DDR2 RAM, using the customary 64bit memory bus. Interestingly, unlike most other entry-level products, the G210 only comes in 1 memory configuration: 512MB."

You're looking at an MSI 512MB model, he linked an eVGA 1GB model. Also, the GT210 was low end when it came out - not something you should be expecting a good gaming experience from. Either way, it's an extremely old card. I just bought an evga 620 a few weeks ago to add a few more monitors to my pc for under $50 and it had 1GB. Current high end cards have 2-4GB onboard. Even my (also outdated) gtx 480 from a few years ago had 1.5GB.

Re:These really aren't much (1)

Narishma (822073) | about a year ago | (#42180933)

They don't. The PS3 has 256 MB of VRAM, the Xbox 360 has 512 MB shared between system and video RAM.

Re:These really aren't much (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42181205)

Only pretty high end GPUs have 1GB Video RAM.

Maybe if this was still 2008.

Re:These really aren't much (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#42181389)

Yes it is. Only pretty high end GPUs have 1GB Video RAM. Not sure, but I don't think consoles have that much

no, High End cards have 2gb or more video ram. I've seen some up to 4gb ram
https://www.google.com/shopping/product/3980372100714694271?q=video%20cards&hl=en&safe=off&sqi=2&bpcl=39580677&biw=1327&bih=874&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&sa=X&ei=PDi-UMaQKeaIiAKev4D4BQ&ved=0CLwBEOUNMAI [google.com]

sorry for the long link, but that's what you get when I have to google for you.

Re:These really aren't much (1)

LordSkippy (140884) | about a year ago | (#42181239)

If Mechwarrior Online is anything to go by (it uses the Crysis 3 engine), the min-specs aren't going to play the game very well. Dual-core machines end up having both cores hammered, and FPS drops into the singles when up close and personal with more than one other Mech. My machine is about midway between the min-specs and the recommended for MWO, which looks like they took the min-specs straight from Crysis 3, and it plays alright, but not great. It could be due to some of the code the MWO team has bolted on, but I'd say it's a pretty good indicator that the min-specs are more wishful thinking.

Too much power needed for GPU these days... (3, Informative)

trims (10010) | about a year ago | (#42181307)

The bad part is the "recommended" graphics card is now the upper level of the mid-range, the Nvidia 560 or 660, and the ATI 5870.

This is becoming a real big issue for Graphics cards, far more than video RAM or any other part of the system.

The problem is that the upper-mid-range cards now require *very* significant power. The 560/660 and 5870 above really require TWO 6-pin supplemental power connectors, since they're now pulling 200W under load. The problem there is that this means a 500W+ power supply, and ONLY high-end workstations or custom gaming rigs have those, so you're inherently cutting out the section of the population which games, has a pretty beefy rig, but got a pre-made system from HP/Dell/whomever, none of which have more than a 400W (and usually a 300W) power supply.

I'm a excellent example: I happen to have a HP Z210 workstation - that's a Xeon E3-1200-class CPU (which kicks the crap out of everything consumer-class, including the i7 series), 16GB of RAM, and an SSD. Yet, it was only designed with a 400W power supply, as it was targeted for mid-level pro graphics. I've been looking, and the absolutely fastest GPU I can use is the Nvidia 650 Ti; everything else draws too much power. Consumer PCs are in an even worse situation, since they might have a high-end i5 Ivy bridge CPU, but they've only got 350W power supplies, which probably can't even drive my 650 Ti, let alone a 660. So, you're looking at having to buy a system for $1500 (sans graphics card) rather than $500 to play these games.

Realistically, game makers need to target the lower-mid-range cards - at least, they have to be able to play very well at around 1680x1050 or 1440x900 on one of those lower-power-draw cards (e.g. Nvidia 650 or AMD 7850).

Frankly, I think this is going to be a *big* drag on the PC Gaming industry, since unless they can convince Nvidia/AMD to cut down on the power-draw requirements, or somehow get PC makers to beef up their PS more, new games won't be able to run reasonably on ANYTHING not a custom gaming rig. And that's a *tiny* portion of the market.

-Erik

Re:Too much power needed for GPU these days... (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | about a year ago | (#42181551)

Not trolling, but how hard is it to replace the power supply in one of these systems?

Seems like anybody comfortable enough to upgrade the graphics card should also be able to swap out a power supply as well. Does HP, etc make it such that the power supply cannot be replaced?

Re:These really aren't much (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#42181445)

These really aren't much in the way of system requirements. Which just shows how this extended console generation has had an affect on PC graphics development. Though I'm not complaining it saves me money in the long run, and forces programmers to learn how to do more with less hardware which isn't a bad thing for the most part.

Honestly, I'm disappointed. GPU advances seem to have been driven at least in part by game development. With new big name titles like this coming out with such low end requirements the game certainly won't be driving too many upgrades. This means the only reason AMD or nVidia have to innovate is simply to stay a little ahead of each other.

is the game worth it? (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#42179843)

it seems the game consists of walking/running around with only part of your weapon visible on the screen and shooting stuff with the object to save the planet or the galaxy or something else. anything different then all the FPS games over the last 20 some years?

or are people going to spend close to $1000 upgrading their computers just to be wowed by some extra graphical detail?

Re:is the game worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180001)

They are, just like people have spent far more to move from 525 lines to 720 to 1080 etc etc.

Nothing like some snarky trivialization of what other people are interested in to start off the morning.

Re:is the game worth it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180049)

anything different then all the FPS games over the last 20 some years?

I think this one has individually animated mosquitos.

Re:is the game worth it? (1)

egr (932620) | about a year ago | (#42180057)

$1000? Upgrade? I find it hard to find the hardware that does not meet the recommended requirements.

Re:is the game worth it? (3, Insightful)

greg1104 (461138) | about a year ago | (#42180061)

It's a game where you move around shooting. There's nothing different from all the games in the last 50 years [wikipedia.org], there's just more graphical detail.

Re:is the game worth it? (2)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#42180901)

thats gross oversimplification and you damn well know it. lets take daikatana and half life. based on what you say, theyre the same game....

but in reality, and to quote a much used and very true phrase, the devil is in the details. lots of little things add up, either to a giant steaming mess or a classic bestselling game.

Crysis fell into the latter category though combination of storytelling, techinical and graphical wowness, and good gameplay. the tank level is one of those moments in gaming that i'll never forget. the level itself was massive, the largest i'd ever seen (technical points), and the freaking mountain seveal miles off fell apart, with physics, revealing aliens, and you eventually drive up to that SAME mountain that was miles off. the sheer scale of that map was amaing, both from a gaming standpoint, and a technical one. (and why they abandoned the massive outdoor environments for the sequel i dont understand)

Crysis demanded a lot of a computer. And the experience is vastly different between even a low end machine and mid range.

Just merely more graphical detail? Please. You dont have a clue.
That's like saying my kids fingerpainting and the Mona Lisa are the same thing, one's just more detailed than the other. And just as ignorant.

Re:is the game worth it? (4, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | about a year ago | (#42181495)

The Mona Lisa is not highly regarded because it is detailed. There are many similarly detailed paintings, and many far more detailed paintings. A high-resolution photograph of a sitting woman would be far far more detailed than any of those paintings. That's not what adds value.

There comes a point of diminishing returns where increasing levels of realism adds less to the experience. Artistic touches go a long way in defining a distinctive and memorable look for a game. Battlefield 3, Call of Duty Modern Warfare ___, Medal of Honor, they are all working off the same modern-day source material and have only minor visual details to distinguish one from another. Kane & Lynch 2 : Dog Days, which had terrible reviews (deservingly so), and Splinter cell: Conviction are two other games also set in the modern day but have taken effort to add stylistic touches. KL2: DD for all of it's flaws implemented a distinctive "caught-on-camera" perspective throughout the game, as though the viewer was watching the protagonists by chasing them with a camcorder, shaking as they run, static distortion in the camera when explosions go off, and film bleeding effects for emphasis on the sleazy scraped-from-the gutter atmosphere they sought to achieve. They put thought into the game's visuals, not just time. Splintercell conviction projects objectives, text, and video of events happening elsewhere onto surfaces in the world that the protagonist moves through the environment, and mapped the timing and positioning of each of these to coincide with the player's likely orientation and pacing through that environment. Both games identified a theme to differentiate themselves, even if they only wanted a subtle touch, and made efforts to maintain thematic consistency throughout the game. This is very different than a simplistic dogged adherence to replicating what already exists in the real-world.

Stepping outside of the realm of modern-day game settings. Katamari Damacy or Okami has a tiny fraction of the budget spent on graphics that these other games do. But both have a far more memorable visual experience. One glance at a screenshot of these games and there's no mistaking what you're looking at. I'd rate the visuals of these 2 games above all others mentioned here, despite less technically complex.

Re:is the game worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180069)

It only cost me around 600 to upgrade to an Nvidia 660 GTX, asus 990fx sabertooth, an AMD 8350, and 8 gigs of ram. Don't get me wrong, I didn't do it for the game. What I'm saying is, if you know what you're doing, you can build a decent budget system without breaking the bank.

Re:is the game worth it? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180077)

"or are people going to spend close to $1000 upgrading their computers just to be wowed by some extra graphical detail?"

People have been doing just that for many years despite the fact that in terms of gameplay, the FPS genre hasn't moved forward a single inch since the days of Quake.

Re:is the game worth it? (2)

JazzLad (935151) | about a year ago | (#42180373)

If you had said Unreal Tournament, you may have had a point, because UT was quite a bit ahead of Quake (new equipment like translocator & new gameplay options like CTF & a multitude of fan-made maps). Well, then later versions added vehicles, always fun to get a little road-rage out, this is a gameplay advance. Oh, and there are awesome co-op games like L4D, quite a bit ahead of Quake. Come to think of it, you're full of ****. There have been several significant forward movements since Quake, you just got old and didn't like getting your *** handed to you by the kids.


Disclaimer: I started playing FPS on Wolfenstein 3D and while I have played pretty much everything since then, I too have gotten old and disliked getting p0wned by children that weren't alive when I started playing FPS, but I have gotten over it & typically stick to games with people I know that are old like me.

Re:is the game worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180081)

You're totally missing the point. How else can I justify upgrading if I don't really have any software that needs the power? Then people would realize I just upgrade to show off, and that extra computing power would totally go to waste, too.

Re:is the game worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180221)

The problem here is CryEngine. It's an engine that is capable of pulling off details MAYBE 10% "better" (which is admittedly not much of a metric) than the best-of-the-best of other engines out there, yet it takes TWICE the resources to do it.

Play Rage in WINE. idTech5 uses OpenGL for graphics so all you need is a single XACT audio DLL (easily installed via winetricks) and the binary NVidia/ATI driver and you're all set. Congratulations, you now have a game with 90% of the graphical fidelity of Crysis 3, BETTER gunplay, and an equally bland story.

If you really want the remaining 10% then you have a problem. I mean fuck this is like idiots with a standard 50" LCD and plain old speakers who want to see ONE SINGLE MOVIE ON BLU-RAY so they go spend $1,000 on a whole home theater upgrade. Just buy the fucking DVD and be happy.

Re:is the game worth it? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year ago | (#42180821)

You never played both game it seems. Rage is a failure, one of the worst commercial FPS released in the past years. Better gunplay? hahaha

Re:is the game worth it? (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#42180269)

are people going to spend close to $1000 upgrading their computers just to be wowed by some extra graphical detail? My two year old machine is still better than the higher recommended specs. I just bought a $600 system for my kids that has better specs than the recommended specs. If I can get a whole system for $600, than it shouldn't cost that much.
Let's check Newegg:
Intel Core i5-750 - apparently there is no such thing, but the most expensive I5 is $250.
or
AMD Phenom II X4 805 - apparently there is no such thing, but the most expensive AMD Phenom II X4 is $85.

NVIDIA GTX 560 - The most expensive of these is about $250, but they can be had for less than $200.
AMD Radeon HD5870 - No longer available, but faster cards are available for less than $100.
4GB Memory? $50, assuming your computer doesn't already have that much RAM. It is not easy to find a computer these days with less than 4 GB.

Re:is the game worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180833)

apparently there is no such thing

I guess you mean "the store does not have it", but that wording implies "it does not exist".

Re:is the game worth it? (0)

Issarlk (1429361) | about a year ago | (#42180279)

No upgrading yet, wait for Crysis 4. It should be running on the PSBox4 and hopefully this will give some freedom to the dev to do something as good looking as Crysis 1.

Re:is the game worth it? (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#42180287)

are people going to spend close to $1000 upgrading their computers just to be wowed by some extra graphical detail?

Yes. Because running Crysis 3 is the 13 yr old equivalent of a 40 yr old purchasing a Dodge RAM 2500 Quadcab +Hemi +Dualies +Stacks.

Re:is the game worth it? (1)

TheLink (130905) | about a year ago | (#42180441)

Game? It's a benchmarking program. How many times has Crysis been played vs the times its been run as a benchmark?

As hardware becomes more powerful you need to release updated benchmarks because the older ones become less useful.

Re:is the game worth it? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year ago | (#42180781)

Immersion/detail/storyline. FPS 20 years ago were running in square rooms with choppy controls. Now you have fully dynamic realistic area the size of cities. To me, it's not the same gameplay style at all.

Re:is the game worth it? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#42181413)

Oh come on, you can dismissively summarize anything like that if you want to sound like some type of elitist (AKA: a douche).

Super mario brothers? I've heard that game consists of EXTREMELY poor graphics, jumping on stuff, and occasinally breaking bricks with your head, to save a princess or something else. And it's only in 2D!

Minecraft... that's basically just legos, with exploding cacti. No thanks.

(Insert your favorite song)? It seems that consists mostly of percussion, guitars, other stringed instruments, and singing about love or something else. Anything different from all the music of the past 30 years?

Sex? What's fun about mashing genitals together? Are people really spending thousands and thousands of dollars just for a 2 second orgasm?

Bar reaches new low (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42179867)

This barely qualifies as gossip, it's certainly not news. So when is the rebrand to Sl-ad-dot coming?

Re:Bar reaches new low (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180165)

It's not 2001 anymore. If you want your linux-centric news site, piss off.

Wil it run under Wine? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year ago | (#42179873)

Just kidding.

Re:Wil it run on the Wii U? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42179955)

It's the next gen console of the moment after all.

Re:Wil it run under Wine? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180513)

DirectX 11 is just a number right? I doubt much has changed since DirectX 3.

recommended? (4, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#42179927)

Crytek suggests upgrading to a quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, with examples of CPU/GPU combinations that include Intel Core i5-750/NVIDIA GTX 560 and AMD Phenom II X4 805/AMD Radeon HD5870.

Those seems like pretty low recommendations to me. Certainly relative to what was needed for the original Crysis when compared to the hardware at the time. I haven't replaced my entire system (bumped my ram up from 4 GB to 8 GB two years ago) in several years and haven't had any difficulty with games at all, not that I have time to play them often these days. I have a GTX 250 that I put in the system when I originally built it and still haven't had the time (or need actually) to put in the GTX 465; that's been sitting on my desk for close to two years now.

My guess is that due to the need to run on laptops, most game manufacturers are not pushing the limits of bleeding edge hardware anymore. No one is going to replace their entire laptop every year just to play the latest and greatest game.

Re:recommended? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180177)

Crytek suggests upgrading to a quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, with examples of CPU/GPU combinations that include Intel Core i5-750/NVIDIA GTX 560 and AMD Phenom II X4 805/AMD Radeon HD5870.

My guess is that due to the need to run on laptops, most game manufacturers are not pushing the limits of bleeding edge hardware anymore. No one is going to replace their entire laptop every year just to play the latest and greatest game.

As of 2 years ago, desktop computer hardware performance outstripped pretty much all game requirements. Laptops have also reached this threshold. The only component that can still be a bottleneck, for systems with high res displays (over 1920 x 1200) and laptops, is the GPU.

Games are, for the most case, no longer driving PC hardware improvements. High-def video processing and editing, on the other hand, is a hog when it comes to disk I/O, GPU, and CPU processing.

Are you sure it's laptops, or is it consoles? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42180189)

My guess is that due to the need to run on laptops, most game manufacturers are not pushing the limits of bleeding edge hardware anymore. No

Are you sure it's laptops, or is it consoles? I imagine that companies with the resources to create assets detailed enough to tax an enthusiast PC also have the resources to qualify to be licensed developers on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

Re:Are you sure it's laptops, or is it consoles? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#42180249)

Good point. I never think about consoles as the only one in the house is a Wii and I would never even think about playing a PC game on it. Actually I'd never consider playing a FPS on a console in general.

Yes but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42179985)

Will it blend?

Hardly sounds demanding, maybe for good reason? (1)

olsonish (2526782) | about a year ago | (#42180033)

I was just thinking to myself the other day it used to be every year if not most certainly every other year I found myself dropping anywhere from half to a full grand on upgrades pretty consistently. Its been at least 2 1/2 years now and I'm fairly certain an i7 930, 12g tc ddr3, 2x 6870's, and a SSD blow those recommended specs out of the water. It feels silly posting those specs too as if its some kind of boast, I can only imagine anyone else who builds their own rigs is probably in the same boat. I think the last hardware I'd bought was in 2011 I paid something around $100 for 16gb (4x4) for a spare box, just because it was so cheap. Wild speculation perhaps: While I'm not a game programmer, I have been doing a lot of mobile web interfaces over the last 2 1/2 years. Its been a general observation at least in my area of expertise alone that efficiency is king. I wonder if the explosion of mobile and tablet development has had a similar effect on game programming practices? I base this observation on the near complete death of flash in web interfaces on mobile devices, it wasn't so much about transfer time (as that would be irrelevant here, too) as much as it was about what kind of local resources it took to render the page (flash plugin on mobile/tablets is sluggish at best). The general side effect on desktop versions of web interfaces has been trimmed down markup and much more efficient/optimized CSS/JS (on sites that are properly developed in a mobile first fashion). I can only imagine with all of the recent development of games on the ipad for example have somehow resulted in more efficient practices bleeding into the desktop game development world. Maybe a ./ game developer could chime in?

Well that eliminates a popular build (-1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#42180043)

My very popular build lately at my shop is an A10 or A8 AMD Trinity APU with the onboard 7000 series graphics, 8GB of 1866 memory, and an SSD. The A10 for example gets a 7.3 WEI rating on processing and 6.9 on gaming and desktop graphics. It plays Rainbox 6 Vegas 2 flawlessly and Starcraft II at very high settings. According to the Crysis 3 specs, it won't even launch on this system. That's ridiculous. That chip only reserves 512MB of video memory and it's not dedicated. Don't they have a low res texture mode for systems like this? I guess they don't want any customers.

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180187)

They don't support my chosen platform, so they must hate *everyone*!

drop the fucking theatrics. It's childish. Attitudes like this are why the US congress can't get a damn thing done.

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#42180195)

According to the Crysis 3 specs, it won't even launch on this system.

Where do you get that it won't launch? It'll launch but Crytek is telling you it probably won't run very well.

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#42181161)

They're saying "bare minimum" is 1GB video memory so if it gets stuck in a dump and load loop because total texture size on minimum is 650MB and I have 512, it will not launch or skin everything and will crash. I think they're lying. I don't know if the APUs can grab more memory on the fly like Intel chips though. They do have an absolutely segregated 512MB that the system can't touch instead of 100% on the fly like Intel so who knows.

PS3 (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42180233)

According to Wikipedia, Crysis 3 has a low-res texture mode that only needs 256 MB of VRAM. It's called "the PlayStation 3 version".

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (1)

Krneki (1192201) | about a year ago | (#42180277)

You completely missed the point.

Some of us also like to play games using the latest hardware. There are still a lot of games using UT3 engine that will run just fine on older hardware. There is no need for the whole game industry to wait for every single Joe to buy new hardware.

Anyway, it's not like the game will rot or anything, it will still be there when you finally get a new machine and then you can play the game using your new PC at his best.

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#42180357)

just buy a graphics card, sheesh.

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#42181113)

Just give all my customers and extra $150 and they will. A better PSU and at least a 550TI are around $150 difference.

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#42181179)

You do know that they basically took a Radeon graphics card and put the entire GPU into the CPU without changing much, right? So it has 384 cores, direct memory access, and just no GDDR5 (which kinda kills it based on my experience with a GT440 that had DDR3 onboard instead of GDDR5).

But still, they should have a quick and ugly mode so users can play it on BRAND NEW, gaming-oriented systems like this. They're definitely losing customers, seeing as how this can play basically any other game ever made on minimum settings.

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180413)

people use onboard graphics for more than flash-based games? really? then whine that CRYSIS won't play on their box? really?!?!

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#42180873)

Integrated graphics. Seriously?

Starcraft II is hardly the most graphically-challenging game. Neither is R6: Vegas. And the WEI scores are essentially useless.

The A10 uses a Radeon 7660D which, in "real"-card terms, fits somewhere between 7570 and a 7470. However, the integrated Radeons are known to be extremely memory-bandwidth-bound, enough that they're frequently used in RAM benchmarks. So in practice you're looking at a graphics processor that's already weak, and further crippling it by bottlenecking its memory access.

Look at the benchmarks [anandtech.com]. 48 FPS in Crysis: Warhead - at 1366x768. 41 FPS in Metro: 2033, on low, at the same low resolution. 68 FPS in Dirt 3. 58 FPS in Battlefield 3, at low quality. For any game that has a reputation for being GPU-heavy, integrated graphics will not suffice.

Yes, the Fusions are pretty awesome chips. I almost got one myself. They're excellent for mobile or light gaming usage. I'm not surprised you sell a lot of them. But (at the risk of sounding like a True Scotsman) they're not the kind of thing a real PC gamer uses. And Crysis 3 is definitely trying to target the "real PC gamer".

Re:Well that eliminates a popular build (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#42181219)

APUs are not really integrated graphics. They took a GPU core and put it inside the CPU. It's no different than the actual card itself, except for memory bandwidth and speeds. Those FPSes are not acceptable to me but I just had a customer who was running 20FPS in WoW on a laptop with Intel GMA965 and a core 2 and said it was "fine." To run an older Crysis at 48FPS, this thing definitely has some horsepower so to completely eliminate it from playability seems like a stupid decision to me on the game maker's part.

Optimization favorites? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#42180141)

Ok, while we are at it, let's flip this question too.

Is there any particular game that is your favorite regarding exceptionally good optimization or low system requirements?

I would pick the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series -- should be playable even on the low-end Radeon APUs, while bringing large outdoor areas and a nice amount of detail.

Don't discount retro (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42180271)

Is there any particular game that is your favorite regarding exceptionally good optimization or low system requirements?

How about Streemerz [fauxgame.com], which only needs 0.00013 GB of storage space, 0.00001 GiB of RAM, and an 0.0018 GHz CPU. Fans of Roc'n Rope or Bionic Commando will love it.

Re:Optimization favorites? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#42181431)

Ok, while we are at it, let's flip this question too.

Is there any particular game that is your favorite regarding exceptionally good optimization or low system requirements?

I would pick the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series -- should be playable even on the low-end Radeon APUs, while bringing large outdoor areas and a nice amount of detail.

Ya, nethack plays fast on whatever computer I put it on.

My p3 700mhz runs nethack just fine.

There was a Crysis 2? (2, Interesting)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#42180175)

Yeah, PC gaming ain't dead.

PC gaming should be using ray-tracing by now, all these 1000 core GPU's and multi-card colutions should be able to process ray tracing calculations, yet there are no ray traced games out showing that there has been little innovation in PC gaming for the last 10 years. Who cares if you can run a game at 300 fps on a 2560 x 1600 screen?

I would return to PC gaming in a heart-beat if they started using ray-tracing in games and created some truly stunning and realistic graphics. You know, create a platform that game consoles can't touch. We really don't need Linux based Steam boxes playing Diablo clones and HL2 in the living room. I want to be excited about buying a $600 liquid cooled video card again. But when a $300 game console gives mostly the same graphics quality and performance as PC games, meh.

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180453)

^This, oh, man, this.

I am so sick of bad console ports when even my 3-yr old gaming rig is more powerful than any console currently for sale.

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#42180493)

Do you have any idea how much power ray-tracing costs? Obviously not, but the short answer is "a lot more than we have." You can't do it with anything available at the consumer level, not in real time with any decent level of rays or bounces.

On the other hand, some games really have pushed the PC gaming envelope (I'd say Planetside 2, for example). It's just getting pretty rare, since console level graphics look "good enough."

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | about a year ago | (#42180599)

They stand to make way more money just churning out cookie cutter console versions than they do putting the dev time into an uber high end engine that only $1500 PC's can run.

I have the same i7 dual HD5870's machine I built over 2 years ago...and I don't think I am going to need to upgrade until the next gen consoles come out....and maybe not even then :(

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (5, Informative)

ifrag (984323) | about a year ago | (#42180603)

PC gaming should be using ray-tracing by now, all these 1000 core GPU's and multi-card [solutions] should be able to process ray tracing calculations, yet there are no ray traced games out showing that there has been little innovation in PC gaming for the last 10 years.

No, wrong, Carmack has explained the issues involved with ray-tracing at least a dozen times. But clearly since you've worked out a better solution, maybe you should sell it and get rich?

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year ago | (#42180889)

Crysis 2 was an awesome game, and there are many reason with RayTracing won't see the day any time soon. Read about it instead of saying stupidities. Also, good PC games DON'T give the same graphic quality and performance as console games.

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180927)

"PC gaming should be using ray-tracing by now, all these 1000 core GPU's and multi-card colutions should be able to process ray tracing calculations"

What the heck is that assertion based on?

Don't you know that since 2004 we're having diminishing returns due to cooling limitations and approaching the limit of Moore's law?

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (1, Redundant)

grenadeh (2734161) | about a year ago | (#42181163)

Are you joking? Do you know how badly ray tracing would godlag the computer and murder your performance? Modern GPUs are not made to handle actual graphical rendering technology like ray-tracing - anyone who regularly uses Maya/3DSMax/Lux/Firefly/3Delight/Carrara is painfully aware of this when it takes 1.5 hours to render 1 frame of 2 raytrace bounces. Video games will literally never use ray-tracing, not without severe limitations - which negates the point of using it. No game uses raytracing. I'm not sure what you're basing this on, honestly. And no, no console gives remotely close graphics to a computer. I think you're missing a massive flaw in your argument - the reason any PC Game does look similar in graphical quality to its console counterpart is entirely irrelevant to the power/ability of the computer. It looks that way because all games are developed for console, and then ported (horribly) to PC. There aren't customized ports like there were in the 90s when an entirely different studio handled porting the game to PC. Games are either made for PC - Age of Empires, Total War, Black and White - or they are made for console; every other game.

Re:There was a Crysis 2? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#42181301)

I want to be excited about buying a $600 liquid cooled video card again. But when a $300 game console gives mostly the same graphics quality and performance as PC games, meh.

Yeah because gaming should be all about who has the most badass hardware and has overclocked their CPU/GPU for those extra FPS, not if the game is any good or whether you actually play it well. Yes new hardware isn't that exciting anymore when I already have a quad core with gigs of memory and solid graphics, but I don't miss those not-so-good old days.

I have a PC with (2)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about a year ago | (#42180311)

those suggested specs.. not the minimum, but the suggested ones... and I can't even play all the way through Crysis 2.

Everything bogs down to an eventual halt during the massive alien attack on the aircraft carrier.

Re:I have a PC with (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180983)

That level is fucked. Happens to everyone, regardless of system spec.

Who cares... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180417)

After the piece of shit that was crysis 2.... i really don't give a damm about anymore of their tech demos with no fun gameplay.

consolized shit. fuck crysis.

I have to question those DX11 minimum requirement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180587)

the XBOX 360 is basically Dx 9.1 with a bit of shader stuff from 10. Why would the heck the minimum requirement be DX11 on PC ? I smell a rat here, as I doubt they will make a new DX11 only engine. i think they simply set it so as to avoid supporting XP or Vista.

Re:I have to question those DX11 minimum requireme (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year ago | (#42181423)

the XBOX 360 is basically Dx 9.1 with a bit of shader stuff from 10. Why would the heck the minimum requirement be DX11 on PC ? I smell a rat here, as I doubt they will make a new DX11 only engine. i think they simply set it so as to avoid supporting XP or Vista.

I assume it requires hardware Tesselation support.

I just hope they do it better than Arkham City did... enabling Hardware Tesselation brought my framerate down to an inconsistent amount around 40fps on a Core i7 2600K with dual nVidia GTX 570s running in SLI. I'm sure I could have lowered the graphics from the "Ultra" setting to make it work, but isn't that missing the entire point of doing things in hardware?

1GB of Video RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42180619)

My first computer had 1kB of "Video RAM" and it wasn't even dual-ported but multiplexed.

Sure, people say "PC gaming ain't dead yet", but if one needed one million times the caloric input to get me moving than when I was sixteen, I doubt that the prognosis would be good.

ha (1)

grenadeh (2734161) | about a year ago | (#42180777)

Those recommended specs are false adverting. Basically theyre saying anyone with a 3 year old computer can run it, but you know thats not the case - youll be lucky to get 30 fps with those specs. Probably closer to 5.

Games Trailing Hardware (1)

aquabats (1985346) | about a year ago | (#42180945)

I remember it was extremely expensive to get the original Crysis to Maximum settings. I reckon I could run this on Ultra for right around $500. Although my current rig will more than handle it as there has been no need to upgrade anything on any gaming rig since SSD became affordable. Games dont seem to be able to catch up with the hardware... If the new MS and PS consoles offered keyboard controller support, i dont think traditional PC gaming would have a leg to stand on. Why upgrade your pc when you get "good enough" on console. Mods and dedicated servers would be the only reason to still game on a desktop.

Re:Games Trailing Hardware (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about a year ago | (#42181531)

I've banged on about this over and over again.

The PS3 supports keyboard and mouse via usb and bluetooth. The PS3 also supports loading data via USB, and UT3 supports loading mods in from a USB drive.

So, given all of this, this is laziness on the part of developers. not on the part of Sony.

Ugh. You guys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42181271)

1- I dont understand why crysis is still considered some uber powerhouse game that cripples even the mightiest of computers. I guess it started with crysis 1 bringing pcs to their knees but guess what, it wasnt because the engine was so powerful. It was because crytek cant code an engine worth a shit. Crysis 1 had like a 20% improvement in performance with a patch, if the engine was so damn powerful then how could such a big increase happen with a small patch? Or how about the custom config file and optimization patch that was released by some random guy that was unofficial that improved performance by like 45%? The gam ran like butter after that custom patch and still looked just as good on a pc that previously it ran like crap on. Bottom line is crytek cant code engines and have no idea how to optimize them properly. So their games run like shit becase of it and then everyone says "Wow this game looks pretty and it runs like shit so it must be really powerful!". You know else I know that cryteks engines suck? Because no one licenses them, thats why. If their engines are so awesome then why out of 3 versions of the cryengine was the biggest named game to use it was sniper ghost warrior 2? No one uses their engines because they are shit and run like shit. Youd think if it really was as powerful and awesome as everyone thinks it is then more developers would license it, but they dont.

2- Crytek cant make a good game that is more than mediocre. They never have and they never will. What have they made? Far cry and crysis. Two games that were only noteable for their graphics. They had disposeable characters, stories, settings, controls, gameplay and everything that had been done dozens and dozens of times better by dozen of different developers. Basically crytek is to gaming what nickelback is to music. You can really tell their creative juices in crysis 3 also because 1 had jungle, 2 had a city and now 3 has a jungle in a city...... but oh wait it has a bow and arrow and Im sorry but when you spend so much time talking about a bow and arrow and use it in every publicity shot and focus on it so much there is something wrong.

Free advertising. (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about a year ago | (#42181425)

For a long time I've had the impression that these developers only put marginal effort in optimizing code because the goal is to offer a game that's a resource hog. As long as the game is halfway decent you've given yourself months of free marketing. In an effort to stay relevant publications will immediately include these games in performance testing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...