Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Games Hardware

But Can It Run Crysis 3? 182

Posted by timothy
from the why-I-can't-get-into-video-games dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

But Can It Run Crysis 3?

Comments Filter:
  • by anethema (99553) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @11:48AM (#42179747) Homepage

    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.

    • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @12:29PM (#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?

    • by Verunks (1000826)

      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

      • by anethema (99553)

        Crap I'm a dummy. Committed to writing no less.

        I'm thinking of Farcry 3, not Crysis 3. They shared an engine (Though modified) and I mixed them in my brain.

        I stand by the fact that I haven't played any of them though.

    • by Nyder (754090)

      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.

      • by Dins (2538550)

        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.

        Good to hear. I just upgraded my card (7870 2 GB), but my CPU is also an i7 920, which is I guess getting dated as far as 'top of the line' gaming CPUs.

        I just built my son a computer for Christmas with an i5 3570k clocked at 4.5 GHz. Even with my old card in it (6870 1 GB), it smokes my machine. /sigh Depressing.

        • by Grog6 (85859)

          My 920 at 4.3GHz runs everything I play at max; It will be a while before I upgrade again. :)

          • by Dins (2538550)
            I'm at 4.0 Ghz, but my CPU temps are still pretty low. I set it at 4.0 when I built it, checked temps and went with it. I should probably push that a little... ;)
  • by neminem (561346) <{neminem} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @11:48AM (#42179749) Homepage

    Best use of Betteridge's Law of Headlines yet.

  • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @11:53AM (#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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by edxwelch (600979)

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

    • by trims (10010) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @01:48PM (#42181307) Homepage

      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

      • 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?

        • by drsquare (530038)

          You're expecting people to upgrade several components in the middle of a global depression.

      • 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

        Seriously, pre-made systems from HP/Dell/Whoever have not been gaming systems EVER. 500w has been a bare minimum for any gaming system for several years now. It's also worth noting that 500w power supplies sell in the $30 price range. Other than the fact that it'll cost you a lot for electricity and contribute to pollution on some level the power requirements for current gen cards are not a big deal. High end cards these days only draw 195 watts (source: http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=04G [evga.com]

      • 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).

        I'm not sure what your desktop resolution is (I'm guessing it's around there). I feel like that's a bit much to expect a computer speced to run a desktop operating system (when using the 3d portion it's only doing basic texturing/compositing) being asked to run modern 3d game at full resolution. Commodity desktop computers have always lagged behind even mainstream modern games. Quake 1 required a floating-point math co-processor I didn't have, then games required 3d cards. There was usually a transition

      • by asmkm22 (1902712)

        The problem is, you bought a high-end workstation and expect it to be a gaming machine.

    • 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.

    • by grenadeh (2734161)
      It has only hurt if that's what you mean, but PC Graphics and abilities are still miles beyond console. All the current video game generation has done is stint and screw over the growth of PC hardware and practically destroyed the entire PC gaming market by only offering terrible, terrible second-hand ports of console games to PC, instead of the game being developed separately like used to be the case. Because of it you get utter crap in the way of customization in most PC ports - you get to "choose" high.
  • by alen (225700) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @11:56AM (#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?

    • by Anonymous Coward

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

      I think this one has individually animated mosquitos.

    • by egr (932620)
      $1000? Upgrade? I find it hard to find the hardware that does not meet the recommended requirements.
    • by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @12:11PM (#42180061) Homepage

      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.

      • by dywolf (2673597)

        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 nev

        • by Kelbear (870538) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @02:00PM (#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.

    • by tompaulco (629533)
      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
      • by HungWeiLo (250320)

        No kidding. I just upgraded my 6-year-old Core 2 Duo box (which was no spring chicken even back then) and am always pleasantly surprised to find that my dollars are going that much further.

        i7 3770k - $250
        8GB RAM - $25
        Motherboard - $100
        3TB hard drive - $89
        Radeon 7700 - $70
        430W power supply - $20

        All for $550.

      • 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.

        Acutally 4GB should run you less than $20. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611%20600006050%20600006066&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20 [newegg.com]
        or
        http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007611%20600006050%20600006067&IsNodeId=1&name=4GB [newegg.com]

        Also, the gt500 series nvidia cards are deprecated, too. The 600's are current generation.

        If the i5-750 doesn't exist, you had better notify Intel pronto: http://ark.intel.com/pro [intel.com]

      • by Mashiki (184564)

        Quite right. Though, with a bit of searching and price matching you can drive down the cost a bit more. I just did some upgrades on my gaming rig from a x4 965.

        8GB for $29(G.skill F3-14900CL9D-GBSR) outside of the black friday/cyber monday sales. Though a lot of places are still selling stuff cheap. -- price matched against tigerdirect

        As for the 500/600 series? Meh not a huge difference, I'm using a 560Ti, and I'll probably wait until the 700 series are released before upgrading it. But you can find t

      • by 4pins (858270)

        AMD Radeon HD5870 - No longer available, but faster cards are available for less than $100.

        Oh you poor saps, Apple will still sell me an AMD Radeon HD 5870 for my Mac Pro for $449.00 [apple.com].

        Feel free to cry for me.

    • by sl4shd0rk (755837)

      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.

    • by TheLink (130905)
      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.
      • by greg1104 (461138)

        Wait, you can play Crysis? When did that happen?

        • About the time that the specs caught up with the hardware available. For Crysis 1, this was somewhere around 2-3 years AFTER it's initial release. If only the Crysis devs had been smart enough to NOT release the debug build as the RTM..... :)
        • by TheLink (130905)
          Now? Hence the updated benchmark.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      Games aren't necessarily about novelty, just as real sports are not.
    • 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 stringe
    • by Cinder6 (894572) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @02:29PM (#42181979)

      Well, I enjoyed Crysis 2. It was nothing too special, but I got it on a Steam sale for somewhere under $10, so it was worth it. It actually had a decent gameplay mechanism for allowing multiple different kinds of approaches to areas, from stealth to brute force, and the level design facilitated this aspect. I'll get Crysis 3...but not until it's on sale for $20 or less. Given how quickly PC games drop in price, I'm expecting that to be only a couple months after release (or sooner! Some games have steep discounts if you preorder them).

    • I thought the same thing as I read this. *Another* first-person shooter. Yawn.
  • by Anonymous Coward

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

    • by Anonymous Coward

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

  • Just kidding.

  • recommended? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The Grim Reefer (1162755) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @12:02PM (#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.

    • 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.

  • 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 thi
  • 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.

    • 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.

    • I gotta add Rollercoaster Tycoon, which was programmed in assembly.
    • by Nyder (754090)

      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.

  • 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

    • by Baloroth (2370816)

      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."

    • 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 :(
    • by ifrag (984323) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @12:53PM (#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?

      • by Khyber (864651)

        Hello, Indigo.

        Not SGI one, either.

        Man, do you guys hear about something once then act/speak as if it will never improve?

    • by Kjella (173770)

      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.

  • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @12:29PM (#42180311) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • (actually I have 16gb memory though)

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      Dude its the level, its coded for shit. I have a hexacore with 8gb of RAM and an HD4850 OCed and it'll still bog when it gets to that ONE level, while everything else runs perfectly. Compare this to something like Just Cause II where i can set charges all over a compound and do my own "cool guys don't look at explosions" with smokestacks falling and fuel tanks blowing and fireballs that block out the sky and it still don't chug.

      But go onto any forum and mention the carrier level and watch all the pissed o

  • 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.

  • I thought Windows 8 couldn't run any games.
    • by will_die (586523)
      According to various tests it does just as good as windows 7 for most games, better with some, slightly worst for a few others.
  • For recommended specs that is pretty low. None of that hardware is cutting edge, comparatively expensive or impressive.

Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet. -- P.E. Trudeau

Working...