Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Graphics Games Hardware

But Can It Run Crysis 3? 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

But Can It Run Crysis 3?

Comments Filter:
  • by edxwelch ( 600979 ) on Tuesday December 04, 2012 @12:19PM (#42180173)

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

  • 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 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.


Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson