Since i heard about it i really cant wait for FarCry 2 to be released, but i was wondering what the game engine is like with quad core machines. Even Crysis can only use 2 cores and ive looked around but found nothing.
I found one site claiming some chinese site had got a test of the engine and it needed at least 2.8ghz dual core and either a geforce 9 series or radeon 48xx. It would seem that if this is true then it can also only use two cores and is also a massive graphics hog!
I personally doubt the graphics needs is true, especially for minimum, as they will actually want to sell more than a few hundred copies! However, i will be quite dissappointed if it cant at least make use of more than two cores. I will be gutted if it really is that demanding as i only have a 2.4ghz quad and a 3870X2!
Anyone heard anything?
---------------
Q6600 | 4GB DDR2 800mhz | HIS Radeon 3870X2 | Asus P5E | Hiper 680W | XClio Propellor
It's still to soon to tell but just looking at the videos, I'd say you won't need a super pc to run the game. FarCry 2 will most likely be less of a graphics hog than Crysis is.
I wouldn't be surprise if the CPU usage is greater with FarCry 2...given the environment change and the size of the game.
---------------
Windows XP MCE & Vista 64-bit (dual boot)
XFX NFORCE 680I LT SLI w/ OCZ Platinum 4 Gigs Dual DDR2 @ 800MHz
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz w/ ChillTec Thermo Electric CPU Cooler
MSI NX8800 GTX & X-Fi XtremeGamer Soundblaster
Well i wont be too crushed if its similar to Crysis as my desktop now runs it fine, especially after a clean boot and some good antivirus.
However, if the FarCry2 team have any brain they will make it capable of looking amazing (like Crysis) but also able to be turned right down so a wider range of people can play it.
@haydox
Well... They not only need brains to get that idea (pretty easy), but also the brains to actually do it(not so easy).
It was actually done fairly well with crysis. People still ended up being mad that their new cool expensive rig couldn't run it at max. Not caring that medium looked pretty awesome.
from the pictures.... FC2 doesn't look better than crysis... it looks worse... in my opinion it looks good... but not great... same with stalker clear sky...
from the pictures.... FC2 doesn't look better than crysis... it looks worse... in my opinion it looks good... but not great... same with stalker clear sky...
Worse than Crysis can still mean it looks very good though! But i mainly want it for the physics and realism. Unlike Crysis it sounds like there is a greater variety of weapons, all human enemies and far greater realism. My perfect game!
Has everyone been looking at different screenshots and videos than I have? The game looks like a barren, fairly plain looking, console shooter. I can see console owners being impressed by the gameplay and graphics and PC users being underwhelmed.
As for specs needed to run it, I'd say pretty much any modern dual core and a cheapish mid range card could run it easily (obviously not at the highest settings), especially since a similar rig could run Crysis on medium. Any site claiming it NEEDS the sort of hardware in the OP just to run it is either trying to run it at really high settings, is talking BS or the engine has been badly ported/optimised for PCs.
As long as this game is not a very poor port of the console version I think that you can expect a mid range pc to run it on pretty high settings quite well. The part that will make it difficult to run imo is that ubisoft is not all that well known for their ability to program games all that well (not talking to EA extent, but still), and the fact that it is wide open and you will have to render alot. There is not nearly the amount of vegitation in this game as is in Crysis.
The amount of shading required to make Crysis look so good is a huge reason for how much horsepower it actually takes to run well at higher settings. This is because the vegitation requires the great shading to look as good as it does and there is so much of it.
Just curious but what do you run Crysis at with your current build? It looks like a pretty good build..
Thx, I run at 1680x1050 in winXP with all settings on high and no AA around 20 - 30 fps. My average FPS is actually around 25 - 30 with the most intensive parts taking me down to 18 - 20 or so (if I run the shaders on medium my FPS increases to around 35fps on average). I am about to drop in a 4870 and take my processor up another 200 - 400mhz as well as taking the memory higher (replacing it with 1000mhz memory today as a matter of fact) and a new hard drive to replace my 4 year old aging one. So I expect to get about a 25 - 30% increase or so out of my PC with the upgrade. Time will tell how that goes for me lol.
Thx, I run at 1680x1050 in winXP with all settings on high and no AA around 20 - 30 fps. My average FPS is actually around 25 - 30 with the most intensive parts taking me down to 18 - 20 or so (if I run the shaders on medium my FPS increases to around 35fps on average). I am about to drop in a 4870 and take my processor up another 200 - 400mhz as well as taking the memory higher (replacing it with 1000mhz memory today as a matter of fact) and a new hard drive to replace my 4 year old aging one. So I expect to get about a 25 - 30% increase or so out of my PC with the upgrade. Time will tell how that goes for me lol.
Thx much. After this slight upgrade I plan on riding it out for a while until I either build around later generation nehlam or whatever AMD has to offer if it is better. My guess is sometime around Q4 09 or maybe early Q1 of 10 or so, but who knows if I will make it that long lol. The problem is...is that I really do like the game Crysis. Not just a cliche of it looks good and I like it or buying into the hype, but I generally do like the story and gameplay, so I will probably be itched everytime I play that game for something new unfortunately. Mods coming out for it are something that I am looking forward to as well.
Best,
3Ball
Message edited by 3Ball on 07-17-2008 at 04:50:36 PM
FYI, the Far Cry 2 demo at E3 is running on a large Dell XPS. Not sure what the means in terms of hardware requirements, because Ubisoft has been quiet on that front. However, I can safely say that Far Cry 2 doesn't look as detailed or visually stunning as Crysis (remember, Crytek isn't developed this one -- it's all Ubisoft).
Impressions from the demo will be coming soon, and I'll try to get more info out of Ubisoft on the system requirements. Stay tuned....
Im not too bothered about it being visually stunning, it looks very good and its the realism i want!
Oh, and with my current rig at 1680x1050 i can run crysis with the natural mod (so some on tweaked Very High) and about 50:50 of the others on High and Very High i get 20-25 fps on smaller areas and 15-20 on really demanding areas usually.
I use Vista Ultimate though so can use DX10 and Very High.
My sig aint working but my system is Q6600 (stock 2.4ghz), 4gb ddr2, radeon 3870X2.
Nice one Rob, if its on a Dell XPS then it cant be much better (if at all) than my system. But Assassins Creed from Ubisoft looked pretty damn good and its main draw was its animation, so hopefully FarCry2 will be like that in that its quality isnt from graphics but from animation and physics.
Message edited by haydox on 07-17-2008 at 06:44:28 PM
Man, take your massive open world games away. Give me more titles like COD4 and the LoZ series.
Anyway, if you even felt the urge to play one, keep in mind what the previous poster said about it being designed to run on consoles. If it can run on an xbox360, then most modern PCs will have no trouble running it.
