Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FarCry 2 quad cores?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 16, 2008 1:52:07 PM

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?

More about : farcry quad cores

July 16, 2008 5:01:10 PM

I don't think that it will much more demanding than Crysis is. Because they are releasing it on consoles too.
July 16, 2008 5:39:35 PM

Good! I can't afford to upgrade again!
Related resources
July 16, 2008 5:53:53 PM

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.
July 16, 2008 6:02:02 PM

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.
July 16, 2008 7:25:51 PM

have you ever seen crysis on low? MAN thats ugly
July 16, 2008 7:46:32 PM

@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.
July 16, 2008 10:05:02 PM

Yeah, true. But with crysis i just do a clean boot and it runs at really high settings!

Still, by the sound of it FC2 will be similar to Crysis so im not too worried...i just cant wait!
Anonymous
July 17, 2008 12:27:41 AM

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...

July 17, 2008 4:06:59 AM

Ooooh, Far Cry 2.........

Waiting.......
July 17, 2008 8:57:43 AM

Quote:
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!
July 17, 2008 11:14:39 AM

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.
July 17, 2008 1:57:34 PM

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.

Best,

3Ball
July 17, 2008 2:01:16 PM

@ 3Ball,

Just curious but what do you run Crysis at with your current build? It looks like a pretty good build..
July 17, 2008 2:12:02 PM

physx7 said:
@ 3Ball,

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.

Best,

3Ball
July 17, 2008 2:34:20 PM

3Ball said:
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.

Best,

3Ball


That's a really solid build...Good Luck! :) 
July 17, 2008 2:48:11 PM

physx7 said:
That's a really solid build...Good Luck! :) 


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
July 17, 2008 3:40:06 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....
July 17, 2008 4:40:09 PM

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.
July 17, 2008 6:42:07 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.
July 17, 2008 7:02:38 PM

From what i can tell FC2 is being designed for both consoles and PC, so it wont be a straight port like Vegas 2 was. Meaning the PC one shouldnt be too buggy.

Im also not sure which i like better, more linear games like CoD4 or open ones like Crysis. Ide say i like open ones more as i spent ages playing Oblivion!
July 18, 2008 1:48:20 AM

well i would say watch the video here:

http://www.farcry2-hq.com/news,270.htm

i saw it this morning and Clint Hocking said he saw it run on a last gen system. the specs on the system were a P4(single core) and a 6800(???) but he also said those weren't the min spec. like Ripley's 'believe or not'

"Also G4tv broadcasts this year's E3 2008. One of the bigger parts of E3 is Far Cry 2. Clint Hocking gives in a 7 minutes long video exclusive impressions of the gameplay. The minimum requirements shall be also reachable for 3 years old PCs and there won't be of course no upper limit."

this is it:

http://e3.g4tv.com/e32008/videos/27065/Exclusive_Hands_...
July 18, 2008 4:59:42 AM

robwright said:
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).


Generally speaking, thats likely just as well - if people want more IQ there is always custom AA modes; of course, if they make the engine as "tweakable" as Crysis through cvars, then maybe you could see extra quality enhancements through modding.

Anyways, I thought the game looked incredible and had a nice style to its graphics from the preview video; I think anyone can look at any modern game and say it has nice graphics - but the biggest thing that seperates them all is style.

Bioshock isn't as technically advanced as a game like Crysis, but its got an exceptionally well fleshed out graphics style which provided lots of memorable scenes.

Crysis has really incredible life-like visuals, even if the style lacks a bit at times. I like open world ish games like Crysis, but visually speaking the game is like.. well its like an artist who painted a great picture of a vase of flowers, and the picture looks almost exactly like real life - but there is no flare to it. For me, I guess some of the more memorable visuals in Crysis would've been the night-time levels - they are pretty atmospheric.

Far Cry 2 looks .. well it looks great, but thinking about playing the game its almost like you can feel the dirt in your nails - the setting is a very gritty.. dry looking environment to begin with, and it seems they really captured that visual aspect of that environment very well, which seems pretty refreshing so far.
July 18, 2008 8:56:04 AM

Totally agree with Ovaltineplease, Crysis whilst looking amazing did lose its 'soul' at parts, it was just a technical exercise. The night time parts, especially with the Natural Mod are amazing, and i agree that they are the best.

FarCry2 on the other hand looks more atmospheric with more emphasis on being alone in that environment (such as using the compas like you would in real life). I personally think it will be better than Crysis, if not visually, but definately in terms of gameplay.

Oh, and from what Spook found, it sounds like Ubisoft are being sensible in making it capable to be played on older machines as well as top end ones.
July 19, 2008 12:23:21 AM

haydox said:
Oh, and from what Spook found, it sounds like Ubisoft are being sensible in making it capable to be played on older machines as well as top end ones.



yeah i ready to play NOW!!! =P
July 19, 2008 9:52:22 AM

Haha, me too! But the Force Unleashed for Wii is out mid-september (in UK) and FC2 is out 31st October so ill get that first!
July 19, 2008 6:10:55 PM

robwright said:
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....


Well, I checked back with Ubisoft on the last day of E3 and spent some time with the PC version of FC2. It was running on a quad core with SLI/8800 Ultras, and it looked pretty damn good. Leaps and bounds better than the console versions playing in the same demo room. Fire effects and lighting were especially impressive on the PC. So I asked Ubisoft about the system requirements and they said they couldn't say just yet, but they did say that they had the game running on a Pentium 4 system with a 6800 (!) at the Ubisoft Montreal office. So we'll see. Stay tuned for the full hands-on preview, coming soon....
July 19, 2008 11:31:03 PM

robwright said:
Well, I checked back with Ubisoft on the last day of E3 and spent some time with the PC version of FC2. It was running on a quad core with SLI/8800 Ultras, and it looked pretty damn good. Leaps and bounds better than the console versions playing in the same demo room. Fire effects and lighting were especially impressive on the PC. So I asked Ubisoft about the system requirements and they said they couldn't say just yet, but they did say that they had the game running on a Pentium 4 system with a 6800 (!) at the Ubisoft Montreal office. So we'll see. Stay tuned for the full hands-on preview, coming soon....


How was it compared to Crysis? Graphics wise.. How well did it run? I guess I should stay tuned for the preview though.. :) 
July 20, 2008 8:30:38 AM

Nice one Rob. Sounds hopeful for my machine being able to run it on fairly high settings if they were displaying it on a quadcore with sli 8800s, as i have a quad core (probably slower though) and a 3870X2. So fairly similar!
Anonymous
July 20, 2008 4:48:52 PM

^ nope... a 3870 X2 is more or less = to a 8800 ultra

your quad probably is slower...

so they aren't THAT similar...

but it doesn't matter I bet your comp will run it fine
July 20, 2008 4:56:41 PM

Quote:
^ nope... a 3870 X2 is more or less = to a 8800 ultra

your quad probably is slower...

so they aren't THAT similar...

but it doesn't matter I bet your comp will run it fine

From the length of time i spent researching whether to go for a Radeon or GeForce card, im pretty certain that my 3870X2 isnt equal to only 1 8800Ultra, yes its not as good as two in SLi, but its definately better than a single one, especially in a game which is able to utilise crossfire or sli (which FC2 will be).

But my cpu will almost definately be slower, although i can OC it to 2.8 very easily on the stock fan with no worries about stability, 3 and above is where it gets more fiddley!

Update: Just to prove my graphics card point, http://www.bhfo.org/images/stories/hd3870x2/summaryultrastandard.jpg. The X2 wins in almost every game. The reason it loses out in Crysis is probably the reason why all nvidia's were better when Crysis came out, because Nvidia worked closely with Crytek when the game was being made so had an advantage with their driver compatibility.
July 21, 2008 1:07:59 PM

I was just thinking about what Rob said FC2 was running on, "a quad core with SLI/8800 Ultras". I was initially slightly concerned about the graphics cards, as even though mine is better than one, it is far behind two!

But it was the processor that i thought was odd earlier today. I was thinking, the machine they ran the game on would be powerful enough to get the game running at its best so there are only two main reasons that i can think of for them using a quad core.

1. Their quad core was clocked fast; as fast as a very good dual core which is currently the best for gaming as no game can use 4 cores.

2. FC2 can actually utilise 4 cores, so they run the on a quad core system.

I personally hope its reason 2 as my quad core isnt as fast as a really good dual core!
July 23, 2008 12:12:05 AM

Hoorayy!!
July 23, 2008 12:19:42 AM

Good article... Will be interesting to see how well it actually runs on a ''mid-range'' system.
July 23, 2008 11:06:50 AM

Great article! I really cant wait for it now...and im extremely jealous of your job!!!

Sounds really hopeful with their 'low end' system running it, from the looks of it mine should run it easily on mid-high settings.

Also, dont know if its intended (dont know about 360s and their problems), but there may be a typo in the "red ring" part, you put "read"...
July 31, 2008 8:18:12 PM

****. Crysis uses all 4 cores of a quad core. Far Cry will then probably use all 8 cores if we have an octo-core (not skulltrail)
August 1, 2008 8:01:56 AM

Febtiger, i always thought that Crysis could only use two cores... don't known why! But if Crysis can use all 4, then FC2 almost definately will, and with it being a much more system friendly game it should be a breeze to run!
August 1, 2008 8:06:15 AM

looks nice, the graphics do have the console "feel" to them. I like the smoke detail and spreading fire. I watched a few demos...and the AI look pretty stupid. Alot of the times they simply stood looking at you. Hopefully this isnt the case.

I also dont like the gimmecky animations, like puling a bullet out and injecting yourself. Seems pointless to me.

Overrall looks good, but i think will turn out to annoy me.
August 1, 2008 8:10:50 AM

As far as i know the AI are smart enough to react to you scaring wild animals and alerting them to your presence, ide imagine the 'zombies' you saw were early in the production.

And as Rob said, the fire effects look much better on PC than on the console versions.

As for the gimmickey situations, i think ill quite enjoy them, make them feel a little more realistic, especially with the compass where you dont have it in a HUD...at least i think that was FC2!
August 2, 2008 12:59:08 AM

febtiger said:
****. Crysis uses all 4 cores of a quad core. Far Cry will then probably use all 8 cores if we have an octo-core (not skulltrail)


Of the times I have played Crysis its usage of all 4 of my cores on my quad was lower than TF2s usage of all 4 of my quad core.

Crysis doesn't seem to use more than 2 core to me but maybe a patch will change that.
August 2, 2008 5:48:24 AM

robwright said:
Well, I checked back with Ubisoft on the last day of E3 and spent some time with the PC version of FC2. It was running on a quad core with SLI/8800 Ultras, and it looked pretty damn good. Leaps and bounds better than the console versions playing in the same demo room. Fire effects and lighting were especially impressive on the PC. So I asked Ubisoft about the system requirements and they said they couldn't say just yet, but they did say that they had the game running on a Pentium 4 system with a 6800 (!) at the Ubisoft Montreal office. So we'll see. Stay tuned for the full hands-on preview, coming soon....



They should send me a free copy, I will test it out on my P4 6800GT (AGP) rig to help them set the minimal system specs [:thegreatgrapeape:7] I am really looking forward for FC2 to launch. The storyline sounds vague and dull however...you walk around in an open map and battle mercs...hmmm...ok. I hope there is more depth/character/twists to it than that. The fact that everyone is so focused on the fire is a little concerning to me. It reminds me of those moths that get drawn into the pretty flames... I just hope there is more to this title than singing koom by ya around the fires...
August 2, 2008 11:04:00 AM

The story doesnt sound too bad, stop some big merc guy by allying with other factions and playing them off against each other in a set of side missions which compliment the main one...

Its a little vague but ide guess thats because the world is so open you make your own way through it and so making the story more definite would make it more linear. But im sure there will be some form of twist in it somewhere.
August 4, 2008 10:35:01 PM

robwright said:
Here's the E3 preview, at long last....

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/07/22/farcry2_e3demo/

Wow, nice! Thanks for the preview. I hope there is a public demo available prior to release. I'll buy it regardless, but just want to play one mission early. :) 
August 5, 2008 3:00:05 PM

pauldh said:
Wow, nice! Thanks for the preview. I hope there is a public demo available prior to release. I'll buy it regardless, but just want to play one mission early. :) 


I remember seeing an interview and they said that it was unlikely that they would make a demo (because it would not reflect the actual game). In fact, most open environment games don't have demos for this reason.
August 5, 2008 10:44:19 PM

Like Oblivion for example...
August 8, 2008 3:38:25 PM

I'm not too fussed about a demo. Force Unleashed for Wii is out mid September so i can play that whilst waiting and im going to pre-order it off play.com so i can just it back and wait (or flail like a lunatic with the wii controllers...).
August 8, 2008 5:26:49 PM

Ubisoft just announced the system requirements for Far Cry 2. Here they are:

Minimum requirements

CPU:
Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz, Pentium D 2.66 Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better

Video card:
NVIDIA® 6800 or ATI®X1650 or better
Shader Model 3 required
256 Mb of graphic memory

Memory: 1 Go

Media reader: DVD-ROM

Recommended

CPU:
Intel® Core 2 Duo Family, AMD®64 X2 5200+, AMD® Phenom or better

Video card:
NVIDIA® 8600 GTS or better, ATI®X1900 or better
512 Mb of graphic memory

Memory: 2 Go

Sound: 5.1 sound card recommended

Media reader:
DVD-ROM

Supported Video cards:
NVIDIA® 6800, NVIDIA® 7000 series, 8000 series, 9000 series, 200 series. 8800M and 8700M supported for laptops.
ATI® X1650 – 1950 series , HD2000 series , HD3000 series , HD4000 series .
August 8, 2008 5:53:18 PM

Thanks Rob!
!