Minimum PC system requirements revealed for Crysis 2

By on February 2, 2011, 6:40 AM
Crytek has revealed the minimum PC system requirements for their highly anticipated shooter Crysis 2. The original title managed to score highly with critics, but was notorious for the steep hardware requirements needed to run the game at acceptable frame rates. Many gamers stayed away from it for this reason and consequently Crysis was perhaps more known as the prime benchmark for high-end graphics cards rather than a blockbuster hit.

The developer seemed to learn its lesson with Crysis Warhead and now it's promising to take graphics to new levels with an optimized CryEngine. Here are the minimum requirements for Crysis 2 according to the game's Facebook page:

  • Internet connection required for activation
  • OS: XP/Vista/Windows 7
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2Ghz, AMD Athlon 64 x2 2Ghz or better
  • 2 GB RAM
  • HDD: 9 GB
  • DVD ROM: 8x
  • GPU: NVIDIA 8800 GT 512MB RAM, ATI 3850HD 512Mb RAM or better
  • Keyboard, mouse, or Microsoft Xbox 360 controller for Windows

Note that these are just the minimum hardware requirements to play the game but Crytek isn't mentioning frame rates or quality settings. To play Crysis 2 in all its visual glory you'll still need a much more powerful rig and probably a last generation graphics card, although so far no recommended system specs have been published. We expect to hear more soon now that a multiplayer demo for PC is expected to land ahead of the game's release on March 22.





User Comments: 67

Got something to say? Post a comment
R3DP3NGUIN R3DP3NGUIN said:

Sweet, so far it looks like it will be a great game.

Guest said:

These requirements are surprisingly low. I mean, ATI 3850 or better? Come on.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

I know what you guys mean, those systems wont play the original

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

That is AWESOME! maybe I won't need to upgrade after all? I can run the orginal in high now so I assume I should be able to do the same here?

Nice one crytek! Pre-odering now

SilverCider said:

Steve said:

I know what you guys mean, those systems wont play the original

But with them being the minimum system requirements, surely they are a little higher than that of crysis 1. I used to have an athlon X2 6000 and an 8800GT when I first got crysis and I played at 1680x1050 with mostly medium and the occasional high, all with very playable framerates.

Guest said:

@Steve exactly. It took awhile for a system to finally arrive which could play crysis at max settings.

But I'm betting these minimum rigs'll only be able to play crysis 2 at 25fps at best with blocky textures.

Guest said:

Low settings @ 800 x 600... no thanks.

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Seeing these minimum system requirements worries me, what the heck this is going to look like on console? Everyone know the PS3 uses a reworked 7950GT which is almost half as powerful as the 8800GT and the 360 isn't any better off. This means the game is either going to look really bad on console or has been ported really poorly to PC, I really hope its not the the 2nd one...

Guest said:

I must upgrade my E6750 + 8800GT

Guest said:

You can't really compare the consoles and the PC this way mate. Think of the PS3's cell broadband engine for instance. When it comes to crunching numbers it will whoop an i7's ***.

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

You can't really compare the consoles and the PC this way mate. Think of the PS3's cell broadband engine for instance. When it comes to crunching numbers it will whoop an i7's ***.

No it wont? The PS3 type of cpu didn't catch on for a reason

Guest said:

Back in 2007 when first Crysis was released, there was no available hardware capable of running the game maxed out. After two years only (2009) we started to have power CPU and GPU powerful enough to let us experience what is Crysis with maximum details at 1080p.

These minimum reqs for Crysis 2 are ridiculous. You won't be able to play it, not even the first one if you haven't yet.

After being a gamer for more than 20 years, I simply ignore the minimum requirements.

Go get yourself a treat and buy a LGA 1366 platform, overclock the CPU and definitely go for a SLI or CrossfireX.

Don't forget the big display (Full HD standard, i.e. 1080p) and a 5.1 or 7.1 Surround Sound System (pump up the volume!) [great sound card required as well].

Then, you'll experience the real Crysis!

Do you think you'll be ablt to play Crysis 2 in 3D with the minimum hardware required? Really?

The PC games are so great these days you can't rely on minimum specs to enjoy them!

Cheers!

Guest said:

the PS3 cell processor didn't catch on not because it's not powerfull but because it's very difficult to program with.

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

the PS3 cell processor didn't catch on not because it's not powerfull but because it's very difficult to program with.

It still isn't as powerful as an i7. An i7 has 4 physical and 4 logical cores or varients have 6 physical and 6 logical cores. The PS3 has 1 core and 7 spe's. It is not as powerful when it comes to crunching numbers.

Guest said:

It's all fine but the cell and a desktop processer are so different they can't really be compared. But the cell processor has like 1 full functioning core and like 8 SPEs around 3.2GHz each. It does somewhere around 2XX GFlops where the i7 can only do around 5X GFlops. Fact.

But it's pointless really because the cell is more akin to a GPU than a CPU.

And BTW the cell was discontinued not because it was less powerful but because it was based on IBM's PPC and IBM was threatening to pull the plug on PPC.

And this is really starting to get off topic so I bit you all farewell and a nice day ahead :)

Guest said:

Minimum requirements don't say anything.

On the other hand its is ported to the xBox so it is on DX9 tech level with probably some added DX10 stuff.

If it supports multi threading (weak point of Crysis) and makes good use of available Shader Power it might look/perform good but that does not make it a good game.

Really liked Far Cry but the further I got in Crysis the more I started to dislike it until it simply became unplayable.

Not too impressed with xBox multiplayer demo so let's hope it looks and play better on the PC.

Anyway, let's wait and see if they live up to their name and fame.

Guest said:

If Crytek are using the same dynamic LOD tricks that I saw in the 360 demo, then this game should run fine on PC rigs that meet the min spec. Still, I'm sure with all the bells and whistle on this game will be a PC killer.

Guest said:

The following is the min and recommended system reqs for the first crysis. The min. req. of Crysis 2 is higher than the recommended req. of Crysis 1. However, it is important to note that the requirements for Crysis 1 as stated below are deceiving. The recommended specs would only be able to play the game at medium/low at 1080p assuming that is a 8800gts 640 (not the 8800gts 512). Anyway, I still think that the min. req. for Crysis 2 are pretty high. Not long ago I had a 8800gt and was playing at medium setting 1080p at about 40fps.

Minimum System Requirements:

OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista

Processor - 2.8GHz or faster (XP); 3.2GHz or faster * (Vista)

Memory - 1GB RAM or 1.5GB RAM (Vista)

Video Card - 256MB **

Hard Drive - 12GB

Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

Recommended System Requirements:

OS - Windows XP / Vista

Processor - Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.2GHz

Memory - 2GB RAM

Video Card - Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

People are assuming that Crysis 2 is going to be as taxing on the system as the original. The developers have stated repeatedly that's not going to happen again. They've spent 3 years tweaking the engine so it will provide even a better display without requiring anywhere near the CPU/GPU power the original did. The original was built so that there was no hardware ceiling the game wouldn't take advantage of. That's why it ground to a halt when you set it at max settings. They've adjusted it now so there really is a hardware ceiling to run the game at highest settings.

My guess is if you've done an upgrade in the last two years, chances are you're going to run Crysis 2 at near or max settings.

BTW - I'm playing the original Crysis again and on my new rig and man, is that one sweet looking game. Nothing else comes close to it. If you haven't played it in a while and done an upgrade since the last release, I'd highly recommend giving it a 2nd run-through.

grvalderrama said:

Well, I don't mind if Crytek developes an engine that requiere nonexistent hardware (by this, I mean video cards)... it encourages Nvidia and AMD to create more powerful and efficient hardware.

Johny47 said:

I think those requirements are not lying, but don't forget that's the minimum not recommended. i think the recommended will be something like intel core i5 540/AMD Phenom II X3 CPU, GTX 260 or alike and 3GB RAM for Windows 7 =/

fpsgamerJR62 said:

If the minimum graphics requirement is a GeForce 8800 GT, my guess is that the developers will probably recommend that you're running at least a GTX 275/285 or even a GTX 460 to enjoy the game at the highest settings.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

TomSEA said:

My guess is if you've done an upgrade in the last two years, chances are you're going to run Crysis 2 at near or max settings.

Yep, picked up a Cray at a garage sale, and the workers are digging the trench for the upgraded power lines. Now I just need to find an old wind tunnel fan to install for cooling purposes.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Personally, I would like to see them change the name of the franchise. My first choice would be, "Douche Fest".

Should this happen, we would be treated to a few years of a new "internet meme".

People with nothing to add to the discussion, yet still possessing the desire and right to participate, would be able to post far and wide, "but will it run Douche Fest" **, in whatever new hardware discussion their mood should move them to visit.....

**(Over a period of at least the next 5 years).

Guest said:

Forget you guys. While you're worrying about whether your hardware will slag trying to run the game at 1920x1080 max details, I'll be laughing while I own you online at 1280x720 med/high.

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

Forget you guys. While you're worrying about whether your hardware will slag trying to run the game at 1920x1080 max details, I'll be laughing while I own you online at 1280x720 med/high.

No you wont. We'll get a higher viewdistance and FOV then you will.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Forget you guys. While you're worrying about whether your hardware will slag trying to run the game at 1920x1080 max details, I'll be laughing while I own you online at 1280x720 med/high.
This is actually a good point. At some level the computer is only the play field, the players determine the outcome.

So then, let the man who is better at toggling his joystick, be victorious!

(Sorry, I just don't have the character to pass up an opportunity for an opening that large... "Whoops, I did it again", (Britney Spears))

Guest said:

1. I thought crysis was to poorly coded and that is why it ran so poorly. 2. all three games of crysis 2 are not ported and being made separately.

edison5do said:

Guest said:

Forget you guys. While you're worrying about whether your hardware will slag trying to run the game at 1920x1080 max details, I'll be laughing while I own you online at 1280x720 med/high.

Im with you dude.!!

I Think that my HD 5770 VapX + Athlon II X3 are ready for some overclock in order to gain some performace...IF the game look bad at 1600xXXX at med, if it looks good at med there's no nedd to worry about the high S#i%.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Minimum requirements, I remember when those mattered. Wait a minute, they still don't matter. People need to have at least two or three steps higher than that to actually enjoy what it was meant for. Recommended specs is more important IMO. Even then, that still doesn't mean max settings.

For Crysis 2 I'm guessing recommended would be:

OS: Vista/Windows 7

CPU: Intel Core i5 or AMD Equivalent

4 GB RAM

HDD: 20 GB

GPU: NVIDIA GTX 460 768MB or Radeon 5850 HD

Also I remember when they said they were developing with the GTX 580 in mind, so I'm wondering what the hell does that really mean?

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

The PC games are so great these days you can't rely on minimum specs to enjoy them!

I was mostly with you until that statement. I remember the days when you didn't have to rely on great visuals to have an enjoyable game.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I was mostly with you until that statement. I remember the days when you didn't have to rely on great visuals to have an enjoyable game.

That is true, however its kind of tough to put the kitty back in the burlap after the great graphics are put in front of you. Or are you saying that story-lines are suffering in place of graphics?

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:

Or are you saying that story-lines are suffering in place of graphics?

Can't and won't speak for SNGX1275, but I say yes, story-line has taken, not always but often, a distant second to eye candy. The Gothic series is a good example. Compare G4 to the others, especially, G1 and 2, and G4 has beautiful graphics but a shallow plot and characters.

Thief 1 and Morrowind can't compare to today's graphics but the plot and characterization out shine most of today's releases.

Lokalaskurar Lokalaskurar said:

Guest said:

These requirements are surprisingly low. I mean, ATI 3850 or better? Come on.

My thoughts exactly! (Well, from the looks of it: more or less all of our thoughts exactly...)

You can put a wheel from a 1970's Toyota on a modern Ford - and it'll still run, the real question is: how far? And: how fast?

And it's sure as bacon going to look *very* bad...

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Not to surprised by this considering the developers wanted a game with boarder reach when it first came out and it looks like they might have achieved this. However I'm more worried about how the gameplay changes will affect the overall game. Playing the demo I really felt weak in comparison to the original, and not all super-soldier. But this could just be a 360 thing and I'll wait and see what the PC demo brings to the table.

Guest said:

i will play it with my ati 4350. hope 1024x768. i will oc it. :)

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Guest said:

i will play it with my ati 4350. hope 1024x768. i will oc it.

I think you were kidding, but I was interested if you could get off the starting line with 80 SPU's

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2630/5

compu4 said:

TomSEA said:

BTW - I'm playing the original Crysis again and on my new rig and man, is that one sweet looking game. Nothing else comes close to it. If you haven't played it in a while and done an upgrade since the last release, I'd highly recommend giving it a 2nd run-through.

You seem to have forgotten Metro 2033, which actually looks better than Crysis does.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

i will play it with my ati 4350. hope 1024x768. i will oc it.

I think you were kidding, but I was interested if you could get off the starting line with 80 SPU's

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2630/5

Thanx for the link. At last I have someone I can feel superior to, what with me being the proud owner of a 9500GT. (And my card is is a GDDR3 version, so there)!

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

That is true, however its kind of tough to put the kitty back in the burlap after the great graphics are put in front of you. Or are you saying that story-lines are suffering in place of graphics?

I actually don't game much. Route44's post below yours though is pretty much what I was saying. I'm not saying that good graphics don't make games great. I played Crysis 1 on medium to high settings at 1680x1050 on my 8800GTS 320 even and I thought it looked great. I also played CoD4 on the same setup at maxed everything and it also looked great. So I guess that just proves that Crysis had better graphics at the max

I was really just replying to the one guy who said that the games today are so great you can't rely on minimum specs to enjoy them. I just thought the way that was phrased was a fundamental mistake in how to look at games. You shouldn't require insane graphics to have a good game, and in the past that didn't seem to be a big issue. There were plenty of great games without great graphics.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I was really just replying to the one guy who said that the games today are so great you can't rely on minimum specs to enjoy them. I just thought the way that was phrased was a fundamental mistake in how to look at games. You shouldn't require insane graphics to have a good game, and in the past that didn't seem to be a big issue. There were plenty of great games without great graphics.

Yeah BUT....it seems that modern expectations of a great game have become a Zen paradigm, where the baby and the bathwater are all one.

If that metaphor is too obtuse, I dare you to tell me so, since I'll be forced to elaborate....

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

compu4 said:

TomSEA said:

BTW - I'm playing the original Crysis again and on my new rig and man, is that one sweet looking game. Nothing else comes close to it. If you haven't played it in a while and done an upgrade since the last release, I'd highly recommend giving it a 2nd run-through.

You seem to have forgotten Metro 2033, which actually looks better than Crysis does.

IMO Metro 2033 does have more effects, but it doesn't look better. It looks too generic to me actually. The character models all look the same, the guns shoots like ass, and overall it's a boring game.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

IMO Metro 2033 does have more effects, but it doesn't look better. It looks too generic to me actually. The character models all look the same, the guns shoots like ***, and overall it's a boring game.
I think you forgot to salt the wounds by mentioning that "Metro 2033", actually may have higher hardware requirements than "Crysis".

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Yeah BUT....it seems that modern expectations of a great game have become a Zen paradigm, where the baby and the bathwater are all one.

If that metaphor is too obtuse, I dare you to tell me so, since I'll be forced to elaborate....

...Why.... what an insanely obtuse metaphor! ....and 3,2,1...:p

I think you forgot to salt the wounds by mentioning that "Metro 2033", actually may have higher hardware requirements than "Crysis".

It does..much higher. The recommended req's are a i7 920 and a GTX 480.

Originally Posted by Sarcasm View Post

IMO Metro 2033 does have more effects, but it doesn't look better. It looks too generic to me actually

well that's a subjective matter, but there is not anything in Crysis that looks like this

[link]

[link]

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

...Why.... what an insanely obtuse metaphor! ....and 3,2,1...:p
OH...KAY... then... the "game content" is the baby, and the "game graphics", are the bathwater. I sincerely hope we've clarified that to the further betterment of this thread in general.

T77 T77 said:

well i have a 9500gt.what say!?!

perhaps i should buy a ps3

Guest said:

Crysis has better texture quality than any other game i tried (it has 1GB of texture data!!), what does it mean? ok if you look at any objects (weapons, vehicles, trees etc.) in the game much closer then you will see more detailed fine, sharp pixels instead of boxy and blurred pixels that you usually see in most of the games out there with few exceptions. So the minimum req is a pinch of salt and should not be taken so serious because these morons never going to mention the resolution tested in which quality settings while maintaining the minimum playable 30 fps or an average obtained?

My guess is: (overall medium settings with 2x AA, guaranteed min 30 fps or above)

1024*768 (HD 4670/9600 GT or higher)

1280*960, 1360*768 & 1440*900 (HD4850/9800GT/X or higher)

1600*900 (GTX 260/275/HD 4870/90 or higher)

i didn't mention any new generation gfx for above resolution just replace with relevant new cards and they do better with some upped image quality settings.

(Overall high quality settings with 2xAA, guaranteed min 30 fps or above)

1920*1080/1200 (GTX 560Ti/ HD 6870 or higher) (OCed can play at Enthusiastic settings)

2560*1600 (GTX 580/HD 6970/5970 or SLI/CF of GTX 560/HD 6870 or higher) (dual gfx config can able to play Enthu settings)

this is how it gonna work.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

red1776 said:

Yeah BUT....it seems that modern expectations of a great game have become a Zen paradigm, where the baby and the bathwater are all one.

If that metaphor is too obtuse, I dare you to tell me so, since I'll be forced to elaborate....

...Why.... what an insanely obtuse metaphor! ....and 3,2,1...:p

I think you forgot to salt the wounds by mentioning that "Metro 2033", actually may have higher hardware requirements than "Crysis".

It does..much higher. The recommended req's are a i7 920 and a GTX 480.

Originally Posted by Sarcasm View Post

IMO Metro 2033 does have more effects, but it doesn't look better. It looks too generic to me actually

well that's a subjective matter, but there is not anything in Crysis that looks like this

[link]

[link]

Yes nothing in Crysis looks like those Metro 2033 screenshots... because it looks literally miles better. In Metro, there are a lot of closed corridors and small linear paths, but Crysis is an open world feast filled with lighting, water, tons and tons of vegetation and even animals. Coupled that with insanely high res character models, I'm sorry Metro doesn't compare.

Now of course I did say Metro has more "effects" such as HDR, Tessellation, DoF, etc. etc. but the overall look TO ME doesn't look that great.

[link]

[link]

Guest said:

Nice fail links there :|

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

I disagree with 2033 looking better than Crysis. It has some decent effects, but I don't think it looks as good. I also didn't think Crysis was very poorly coded - it was just very demanding and it reflected that with its visuals and physics.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.