bit-gamer.net

EA releases Crysis 3 system requirements

EA releases Crysis 3 system requirements

EA recommends that you have a quad-core CPU if you want to get the most out of Crysis 3.

If you're wondering just how much Crytek's upcoming shooter Crysis 3, the latest in a line of games that make even the beefiest gaming rig beg for mercy, will demand of your system, the release of official system requirements from publisher Electronic Arts should be of interest.

First, the minimum specifications: to play the game at all without it degenerating into a slideshow of pretty snapshots, you'll need a DirectX 11-capable graphics card with at least 1GB of video RAM such as the Nvidia GeForce GTS 450 or the AMD Radeon HD 5770, a dual-core CPU of equal or better performance than Intel's Core 2 Duo E6600 or AMD's Athlon64 X2 5200+ and at least 2GB of memory. Those gaming on Vista, rather than Windows 7 or 8, will need to have at least 3GB, EA recommends.

If you'd like things to look a little prettier, the recommended specifications bump things up to 4GB of RAM, a quad-core chip of Intel Core i3-530 or AMD Phenom II X2 565 equivalence (both, as has been pointed out in the comments, actually dual-core processors in spite of EA's insistence that a quad-core chip is required,) and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 or AMD Radeon HD 5870 or better. Finally, if you want to really push the boat out and turn the graphic settings up high, you'll need 8GB of RAM, an Intel Core i7-2600K or AMD FX 8150 or better, and an Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 or better.

In short: if you've got a cutting-edge rig, you should be OK - but if you're running a generation or two behind the curve, expect to have to sacrifice some image quality in order to get acceptable framerates.

The interesting thing about EA's recommended system specifications is the quad-core processor found in all but the basic level: this suggests that Crytek's latest CryEngine build can take full advantage of today's heavily multithreaded processors, something games engines have been poor at doing in the past.

Crysis 3 is due to launch in February 2013, closely followed by tweaked graphics drivers from AMD and Nvidia as they both attempt to outdo the other in offering the most frames per second at the higher quality levels.

53 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
AlphaAngel 3rd December 2012, 12:54 Quote
Is this the return of "Yes, but can it play...."?
blacko 3rd December 2012, 12:59 Quote
C3 - the crippler.
Panos 3rd December 2012, 12:59 Quote
8GB RAM!

Does that means going to be a 64bit version of it? Or else kinda pointless if is only 32bit.
Jehla 3rd December 2012, 13:04 Quote
Time to replace the i7 920?
damien c 3rd December 2012, 13:06 Quote
Wow!!!!

Hopefully this will look and run smoother than the Alpha on my rig.

The Alpha would only run at 20fps when set to max, at 1920x1080 but at Medium to High it would run at 60fps but be abit stuttery.

I think the new saying when buying a new component or reviewing one will be the "But Can It Run Crysis 3"
SpAceman 3rd December 2012, 13:13 Quote
Wait so no DX10?
Madness_3d 3rd December 2012, 13:17 Quote
Erm, am I reading this wrong? because neither the Core i3 530 or the Phenom II X2 565 are quad cores, granted one has hyperthreading, but still. As for the game, I played the Alpha and found it a bit meh. I really enjoyed the original, but never even finished 2, 3 seems more down that avenue.
damien c 3rd December 2012, 13:26 Quote
I played through all the Crysis games singleplayer campaigns, and loved them but the multiplayer on Crysis 2 annoyed me because I just seemed to find nothing but cheaters in it.

I just hope Crysis 3 MP doesn't suffer the same problem.
Bede 3rd December 2012, 13:35 Quote
This is just PR. Saying a quad-core is 'recommended' does not mean that the game will utilise it. It just means that it's something you 'journalists' can put up as a news feed for extra ad views.
ZeDestructor 3rd December 2012, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panos
8GB RAM!

Does that means going to be a 64bit version of it? Or else kinda pointless if is only 32bit.

FarCry had a 64Bit build released initially... I think it got pulled at some point or something.... No idea why Crysis/2 didn't have 64Bit support...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
This is just PR. Saying a quad-core is 'recommended' does not mean that the game will utilise it. It just means that it's something you 'journalists' can put up as a news feed for extra ad views.

Judging by Crytek's history, there's a good chance it will use 4+ cores (Crysis and Crysis 2 iirc use upto 4 already)
Adnoctum 3rd December 2012, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madness_3d
Erm, am I reading this wrong? because neither the Core i3 530 or the Phenom II X2 565 are quad cores, granted one has hyperthreading, but still. As for the game, I played the Alpha and found it a bit meh. I really enjoyed the original, but never even finished 2, 3 seems more down that avenue.

No, you are right, they are both dual cores and I don't see what EA means either. See here for original context, it makes a bit more sense than here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeDestructor
FarCry had a 64Bit build released initially... I think it got pulled at some point or something.... No idea why Crysis/2 didn't have 64Bit support...

It came out 32-bit, and a 64-bit patch came out later. But seeing as the only 64-bit OS at the time was XP-64 (which was a bit crap and nobody really had it), and the 64-bit version of Farcry was practically identical (I think draw distance was further...and not much else), nobody needed/wanted the 64-bit patch.

These are not the kind of demanding specifications that make "even the beefiest gaming rig beg for mercy"! They are medium to high-ish, but not enough to make most PC gamers worry too much. Even if I was back on a HD4870 I'd be comfortable at 1050/1080.

I do have to wonder how crap the console version will be, given these requirements.
Cerberus90 3rd December 2012, 14:06 Quote
Crysis has 64bit support, but unfortunately, it stopped working (for me atleast), although it seems to be pretty common across the internet too.
I can't play 64bit Crysis for more than about 30mins to an hour without it crashing. 32bit version seems to run fine though.
tad2008 3rd December 2012, 14:13 Quote
Well there I was expecting to see some ludicrous requirements and my 8 old rig that has only had a couple of upgrades over the years easily meets the minimum and aside from a couple of sticks of ram and a couple of extra cpu cores and an OS upgrade meets the recommended.

No wonder the PC industry is struggling when people have little or no reason to need to upgrade.
ZeDestructor 3rd December 2012, 14:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
It came out 32-bit, and a 64-bit patch came out later. But seeing as the only 64-bit OS at the time was XP-64 (which was a bit crap and nobody really had it), and the 64-bit version of Farcry was practically identical (I think draw distance was further...and not much else), nobody needed/wanted the 64-bit patch.

My bad. Makes sense though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus90
Crysis has 64bit support, but unfortunately, it stopped working (for me atleast), although it seems to be pretty common across the internet too.
I can't play 64bit Crysis for more than about 30mins to an hour without it crashing. 32bit version seems to run fine though.

Hmm... Steam doesn't have it...
mi1ez 3rd December 2012, 14:28 Quote
Quote:
quad-core chip of Intel Core i3-530 or AMD Phenom II X2 565 equivalence

Quad core X2 CPUs? I missed those!
Gareth Halfacree 3rd December 2012, 14:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madness_3d
Erm, am I reading this wrong? because neither the Core i3 530 or the Phenom II X2 565 are quad cores, granted one has hyperthreading, but still.
It's a fair point: EA doesn't appear to quite know what it's recommending.
Gunsmith 3rd December 2012, 14:34 Quote
i dont care how shiny the engine is, a **** game is a **** game and Crytek have some major fires to put out if they want it to be successful
Deders 3rd December 2012, 14:44 Quote
That's what they said about Far Cry 3 and MaxPayne 3, they both happily run on 4GB
damien c 3rd December 2012, 15:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
That's what they said about Far Cry 3 and MaxPayne 3, they both happily run on 4GB

Yeah Far Cry 3 seems to have massive issues though.

I cannot get more than 30fps on the game at max settings at 1920x1080 with my rig in my sig, and a bloke at work has a very similar setup to me, but he has SLI'd GTX 680's and 16Gb ram with no overclock on his cpu and he cannot get past 30fps.

Other people are saying they can only get higher fps when they lower the detail, regardless of system spec.

I know with the Crysis 3 Alpha I struggled on my rig, but hopefully that will improve once the game is released and not to mention when I add a 2nd GTX 680.
SubtleOne 3rd December 2012, 15:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaAngel
Is this the return of "Yes, but can it play...."?

I think you are right on target. Crysis was the ultimate standard of quality, and was considered ahead of its time, hence building rigs according to how many FPS you could get, and this seems like they want to recover that laurel.
pantalaimon 3rd December 2012, 15:52 Quote
Somehow I can't see 8GB RAM being necessary.
ZeDestructor 3rd December 2012, 15:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmith
i dont care how shiny the engine is, a **** game is a **** game and Crytek have some major fires to put out if they want it to be successful

Hm? I like playing Crysis/Crysis 2 single-player. Sure, the aliens are a bit annoying, but its not that bad and I personally had fun with it. Not to mention its absolutely beautiful to hear and look at. Sure, I installed it for benchmarking purposes, but I nevertheless enjoyed it.

Secondly, the CryEngine is beginning to see some traction with third-party devs (The big one for me is Star Citizen), so I expect first-party games to remain firmly of the tech-demo/developer template orientation, but even then, I expect Crytek will learn and improve gameplay in subsequent releases. I for one can't wait to toy around with the bow in Crysis 3....
Shirty 3rd December 2012, 15:59 Quote
I'll put my money on any Sandy Bridge quad core and GTX570 or higher (and whatever the AMD equivalents are) will chomp their way through this game at 1080p with full detail.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if it needs more than that, we need hardware killers on the PC (as long as they're well optimised hardware killers - I'm looking at you GTA4 )
Deders 3rd December 2012, 16:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Yeah Far Cry 3 seems to have massive issues though.

I cannot get more than 30fps on the game at max settings at 1920x1080 with my rig in my sig, and a bloke at work has a very similar setup to me, but he has SLI'd GTX 680's and 16Gb ram with no overclock on his cpu and he cannot get past 30fps.

Other people are saying they can only get higher fps when they lower the detail, regardless of system spec.

Are you using Vsync? If so try using D3DOverrider to enable triple buffering. I'm getting more than 30FPS with everything on high with a 560TI, although it is smoother if i turn MSAA off, FXAA is enabled by default if post processing is set high enough.
rollo 3rd December 2012, 16:09 Quote
never completed crysis 2 yet dout ill buy crysis 3

Crysis 1 was great till it got to the inside sections then the game became like everything else 1 route only.

EA will probably start using the cryengine for need for speed games ect
damien c 3rd December 2012, 16:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Yeah Far Cry 3 seems to have massive issues though.

I cannot get more than 30fps on the game at max settings at 1920x1080 with my rig in my sig, and a bloke at work has a very similar setup to me, but he has SLI'd GTX 680's and 16Gb ram with no overclock on his cpu and he cannot get past 30fps.

Other people are saying they can only get higher fps when they lower the detail, regardless of system spec.

Are you using Vsync? If so try using D3DOverrider to enable triple buffering. I'm getting more than 30FPS with everything on high with a 560TI, although it is smoother if i turn MSAA off, FXAA is enabled by default if post processing is set high enough.

Apparently there is a issue with Vsync, and AA etc in that you turn the Vsync off in the game but it messes up the driver profile for Nvidia cards and also the AA need's to be turned off in the game and enabled using the Nvidia Drivers, so I will be trying it when I finish work.
sotu1 3rd December 2012, 17:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
never completed crysis 2 yet dout ill buy crysis 3

Crysis 1 was great till it got to the inside sections then the game became like everything else 1 route only.

EA will probably start using the cryengine for need for speed games ect

Nah they won't. CryEngine belongs to Crytek, not EA. EA use Frostbite 2 already in just about everything.

I'm looking forward to this. A nice blend of what I enjoyed in both Crysees plus a predator mode. Crysi? Whatever the plural is.
Necrow 3rd December 2012, 17:42 Quote
If they can bring back some of the game play from Crysis 1 then I'd look forward to this and upgrade the rig if necessary.

But having played Crysis 2 last year, I found that I got bored with it quickly, but still managed to complete it, I found it was too linear and not like the sandbox of Crysis 1.
dolphie 3rd December 2012, 18:53 Quote
Call of Crysis 2 bored me but the first one was pretty cool. Looks like I make the recommended this time, but quite far away from the 'high' settings.
kirk46 3rd December 2012, 19:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adnoctum
No, you are right, they are both dual cores and I don't see what EA means either. See here for original context, it makes a bit more sense than here.



if you look at the recommended system requirements on the link it says quad core GPU :D:)
djab 3rd December 2012, 19:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jehla
Time to replace the i7 920?

No!
If you are not sure, just push it naturally to 4ghz and it will be just fine :) .

For info a i7 920 at 4.2ghz equals a i7 3770k:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29402&all=1
Cerberus90 3rd December 2012, 23:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeDestructor

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerberus90
Crysis has 64bit support, but unfortunately, it stopped working (for me atleast), although it seems to be pretty common across the internet too.
I can't play 64bit Crysis for more than about 30mins to an hour without it crashing. 32bit version seems to run fine though.

Hmm... Steam doesn't have it...

Maybe it's only the disc version. Although I've got Crysis Warhead on Steam, and it's got both 32bit and 64bit versions.

In the steam folder for the game, there should be a Bin32 folder and Bin64 folder, Bin64 contains the 64bit version.

*EDIT*

Apparently steam pulled the 64bit version of Crysis.

Weird how they left it for Warhead.
rollo 4th December 2012, 00:27 Quote
Cryengine belongs to crytek who belong to EA
Sloth 4th December 2012, 01:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
I'll put my money on any Sandy Bridge quad core and GTX570 or higher (and whatever the AMD equivalents are) will chomp their way through this game at 1080p with full detail.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if it needs more than that, we need hardware killers on the PC (as long as they're well optimised hardware killers - I'm looking at you GTA4 )
Sad but probably true. It's a little bittersweet looking at system requirements for casual amusement rather than wondering what kind of settings I'll need to run at.
Gradius 4th December 2012, 06:14 Quote
I can run this puppy at no prob at all.
fluxtatic 4th December 2012, 06:35 Quote
Lord - even I'm just over the minimum spec, and I never shoot for much beyond being able to play older games at decent detail (running a PII X3 @ 3.2, 8GB RAM, and a GTS450 factory OC'd to 850.)

Incidentally, how the hell did they ever fully test the first Crysis? Seemed like it was better than a year after it came out before even the bleeding-edgers had boxes that could turn the details all the way up at 1080 - what sort of supercomputer did Crytek have that let them even playtest it in the first place?
atlas 4th December 2012, 07:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantalaimon
Somehow I can't see 8GB RAM being necessary.

Me neither I will believe it when I see it using 8gb of my RAM.
GravitySmacked 4th December 2012, 08:42 Quote
System requirements aren't bad now they just need to make a decent game unlike the generic pap Crysis 2 was.
Griffter 4th December 2012, 09:10 Quote
mmm im still not that excited.. much more tho hearing its dx11 only, half the joy was having the game run smoothly since they crytek used to only be on the cutting edge, well others were and crytek was 2miles past that line, with their games. now they just look like this generation of graphics...

crysis 2 never gave me that, wow, i never seen graphics like this before... the rocks, the sand, the faces when u choke them... and i feel crysis 3 is also not gonna super wow us.

it will be ahead of everything maybe... but not out of sight ahead like they used to be. here's hoping....
damien c 4th December 2012, 09:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
mmm im still not that excited.. much more tho hearing its dx11 only, half the joy was having the game run smoothly since they crytek used to only be on the cutting edge, well others were and crytek was 2miles past that line, with their games. now they just look like this generation of graphics...

crysis 2 never gave me that, wow, i never seen graphics like this before... the rocks, the sand, the faces when u choke them... and i feel crysis 3 is also not gonna super wow us.

it will be ahead of everything maybe... but not out of sight ahead like they used to be. here's hoping....

Having played the Alpha I have, to say the level of detail and graphical quality is miles ahead of anything that is on the market at the moment including Far Cry 3 which is quite good.

I am really looking forward to playing Crysis 3, mainly for the Singleplayer as that is what I generally buy them for but hopefully the multiplayer in this one is not as bad as it was in Crysis 2.
Griffter 4th December 2012, 10:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
mmm im still not that excited.. much more tho hearing its dx11 only, half the joy was having the game run smoothly since they crytek used to only be on the cutting edge, well others were and crytek was 2miles past that line, with their games. now they just look like this generation of graphics...

crysis 2 never gave me that, wow, i never seen graphics like this before... the rocks, the sand, the faces when u choke them... and i feel crysis 3 is also not gonna super wow us.

it will be ahead of everything maybe... but not out of sight ahead like they used to be. here's hoping....

Having played the Alpha I have, to say the level of detail and graphical quality is miles ahead of anything that is on the market at the moment including Far Cry 3 which is quite good.

I am really looking forward to playing Crysis 3, mainly for the Singleplayer as that is what I generally buy them for but hopefully the multiplayer in this one is not as bad as it was in Crysis 2.

man after my own heart... im old school gamer and only play single player and slowly dying with the lack of single player substance in most games, ala COD, etc... im glad its great graphics...only multiplayer i play is starcraft 2 and my first ever mmo three days ago, planetside2...
blacko 4th December 2012, 10:28 Quote
wonder if they'll do a port for the raspberry PI.
Shirty 4th December 2012, 10:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
wonder if they'll do a port for the raspberry PI.

At least, unlike most games these days, it isn't being developed for the Pi and then badly ported to PC months later
Griffter 4th December 2012, 11:07 Quote
haha
damien c 4th December 2012, 12:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
mmm im still not that excited.. much more tho hearing its dx11 only, half the joy was having the game run smoothly since they crytek used to only be on the cutting edge, well others were and crytek was 2miles past that line, with their games. now they just look like this generation of graphics...

crysis 2 never gave me that, wow, i never seen graphics like this before... the rocks, the sand, the faces when u choke them... and i feel crysis 3 is also not gonna super wow us.

it will be ahead of everything maybe... but not out of sight ahead like they used to be. here's hoping....

Having played the Alpha I have, to say the level of detail and graphical quality is miles ahead of anything that is on the market at the moment including Far Cry 3 which is quite good.

I am really looking forward to playing Crysis 3, mainly for the Singleplayer as that is what I generally buy them for but hopefully the multiplayer in this one is not as bad as it was in Crysis 2.

man after my own heart... im old school gamer and only play single player and slowly dying with the lack of single player substance in most games, ala COD, etc... im glad its great graphics...only multiplayer i play is starcraft 2 and my first ever mmo three days ago, planetside2...

Lol I am a old school gamer 17 years and counting.

I do prefer Multiplayer but, I love playing the singleplayer sides of games before trying the multiplayer.

I am just hoping the singleplayer side of this game is longer than Crysis 1 and 2 and other games, sick and tired of finishing most games in less than 4 hours.
ZeDestructor 4th December 2012, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Lol I am a old school gamer 17 years and counting.

I do prefer Multiplayer but, I love playing the singleplayer sides of games before trying the multiplayer.

I am just hoping the singleplayer side of this game is longer than Crysis 1 and 2 and other games, sick and tired of finishing most games in less than 4 hours.

I feel your pain bro, being a gamer for 18 years myself (started on Solitaire at 3...) and then played so many shareware demos that were longer than many modern games!

Crytek games I've found to be a good timesink, as have the Bioshock, Borderlands, Diablo, Torchlight and a few other series. And I'm a racing enthusiast, so racing games get a good amount of replayability for me by design... and then you have CoD...
wafflesomd 4th December 2012, 15:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
mmm im still not that excited.. much more tho hearing its dx11 only, half the joy was having the game run smoothly since they crytek used to only be on the cutting edge, well others were and crytek was 2miles past that line, with their games. now they just look like this generation of graphics...

crysis 2 never gave me that, wow, i never seen graphics like this before... the rocks, the sand, the faces when u choke them... and i feel crysis 3 is also not gonna super wow us.

it will be ahead of everything maybe... but not out of sight ahead like they used to be. here's hoping....

Having played the Alpha I have, to say the level of detail and graphical quality is miles ahead of anything that is on the market at the moment including Far Cry 3 which is quite good.

I am really looking forward to playing Crysis 3, mainly for the Singleplayer as that is what I generally buy them for but hopefully the multiplayer in this one is not as bad as it was in Crysis 2.

man after my own heart... im old school gamer and only play single player and slowly dying with the lack of single player substance in most games, ala COD, etc... im glad its great graphics...only multiplayer i play is starcraft 2 and my first ever mmo three days ago, planetside2...

IMO there's an equal amount of quality singleplayer games coming out. Maybe not with AAA titles, but they are certainly out there.
damien c 4th December 2012, 16:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeDestructor
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Lol I am a old school gamer 17 years and counting.

I do prefer Multiplayer but, I love playing the singleplayer sides of games before trying the multiplayer.

I am just hoping the singleplayer side of this game is longer than Crysis 1 and 2 and other games, sick and tired of finishing most games in less than 4 hours.

I feel your pain bro, being a gamer for 18 years myself (started on Solitaire at 3...) and then played so many shareware demos that were longer than many modern games!

Crytek games I've found to be a good timesink, as have the Bioshock, Borderlands, Diablo, Torchlight and a few other series. And I'm a racing enthusiast, so racing games get a good amount of replayability for me by design... and then you have CoD...

So true, I started gaming when I was 10 years old on the pc though possibly younger as it's been that long but I know one of the 1st games I played involved a tape machine connected to the pc.
Shirty 4th December 2012, 16:07 Quote
Lol I started gaming when I was -1
towelie 4th December 2012, 16:14 Quote
Still think my I7 930 won't struggle to much at ultra
dolphie 4th December 2012, 19:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluxtatic
what sort of supercomputer did Crytek have that let them even playtest it in the first place?

They can do things like have super water cooled 5ghz+ overclocks and then use 2 or 4 top end graphics cards. Expensive but it's a good simulation of what will be normal high end a year or so later. They also know more than us about what to expect in the future because nVidia and Intel fill them in on what's what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
wonder if they'll do a port for the raspberry PI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
At least, unlike most games these days, it isn't being developed for the Pi and then badly ported to PC months later

Hahah
Harlequin 5th December 2012, 18:06 Quote
hi res textures and full DX11 feature set from the get go - GTX 680 and 7970 owners will be crying :D
nightblade628 5th December 2012, 20:38 Quote
Just to throw in my 2 cents, I'm playing Far Cry 3 with an i5-760, 4GB RAM and a stock 670 with every setting as high as it will go, apart from MSAA at 2x and V-Sync off in the game but enabled through drivers, and the game only dips below 60fps in heavily populated areas. The Beta drivers released yesterday were a godsend and really did increase performance dramatically.

That said, enabling V-sync in the game menu instead seems to literally halve my framerates. So, for now, it stays off. (also, it's in DX11 mode but run through the normal fc3.exe file, so I may only be getting DX9)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums