Friday, August 8th 2008

Ubisoft's Far Cry 2 System Requirements Published

Publisher Ubisoft issued today the minimum and recommended system requirements for the PC edition of Ubisoft Montreal's open-world first person shooter Far Cry 2. The successor of the original Far Cry game is also due to be released on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 this fall. "It has always been our intention to make Far Cry 2 as accessible to everyone as possible, and we have worked continuously to optimize Far Cry 2 to achieve this goal," said lead technical director Dominic Guay. The full specs follow below.

Minimum requirements
  • CPU:
  • Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz, Pentium D 2.66 Ghz
    AMD Athlon 64 3500+ or better
  • Video card:
  • NVIDIA 6800 or ATIX1650 or better
    Shader Model 3 required
    256 Mb of graphic memory
  • Memory:
  • 1 GB
  • Media reader:
  • DVD-ROM
  • Hard drive space:
  • ~12 Gig or HD space. (tbd)
Recommended
  • CPU:
  • Intel Core 2 Duo Family
    AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
  • Video card:
  • NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better
    ATIX1900 or better
    512 Mb of graphic memory
  • Memory:
  • 2 GB
  • 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.
Source: Shacknews
Add your own comment

77 Comments on Ubisoft's Far Cry 2 System Requirements Published

#1
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Nothing my system cant handle with aplomb
Posted on Reply
#2
DEFEATEST
Man if you guys think that 11gig or whatever it is is alot of HD space, Age of Conan is 32 gig!!!!!!!

And ya I bet those specs wont run anything. 600x400 super low maybey, LOL
Posted on Reply
#3
candle_86
no joke, install Half Life 2 and both episodes its 12gb also
Posted on Reply
#4
Selene
Grid is 10gigs, AOC is 30+gigs, WOW is 8.6gigs.
I can see it being 12+gigs.
Looks good, but yea min and rec system is very very misleading in most cases.
Posted on Reply
#5
Triprift
Id say my lappy will struggle to run it regardless of the moderate specs maybe 800x600 hmmm :/
Posted on Reply
#6
Jelle Mees
If you want to know how it will run, you have to compare with other system requirements from Ubisoft Montreal games, and the latest GOOD title is "Assasins Creed" if I am not mistaking.
Supported OS: Windows XP / Vista (only)
Processor: Dual core processor 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ or better recommended)
RAM: 2 GB (3 GB recommended)
Video Card: 256 MB DirectX 10.0–compliant video card or DirectX 9.0–compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (512 MB video card recommended) (see supported list)*
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0 or 10.0 compliant sound card (5.1 sound card recommended)
DirectX Version: DirectX 10.0 libraries (included on disc)
DVD-ROM: DVD-ROM dual-layer drive
Hard Drive Space: 12 GB
Peripherals Supported: Keyboard, mouse, optional controller (Xbox 360 Controller for Windows recommended)
*Supported Video Cards at Time of Release:
ATI RADEON X1300-1950 / HD 2000 / 3000 series
NVIDIA GeForce 6600-6800 / 7 / 8 / 9 series
If we compare the FC2 requirements with the AC requirements, there isn't much difference.

The AMD 5200+ is only 10% faster then the 4400+ they recommended for AC. They must have created some good texture streaming because they still say that 512MB is enough.

I was able to play AC on 2048x1536 without shadows. So I am guessing that 1600x1200 without shadows should be perfectly possible. It's a fact that FPS-gaming requires higher framerates then thirdperson-gaming so wurst case scenario I have to play on 1280x1024 wich is not to bad. I finished Crysis on that resolution.
Posted on Reply
#7
AsRock
TPU addict
Sheesh how often are the specs right lol... And it depends on the player what playable is. What they call playable is it runs..
Posted on Reply
#8
J-Man
I have a feeling I won't be able to max this game. If not I need to upgrade immediately.
Posted on Reply
#9
EastCoasthandle
The moment of truth is fast approaching. When FC2 is released it will determine once and for all if Crysis was as unoptimized as many have claimed. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
Triprift
I think we all all no the answer to that one crysis was totally brutal on hardware.
Posted on Reply
#11
DarkMatter
mullered07 said:
how do they mean squat ? i think its pretty self explanatory, minimum is what you can play the game at on lowest settings, reccomended will give you a nice playable experience whilst looking quite nice, if anything the only way it could possibly be misleading, is people misinterpretting reccomended specs for playing at max settings with all eye candy in which case there should be a high end specs also
Hmm, I could agree with that. In their strict meaning you are right aftel all. But historically low specs granted you more than just playable settings and recommended specs assured you almost the best experience. Nowadays you can barely play with minimum specs (basically it just means it will load) and recommended is what you need to even consider playing the game as something similar to what was expected to be. Also in the past you could play with below minimum specs and the difference between low, recommended and high-end was a lot smaller. Today it's like day and night. Dunno, maybe my expectations are higher now.
Posted on Reply
#12
EastCoasthandle
Far Cry 2
Recommended
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family
    AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
  • Video card: NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better
    ATIX1900 or better
    512 Mb of graphic memory
  • Memory: 2 GB

  • 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.
Crysis
Recommended Requirements
CPU: Core 2 Duo/Athlon X2 or better
RAM: 1.5GB
Video Card: NVIDIA 7800 Series, ATI Radeon 1800 Series or better
VRAM: 512MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 12GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP or Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

So far so good...
Posted on Reply
#13
Jelle Mees
Can you guys please stop comparing requirements from different developping teams. It's the stupiest thing you can do. If you want to compare, compare with Ubisoft Montreal games...
Posted on Reply
#14
mullered07
DarkMatter said:
Hmm, I could agree with that. In their strict meaning you are right aftel all. But historically low specs granted you more than just playable settings and recommended specs assured you almost the best experience. Nowadays you can barely play with minimum specs (basically it just means it will load) and recommended is what you need to even consider playing the game as something similar to what was expected to be. Also in the past you could play with below minimum specs and the difference between low, recommended and high-end was a lot smaller. Today it's like day and night. Dunno, maybe my expectations are higher now.
absolute tish tosh, minimum means you can play the game if it means you dont mind playing a blocky low res visually cut down version, and not just load it??, reccomended, is whats needed to enjoy it at a good visual level (i would consider medium settings on most games to be a good example ), i dont see where the problem is, the only thing that i can see as misleading as ive said before is the game companies not listing a high spec reccomendation, on top of the other 2 as people are obviousley confused about what these mean, i know for a fact i can play crysisi on a comp lower spec than what crysis lists as low spec and at 20fps, but tbh it wouldnt be worth it as it would look like shit with everything turned down to low and res at 800x600, but the keyword is it would be playable framerate and hardware wise, either way both specs have to play it at a "playable" framerate, not just load it. are you telling me you cant run crysis on the minimum specs? cause i know there are a lot of ppl who do and ppl who run it on lower specs, just because "we can"
Posted on Reply
#15
KainXS
minimum requirements are always like playing the game a 640x480 with ps1 visuals

but oblivions minimal was by far the worst I have ever seen, it was like, it was horrible

so I just negate the minimum requirements now and substitute reccomended as minimal(if you want to truly play the game)
Posted on Reply
#16
EastCoasthandle
Jelle Mees said:
Can you guys please stop comparing requirements from different developping teams. It's the stupiest thing you can do. If you want to compare, compare with Ubisoft Montreal games...
Making a rudimentary comparisons can offer some insight on what to expect. BTW, it's developing not developping... It's never a good idea to call anyone stupid when you failed to proof read your own post for spelling mistakes.

EastCoasthandle said:
Far Cry 2
Recommended
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo Family
    AMD64 X2 5200+, AMD Phenom or better
  • Video card: NVIDIA 8600 GTS or better
    ATIX1900 or better
    512 Mb of graphic memory
  • Memory: 2 GB

  • 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.
Crysis
Recommended Requirements
CPU: Core 2 Duo/Athlon X2 or better
RAM: 1.5GB
Video Card: NVIDIA 7800 Series, ATI Radeon 1800 Series or better
VRAM: 512MB of Graphics Memory
Storage: 12GB
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c Compatible
ODD: DVD-ROM
OS: Microsoft Windows XP or Vista
DirectX: DX9.0c or DX10

So far so good...
Posted on Reply
#17
candle_86
specs are never right let me offer proof from my own experince

Star Trek Elite Force
Tried to run it on a PII 266, Rage TNT 16mb, Windows 98se and 128mb of ram, it ran slow

Tried to run COD on a P3 800, Geforce 2 MX200, Windows XP SP1, 512mb of ram, it ran slow

Tried to run Crysis on Sempron 3400, Geforce 8600GT DDR2, XP SP2, 1gb DDR400, it ran real slow
Posted on Reply
#18
EastCoasthandle
candle_86 said:
specs are never right let me offer proof from my own experince

Star Trek Elite Force
Tried to run it on a PII 266, Rage TNT 16mb, Windows 98se and 128mb of ram, it ran slow

Tried to run COD on a P3 800, Geforce 2 MX200, Windows XP SP1, 512mb of ram, it ran slow

Tried to run Crysis on Sempron 3400, Geforce 8600GT DDR2, XP SP2, 1gb DDR400, it ran real slow
Specs are never right based on what? If the specs included, resolution and frame rates and you didn't get that I would agree. But the recommended specs on this and many other games are not that specific. So the expectation is clearly on you not what's recommended by the game. In your case you believe the game ran slow. However failed to see that the game actually ran. The recommended specs didn't include frame rates.
Posted on Reply
#19
KainXS
You also have to take into account that the minimum specs are more than likely aquired using optimized computers, defraged, no hardware conflicts, which is a good amount of the time not the case for normal pc's
Posted on Reply
#20
DarkMatter
mullered07 said:
absolute tish tosh, minimum means you can play the game if it means you dont mind playing a blocky low res visually cut down version, and not just load it??, reccomended, is whats needed to enjoy it at a good visual level (i would consider medium settings on most games to be a good example ), i dont see where the problem is, the only thing that i can see as misleading as ive said before is the game companies not listing a high spec reccomendation, on top of the other 2 as people are obviousley confused about what these mean, i know for a fact i can play crysisi on a comp lower spec than what crysis lists as low spec and at 20fps, but tbh it wouldnt be worth it as it would look like shit with everything turned down to low and res at 800x600, but the keyword is it would be playable framerate and hardware wise, either way both specs have to play it at a "playable" framerate, not just load it. are you telling me you cant run crysis on the minimum specs? cause i know there are a lot of ppl who do and ppl who run it on lower specs, just because "we can"
TBH I don't know why do you have to argue with MY OPINION. You made clear (before this last post, here you just repeated the same with different words) that FOR YOU, recommended requirements shown on actual games offer a satisfactory gameplay at satisfactory settings. You also made clear that you consider low settings on low requirements hardwre in recent games something "playable" or may I say, worth playing. I DO NOT (aplicble to both concepts) and I know many if not most of the active people in these forums think the same. What are you trying to demostrate? Whether a setting is acceptable or not is not something objective, is subjective to each player. There is no absolute setting, frame rate, etc. that can be named as acceptable and such there is no absolute hardware requirement that could fit in such low and recommended definitions. 640x480 @ 20 fps could be acceptable for some, but not for me, that's for sure and by a great margin. For me gaming anything below 1024x768 @ 30 fps directly doesn't exist. And same happens with low settings. In the past low settings was something worth trying, today all games look like crap on low, it's not acceptable, FOR ME, remember I'm giving my opinion. Medium settings are devaluated too in comparison to what medium meant in the past.

And just to finish I want to say that I do have old hardware, so I know which settings are playable on what hardware and what not. But again since it's my opinion, I choose that anything below 30 fps average is unnaceptable, anything below 1024x768 is unnaceptable and low settings as a whole are unnaceptable. Period.
Posted on Reply
#21
mullered07
DarkMatter said:

And just to finish I want to say that I do have old hardware, so I know which settings are playable on what hardware and what not. But again since it's my opinion, I choose that anything below 30 fps average is unnaceptable, anything below 1024x768 is unnaceptable and low settings as a whole are unnaceptable. Period.
lol on this "old hardware" have you even played crysis because a lot of people with respectable systems are quite content with playing at 1024x768 and 30fps, cause thats all that crysis offers, but in our minds thats wholly acceptable, and what system are you on about cause the one in your specs shows us a x2 4800+, 2gb ram, a raptor and a 8800gt (please correct me if this is incorrect :D) yeah thats really old hardware :laugh:

i find it hard that you dont even understand my posts, regarding system requirments, to me its quite simple. let me break it down for you:

minimum = you can run without any eye candy and at a low res, with high enough framerate to PLAY the game (which is the point is it not ????)

reccomended = you can play the game with acceptable eye candy and at decent res, also with high enough framerate to PLAY the game.

this unfortunately is not a forum based entirely on YOUR opinion, this is a public forum, and unfortunately things dont always go your way, what you call "acceptable" is entirely different to what other people think, and luckily for us we base things in fact here not opinion
Posted on Reply
#22
MadClown
zithe said:
Hopefully they didn't pull a bethesda. The 'recommended' requirements could barely run oblivion..
idk, my old pc meet the recomended exactally and it ran it with uper tier quality(not fully maxed) at around 15-25 fps outdoors and 30-60fps indoors
Posted on Reply
#23
candle_86
EastCoasthandle said:
Specs are never right based on what? If the specs included, resolution and frame rates and you didn't get that I would agree. But the recommended specs on this and many other games are not that specific. So the expectation is clearly on you not what's recommended by the game. In your case you believe the game ran slow. However failed to see that the game actually ran. The recommended specs didn't include frame rates.
1024x768 low settings, standard gaming rez when those came out, except crysis which is 1280x1024. Now having said that, my hardware at the time was not in the recomended list but was higher than the min list. So it would reason it would fall inbetween those two cat's and 10x7 @ low shouldn't have been an issue with any of them but it was.

Elite Force and COD averaged about 20FPS for me, which is the Quake3 engine, and we all know 60+ is really need for smooth frame rates with that engine. Crysis got about 25FPS which also isnt playable to me. And a note about FPS, moniters don't interlace like the TV does, not all motion is captured and blurred. Motin blur goes a long way to help out the low framrate effect because it gives the feel of motion that the TV does, but Quake Engine doesnt have even basic blur.
Posted on Reply
#24
GSG-9
I guarantee not a single person here with vista x64 and a modern video card can get hexin II (non-o|gl)to run smoothly (go look at the water...oh god the water...) on there computer. (even though you slaughter the minimum requirements) :laugh:

(Its actually true, the game was not optimized for a video card and tweaks out in modern operating systems...)
Posted on Reply
#25
candle_86
go play Star Trek Borg on a modern computer it won't even start

or COD:UO on a modern computer, the game hitchs and runs badly.

run 3dmark99 on a modern machine, i have and my score isnt much better than 10k explain that.

Hexen II i must try
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment