I can confirm that Crysis works without issue on an Athlon XP 2800+, 2GB ram, 7 32bit, and a decent video card. This is from years ago on my old system that I gave to my brother.

ZanQuance wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

Trying to get it going my notebook but it crashes 🤣

Well, now I don't feel so bad 😉 it crashes every time on win7 32-bit, I might boot into XP or win7 64-bit and give it a go.
My current rig is a Core2 e8400 @3ghz on a XFX X790i ultra with 8gb ram @1333, and a GTX460 @800-gpu/1000-mem/1600-shader, crashes at stock gpu speeds also, w/latest drivers (<-culprit most likely).

It's weird. The game actually works, but the benchmark crashes. I haven't tried running the full version from Steam. Maybe that will make a difference...

blank001 wrote:

DX 9.0c is Geforce 6, I'm not sure if FX will run.

Crysis only needs SM2.0 though, as you can see, it lists Radeon 9800 in the specs.
It lists GeForce 6800 as minimum nVidia card, but feature-wise, if the 9800 can run it, then so should the FX, I guess.
I'm quite sure I ran Crysis on my Athlon XP1800+ with Radeon 9600XT. So I don't think it needs SSE2 either.

.

I think we might have to create another configuration for really slow machines. It just takes too long otherwise.

May I present my DX10 Crysis beast with a whopping 1.91 fps:

How long did that take to complete? Would I be accurate if I guessed 30 minutes?

obobskivich wrote:

How long did that take to complete? Would I be accurate if I guessed 30 minutes?

Almost an hour 😵

You can just compare the time in the screenshot (system clock) with the start time in the log.

So I've added this third category. 800 x 600, low details, DX9. For machines like a XP or P4 with a GeForce 6 😀

I've tried two notebooks with AMD APU E series processors. DX11 on paper, but all I get are crashes.

.

Interesting with the frames. Maybe there is a pattern with graphics card vendors or drivers?

I'll do another Intel graphics card run, this time on a notebook. Hopefully it doesn't cook 🤣

philscomputerlab wrote:

Almost an hour 😵

But it DID run Crysis!

Yup 😀

I at first tried the 1280x1024 Very High. Yeah, no.

800x600 low? Maybe it'd be playable:

Nice! So it runs on 512MB? Good to know 😀

Well, it has ludicrous loading times combining low RAM and a slow Fireball making crunching noises, but once it's done swapping everything out, it is actually smooth as it could be.

The Very High demo... yeah, no. Seconds per frame. 0.60 FPS! I noped out of that.

🤣

Here the same machines as above, but with the low details settings. The PC is my TV / Server PC. Sits next to my PC, I watch TV shows and movies on it, and it runs a Raid 1 array for some of my files.

Definitely playable!

Don't think I've ever seen such a difference in performance between min. and max.

philscomputerlab wrote:

🤣
Don't think I've ever seen such a difference in performance between min. and max.

Pretty common in more modern(ish) PC exclusives. I know STALKER games also have a huge min-max difference.

EDIT: well, here is my little Asus EEE 🤣

philscomputerlab wrote:

May I present my DX10 Crysis beast with a whopping 1.91 fps:

And I thought this result was bad: (Can somebody say, GPU bottleneck?)

I'll probably do the benchmark again using low settings. Maybe it won't take ~45 minutes to complete 🤣

Munx wrote:

EDIT: well, here is my little Asus EEE 🤣

🤣 That's awesome!

Sutekh94 wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

May I present my DX10 Crysis beast with a whopping 1.91 fps:

And I thought this result was bad: (Can somebody say, GPU bottleneck?)

I'll probably do the benchmark again using low settings. Maybe it won't take ~45 minutes to complete 🤣

Very nice! Yes I think the low benchmark is more suitable 😀

This is more like it!

Sutekh94 wrote:

This is more like it!

Your system on low matches up pretty well with my system on high. I guess 800x600 LOW and 1920x1080 HIGH is a significant difference