Solved Will crysis 2 run on my computer? If not give some tips.

[reorex]

it should run fine.
by the way crysis 2 runs a lot better than crysis 1.

 

[paulpicks21]

it should run fine.
by the way crysis 2 runs a lot better than crysis 1.

Could you be a little more descriptive? How do you know it should run fine?
Did you read the rest of this thread and watch the video I posted?

 

[NavM]

it should run fine.
by the way crysis 2 runs a lot better than crysis 1.

Incorrect. I have tried running Crysis 2 and 1 on Intel HD graphics, Crysis 1 using the older Cryengine 2 engine with stock lowest settings ran above 30 FPS which is playable.
Crysis 2 on the other hand even with custom cfg settings (r_UseEdgeAA 0 , g_radialblur 0, sys_spec_objectdetail 0, etc..) ran below 30 FPS and was unplayable espesically during Multiplayer.

That and the fact that I had 8GB of RAM not 4.
You could give it a try tho

 

[Contrabardus]

it should run fine.
by the way crysis 2 runs a lot better than crysis 1.

Incorrect. I have tried running Crysis 2 and 1 on Intel HD graphics, Crysis 1 using the older Cryengine 2 engine with stock lowest settings ran above 30 FPS which is playable.
Crysis 2 on the other hand even with custom cfg settings (r_UseEdgeAA 0 , g_radialblur 0, sys_spec_objectdetail 0, etc..) ran below 30 FPS and was unplayable espesically during Multiplayer.

That and the fact that I had 8GB of RAM not 4.
You could give it a try tho

Crysis 2 would be playable on the laptop in question at the lowest possible settings. It wouldn't have a great framerate, but it's enough to move, aim, and play the single player campaign relatively unhindered. It would run choppy and not look great, but it would run and OP could play through it well enough to finish the game.

Multiplayer is definitely out of the question, but the single player campaign would be playable within reason. As I said earlier, playing at a low but playable framerate might be better than not playing Crysis 2 at all.

Having 8GB of Ram doesn't matter for a game as old as Crysis 2. It only uses around 2GB of Ram at most anyway. Vista requires 3gb, but only because Vista sucks and eats up 1gb of Ram just running in the background. The game itself only needs 2gb and doesn't take advantage of any more than that.

Just because you have more Ram in your system does not mean that a particular game will take advantage of that extra Ram. Most games have a specific amount they use and they don't go over that usage regardless of how much you have [usually 2-4gb].

2gb is about the most the average game uses right now with a handful able to take advantage of 4gb. A [very] few of the newest and most GPU intensive games can take advantage of as much as 8gb, but that's a brand new thing [as in only a few games released in this last year or so can do it] and even those games will run fine on 2-4gb if the rest of the system can handle them.

Having extra Ram is nice, but currently having more than 4gb won't really give a performance boost in the vast majority of games. The average game only uses around 2gb of Ram even at maxed out settings.

Ram is not an issue with the laptop in question in relation to Crysis 2 and most games. It has plenty of Ram for gaming, especially something as old as Crysis 2. Having higher capacity Ram wouldn't really do OP any good or provide any sort of performance boost. Anything that could use more Ram than 4gb OP couldn't run anyway.

Upgrading to Ram with a higher clock speed might help a little if the Mobo can handle it, but in all honestly probably not enough to matter. It wouldn't be worth the effort for such a small improvement. OP is still better off just buying a new Laptop.

 

[NavM]

Crysis 2 would be playable on the laptop in question at the lowest possible settings. It wouldn't have a great framerate, but it's enough to move, aim, and play the single player campaign relatively unhindered.

Didn't finish the campaign. It is not enjoyable at that framerate, it is honestly a pain and it got to the point where the fan was too loud for me to bear (CPU overheated) :/
Lowest stock settings would make for 15 fps

Multiplayer is definitely out of the question, but the single player campaign would be playable within reason. As I said earlier, playing at a low but playable framerate might be better than not playing Crysis 2 at all.

Actually, if you have the patience to type into the console a few FPS increase commands at the start of every match (since the cfg file does not apply to mp) it would actually be just as "playable" as the singleplayer

Having 8GB of Ram doesn't matter for a game as old as Crysis 2. It only uses around 2GB of Ram at most anyway. Vista requires 3gb, but only because Vista sucks and eats up 1gb of Ram just running in the background. The game itself only needs 2gb and doesn't take advantage of any more than that.

Just because you have more Ram in your system does not mean that a particular game will take advantage of that extra Ram. Most games have a specific amount they use and they don't go over that usage regardless of how much you have [usually 2-4gb].

2gb is about the most the average game uses right now with a handful able to take advantage of 4gb. A [very] few of the newest and most GPU intensive games can take advantage of as much as 8gb, but that's a brand new thing [as in only a few games released in this last year or so can do it] and even those games will run fine on 2-4gb if the rest of the system can handle them.

Having extra Ram is nice, but currently having more than 4gb won't really give a performance boost in the vast majority of games. The average game only uses around 2gb of Ram even at maxed out settings.

Ram is not an issue with the laptop in question in relation to Crysis 2 and most games. It has plenty of Ram for gaming, especially something as old as Crysis 2. Having higher capacity Ram wouldn't really do OP any good or provide any sort of performance boost. Anything that could use more Ram than 4gb OP couldn't run anyway.

Upgrading to Ram with a higher clock speed might help a little if the Mobo can handle it, but in all honestly probably not enough to matter. It wouldn't be worth the effort for such a small improvement. OP is still better off just buying a new Laptop.

Did you just write 6 paragraphs on why RAM doesn't affect performance so much ? :O
As you mentioned numerous times in those six paragraphs 2gb of RAM is NOT enough to run C2 at a playable frame rate.
It will LAG. Therefore having higher RAM will provide a + 5 or maybe + 10 fps boost.

Either way, with that gfx card never, and you can't replace graphics cards on Laptops.

 

[Contrabardus]

Crysis 2 would be playable on the laptop in question at the lowest possible settings. It wouldn't have a great framerate, but it's enough to move, aim, and play the single player campaign relatively unhindered.

Didn't finish the campaign. It is not enjoyable at that framerate, it is honestly a pain and it got to the point where the fan was too loud for me to bear (CPU overheated) :/
Lowest stock settings would make for 15 fps

15fps is playable. It wouldn't lag so badly that someone playing would have trouble aiming and firing or moving around. It would be choppy, but smooth enough for gameplay.

Actually, if you have the patience to type into the console a few FPS increase commands at the start of every match (since the cfg file does not apply to mp) it would actually be just as "playable" as the singleplayer

Singleplayer would be playable because you're not dealing with human opponents. You could aim and fire at others and might record a few frags, but most of the other players would destroy you. AI opponents don't have the same reaction times and follow consistent patterns of behavior. Multiplayer would be 'playable' on a technical level, but OP would be at a significant disadvantage and would just die a lot.

Did you just write 6 paragraphs on why RAM doesn't affect performance so much ? :O
As you mentioned numerous times in those six paragraphs 2gb of RAM is NOT enough to run C2 at a playable frame rate.
It will LAG. Therefore having higher RAM will provide a + 5 or maybe + 10 fps boost.

Either way, with that gfx card never, and you can't replace graphics cards on Laptops.

No. I did not. You either didn't read or misread what I posted.

I said that 4gb is enough for Crysis 2 because it only uses a maximum of 4gb of Ram. Vista requires an extra GB of Ram because it's a shit OS and was poorly optimized. You need at least 3gb of Ram to run it on a Vista system because Vista is a shit OS that is poorly optimized, but it will run well with as little as 2gb if the other hardware is up to specs on a non Vista system.

Having more than 4gb of ram does not provide any boost to fps because the game only uses 4gb total ram when it runs at most. There is a difference between using 2gb and 4gb, but because of how most games, including Crysis 2, use Ram there is no difference between 4gb and 8gb of Ram. No matter how much Ram over 4gb you have, the game only uses 4gb of it.

The first system I played Crysis 2 on had a 1gb AMD HD 4970 card, a 2.8 dual core GPU, and 2gb of Ram. It ran at 50+fps at maximum settings.

I have 16gb of Ram on my current system, and no games use more than 8gb of it. Most only use 2gb-4gb.

The amount of Ram any particular game will use has an upper limit. The most any game as old as Crysis 2 will use is 4gb. Even if OP put 8gb of Ram into the laptop, it would not improve the performance of Crysis 2 because of this limit.

There might be a slight improvement if OP upgrades to Ram with a higher clock speed, but going from 4gb to 8gb of Ram at the same clock speed would do nothing but waste money and wouldn't help them run the game on that laptop in the slightest little bit.

Like I've been saying, new hardware is the best option, but it will run, even if barely enough to play and only enough to run the single player campaign, on the Laptop in question.

 

[M1GU31]

I have to disagree anything under 30 is unplayable. 26 is some what but still pretty laggy. Not saying you couldn't play but if play it with higher frames and compare to that. It will be like night and day and you won't even be able to even look at it long and wonder how ever where you able to play like that. Speaking from experience from gaming on a really old pc that lagged then moving on to a pc that runs games good.

 

[NavM]

15fps is playable

You mean this is playable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRTJEVYRPM
No, not very playable.

Singleplayer would be playable because you're not dealing with human opponents.

AI takes up CPU usage.
Little CPU space free causes lag.
And actually, if you go to the right server (with other clueless noobs on low-spec pcs) then you can do quite well, but that's beside the point of this thread.

No. I did not. You either didn't read or misread what I posted.

Sorry if you can't remember what you posted previously but:

Having 8GB of Ram doesn't matter for a game as old as Crysis 2. It only uses around 2GB of Ram at most anyway

The average game only uses around 2gb of Ram even at maxed out settings

Yep. Sure.

Having 8GB of Ram doesn't matter for a game as old as Crysis 2

Crysis' graphic capabilities are ahead of its time. If you look at the other games released in 2011 (eg. Modern Warfare 3)
youll' see that they were all very ugly compared to Crysis. Actually that explains why games released this year are still not as good-looking as Crysis 2 was 2 years ago.

 

[Contrabardus]

15fps is playable

You mean this is playable?
Crysis 2 on Intel HD Graphics - YouTube
No, not very playable.

Yes, that is what I mean, and yes, that is playable.

You've been spoiled. That's extremely playable. Everything works, the aiming is accurate enough to hit targets, and the framerate doesn't stop gameplay. Not great, but entirely playable. Playable and within standards you'd personally accept are not the same thing.

Like I said, playing the game that way might be better than not playing Crysis 2 at all to some people. Playable isn't really a relative term. The game is functional to pretty close to normal standards. It's just a bit choppy and otherwise runs mostly smoothly. Anyone who can play a FPS game could play it. They might not like it because they've grown used to better, but the campaign could be played without any real hindrance from a performance perspective. The player can move, aim, and shoot with reasonable accuracy.

Sorry if you can't remember what you posted previously but:

The average game only uses around 2gb of Ram even at maxed out settings

Yep. Sure.

Having 8GB of Ram doesn't matter for a game as old as Crysis 2

Crysis' graphic capabilities are ahead of its time. If you look at the other games released in 2011 (eg. Modern Warfare 3)
youll' see that they were all very ugly compared to Crysis. Actually that explains why games released this year are still not as good-looking as Crysis 2 was 2 years ago.

Cherry picking doesn't make you right. Even then you're still claiming I said something I did not even within the examples you chose. You're trying to take what I said about Ram in relation to one game and turn it into something that I said about Ram in relation to all games ever.

I did make comments about how games in general use Ram, but I'm right in that case as well. Most games have an upper limit to the amount of Ram they'll use, and for most of the newest games available that's 4gb. No game requires more than 2gb and pretty much any game will run fine with that much at reasonable settings with no lag at a framerate well over 30fps with decent hardware backing it up.

It's actually something developers do to make the games more stable. By limiting the amount of memory the game uses it helps prevent memory leaks and crashing due to the game mismanaging memory. Capping memory usage is the best way to deal with potential issues caused by unrestricted memory access. Most PCs out there have at least 2gb and at most 4gb, so that's the range developers usually program their games to use. It's simply the easiest and most reliable way to deal with the various different hardware and memory configurations of PCs.

I know what I posted and I'm right. My posts are still there, and I stand by them, they do not say what you claim that they do about Ram. Take that one time I said '2gb' about Crysis 2's maximum Ram usage and turn it into a 4gb and what I said is still completely accurate. It was a typo but still accurate in relation to games the same age as Crysis 2 because it was the first game that could take advantage of that much Ram.

High Ram is not as important as you seem to think it is. In fact, aside from having a minimum of at least 2gb, it's probably the least important aspect of a gaming PC. Yes, it's better to have more, I never said it wasn't. It can take some of the load off of the Vram and make it so that things can run a little smoother on less powerful hardware, but it's easily the least important and most easily compensated for component of a gaming rig. Games can only use a limited amount anyway, it varies from game to game, but it's usually 2gb and very recently has moved up to 4gb within the last year or two.

I know I've run Crysis 2 on 2GB of Ram at the highest possible settings with a dual core under 3.0ghz and an HD 4970 gpu. I had 50+fps, so saying that the game needs 4gb isn't true. Nothing actually needs that much. Very few games are even capable of using more than 2gb-4gb.

To be honest, most games that say they can take advantage of 4gb of Ram don't actually use 4gb. 4gb is just overshooting the estimate and they only really use somewhere between 2gb and 3gb of actual Ram. Usually in the area of around 2.5gb. Some is left unused for the OS, but even then they don't run 4gb of Ram at full capacity.

I know for a fact that Crysis 2 does not use more than 4gb of Ram -ever-. OP's laptop has 4gb of Ram and there would be no benefit to adding more in relation to playing Crysis 2. Having the same hardware with 8gb of Ram would not improve anything. The game would not use the extra Ram memory. 8Gb of Ram would not improve the performance of Crysis 2 for the exact same reason 4gb-8gb of Ram would not improve the performance of Doom 3. Doom would never use more than 2gb no matter what.

Even most modern games can't use more than 4gb of Ram. It's a huge amount of Ram for any video game. No currently released game requires more than 2gb of Ram. [Vista might require an extra gig, but that's the shitty OS's fault, not the game.] Even Crysis 3 can run well on mid to high settings on 2gb of Ram and it is one of the very few games that can actually take advantage of more than 4gb. The specs say 8Gb for totally maxed out settings, but it only ever uses 6gb of that.

4gb is plenty for the vast majority of games. Only a select few that were released within the last 12 months can even use more than that, none require it, and Crysis 2 is not one of those games anyway. 2gb is plenty to run Crysis 2 at high settings and even maxed out depending on other hardware specs.

8gb of Ram is optimal for super rigs because there will likely be a few games that can use that much in the near future [they'll still run well with only 4gb and probably only require 2], 16 to future proof for several years, but 4gb is plenty for the average gaming computer [which isn't going to run Crysis 3 well enough to use 6gb of Ram anyway].

Everything I posted with the sole exception of saying 2gb when I meant 4gb in relation to Crysis 2 specifically is completely accurate.

Also, Crysis 2's graphics were the benchmark for it's time. There are games today that outdo it's technical specs easily. BF 3, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Serious Sam 3, Batman Arkham City, Metro 2033, Last Light, and Witcher 2 just to name a few. [Note: I'm talking about -PC releases- just to be clear.] It's a benchmarking game, it's as much a tech demo for high end PCs as it is a game. Comparing it to shovelware console shooters like CoD is irrelevant. MW3 was made for crappy console hardware that was outdated even when Crysis 2 was released. It's an irrelevant comparison.

You might like the art direction for Crysis 2 more than some of the games I mentioned, but they require higher technical specs to run at maxed out settings. So, it may in your opinion 'look' better, but the hardware requirements to play them at the highest settings are greater and require more power to run.

TL;DR

Not what I said, even with you cherry picking quotes it's pretty obvious it isn't.

You said that upgrading to 8gb of Ram would make it so OP could run Crysis 2 better. You are wrong. It would do nothing to help the game run any better. It's got nothing to do with hardware at all. Crysis 2 only uses a maximum of 4gb of Ram ever because of how the game is coded to use memory, just like most other games it has an upper limit of how much memory it will use when running.

Comparing CoD:MW 3 to Crysis 2 is dumb because CoD:MW 3 is a crappy console port made for pathetic console hardware and Crysis 2 was a benchmarking game for high end PCs.

 

[NavM]

Ahh come on dude, play fair, don't edit posts.
Putting another few paragraphs on RAM and such aside...

You said that upgrading to 8gb of Ram would make it so OP could run Crysis 2 better

Thats almost all he can do to upgrade his laptop, its not like he can change the gfx card now is it? I guess he could upgrade to an SSD but that's about it

Also, Crysis 2's graphics were the benchmark for it's time. There are games today that outdo it's technical specs easily. BF 3, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Serious Sam 3, Batman Arkham City, Metro 2033, Last Light, and Witcher 2 just to name a few. [Note: I'm talking about -PC releases- just to be clear.] It's a benchmarking game, it's as much a tech demo for high end PCs as it is a game. Comparing it to shovelware console shooters like CoD is irrelevant. MW3 was made for crappy console hardware that was outdated even when Crysis 2 was released. It's an irrelevant comparison.

Sorry but no. No, no no.
BF3 does not beat C2 at all, and Crytek even made a F2P game (warface) that beats its graphics..
Heres a comparison:
Battlefield 3 vs Crysis 2 DX11 - YouTube
Yes, see what I mean?

Far Cry 3 ran on a shitty unreal engine that does not half compete with Cryengine 3, so no.
Serious Sam 3 obviously not, don't know what you were thinking there.
Metro 2033, dude it doesnt even beat Crysis 1:
Metro 2033 vs Crysis very high on i5 760, gtx 460 - YouTube
Skyrim is not even in the same genre, and even with mods doesnt even COMPETE with Crysis 2.

MW3 was made for crappy console hardware that was outdated even when Crysis 2 was released. It's an irrelevant comparison.

I like how you look in depth on everything I say, that was only an example

And also something else you said before:

The first system I played Crysis 2 on had a 1gb AMD HD 4970 card, a 2.8 dual core GPU, and 2gb of Ram. It ran at 50+fps at maximum settings.

I am assuming it played with EXTREME stuttering, because with 2 GB of ram and a dual core CPU theres NO WAY you can run it maxed out 50+ fps

But anyway, this is solved now so theres no point going on

 

[Contrabardus]

Ahh come on dude, play fair, don't edit posts.
Putting another few paragraphs on RAM and such aside...

I didn't edit any previous posts after responses were posted. I do not ninja edit.

Thats almost all he can do to upgrade his laptop, its not like he can change the gfx card now is it? I guess he could upgrade to an SSD but that's about it

Upgrading to higher capacity Ram would not help in the slightest little bit. I explained why it would not in great detail already.

Sorry but no. No, no no.
BF3 does not beat C2 at all, and Crytek even made a F2P game (warface) that beats its graphics..
Heres a comparison:
Battlefield 3 vs Crysis 2 DX11 - YouTube
Yes, see what I mean?

Far Cry 3 ran on a shitty unreal engine that does not half compete with Cryengine 3, so no.
Serious Sam 3 obviously not, don't know what you were thinking there.
Metro 2033, dude it doesnt even beat Crysis 1:
Metro 2033 vs Crysis very high on i5 760, gtx 460 - YouTube
Skyrim is not even in the same genre, and even with mods doesnt even COMPETE with Crysis 2.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. I'm afraid it is so.

Again, your personal opinion about what 'looks' better has absolutely nothing to do with technichal specs. You posting irrelevant youtube videos just shows you don't know what you're talking about. The games I mentioned all have higher top end requirements to run at maximum specs than Crysis 2. Which games look better in your personal opinion is irrelevant. Art direction and design has nothing to do with hardware requirements. Crysis 2 had great art direction and design [and horrible writing] but that doesn't make the system requirements greater than they actually are in comparison to other games.

For example, Skyrim doesn't look anywhere near as good, but has much higher requirements to run at max settings than Crysis 2 does due to its size and the amount of objects that can be interacted with. Battlefield 3 has higher requirements as well. The environments are fully destructible, and it uses a lot of particle effects, and does a lot of other post processing effects that Crysis 2 does not. That requires a lot of processing power to do. How 'pretty' you think Crysis 2 is in comparison doesn't change the fact that those games have higher hardware requirements.

I like how you look in depth on everything I say, that was only an example

It was a bad example.

I am assuming it played with EXTREME stuttering, because with 2 GB of ram and a dual core CPU theres NO WAY you can run it maxed out 50+ fps

Yes way. You assume incorrectly. I did it easily with a stable 50+ fps no problem. I don't think you actually know what you're talking about. You don't seem to understand how hardware works and how it interacts with other hardware. You appear to have no understanding of the concept of different game engine requirements and various iterations of individual engines, what system requirements mean, or how memory is used by games.

Just because a developer uses Unreal III to develop two games does not mean that they will both have the same system requirements to run. The engines are tweaked, adjusted, and enhanced based on the needs of the developer and advances in technology for each individual game. Other 3rd party systems are often used in tandem with the base engine, and post processing and other effects can vary wildly. An Unreal 3 game made today will be vastly different than an Unreal 3 game made three years ago. Hell, it will be different than another game running on the same engine that is released on the same day.

You also don't seem to grasp the concept of different levels of hardware. I was running on a high end 1gb GPU with a very fast CPU [which could easily and safely be OCed to above 3.0ghz]. It was more than enough to run Crysis 2 on max settings with only 2gb of Ram.

Once again: You do not seem to understand that high capacity Ram is probably the least important component of a gaming computer. Having lower Ram capacity is easily compensated for with other components. Yes, you do need a certain base amount, and yes having more does help lesser components run better. High capacity Ram is still not as necessary as you seem to think it is with good components supporting it.

You're basing your opinion on what 'looks better' to you and based on the content of your previous posts it appears as if you have no actual knowledge of how hardware or memory actually works or how games interact with either. Whether or not a game looks better is a matter of opinion, the technical aspects are not up to debate and are not a matter of opinion.

You're simply stating 'this looks better to me, so it must take more to run it than these other games' and that's not how it works.

But anyway, this is solved now so theres no point going on

I like nice round numbers, so I added one more post.