But it turns out Im playing it maxed out (on extreme or whatever the highest option is) at 1680x1050, it looks awesome and framerate doesn't drop below 60. It seems to be a lot better optimized than I expected, cause this is my rig: 
 
-Radeon HD 5770 (slightly OC'ed by vendor) 
-Phenom II x4 3.2ghz 
-6gbs of RAM 
 
That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well, but I'll have to wait for that patch to become available to find out. Im pretty happy though.

How well does Crysis1 run on that setup?

" But it turns out Im playing it maxed out (on extreme or whatever the highest option is) at 1680x1050, it looks awesome and framerate doesn't drop below 60. It seems to be a lot better optimized than I expected, cause this is my rig:  -Radeon HD 5770 (slightly OC'ed by vendor) -Phenom II x4 3.2ghz -6gbs of RAM  That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well, but I'll have to wait for that patch to become available to find out. Im pretty happy though. "

" How well does Crysis1 run on that setup? "

It is because your monitor is modest - what is that 22"?  It is when you are trying to run games on the native resolution of huge panels that you really need the gpu horsepower.

Crysis 2 does not have direct x11, which will be released later on in a patch. So right now you're playing DX9 xbox game, so thats like a 2006 video game. It play above 30fps on my old comp with a 8800gt at max. Also wheres my fing procedural destruction crytek. 

" Crysis 2 does not have direct x11, which will be released later on in a patch. So right now you're playing DX9 xbox game. "

im running it on 8600 GT, 4 GB RAM and 2x3.0 GHz AMD Athlon 6000 +, lowest settings and it lags a bit when theres alot of action 
 
cant wait to upgrade my PC in a couple of months

" @nintendoeats said:

" How well does Crysis1 run on that setup? "

Im curious about that myself since I haven't played crysis since I updated CPU and some other stuff, I'll probably have an answer for that in a few days though. "

I'm running a 9600GT (slightly overclocked, 1 GB RAM) at 1680X1050. It generally hovers from 35-40 maxed with 2XAA, though that last part on the ship...fuuuuuuuuu...
 
YES MY CARD IS OLD...

 "Probably not particularly well considering its optimised horribly... My GTX 580 barely manages 60FPS out of Crysis 1 everything maxed (and a few tweaks in config). Then again I play on 1920x1080 rather than 1680x1050, so you can probably get an alright framerate."

Im really glad Crytek made a really nice looking game thats actually playable at max settings on a much wider array of computers. 

" @Chavtheworld said:

 "Probably not particularly well considering its optimised horribly... My GTX 580 barely manages 60FPS out of Crysis 1 everything maxed (and a few tweaks in config). Then again I play on 1920x1080 rather than 1680x1050, so you can probably get an alright framerate."

 I'm only running a GTX 470, but I was still very much surprised just how poorly optimised Crysis 1 really was.  In the Crysis 2 review, Jeff stated that it's now "trivial" being able to run Crysis at full settings.  That doesn't line up with reality, I'm afraid.  Sure you can run it all on high, but it is STILL difficult to  have a rock-steady frame rate with v-sync at most modern monitors' native resolutions.  Crysis is nearly 4 years old, and it's still difficult to get flawless performance at the highest settings.  That's at the feet of Crytek, not hardware. "

I think it's definitely a testament to how incredibly well optimized Crysis 2 is. I just finished the singleplayer campaign at 1920x1080/Extreme/V-Sync with a Radeon 6950 2GB/Phenom X-4/8GB RAM and it ran without even the slightest of hiccups through it's entirety. Just like everyone else is saying, running Crysis 1 at the same settings does not yield the same results, it plays fine but it's not consistent enough with occasional noticeable dips in framerate. 
 
Let me just say this, thank goodness the idiocy that is running rampant elsewhere about Crysis 2's graphics has not infected the GiantBomb forums. Edit: (I guess I spoke too soon but at least it isn't as bad as some other places here on GB) I don't know if you guys have seen it out there but people are mindlessly bashing Crysis 2 and Crytek and they're being very hostile about it. It seems the graphics in Crysis 2 aren't good enough for them. They don't point to anything specifically except that it's running in DX9 instead of DX10/11 and apparently that alone has them infuriated.
 
 It doesn't make any sense, if anything is should be a testament as to just how beautiful Crysis 2 is that it's running solely in DX9 mode and still manages to look better than almost any game out there and not to mention play beautifully. On the point of Metro 2033, that is a gorgeous game but I think Crysis 2 has better cohesion and consistency visually.  Metro 2033 is a little more rough around the edges even though it has some fantastic looking effects going on. 
 
And I just cannot get over how good the depth-of-field looks in Crysis 2. The way things in the distance take shape is so realistic and incredibly cool looking.

" I think it's definitely a testament to how incredibly well optimized Crysis 2 is. I just finished the singleplayer campaign at 1920x1080/Extreme/V-Sync with a Radeon 6950 2GB/Phenom X-4/8GB RAM and it ran without even the slightest of hiccups through it's entirety. Just like everyone else is saying, running Crysis 1 at the same settings does not yield the same results, it plays fine but it's not consistent enough with occasional noticeable dips in framerate. 
 
Let me just say this, thank goodness the idiocy that is running rampant elsewhere about Crysis 2's graphics has not infected the GiantBomb forums. Edit: (I guess I spoke too soon but at least it isn't as bad as some other places here on GB) I don't know if you guys have seen it out there but people are mindlessly bashing Crysis 2 and Crytek and they're being very hostile about it. It seems the graphics in Crysis 2 aren't good enough for them. They don't point to anything specifically except that it's running in DX9 instead of DX10/11 and apparently that alone has them infuriated.   It doesn't make any sense, if anything is should be a testament as to just how beautiful Crysis 2 is that it's running solely in DX9 mode and still manages to look better than almost any game out there and not to mention play beautifully. On the point of Metro 2033, that is a gorgeous game but I think Crysis 2 has better cohesion and consistency visually.  Metro 2033 is a little more rough around the edges even though it has some fantastic looking effects going on.   And I just cannot get over how good the depth-of-field looks in Crysis 2. The way things in the distance take shape is so realistic and incredibly cool looking. "

" @Beaudacious said:

" Crysis 2 does not have direct x11, which will be released later on in a patch. So right now you're playing DX9 xbox game. "

C2 looks almost as good as DX11 Metro 2033, and better than DX10 Crysis 1, so the fact that it's DX9 and is present on Xbox has little to do with it. The Xbox version runs lower than the lowest PC setting and at 720p. Hardly comparable.   The linear and downsized aspect has a lot to do with the good performance, but Crytek also did a really good job of optimization.  "

Yeah, I think the issue is that people feel the need to justify to themselves hundreds of dollars of video cards with games like this, and they get really pissed when that doesn't happen.  Don't get me wrong, I would drop a few grand in a heartbeat on video cards if I could, but feeling guilty and lashing out on devs later on is not cool. "

I have an ATI 4870X2, AMD Phenom II X4 3,4 Ghz and 4 GB RAM.
Crysis 1 runs pretty sweet on max details but because Multi GPU cards are not supported by C2 this game runs pretty horrendous. :(

Really? I have the 4870x2, and it doesn't run well for me :/
 
Gotta wait for the next drivers/patches to be able to run this bad boy!

To be honest I always thought Crytek were better at making engines than making games, so that they're bringing some competition to the Unreal engine is a good thing (for console users, if not for PC-only users). If they become successful enough they could acquire the capital to push graphics forward even more than they have done so far. Those bewailing the consolification of Crytek are not seeing the big picture here. 

" But it turns out Im playing it maxed out (on extreme or whatever the highest option is) at 1680x1050, it looks awesome and framerate doesn't drop below 60. It seems to be a lot better optimized than I expected, cause this is my rig:  -Radeon HD 5770 (slightly OC'ed by vendor) -Phenom II x4 3.2ghz -6gbs of RAM  That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well, but I'll have to wait for that patch to become available to find out. Im pretty happy though. "

" To be honest I always thought Crytek were better at making engines than making games, so that they're bringing some competition to the Unreal engine is a good thing (for console users, if not for PC-only users). If they become successful enough they could acquire the capital to push graphics forward even more than they have done so far. Those bewailing the consolification of Crytek are not seeing the big picture here.  "

"
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/29/crysis-2-technical-analysis/#more-55460 
 For the people having the crysis vs crysis 2 discussion. "

" That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well "

" @Ghostin said:

"
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/29/crysis-2-technical-analysis/#more-55460 
 For the people having the crysis vs crysis 2 discussion. "

you realize thats a joke, right? "

 Yes, it does run Crysis 1 on max settings...  

" Really? I have the 4870x2, and it doesn't run well for me :/  Gotta wait for the next drivers/patches to be able to run this bad boy! "