Dude, Intel i5 at 3ghz, 8gb of ram and a Radeon 6850 (such a cheap setup...) can easily max this game at 1920x1200 and runs at a constant 70fps. Incredible how far GPU technology has come along!

Amazingly, and I don't know how, my old pc (specs below) with xp can run this. I think my gpu is the only thing that saves me. AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (required is 3500+) Ram: 512 MB (required is 1gb) GPU: MSI Nvidia 8500GT 512 mb (required 256 mb) It runs is acceptable with everything but realtree on low (realtree is on medium). Of course I usually play it on my dad's 2.7ghz dual core with 2gb of ram and about the same gpu as mine has, but it's impressive that mine can run it at all.

i have athlon X2 7750 black edition 3 ghz (oc) xfx gts 250 1gb ddr3 core edition 4gb ddr 2 800mhz ram i am running the game with ultra high . except shadow in very high, 1280 X 600 very nice graphics

Although i can run Far Cry 2 at ultra high, very high, high settings with 1680x1050 resolution, when i start the game, still appears "warning: your video card drivers are too old. please update your them". Intel Core2 Quad Q6600, GeForce 8800 GTS 512Mb, 4096 Mb RAM, Windows Vista 32-bit

I'm running the game at Very High and High settings at 1200x1048 screening with a Nivida 9400 GT card. 2.0 Intel Celeron processor, 2 gigs of ram, Windows XP, pretty big hard drive. So if you got that you can run the game just fine with a little lag here and there in area's.

i wonder what if someone run far cry 2 on Alienware Alx X58 it will max out sooo sooooo easy think!

this game runs like a champ... and it looks as good if not better then its console counterpart on even the lowest settings

hope fully those videocards will not cost you a high power bill in the future

@ Hoplite32....A Radeon 9600 GT??? Last time i checked, ATI and Nvidia weren't cross-breeding

@ will952....HUGE difference, thats the amount of memory dedicated to graphics, the more the merrier

Kids these days, all about showin' off their system'!

can i run it on my: core2duo t5800 intel gma4500mhd 2gig of ram?

btw is there much difference between a 9800gt 512mb and a 9800 gt 1024mb?

red bars= fps(frames per second) for good performance u want 25+ fps

sorry, noob here, but can someone explain to me how the red bars work?

hi,ive got a 9800 GTX 512mb - there isnt ANY difference between Ultra High & Very High. Ultra high will also slowdown your performance. Playing this game on High settings also looks really gorgeous. Also play with atleast 2GB RAM. Cheeers :)

Well, i can max out every setting except shadows and geometry, each at medium and very high respectively and i get and average of 37 FPS. Im running the game on a E6300 @ 1.86Ghz and An XFX 8800GT 512 Mb. By the way, are shadows more CPU or GPU bound? Turning up the shadows on max just slaughters my rig especially areas that have long draw distances

Hi i've got an ASUS EAH 3450 for trial. Both Far Cry 2 and Crysis are playable. Is this card ok or should i get some other card.

@Stephen_1979 I hope you're talking about DirectX 9 "max" on Windows XP, because DirectX 10 very high in Crysis is by far the most demanding rendering in any game.

At the higher end of the scale, Far Cry 2's settings only change draw distances. Performance get's killed for little improvements in graphical quality. I run between High and Very High, prefering the higher fps over draw distances(for when I play on "infamous"). Unlike any other game to date, grass, I noticed, is still rendered very well at HUGE distances no matter what settings you run. Considering 90% of the map is grass, I can live without full detail trees... Anyone noticed how smooth shadow edges are in this game? 8800GTX (768MB), 64x2 5200+ @ 2.6GHz (stock), Vista Premium (32 bit), 2GB 800MHz RAM. Viewsonic VX1932WM (2ms gtg 1440x900).

I found Far Cry 2 harder to run on max settings than Crysis on max settings which runs fine on my PC. To get Far Cry to run smoothly I turned down the shadows and geometry setting from 'ultra high' to 'very high' which makes no noticeable difference to the graphics quality but it gave a big boost to the frame rate. Q6600 @ 2.4GHz, 512MB 8800GTS OC, 4GB RAM.

This is my personal preference: I feel the game is better without the shadows, seriously. Well, it is because shadows make things dark and hard to spot, especially the enemies (under Low Shadow Setting). Damn! I had a hard time locating those jerks because of the shadows from the trees or other things and I got a migraine after the 1st time played this game. I hate to admit it, the visual is still good although there is no shadow. I dont know, mayb is my GPU, 8600GT. The game runs smoothly with mostly medium settings and a lil of high settings.

@soccerdude84: I think GS mixed up the images for quality comparisons cos unless i'm blind I can only see a slight difference between low and ultra high! :P

It'll run a lot better than Crysis because it's a million miles away from Crysis' quality. Boring game too.. Drive here... Drive there...

I have Asus Geforce 4550 and it works just fine. Tho, I'm going to buy 1 GB more RAM, I have 1 , gonna have 2. Then I think it's a bit lesser lag. And when I first started the game, the computer automatic took the settings to High/Very High and 3 things on low.

this is it? this is useless. lol. three results.

they also don't have comparisons for very high or ultra high for the shading setting, and no comparisons for fire, real trees, ambient, vegetation, or post fx, guess I'll have to wait for tweakguides to make a guide for this

also, it seems that HDR alone doesn't make a difference unless you add bloom as well, strange, usually you can't have both at the same time

Am I the only one not seeing a difference in the textures? maybe the images didn't load right for me.

Surprisingly the game runs fine on my old XP with a Radeon 9600 GT; so long as it's on the lowest possible graphics settings. The crashes are infrequent and gameplay is smooth, until TOO many bullets start to fly, but even then it's hardly noticable.

definitely worth buying BEFORE it drops; not for the MP tho, that's sorta average.

The MP videos i've seen looked alright, not really that much in the way of FPS MP games coming out except maybe the next call of duty but correct me if I'm wrong, I'd say this is a game that might be worth buying after the price drops.

this means that the graphics are better than the game(heard the MP was dedcent though). Anyways, the single player stinks to high heaven. Don't be woooed by the 'system requirements' into throwing your money away.

mmm.. in my opinion theyre comparing 2 different (too diferent) hardware configurations as they have a 8600gts form nvidia in the (recommended system) and a 4870x2 (high end sys) , lets be fair and compare either ati or nvidia on both configurations, also i noticed a lack of info on both system ram configurations , because i dunno if they are comparing 2gb ddr3 with 2gb ddr2 .

Seems my crappy pc will run Farcry 2 at 1280/800 no problem !!!

Now i got my new com and i can´t get farcry2 running cos always when I try to run it it wont except my serial!!Why?new game and never used???Manual unlock ...same thing???help please:-(But my new com runs nicely though):-) starting to overclock it...runs nicely 3.65GHz maby more when i got to know more my new bios settings

im getting my 4870x2 on saterday. Prepare to own all who opose

God, ATI 4870X2 is a joke. Why would anyone use a cross-fire -.- I'm just using a 4870 and it's silky smooth under 1680X1050 with 8x AA and V-syc. :) Specs: Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0 GHz 6Mb L2 Cache; ATI Radeon HIS HD 4870; 2X2Gb Mushkin 1066 MHz RAM; 500 Gb Westerndigital 7200.11 SATA HDD;

UH oh, Guys look at the console wars going on in the L4D hand on comments

As far as I know, there are no such restrictions, Draker. I am running the game on medium settings, with HDR and Bloom effects myself.

I gotta give these guys a credit for making the game look great on low settings. And is it possible to have HDR and Bloom on medium settings? Or does it have restrictions like crysis?

Very funny to see that DX10 was hyped up for nothing... It didn't introduce anything good or worth mentioning in the gaming universe. Another missed shot from MS.

My PC is a 2.8 GHZ Pentium 4 Processor, a 9600GT, 2.5 gigs of RAM and it laps this game up at the highest settings, although I do play at 1024x768 due to my 14 inch monitor, but still this game plays extremely smoothly and my specs don't even match the minimum as stated on the box, talk about excellent scaling.

I'm glad as well that FarCry2 is less heavier than Crysis Warhead

I played crysis warhead, and my new computer just couldn't handle the game on high graphics. I'm glad the game is less heavy then crysis, because i'm planning to buy it... sweet sweet fire

I love how low looks great. That is a huge plus in my opinion. Ultra high I'm sure looks better while the game is running, but if these shots are accurate I would happily swap frame rate for "Ultra High" anyday if it looks that good on lower graphics settings. I'm one of these gamers who can't afford a rig that should be taxed by Hydro companies. Anyone from Quebec knows how much Quebec Hydro is anyways.... ;)

Farcry is running well on my pc under vista operating system with all settings to high. My system 1.)Amd Phenom 8450 2.)hybrid Crossfirex with Ati hd 3450 3.)Corsair(2Gb)Ram

Is this game able to run on 256MB graphic card?

Yeah man, my overclocked 7600 GTX has lost its kick and its time to say goodbye.

Well my EVGA 7600gt has lasted through many games over the years, and it did its job running battlefield 2 and Half life 2 back when those were the benchmarks. But it looks like I've met my match here, *sigh* at least I've got a girlfriend to help me through this little heartache. Core 2 Duo 1.8ghz Nvidia 7600gt 2gigs DDR2 Ram (Laptop xP)